How to identify the different types of detector

[novascot]

Does nobody else ask to see the Design and Completion Certs for Fire Alarms and Emergency Lighting? By doing this you are assuring yourself that the system fitted is the correct system for the premises.
To carry out a Fire Risk Assessment you do not have to be in possetion of all the information required to install EL and AFD but you do have to have the knowledge as to whether the system installed is suitable.

[Thomas Brookes]

Novascot, see my post from the 10th Aug on this thread. Often even the certificates arnt worth the paper they are written on, How ever they are a very good place to start. They may also give you some legal cover as long as you state that you have used them as evedence that the alarm is suitable.

I must admit that I have found over the years the better and more detailed the certificates usually the better the installation, But not always.

[Graeme]

but on some systems the head looks the same and you make it a smoke or heat by using a dil switch on the rear of the head , so in a corridor you have no choice but take the head out and look for yourself.

and even than you would have to know the dil switch arrangement

[AnthonyB]

On the few times I've seen commissioning certs  (by large companies too) very few detail anything of use such as category of system, variations, sound level test results, as installed drawings.

I find an address print off & walking around with my neck craned ceiling wards still the best method of checking a system!

[Wiz]

On the few times I've seen commissioning certs  (by large companies too) very few detail anything of use such as category of system, variations, sound level test results, as installed drawings.

I find an address print off & walking around with my neck craned ceiling wards still the best method of checking a system!

AnthonyB, all the user/purchaser/enforcing authority or insurer is interested in is getting a commissioning certificate that looks like and is set out like the model commissioning certificate shown in BS5839 part 1 2002 (which actually raises all sorts of copyright issues). These people often think that any certificate that differs from the model is not vaild (even where it contains more info).

The model certificate does not ask for the system category to be listed nor the sound level test results to be recorded. In fact, many important elements affecting numerous test and inspections on large quantities of equipment are covered by a yes or no against the words The entrire system has been inspected and tested in accordance with the recommendations of 39.2C of BS5839-1:2002

As installed drawings are the responisbility of the installer and not the commissioner. The model certificate asks for confirmation that 'as fitted' drawings (amongst other documents) have been provided to the user. Invariably the answer will be no because these won't be completed and handed over to the user by the installer until many weeks after the commissioning was carried out.

The customer sees the commissioning as being a job that gets the system operational and all the equipment tested before the system is put in use but before other building works are complete. The BS sees commissioning as a final overall check of the system once everything else has been done. The two views never meet.

My biggest problem with the model certificate is that it doesn't ask for the actual quantities and types of equipment actually inspected and tested at the time of commissioning to be listed.

There have been many times that my commissioning certificate has been used as if it included equipment that I never tested because it wasn't installed at the time of commissioning but that was installed subsequently. The customer would never know this.

I've even also noted variation from the standards on my certificate to then find that the installer rectifies the mistake and then tells the customer that my certificate is wrong and I don't know what I am doing because the mistake I listed doesn't exisist, which of course is true when the customer is shown around!

No-one would want to pay the sort of costs for the numerous visits that might be required to provide pre-commission inspections etc to get parts of the system up and running as soon required and to highlight any problems that could be rectified before final commissioning.

The commissioning certification part of BS is a total and absolute dogs dinner! Woof!

[Graeme]

as per Wiz

when i sat the IFE advanced commisisoning course the tutor told us that it is up to the commissioning engineer to check the entire installation. Even opening up joint boxes and inspection terminations in detectors etc.

The standards say that it is not generally up to the comm engineer to inspect the whole install.

I would agree otherwise what is the point of having design and install certs ? Surely if the designer and installer sign off their part as complaint then there should be no need to double check it.

still...i have yet to see a design and install certificate from any job other then the ones i have been invloved from design to hand over.

[Galeon]

Why not expand the small section shown under variations to a full page of A4  now that makes sense it would give either a long list or not at all . (Lots of blank pages would be bouncing around then)
Same old story if you supply and commission to a contractor and they are wrong , your invoice always seems to be late / lost etc etc.
Last design cert that I asked to see was a P1 L2 , work that one out.

[Wiz]

....

when i sat the IFE advanced commisisoning course the tutor told us that it is up to the commissioning engineer to check the entire installation. Even opening up joint boxes and inspection terminations in detectors etc.

