Guidance Note Fire Detection & Alarm systems for buildings
" Routine
servicing of a fire detection and fire alarm system does not constitute a fresh
review of system design; it is a verification of the functionality and
serviceability of the existing system. Accordingly, it will not necessarily be
the case that non-compliances with Section 2 of this Standard will be
identified at the time of routine servicing; in any case, the maintenance
technician might not be aware as to whether an apparent non-compliance is, in
fact, simply an agreed variation, particularly if the design certificate is not
available. However, at their own prerogative, the maintenance organization may
point out aspects of non-compliance with Section 2. Nevertheless, any such
advice provided to the user by the maintenance organization cannot be regarded
(by users, enforcing authorities or any other party) as an implication that the maintenance
technician has identified, or has endeavoured to identify, all such areas of
non-compliance, or that there has been any review of the original design."
BS 5839-1:2013 - Code of
practice for design, installation, commissioning and maintenance of systems in
non-domestic premises.
BS 5839-3:1988 - Specification
for automatic release mechanisms for certain fire protection equipment.
BS 5839-6:2013 - Code of
practice for the design, installation, commissioning and maintenance of fire
detection and fire alarm systems in domestic premises.
BS
5839-8:2013 - Code of practice for the design,
installation, commissioning and maintenance of voice alarm systems.
BS 5839-9:2011 - Code
of practice for the design, installation, commissioning and maintenance of
emergency voice communication systems.
PD 6531:2010 - Queries
and interpretations on BS 5839 1, Plus the essential guide to BS
5839-8
BIP 2124:2009 - The Design and
Installation of Voice Alarm Systems. A Guide to BS 5839-8.
This is a short guide to some of the
changes and the significance of some of the changes the BS 5839-1 that were
introduced with the launch of the new edition in 2013.
The scope of this document is limited to
identifying some of the more significant changes and does not attempt to go
into every single change. Part of the purpose of this document is to highlight
the impact of the changes; how it will affect the people involved in the
provision and maintenance of systems and those who are ultimately responsible
for purchasing and using them.
There is an
assumption in this document that the reader is already familiar with the BS
5839-1, the Code of Practice (CoP). However it is worth pointing out that each
part of the body of the CoP is split into two, the first part being the
‘Commentary’ the second the ‘Recommendations’. The commentary provides a
general overview of the topic in, approximately, plain English while the
recommendations give the specific rules which should be complied with.
Compliance with the CoP is usually taken as conforming to the recommendations.
The annexes are either informative and work like the commentary, or normative
which means they work like the recommendations and should be conformed to.
The Changes Start on the
front page …
New Style
The new version follows the current BSI
house style.
New Version
This is a new version, BS 5839-1 2013, not
a revision (A3) however the majority of the document is unchanged.
BSI house rules prevent a Code of Practice
(CoP) being amended more than twice. So even though it has not undergone the
full in-depth review and, almost, mandatory rewrite, it is, nonetheless, a new
issue. Unlike most new CoP there is no long phase in or coming into effect
date. Instead it replaced the old CoP on the date it was issued, 31 March 2013.
The changes are
not very extensive and are mostly concerned with a general tidy up of
typographical errors and updating references. Many of the amendments are
related to care homes as a result of lessons learned from the Rose Park fire
investigation. One substantive change results from experiments done at the BRE,
partly funded by the FIA, into the effectiveness of Optical Beam Smoke
Detectors (OBSD) and Aspirating Smoke Detectors (ASD) in high spaces. The
other, apparently, substantial change is for visual alarm devices (VADs). In
essence all it is a new annex added at the end which explains the selection
process for VADs conforming to BS EN 54-23.
Consequences
Anyone issuing enquiries, tenders, quotes
and the like which specifically reference the 2008 version of the CoP need not
be too concerned unless the system includes detection in high spaces or where
‘stratification’ is likely to be a
problem.
New title
" Fire detection
and fire alarm systems for buildings – Part 1: Code of practice for design,
installation, commissioning and maintenance of
systems in non-domestic premises".
This underlines the difference between BS
5839-1 and -6, which covers domestic premises.
Normative references
Part 1 now refers to:
·
BS
9999, Code of practice for fire safety in the design, management and use of
Buildings … This CoP defines the category of system depending on the risk
profile of the building. However in some cases the category indicated in the
CoP may over or under prescribe for the actual building according to some
commentators.
·
BS EN
54-23:2010, Fire detection and fire alarm systems – Part 23: Fire alarm devices
– Visual alarm devices. ….
