Compliance with BSEN 54 and BS7273 part 4

[Demontim]

I've recieved an enquiry about the ability of a number fire detection system manufacturers not being able to meet the current requirement particularly around fire engineered buildings (It  has been suggested that the latest Siemens Cerberus system can comply however systems from other manufacturer's cannot).

Of particular concern are;

The issue of compliance to BSEN 54 ( all parts) and BS7273 part 4 ( interfacing with outputs from the fire alarm system) must have a system which provides a resilient degrade mode.

it appears appears some manufacturers are stating their equipment complies where in fact it doesn't and in order to verify that the equipment is fit for purpose for life safety it must comply with CE /CPD regulations - manufacturing to the BSEN 54 document addresses this requirement and they must demonstrate by 3rd party accreditation that their products comply.

Has anyone come across this issue and investigated it or can anyone shed any further light on this.

[colin todd]

There are a few manufacturers who can comply with BS 7273-4, but many systems and installations fail to comply. They will get their come uppance when it all goes wrong.

[Wychwood]

I had a long conversation with a well known manufacturer during FIREX on this topic. His view was the requirement for the fail mode of the IO module is not in its product standard, which he and others have spent much money getting to market. As BS 7273-4 is not  part of the BS EN 54 series which make up a British/EU spec system, can this very rare fail mode at the same time as a fire be a reasonable requirement? He suggested the use of SIL panels for those who had concerns on a very rare failure of this type, possibly on a fire engineering assessed basis.

[Wiz]

BS7273 part 4 includes the recommendation that failure of the addressable data reaching the fire alarm interface device should also cause it to fail-safe.

Most addressable protocols which are available, and have been available for years, cannot achieve this. There may be a few that can, but the manufacturers of these don't seem to be trumpeting this feature as a unique selling point, so I wonder if there are other issues which make it unwise for them to advertise 'can meet all the recommendations of BS4737-4'.

I'm sure that when fire panel/accessory manufacturers deem it cost-effective to include the possibility of meeting all recommendations of BS7273-4 they will probably include it.

Maybe their current apparent lack of enthusiasm for this feature is because they believe this particular recommendation to be a 'fail-safe to far' and without particular merit for the cost it would take to achieve.

It would seem that they can get their products through Third Party Certification because this feature is not considered an absolute necessity for a fire alarm panel used in most systems but only necessary for those which will definitely be used in a system which also has a BS7273-4 electromagnetic lock system installed.

[AnthonyB]

Perhaps it would take a change to the EN54 series before this is altered as the Euro market is far bigger than the UK one and it may not be worth the investment when their existing product ticks the CPD & EN54 boxes for sale

[Fishy]

BS 5839-1 refers to BS 7273, so if the spec. states that compliance with BS 5839-1 is a requirement, then unless it's recorded as a variation the supplier hasn't met contract, never mind good industry practice?  As Colin says, at some stage a come-uppance beckons...

[Wiz]

BS 5839-1 refers to BS 7273, so if the spec. states that compliance with BS 5839-1 is a requirement, then unless it's recorded as a variation the supplier hasn't met contract, never mind good industry practice?  As Colin says, at some stage a come-uppance beckons...

So how are panel manufacturers getting their products through third-party compliance accreditation when the panel, working with popular device protocols, cannot achieve the BS7273-4 requirements in full? Maybe the TPC testers don't know about the BS7273-4 link to BS5839-1 that you mention.