Electrical Contracting News (ECN) July 2017 - Page 40

SPECIAL FEATURE FIRE DETECTION & SAFETY Benchmark targets for installer best practice ‘Fortunately, the integration of AFD systems has advanced by a quantum leap in the last decade.’ In relatively stable, well managed environments, a rate of one false alarm per 100 detectors should be achievable. interrogate problems, without ever having to leave the building.’ This innovative remote overview of systems resulted in a 75 per cent reduction in diagnostic time and considerable savings in service and maintenance costs. This revolutionary approach to remote interrogation of systems becomes all the more critical at a time when there are changes afoot to devolve new powers to local government. Government is moving towards a position where Fire and Rescue authorities could be handed the power to demand cash for attending false fire alarms. We’ve already seen the Fire and Rescue Service announce that fire crews may no longer respond to certain calls originating from automatic fire alarms in shops, offices or factories, following statistics that revealed 97 per cent of all responses to automatic fire alarms proved to be false alarms. Risks of cost cutting Social commentators are highlighting fears that one of the consequences of the current challenging economic climate could be severe cost cutting that reduces focus on management of life safety risks. This is not the time for companies to neglect fire risks, because a fire will at best be disruptive and could at worst lead to death, injury and even closure. So all the more reason to recognise the revolutionary new trends emerging in intelligent building control, which can significantly reduce service call out costs by allowing you to first investigate ‘trouble reports’ through remote interrogation of BMS systems, a diagnostics overview that lets you identify non-urgent issues, often resolvable with a more convenient scheduled service visit at a later time. 40 | July 2017 Regulatory standards define the responsibilities of the installer of AFD systems and identify a number of applicable benchmark targets to observe. Optimally, in relatively stable, well managed environments (ie. minimal dust, fumes or insects), a rate of one false alarm per 100 detectors should be achievable. In more industrial applications, a rate of one per 75 detectors is more realistic. The advice given is that, in general, in systems with more than 40 automatic fire detectors, a rate of more than one false alarm per 20 detectors per annum should alert risk management to the need for investigation, particularly if the false alarms result in evacuation of the premises or the summoning of the fire service. Likewise, in premises with 40 automatic fire detectors or fewer, more than two false alarms per annum should be similarly investigated as an essential part of service and maintenance duties. The demand, then, for such a high integrity of performance points more and more to a renewed commitment by users to harness the unprecedented capability of fire detecting devices to fully utilise their function, performance, and interfaces. So let’s examine these challenges to seek the smart solutions. Unlocking the potential to minimise false alarms New smart fire detection panels to reduce risk For panel installers in this new digital age, the special combination of monitoring data and remote ɽ䁥)ɕѥ܁չѥ́ȁѥͅ٥)ѕɽѥѕ̰䁙)͕٥ѕչѥ̸)ѡ́Ʌ͕)ݡѡ́ѕѥ́չ ͔)ѡ՝ݽɭ٥́ɔٕ)ѼѽȁɕЁɕٕͥ䁽)ѡȁݸѥ٥ɽаӊe)ٕ䁽ѕѡЁѡЁ䁽ȁЁ)фɕ͕́役٥e)ɥ䁙չѥ)5х͵ЁѕɅѥ)ݥѠ%ѕɹЁхѥ)ѡЁɵ́ѡɥ䁽ѽՍ͍ɕ)䁙ɽ䁱ѥѼ)ѡɕ͔х́ѕ)ѕ٥̰܁ԁѡɕ)ѥٕ٥܁ͼհȁɕє)ɽՉ͡ѥѼєѼѡ)͕ձ́չѥ̸)Q́́Քɔѡٕȁ)ѡɔMɥ͕ѽȰ)ѡɕЁɝЁ́ѼɕՍѡ)չхٕ͔ɔɵ̸)1ѕЁՅхѥѥ́ɕɐѡЁ)ɕЁ ɥхɔѡ)́ݕɔѕ䁙ɔɕ͍Ք)͕٥̀ILݥѠɱȁЁ)ɔ́ՔѼ͔ɔɵ̸Q)Ёѡ́݅ѕѥȁѠͥ)ѡIĹѥѕѼݕ)ፕ́ ʼnȁ啅ȸ)́ѡЁ͡ձ)ɸѼɅѽ́́ѡ)ЁѡЁ͔ɔɵ́ɽѽѥ)ɔѕѥѕ́ՔѼ)ѕɔѡɕ͔])Ʌ͕́ѡѡɹՕѥ]Ё́)хɅє͔ɵչѕ䰁ѡѕɅѥѕ)́م䁄Յմѡ)ȁͥѕՙɕ́ɔ)хѱݽɭɔхɔ)ɕɔѕѽ́Ѽɔѡѕ)ͥѕѥЁݡ)ɥ٥ѼձЁչ݅ѕ͔ɵ̸)Ёѡͅѥɔ)ՙɕ́ݽɬѼѽȁ)ɕЁѡ͔܁ѕѥ٥)Ցɕͥͽѥѕ)ͽ݅ɔѼѡȁɔ͔ɵ)ɔЁѼմͼѼ)ɔɅѽ́ѡѕɔѕ)٥ݥ͵Ё́ͽ)́ѡɔ́ɔȁٕЁѡЁձ)Ё́əɵ