(see also
Appendices)
·
Code
of practice for the Design, Installation, Commissioning and Maintenance of
Aspirating Smoke Detector (ASD) Systems, Fire Industry Association, Issue 3
February 2012
Coincidence detection
3.9 A new definition has been added:
This definition aligns with BS 6266.
Consequences
Those who have been involved with
FD&FA systems (Fire Detection and Fire Alarm) for a long time, particularly in connection with fire
suppression system may find the description of ‘double-knock’ contrary to their
understanding.
Competent Person
3.12 The following definition has a slight
change.
Changing
‘necessary training’ to ‘relevant current training’ serves to underlines the
need for update and refresher training.
Consequences
You need to keep your training up to date.
Responsible Person
The definition
of the ‘Responsible Person’, formerly clause 3.49, has been deleted. It was
considered that the reader may be confused with the term used in English and
Welsh fire legislation and which has a radically different meaning.
Section 7, clause 47; the title has been
changed from ‘Responsible Person’ the ‘Premises Management’. This section has
been reworded to remove the term ‘Responsible Person’ but the meaning of 47
remains largely unchanged.
48 Logbook, 48.2 a) has been amended to
remove the term ‘Responsible Person’ but otherwise the meaning of the
sub-clause is unchanged. It is worth pointing out that the identity of the
persons responsible for the FD&FA system should be recorded in the logbook
which is something that is often overlooked.
Consequences
Users should still appoint someone to be
responsible for all matters concerning the FD&FA system but they shouldn’t
call this person a ‘Responsible Person’. The identity of the person responsible
for
‘premises management’ should be recorded
in the logbook.
Staff Alarm
The definition of ‘staff alarm’, clause
3.58 has been slightly amended to indicate that a staff alarm can be given
prior to summoning of the fire and rescue service.
Addressable system
recommended for high risk premises
The title of clause 4 ‘Need for a fire
detection and fire alarm system and type of system’ is an extension of the old
clause and refers to ‘type of system’. The commentary (4.1) now strongly hints
that systems in high risk premises such as nursing homes and hospitals should
be addressable, to enable earlier location of the source of the alarm and,
therefore, earlier intervention. This is expanded in the recommendation 4.2c
which specifically says that where occupants of a building are going to need
assistance from staff to evacuate the system should be addressable.
Zone plan
Following the
recommendations of the Rose Park enquiry, there have been a number of changes
to the CoP. One of the problems faced by the staff was their inability to
effectively locate the source of the alarm. One of the factors of which was
that the zone plane wasn’t clear which, in part, stemmed from disagreements
between various parties as to who was responsible for it.
A definition of a zone plane has been
inserted, clause 3.66.
This effectively repeats the definition
from 22.2.3 e).
In clause 6
Exchange of information, the commentary 6.1 picks up this theme and says that
responsibility for supplying the zone plan should be ‘defined at an early stage
of the planning of an installation’. 6.2c recommends that the installer consult
with the designer, the user or purchaser, the supplier of the system and
consultants and that during these consultations that the topic of the provision
of the zone plan should be settled.
In Clause 23
Control and Indicating equipment, there are no actual changes regarding CIE but
there is emphasis on the provision of zone plans in the commentary clause 23.1
where a new paragraph has been added at the end. It starts with an anecdote
about a real fire which, while it doesn’t name the premises, was the Rose Park
care home fire.
In clause
23.2.2 The following recommendations apply to the facilities provided for
visual indication of fire signals, following the last sub-clause e) There is a
new note, note 3, which recommends additional information be included on the
zone plan and talks particularly about shopping centres where occupier details
might be helpful. It also makes the important point that this information
should be kept up to date.
In 42
Acceptance, there is a new sub clause inserted at 42.2 b) 4. Which says that
before accepting a system, the purchaser (or appropriate representative of the
purchaser) should ensure that a suitable diagrammatic representation of the
premises is provided close to all CIE as recommended in 23.2.2e), which is, in
short, a zone plan.
Consequences
In new systems
a zone plan should be provided and as the user is likely to it is down to the
supplier of the system to supply it.
The CoP
effectively makes it the installer’s responsibility to sort out the zone plan
but in many instances the installer is likely to be a specialist subcontracting
for the supplier. The specialist would generally tend to have little or no
contact with any of the others which tends to move responsibility up and it
becomes the supplier’s problem.
For existing
systems the service organization is supposed to point out to the user if the
zone plan is wrong or missing but it is the user who is responsible for any
corrections. This would usually means the service organization would be asked
to do it.
