Green BGU Test Frequency?

[Davo]

The BGUs do not appear to be there for fire purposes but for security - a power cut does not in itsself change this, so have to agree with Mr K

davo

[colin todd]

Big Al:  where did you get the date of installation from. Cant see it in the posts.  Why is it not an installation to which BS 7273-4 applies with a variation that there is no interface with the FAS.  It is quite simple-if the BGUs are there as a safeguard for means of escape (which in the absence of an FAS interface would seem quite critical to me) why would you test them at any frequency different from BGUs  that serve the same purpose (but are LESS critical) when there IS a link to the FAS.

Anyhow, this thread is going round in circles so treat the above question as rhetorical and no need to reply.  Davey I am sure will sort it all himself without our help.

[kurnal]

Colin I agree with your view on frequency of testing and the proposal is clearly to test them more often than if the system was linked to the alarm - but the question is how much more often if they are all stand alone local systems each controlling a single door? Weekly ? Monthly? Quarterly? What would 7273-4 suggest if this was treated as a variation? I can't find anything to help with this scenario hence the reliance on a risk assessment.

I exchanged a pm with messy as I was interested in his query. I wrote a paper on this in 2006 when the RRO guidance was published as the advice within is contradictory and I had a similar problem in a warehouse in which thousands of pounds worth of stock was walking out of the building via the fire exits every week and there were well over 100 doors to consider. Came to a satisfactory solution there eventually involving technical upgrade and management in tandem.

Contrary to going round in circles your advice would be valued.

[colin todd]

Big Al, you are all making this unnecessarily complicated. They should be tested every week; this is not rocket science. I am sure that Davey has worked this out by now.

Stop message ends. Returning home station.  Free for further banal imponderables.

[Davo]

Please see my post above..........

Nowhere in the original post is there any mention that the BGUs are there as a Means of Escape.

However, have to agree with CT [uIF][/u] they are there as MoE

davo

[Fire Monkey]

Are these break glasses essential for a final fire exit doors (fitted with a securing mag lock that fails safe to open under power loss) - I am working with a surveyor that states not but I am not convinced this this is so. If you need the break glass do you also need a standard push button door release?

Cheers,

[kurnal]

Colin thanks for your advice. Personally I would opt for a risk assessment  approach rather than just adopting a weekly check for all units which may be onerous. As an example BS5839 -1 for a conventional zoned system does not  require a call point on each zone to be tested. Anyway enough of this - thanks for your opinion.

Fire Monkey - all doors that are used as fire exits  that are secured with an electronic lock require the green emergency door release but the standard push button door release is only needed on doors through which general access / egress is required. 

[Messy]

Thanks for the replies and comments

Firstly, the green box overrides are indeed to secure a means of escape where the primary door opening mechanism (push button or swipe card) has failed. None of the units are linked to the AFD.

The concern is that the actual door release mechanism is not being opened weekly as it would if remotely operated during a fire alarm test. But weekly testing of all doors would be onerous

I agree with Kurnal and am proposing that those in high traffic areas such as final exits (about 38 units in total) are tested weekly. The others would attract a  monthly or even quarterly test, depending how critical they are or if an alternative MOE is possible. For example, where two doors are in easy line of sight (in some cases, directly adjacent), its unlikely both will become defective simultaneously so the frequency can be relaxed.

I am surprised that there isn't any guidance, but accept that the special application which has led to this set of circumstances is unusual

[David Rooney]

So out of interest what (if any) would be an acceptable "engineered" solution to monitoring these mechanisms that would perhaps negate the physical testing or at least reduce it to the level of a 100% annual test?

 

[Tom Sutton]

Please help me to understand 21.3.a of BS 7273-4 2015 requires manual release control(greenbox) to be tested annually and elsewhere the relay that controls the mag lock to be tested weekly so why is it being said the green box has to be tested weekly?

[David Rooney]

Because ... (I think) .... in this case there is no link to the Fire Alarm System so a weekly test of a red MCP isn't going to release the doors via the relay.

So because the doors are "standalone" the only way to check them is to test each associated Green BGU .....  although technically there probably isn't a relay involved .... most likely the power to the release mechanism is switched through the Green BGU.

So if you followed the letter of 21.3a if there is no relay then there is no need for a weekly test .... you are required to test the mechanics of the locking device every six months under 21.2.7 .......  so ....... should there be a 100% test six monthly

[Messy]

David - that is exactly the scenario

Thank you for your view in relation to relays and 6 monthly testing.

This makes my proposal for quarterly testing more onerous than required but not too onerous to be achievable by the business

Thanks

[kurnal]

Dave I am not going to respond further on this thread as the level of discussion has descended into insults and I don't want to get further embroiled but am happy to discuss the issues as I see them  with you or other parties through personal messages or by phone. With regard to banal imponderables it's easy for those engaged mainly in the theory of fire risk assessment and writing standards  to assume there's a perfect world out there where every problem has a code compliant solution and if you don't adopt it I will see you in court. To those practitioners out in the field every day finding  issues and having to both identify suitable, sufficient pragmatic and cost effective solutions and negotiate these with often hostile management companies and budget holders it's far from banal. It does not help when the management company says "let's ask the fire service for their opinion" and some IO with minimal training and probably never heard of 7273-4 comes along, does not recognise what she / he sees and glibly says that's ok completely undermining your risk assessment.

In my view it's better to leave a place safer than you found it justified by your best evaluation of what is in place rather than simply recommend a code compliant solution only for no action to be taken.

Universities and their accommodation blocks are some of the worst in this regard as many security systems have been fitted retrospectively as the focus has moved to safeguarding issues.

[David Rooney]

Absolutely K.

Doing "something" is always better than nothing !!

[Tom Sutton]

Thanks David so the manufacturers recommend a six monthly test so this is where risk assessment is order of the day.