MCP Testing

MCP Testing

Manual Call Point is a device for the manual initiation of an alarm.

Manual fire alarm activation is typically achieved through the use of a pull station (term used in USA & Canada) or call point (term used in Europe, Australia, and Asia), which then sounds the evacuation alarm for the relevant building or zone. Manual fire alarm activation requires human intervention.

Manual Call Points (MCPs) are referred to or referenced by different names in various regions worldwide like Break Glass Units (BGs), Pull Stations, Push Buttons, Alarm Points, etc.

When should a Manual Call Point be used? In the event of a fire in a building; or if there is no automatic detection activated by the installed heat & smoke detection or any other detectors; or if you discover the fire personally and if there is an emergency condition – you need to activate the Manual Call Point to trigger the Fire Detection And Alarm System (FDAS) in the building so that the system initiates the necessary notification devices and sends signals to many other third party systems (Voice Evacuation, Emergency Lighting, Smoke Control, Lifts, etc.) in the building.

🔴 Manual Call Point (MCP)
✔ Commonly used term in the UK, Europe, Middle East, and UAE
✔ Typically incorporates a break-glass or resettable element
✔ Allows manual activation of the fire alarm during an emergency
✔ Governed by EN 54 and adopted in the UAE Fire & Life Safety Code

🔴 Manual Pull Station
✔ Common term used in NFPA / North American standards; typically UL-listed
✔ Operated by pulling a lever or handle
✔ Performs the same function as a Manual Call Point
✔ Covered under NFPA 72 and acceptable under the UAE Fire & Life Safety Code

🔴 Break Glass Unit
✔ Describes the activation mechanism, not the system function
✔ Can form part of a Manual Call Point
✔ Requires breaking a glass or frangible element to operate
✔ Modern systems often use resettable (non-breakable) elements

How to Activate a Manual Call Point? There are different types of manual call points.

1. Break Glass Unit – Break the glass, and then the signal will be sent to the system

2. Pull Station – Pull the lever, and then the signal will be sent to the system

3. Break Glass with Double Action cover – Lift the cover and break the Glass

4. Pull Station with double action cover – Lift the cover and pull the lever

5. Push Button type – Push the button, and the signal will be sent to the system

There are many different types; most often, when installed for FDAS, they are installed in red housing or casing for easy identification; however, in some jurisdictions, these can be other colours for architectural aesthetical purposes. It is always important to check with the authority having jurisdiction and to ensure the MCPs are readily recognisable, easily identified and signed as per the local guidelines and regulations.

Before starting the job, take the proper work permit and inform to all the respective departments. Also, do force the respective logics or interlocks if any (like fire suppression systems activation etc).

§  Remove all the screws and remove the glass cap from MCP.

§  After removing the glass cap from MCP,  the switch inside it activates so alarm appears on Fire alarm panel and the hooter is activated.

§  Acknowledge the alarm or silence the hooter on the fire alarm panel.

§  Note down the alarm tag and descriptions from the HMI or workstation. The alarm details must match with the MCP tag number and installed location.

§  Confirm the MCP activation status from the respective graphics page. You have to visually identify the color change signals of the respective MCP on the graphics.

§  Check the + 36 Volts DC Supply on Monitor Module between terminal 1 and 2. (This is the circuit module inside the MCP).

§  Check all the wire connections on Monitor Module, the push button contact if it found loose then tighten them fully.

§  Ensure resistor leads are completely tightened on to the terminals of the circuit in MCP.

§  Clean the MCP dust by brush and cotton cloth.

§  Fix the glass cap of MCP and fix all screws. It should be fully tightened. If it is loose alarm reappears.

§  Reset the alarm signal from the Fire Alarm Panel.

§  Now MCP is working now in Normal condition.

§  Repeat the above procedure for all the remaining MCP’s.

§  Normalize the forced interlocks or logics if any.

§  Close the work permit.

Note: The mentioned voltages, terminals, circuit module names may change as per the vendor or model of the Manual Call Point.

As per UAE Fire and Life Safety Code:-
🔥 The manual call points shall be used only for fire alarm initiation. In addition, all manual call points within an occupancy shall be of similar design.
🔥 Distribution of the manual call points should be such that the travel distance should not be more than 61m to reach the nearest manual call point.
🔥 These figures are to be reduced to 25m and 16m in limited mobility areas and where processes of the area result in a likelihood of rapid-fire development.
🔥 A Manual Call Point shall be installed within 1.5 m from the exit door opening.
🔥 The manual call points shall be installed generally at the height of 1.2 m, above floor level, and in plain, accessible, well-lit, and free-hindrances places.

👉 To allow occupants to manually initiate a fire alarm signal
Understanding correct terminology helps prevent miscommunication during design, approval, installation, and inspections, especially on international projects.

If you would like to discuss further with us on MCPs and FDAS, don’t hesitate to get in touch with one of our technical experts.

False Fire Alarms Five Lessons to Learn

False Fire Alarms: Five Lessons to Learn

Successful fire detection has helped to reduce the number of fire deaths. But fire detection and alarm systems (FDAS) are also responsible for a large number of false alarms – 293,100 were recorded in 2011/12 alone.

Estimated losses of around £1bn a year have been attributed to false alarms, due largely to the disruption and loss of productivity in businesses.

1. Smoke detectors and age of components

Optical smoke detectors were responsible for 74% of the live false alarms observed during study.

The majority of these were due to cooking, dust, aerosol and steam. Although 74% may seem high, this type of detector is probably the most common type installed in the field.

Stringent false alarm tests may be necessary to force manufacturers to develop more sophisticated smoke detectors with greater immunity to false alarms.

2. Manual call points (MCPs)

False alarms generated from the misuse or accidental operation of manual call points have been observed during a previous BRE study. It was found then that the use of protective covers could reduce false alarms by up to 17%.

False alarms resulted from physical impacts to the sides of the MCP, and other accidental activations as well as malicious (or even ‘good faith’) intent.

Here, false alarms could be reduced by installing covers that require a dual action: lifting the protective cover has to be followed by activating the MCP mechanism.

3. Sprinkler flow activation switches

A drop in water pressure from an activated sprinkler system can cause a signal to be sent to the fire alarm system.

These signals can be sent erroneously from sprinkler systems during servicing or when local changes occur, such as a drop in pressure in the water mains.

Due to the complexity of fire sprinkler systems, more research has to be done before detailed recommendations for reducing false alarms in this area can be made. However, the use of a suitable signaling time delay may in some cases be effective.

4. Procedures dealing with false alarms

Where there were procedures for dealing with fire alarm activations, in 88% of cases they did not address false alarms, and in 93% of cases fire alarm contractors had given no false alarm advice.

Clearly, this demonstrates a need for more training for the people responsible for writing procedures, and for a greater exchange of false alarm information.

Further research work could be used to provide valuable guidance on how to reduce false alarms to a much wider audience. Frequent meetings between stakeholders are recommended to support this.

5. Multi-sensor detectors

None of the false alarm observed came from multi-sensors. This finding is encouraging and suggests that multi-sensors do not cause many false alarms.

However, the BRE alarm specialist cautions, that there are many different types of devices, each with their own false alarm rejection criteria, which could produce a broad range of alarm responses.

Some multi-sensor detectors may be set up to respond to one fire phenomenon only (e.g. steam). This would mean that, though less prone to producing false alarms, they may also be less sensitive to detecting certain types of smoke.

Further research is required to support the use of multi-sensor detectors. The findings should then be used to inform codes of practice and building regulations.