Variations
There is a new
clause e in 7.2 which recommends …
This is
intended to ensure that anyone looking at the system is aware that any intended
deviation from the CoP is a ‘variation’ rather than a mistake made by parties
previous involved with the system.
This is a bit
of a relief for maintainers as quite often the only bit of documentation that
survives any time after the system is supplied is the logbook. As the
information should also be contained in the system documentation the new
maintenance organization now has two chances to get their hands on it.
Consequences
For information
to be included in the Logbook, the supplier of the system would need to ensure
that a logbook is supplied and partially completed at handover/acceptance.
Omission of detectors in L1
and P1 systems
Clause 8.2f
describes Category L1 or P1 system, saying that automatic fire detectors should
be installed in all rooms and areas of the building, but certain rooms or areas
need not be protected if they are of low fire risk. It then lists some
examples. However it has long been a contention that these exceptions should
also apply to other categories. A new note now makes this clear.
Consequences
Designers no
longer have to worry that, having omitted detectors from what they consider low
risk areas in L2 through L4 systems, they may have to justify what they have
done. The CoP now provides the support.
Features of CIE
In clause 11
System components, sub clause k, Note 1 has been added.
The note is
intended to warn you that, just because the CIE is EN 54-2 compliant it doesn’t
mean it will have all the features you require. Many features are not required
by EN 54-2 but if they are provided they must comply with EN 54-2
There are
several optional functions that are of concern to the UK market: Three controls
are optional; coincidence detection, delays to outputs, disablement of
addressable points and test condition. There are also four optional outputs;
fire alarm devices (sounder outputs), fire alarm routing, fault alarm routing
and extinguishing system outputs.
For example all
life safety applications will require sounder outputs, but only those connected
to an ARC would require a fire alarm routing output.
Slightly off
topic but relevant; a general evacuate button is not a requirement of either BS
EN 54-2 or BS 5839-1 2013. However BS 5839-1 does say that where phased
evacuation is used there should not be a general evacuate button.
Consequences
This means that
if you are selecting CIE it should have EN 54-2 certification and approval and
that includes the options that are required.
Conventional v Non
Addressable
In 12.2.2
System Integrity, d Note 1 there was a typographical error in the 2008 version
which has been corrected; the reference to ‘conventional’ has been changed to
‘non-addressable’.
Consequences
While we still
tend to refer to ‘conventional’ systems, we should, since 2002, refer to
‘non-addressable’ systems.
Remote Detector Indicators
Nowhere in BS
5839-1 does it recommend using remote detector indicators (RDI). In the
commentary 13.1 it says that in non-addressable systems RDIs are desirable in
concealed locations and that they may not be necessary in addressable systems
in the same situation. However, in 13.2.5 there is a new note …
… which, quite
rightly, suggests that the provision of RDI should be agreed with the client
and identified in the specification.
Consequences
When estimating
and quoting systems, remember that RDIs are not recommended in the CoP and have
an impact on price.
Automatic Communication with
the Fire and Rescue service
Following
the recommendations of the Rose Park enquiry, there have been a number of
changes to the CoP. One of the problems was the delay in summoning the
F&RS. In clause 15 Communication with the fire and rescue service, in 5.1
Commentary a sentence has been inserted ‘Automatic transmission of fire alarm
signals is also necessary in the case of residential care premises’. There are
additional references in note 2 and note 3 of sub clause e and f respectively
pointing out that automatic transmission is a requirement under Scottish
building regulation.
The note to
15.2 I) which recommends that Alarm Receiving Centres should be third-party
certificated has been extended to point out that the scope of the certification
should include monitoring of fire signals, not just security.
Consequence
Purchasers and
suppliers of a system for a shopping centre, hospital or care home need to be
aware that provision of transmission equipment and a link to an alarm receiving
centre is a legal requirement in Scotland for new builds and, because
installing a FD&FA system would be construed as a significant change to the
building, it applies to existing buildings as well.
Users and
maintainers should, ideally, ensure that the ARC is TPC for FD&FA system
monitoring or at least claims compliance with BS 5979 for FD&FA monitoring.
Sound pressure levels at the
bedhead in hospitals and residential care premises
The minimum
sound pressure level (SPL) at the bedhead recommended in 16.2.1 is 75dB (A).