So how can Graeme compete by commissioning to IFE requirements, when others just follow the letter of BS and would have a customer who was more than happy with that (in fact, that is all they want!)

......Surely if the designer and installer sign off their part as complaint then there should be no need to double check it.......

This is generally how BS thinks it should be. It assumes that the designer has his design right. It assumes that the installer has his installation right. These two 'certificate' their own parts as being 'spot on' and should take responsibility for what they have done.

However then BS goes and spoils it all by asking the commissioning engineer to do a certain amount of double-checking of the others and includes this in a section containing  the requirement to check compliance of about 50 different recommendations within one clause on the model certificate!
Most importantly the designer and installer don't realise he has to do this because the 'model' certificate doesn't make this crystal clear unless you understand that is what is included in the phrase 'in accordance with recommendations of 39.2c.
This is why designers and installers hate a good commissioning engineer!

still...i have yet to see a design and install certificate from any job other then the ones i have been invloved from design to hand over.

How many times have I asked an installer at commissioning to confirm the category of the system and he says he doesn't know. I ask him what category is listed in the specification and he says it doesn't indicate any category. But BS doesn't recommend that the installer and commissioner  have sight of any certificate before commencing commissioning. It doesn't even confirm what category he should check the system complies with!


It is quite obvious to me that 'commissioning' needs to be broken up into two parts.

The first part is to ensure the installed equipment functions correctly and could even be carried out in stages. It may be completed before the painters have finished and the floors are laid ( as the builder wants) The certificate for this should include a precise list of the type and location of every bit of equipment that has undergone this 'testing' commissioning. This commissioning could also include reports of design and installation compliance and allow the designer to either 'rectify' the problem or issue a proper variation.

The second part would only be carried out once the building is fully ready for occupation and design and installation and 'first stage commissioning certificates, and all drawings and users documentation are available. The commissioning engineer should then go through all the documentation and carry out further inspections and tests and only then issue a final commissioning certificate. (this is similar but not quite the same as an 'acceptance' certificate') hopefully this final commissioning certificate could confirm that there are no 'variations' whatsoever other than pre-agreed variations

The system currently used does not fit in with how projects are run. Buildings and projects are only finally completed hours before handover to the customer (so that payment can be released) and many of the elements of fire alarm commissioning have been completed days or weeks before (at the insistance of the commissioner's customer) and has probably been altered/damaged since the system was 'commissioned'.

[Graeme]

another thing Wiz that really annoys me is when you do a commision for a large project.

You get handed the as fit drawings by the spark which are in tatters with numerous scored out routes etc and are really hard to read.

They then get handed over to the main contractor for an OEM manual and the maintenance company never sees them again.The amounts of site as you have mentioned that i have commnisioned that are now where near ready and is pointless.

it should be when the job is finished,so dust caps can be taken off and left off. Dba testing when the rooms are furnished.

[Wiz]

Graeme, tattered drawings! unfinished dusty sites! echoing SPL readings! I so understand and agree with what you are saying. You could almost think that we both commissioned  the same projects! Or we were the same person! Oh I haven't got back on to that subject again, have I?

Seriously, unless you've had to do it, it must be hard for others to imagine that something as simply sounding as 'fire alarm commissioning' is so diificult to do properly in reality.

Annoyingly, when 'problems' are discovered months later, the question is always asked 'well, what idiot did the commissioning on this system?'

The certificate that you originally issued just can't tell the whole story, and especially not about the 'changes' that were made in the weeks, days, minutes after your commissioning was completed!

One day I'll come up with a solution. I have the ideas but not the time to put them into practice!

[smoke monkey]

In reply to your question..why are there so many types of detector and why do they look different...its just the same as asking...why is there more than one make and model of a car ?!!

You dont need to know what every single device is...you aint trying to redesign the fire system.
If you have any questions about the fire alarm..ask the company who maintain it.

All you need to know is that when it is tested on an inspection does it work or not ?..that will be answered on the engineers paperwork and they will advise you of any faults when they complete their testing..thats what you pay them for !!!

I get in my car..turn the engine on..and it moves...i dont need to inspect every valve and engine part to know that the car drives ok when im in it.

[Thomas Brookes]

I agree with Davo, its a must.

Smoke Monkey, back to your example of not needing to know anything about your car to drive it I agree. However if you were putting together a legal report on the safety of the vehicle you would need to know the in's and outs of every safety feature or lack of them on that vehicle.