This is clearly unreasonable where the occupant of the bed is in no state to
help themselves. Previously the CoP implied that a lower SPL would have to be
agreed among all interested parties. It didn’t call this a variation but the
description of the process was virtually that of a variation. In the new
standard
16.2.3
‘Recommendations applicable to hospitals and residential care premises’ sub
clause b) has been shortened and the attendant note removed so that the
consultation and agreement of interested parties is no longer required.
Consequences
In hospitals
and residential care premises the designer can, where the intent is not to rouse
the occupant of the bed from sleep, design to 65 or even 60dB(A) without the
need for consultation or getting any of those pesky variations. It would,
however, be prudent for the designer to establish which beds/bedrooms this
applies to. It is also worth noting that HTM 05-03 Part B (in England and
Wales) and SHTM 82 (in Scotland) give further guidance on this but generally
only apply to NHS premises. It is also worth noting that both of these codes
are now downloadable from the internet FREE OF CHARGE.
Fire alarm warnings for
people with impaired hearing
Unofficially,
there was a minor error with the previous edition of the CoP. Nowhere in the
relevant section of the CoP did it refer to Annex C of the CoP which describes
the power supply requirements for tactile alarm devices. This error has been
corrected in the new version by the addition of sub-clause 18.2.1e) ‘Where
tactile devices are provided, control and transmission equipment should comply
with the recommendations of Annex C’. Similarly 18.2.2 Portable alarm devices
sub-clause j) also requires power supplies to comply with Annex C,
Delayed alarms generally
Where the
consequences of false alarms are severe or where frequent false alarms occur it
is common practice to delay the evacuation to give staff time to investigate
and determine if the alarm is genuine. In this case a staff alarm would be
initiated on activation of a detector. This is described in clause 19 Staged
fire alarms, 19.2.2 Recommendations applicable to staff alarms, what is now
sub-clause c. However it is apparent that heat detectors and sprinkler system
seldom give false alarms. Sub-clause c has been amended slightly now to include
call points, heat detectors and sprinklers. It states that in these cases the
general evacuate should not be delayed.
Consequences
All parties
involved with a FD&FA system need to be aware that alarms initiated from
heat detectors and sprinklers as well as manual call points should not be delayed.
However in some instances, where malicious activation might be a problem,
delays on MCPs might be appropriate.
Delayed alarms in
residential care homes
Following the
recommendations of the Rose Park enquiry, there have been a number of changes
to the CoP. At Rose Park there was a delay in calling the F&RS while the
alarm was investigated. Clause 19 Staged fire alarms, 19.2.2 Recommendations
applicable to staff alarms, a new sub-clause b) has been inserted.
Consequences
All involved
with a FD&FA system in a care premises need to be aware that the F&RS
should be called immediately on activation of a detection device, including a
call point, even if there is a delayed or staff alarm procedure.
Mounting height of call
points
The mounting
height was 1.4m above finished floor level (AFFL) +/- 200mm. So that gave you a
range of 1.2 to 1.6m AFFL. However, accepted practice in buildings used by
wheelchair users the, mounting height of switches and the like was no greater
than 1.2m AFFL. With millimetre accuracy you could just satisfy both
requirements.
Clause 20
Manual call points, 20.2h) note 6 has been amended to give a range of +/-300mm.
So the mounting height can be between 1.1m and 1.7m AFFL.
Consequences
In most cases,
positioning call points will not require any special considerations. If you,
designers and installers, are told or have good reason to suspect that the
building might be used by wheelchair users you can mount the call points
between 1.1m and 1.2m AFFL, well knowing you would have satisfied the building
regulations and the CoP, and without having to agree any variations.
Video smoke detection
The final
paragraph of 21.1.3 Smoke detectors (which is a commentary) which describes
video smoke detection has been expanded and slightly reworded. While there are
no corresponding recommendations, it does indicate that this technology is now
coming of age.
Ceiling heights
The
recommendations about ceiling heights have been simplified. Table 4 in the old
CoP, which referred to greater ceiling heights for category P systems, where
there was rapid attendance by the F&RS has gone. 22.9 now only refers to
Table 3.
Table 3 has
also been amended. The key differences relate to Aspirating Smoke Detection
(ASD) and Optical Beam Smoke Detectors (OBSD) which are dealt with below.
Aspirating smoke detection
(ASD) systems
The CoP has now
adopted the terminology used in BS EN 54-20 to describe high sensitivity ‘class
A’, enhanced sensitivity ‘class B’ and standard sensitivity ‘class C’.
In 21.1.7
Choice of fire detection principle (which is a commentary), a new paragraph has
been inserted below the list of applications where aspirating system may be
suitable. This new paragraph implies that, where ASD is used, only a specialist
should be employed.
Clause 21 Types
of fire detector and their selection, sub clause 21.2e is a list of detection
types suitable for areas in which early detection of a smouldering fire is
required. Not before time ASD has been added to the list.
In clause 22 Spacing
and siting of automatic fire detectors sub clause 22.1 Commentary, aspirating
systems are referred to alongside beam detectors as suitable detection types in
tall spaces. Where it discusses stratification it suggests that positioning
sample holes at different levels might be employed. This is expanded on in 22.7
Recommendations for siting of aspirating smoke detection systems, where a new
sub clause c) has been inserted.
Combining the
recommendations of 22.7c) with note 2 of table 3, the implication is that in
spaces between 25m and 40m tall ASD should be used and sampling should be
provided at multiple levels using drop-pipes arrangements at the walls and,
preferable, within the main space as well.
Alternatively
OBSD should be used.
Also in clause
22.1 Commentary it discusses the stagnant boundary layer of air close the
ceiling surface but suggests that aspirating systems are unaffected, permitting
the use of flush mounted sample points. This is firmed up in 22.7 a) which has
been amended to say that aspirating sample points do not have to comply with
22.3d which say the sensing element should be at least 25mm below the ceiling.
22.3 I) a new
note 9 has been inserted in effect recommending that aspirating systems should
be used in racks over 8m high.
In 22.3 and
22.7 the reader is told that further guidance can be found in the FIA Code of
Practice for Design, Installation, Commissioning and Maintenance of Aspirating
Smoke Detector (ASD) Systems.
In 34 Design
process for limitation of false alarms, 35.2.3 Recommendations for selection
and siting of automatic fire detectors, a new clause has been inserted and is
now sub clause a). Essentially it recommends using ASD in dusty and dirty areas
where other forms of detection might give rise to an unacceptable level of
false alarms. It refers to the use of filters but does contain the caveat that
these would require cleaning or replacing to prevent blockage.
Consequences
Designers and
installers should:
- Have specialist knowledge of ASD
- Consider ASD for a much wider range of applications as many will
now conform to the CoP
- Should consider, ASD among other technologies where the fire is
likely to start as a smouldering fire
- Be careful to select the appropriate class of ASD for the
application
- Use ASD or OBSD in spaces up to 40m high
- In tall spaces, over 25m, where ASD is used, provide sample
points at multiple levels using drop-pipe arrangements at the wall and,
where practical, within the main space unless the purchaser has indicated
that the risk of stratification is known to be low.
- In tall spaces, over 25m where OBSD is used at high level
supplementary detection should also be provided (angled beams or low level
beams)
- Consider ASD in racks where storage racking is over 8m high
- On ceilings use flush sample points, spigots/nozzles are not
required
- Use ASD in dusty and dirty areas but these should be fitted with
filters
- Make good use of the FIA Code of Practice for … (ASD) Systems
Optical beam smoke detector
(OSBD)
22 Spacing and
siting of automatic fire detectors 22.1 Commentary there is a discussion about
stratification and a passing mention of ‘ … aiming an optical beam detector at
an angle to the horizontal’. 22.2d makes recommendation about beam type smoke
detectors sited to provide ‘supplementary’ detection where stratification is
likely to occur. Following this is a new note, note 1, which says much the same
thing and introduces a grammatical error in the last line.
The implication
of Table 3 note 1 is that between 25m and 40m tall rooms, supplementary
detection would be required and further combined with note 1 of 22.5d), angled
beams might be preferred. This makes sense as the exact height of the
stratification layer will not be known. By angling OBSD down through the area
where the stratification layer might form, at least part of the beam will pass
through the smoke and give an alarm. However, the CoP gives no advice on
quantity, spacing, mounting height or the angle of the OBSDs.
Consequences
You can now use
beams in much taller buildings than before but you must assume supplementary
detection or angled OBSD will be required in spaces over 25m unless you know for
sure that there will be no stratification. Specialist knowledge would be
required where angled beams are used; consult the manufacturers.
Measures
to limit false alarms 35
Measures to limit false alarms
35.2.3
Recommendations for selection and siting of automatic fire detectors, has been
significantly altered:
A new sub
clause a) has been inserted which recommends ASD should be used in dusty and
dirty areas. The ASD should be fitted with suitable filters and conform to BS
EN 54-20. It also emphasises suitable maintenance for such filters.
Sub-clause h)
was sub clause g). The second sentence, which referred to Table 5 (now table
4)’ has been removed. The notes that followed have been moved and are now Note
6 following the table 4 [was table 5].
Sub Clause j),
was clause h) has been amended. The first couple of sentences remain largely
un-changed except for removing the blanket term ‘high sensitivity’ and
replacing it with the contempo-rary terms ‘high sensitivity (Class A)’ and
‘enhanced sensitivity (Class B)’. The second part of the sub-clause has been
removed and a new note, note 2, inserted. This indicates that class A and B ASD
might be used to provide pre-alarm or may be used to give local/staff alarms in
sensitive areas.
Considerations when using and
selecting point and optical beam smoke detectors [false alarms] Table 4 [was table5] — ‘Considerations when using
and selecting point and optical beam smoke detectors’ has been extensively
altered and a lot of notes added …
There are two
new entries; ‘Areas in which airborne dust occurs’ and ‘Dusty roof voids, loft
spaces and similar environments’.
The entry
‘Areas in which the sensing element of the detector will be exposed to high air
velocities’ now appears to rule out all forms of optical and ionization type
smoke detection which, presumably means only ASD or OBSD. If you argue that ASD
and OBSD are forms of optical detector it rules these out too, so no form of
smoke detection would be applicable unless you class CO detectors as smoke
detectors. This requires further clarification.
‘35.2.7
Filtering measures, 35.2.7.1 Commentary’ has been altered and now generally
advocates delaying general evacuation to allowed staff to investigate detector
activations. It also advocates delaying summoning of the F&RS in all but
care homes. This last point is now referenced in 35.2.7.2
Recommendations
d) note 1 and a new second sentence of f). e) has also been amended and makes
it clear that at the end of the delay, the F&RS should be called unless the
alarm is confirmed as false.
Consequences
The changes to the table emphasises that
those specifying and designing systems need to consider the nature of the
environments the detector is expected to function in and the nature of any
likely fire to enable the appropriate detector to be selected, balancing the
need for early detection against the need to minimise false alarms.
Delayed alarms / staff alarms should now
be considered as, almost, normal. Similarly in all but the highest risk
premises (e.g. care homes) delaying the signal to the ARC should be considered,
almost, normal.
Maintenance
It is a popular
misconception in the fire safety industry and among many users that part of the
function of a service visit is to identify non-compliances with the current
code of practice and to verify that the system design was and remains correct
for the premises. BS 5839-1 has always indicated what is in the scope of the
maintenance technician’s actions but it didn’t indicate what was outside the
scope. A new paragraph inserted at the end of 45 Inspection and servicing, 45.1
Commentary largely solves this.
The ‘Section 2’
referred to above is ‘Design considerations’.
In 45.3
Recommendations for periodic inspection and test of the system, clause d) used
to say ‘The standby battery should be disconnected and full load alarm should
be simulated’. This was a very simple test which proved very satisfactorily
that the power supply could support the system under the most arduous of
conditions without the help of the battery. This clause has been deleted and
replaced by a new clause d) which says ‘The battery voltage should be measured
with the mains on to check the steady state charge voltage and check it is
within the manufacturer’s recommendations’. This however assumes that there is
an appropriate test within the manufacturer’s maintenance manual and that the
service technician is in position of it. FIA would recommend carrying out both
the old and the new recommendations as a simple safeguard.
45.4
Recommendations for inspection and test of the system over a 12 month period,
sub clause o) used to say o) ‘The cause and effect programme should be
confirmed as being correct’. It has been suggested that the intention was that
the service technician should check that the programming had not been altered
or deleted. However, many took this to mean a comprehensive test of the
programming. In the new standard this sentence has been extended with the
addition of ‘…by
In 46.2
Recommendations for special inspection on appointment of a new servicing
organization, sub-clause b) recommends ‘Major areas of non-compliance with this
standard should be documented and identified to the responsible person
appointed by the user’ and then lists some examples including a new one, b) 10
‘the absence of a zone plan or other suitable diagrammatic representation of
the premises [see 23.2.2e)]’.
46.4.6
Recommendation for inspection and test of the system following long periods of
disconnection was and is a one liner which recommended that all the functions
that would have been included over a twelve month period should be crammed into
one service. But it has acquired a note which recommends that if there has been
a major change of occupancy the C&E should be checked. Presumably means
more than that recommended as part of the 12 month service and probably means
that a review of the whole procedure would need to be done where this involves
delays or phased evacuation.
Consequences
Maintenance
technicians and maintenance organizations should bear in mind that they are not
expected to be world authorities on system design; far from it. The change to
the CoP gives you some protection from giving wrongful advice but it would be
better if you refrained from any comment other than known faults in the system
and any glaringly obvious non conformities.
Maintainers;
power supplies should be tested in compliance with the manufactures maintenance
manual, if you can get your hands in it. While the new CoP does not recommend
testing the power supply with the battery disconnected plus full alarm load any
more, the FIA would recommend doing this as simple safeguard.
Maintainers;
you do not have to do a comprehensive test of the C&E each year, just one
aspect of it. But when taking over a new maintenance, you need to thoroughly
check the C&E.
At least once a
year you should check that there is a suitable zone plan.
User’s Responsibilities
Section 7,
clause 47; the title has been changed from ‘Responsible Person’ the ‘Premises
Management’. There other changes related to the term ‘Responsible Person’ which
is discussed elsewhere in this document.
An additional
recommendation has been added, 47.2 j), which requires that the premises
management ensure that the zone plan is kept up to date.
Because F&RS
across the UK have varying policies regarding automatic calls a note has been
added at the end of 47.2.
Consequences
The user should periodically check that
the zone plan is current and correct.
Where you, the user, have a link to an ARC
you should also periodically check what the F&RS’ policy is in responding
to automated calls. While the CoP doesn’t say it, you would be well advised to
record that you have done this in the logbook.
Mains power supplies Isolation devices
The recommendations in respect of
isolation devices in electrical supplies haven’t changed. However an additional
explanatory note, Note 2, has been added to 25 Power supplies, 25.2
Recommendations for mains power supplies.
An identically worded note, note 4, has
been added to 29 Electrical safety, 29.2Recomendations e)
25.2h) which recommended that the isolator
should in a position inaccessible to unauthorized persons or be protected
against unauthorized operation by persons without a special tool, remains unchanged
but the attendant note, note 4, which said ‘A special tool may, for example, be
a key actuator (sometimes called “secret key”) for a mains switch device’, has
been deleted.
Consequences
The installers should provide for double
pole isolation of the mains supply to all parts of the system; the isolation
facilities should be suitably sited, in the vicinity of the equipment served,
for use by maintenance technicians without the need for access to remote parts
of the building. It should be possible to lock the facilities in both the
normal and isolate positions to prevent unauthorized use. A double pole
concealed key switch, as commonly used for testing emergency lighting, would
normally be suitable.
Mains supply wiring
25 Power supplies, 25.2 Recommendations
for mains power supplies e) discuses power distribution in large premises and
permits, in some circumstances, supplies to the FD&FA system to be taken
from sub-distribution boards. A new note, note 4, has been added. The purpose
of the new note is permit the use of non-fire resisting cable between main
distribution boards and the sub-distribution boards serving the FD&FA
system.
However, taken at face value the note
seams to permit non-fire resisting cable all the way up to the FD&FA equipment.
The last few paragraphs of 26 Cables,
wiring and other interconnections, 26.1 Commentary, start by implying that
final supplies to the FD&FA system should not be taken from RCDs and
concluded with a statement implying that the supply should be surface run.
These paragraphs were added to the A2 amendment in 2008 coinciding with the
publication of BS 7671 but have now been deleted. We must presume that concerns
over power interruptions from over sensitive RCDs tripping out have proved
unfounded and any normal breaker is now acceptable.
Consequence
Installers be aware:
- Final supplies from the distribution board to any part of the
FD&FA system should be in fire resisting cable.
- Wiring between distribution boards does not have to be fire
resisting.
- Final supplies may be run off RCDs and other protective device
- Final supplies may be concealed in the fabric of the building or
surface run in exactly the same way as any other small power circuit apart
from being in fire resisting cable.
Wireless systems
The opening of 27 Radio-linked systems,
27.2 Recommendations has been subtly rewritten making it clear that wireless
devices, that rely solely on battery power, should have two independent
batteries such that if one set (primary) should fail a second would continue to
support the device. A number of paragraphs in 27.2 have been deleted and the
paragraphs renumbered. These paragraphs described the operation of the
equipment and are no longer required as BS EN 54-25 covers this.
Consequences
Designers and installers should be aware
that devices using just one battery set should not be used even if they comply
with BS EN 54-25.
Visual Alarm Devices (VADs)
Where previously, selecting VADs was a bit
of a guessing game, it is now more of a science.
Clause 17 Visual alarm signals, sub-clause
17.2 e) said and still says ‘The intensity of output of visual alarm devices
should be sufficient to attract attention, but not so high as to cause
difficulty with vision due to glare’. Previously the system designer would have
made a judgement as to the number and type of visual alarms required. However
Note 3 has been added to the sub clause and a whole new annex has been added to
the CoP.
BS EN 54-23:2010 ‘Fire detection and fire
alarm systems. Fire alarm devices. Visual alarm devices’ specifies the
requirements, test methods and performance criteria for visual alarm devices
used in fire alarm system. The new edition of the CoP calls for VADs to comply
with BS EN 54-23. BS EN 54-23 requires the manufacturer to provide data on the
product which the designer can use to determine the size and location of the
VADs. The new CoP also calls the designer to use the methodology in the joint
LPCB/FIA document CoP 0001, ‘Code of Practice for visual alarm devices used for
fire warning’. Annex F contains all the information and data you need.
In clause 11 System components, sub clause
m), has been inserted recommending visual alarm devices to comply with BS EN
54-23.
A new Annex F has been inserted ‘Visual
alarm device illumination characteristics’. At first view this annex looks
hideously complicated but it isn’t that bad. VADs are divided into 3
categories; ‘C’ = ceiling mounted, ‘W’ = wall mounted and ‘O’ = the
manufacturer provides the information. VADs with C and W categories have a
numerical suffix ‘x’ and ‘y’; x being the maximum mounting height and y is the
size of the area covered. In the case of category C VADs, y is the diameter of
a circle, centred on the floor immediately below the VAD. In the case of
category W VADs, y is the length of each side of a squire on the floor
projecting out from the wall immediately below the VAD. The category and the
numerical suffix, together, form the rating of the device. The tables F1
through F9 relate the size of the room (left hand column) to the maximum light
level (top row). Thus if you know
Consequences
At the time the CoP was being drafted
there weren’t any VADs complying with the standard so designers and installers
may find that sourcing may be an issue in the short term. Also as the
transition period for EN 54-23 has been extended to 31/12/2013 products that do
not comply with EN 54-23 will still be available on the market until this date.
The FIA has issued a guideline document on this issue but basically where a VAD
that is not approved to EN 54-23 has been specified this must be explained and
justified on a variation notice so that all parties are agreed that it is
suitable for the application.
If you are a designer you will have to be
familiar with the tables and the method of determining the rating of devices
and you’ll have to get up to date data from you VAD manufacturer.
Wall Mounted Detectors
Clause 22.3 Recommendations for siting of
heat and smoke detectors, sub clause e) recommends the use of detectors in
rooms and areas that open onto escape routes in category L3 system. One of the
options in this clause is for wall mounted detectors, mounted close to but
above the door. It has long been accepted that there are detectors in category
L2 system that fulfil the same function and therefore the same rule should
apply. The new CoP accommodates this in a new note, note 6 following clause
22.3 e.
Care Homes v Care Premises
There are several instances in the old CoP
of the term ‘Care Premises’ and similar references. In the CoP they have been
tidied up and made specific using the term ‘Care Home’.
Sound Pressure Measuring
Instruments
In clause 16 Audible alarm signals, sub
clause 16.2.1, Note 8 used to recommend that sound pressure should be measured
with an instrument complying with BS EN 60651; however to new CoP recommends BS
EN 61672-1. The old standard was withdrawn and superseded by the new standard
in 2003.
Consequences
While an instrument complying with the old
standards and properly calibrated may still be providing satisfactory results,
it would be prudent to replace older instruments.
His and Hers
There are several instances where
individuals are referred to as male. These have been changed so that they are
not gender specific.
Conformity versus compliance
There a number of instances where the term
’comply with’ has been changed to ‘conform to’ where the clause refers to some
part of BS 5839-1. Because BS 5839-1 is a code of practice, only has
recommendations and uses the word ‘should’, it is not a hard and fast set of
rules that must be complied with; conform is, therefore, more appropriate.
Fire Detection and Fire
Alarm
There are numerous references to ‘fire
detection and alarm’ and ‘fire alarm’ which have been expanded to read ‘fire
detection and fire alarm’.
CIE
The 2008 version had various references to
CIE and control and indicating equipment. The 2013 version now standardises on
CIE.
References
FIA Design, Installation,
Commissioning & Maintenance of Aspirating Smoke Detector (ASD) Systems.
CoP 0001 Issue 1.0 Code of
Practice for visual alarm devices used for fire warning Loss Prevention Code of
Practice
Approved Document M
Health Technical Memorandum HTM
05-03