FEATURE: VOICE ALARM SYSTEMS 33
to a question about legal responsibility for EN54- 16-compliant systems – the answer to this being manufacturers. Given the strong representation of manufacturers in the survey, then, it is rather concerning to discover that only a quarter of votes were cast correctly; instead, installers received the largest single share of answers (28%). The issue of obligation
for adherence to the voice alarm code of practice also attracted a multiplicity of responses. According to Hemming, the responsibility resides with three groups: consultants, installers and venue owners/ operators. Excluding several respondents who gave no answer, the majority of respondents selected at least one of the responsible groups – but not one selected the correct trio. Analysing a geographical comparison involving the countries that provided the two largest share of responses (the UK and Sweden) we discover that both countries gave a roughly equal number of correct answers – but to
diff erent questions. So while Swedes had a fi rmer idea of where responsibility falls for compliance with building regulations, verifi cation of the voice alarm and legal responsibility for EN54-16 compliant systems, UK respondents were clearer on the obligation for building safety, performance of EN54-16/24 compliant product and design of the voice alarm.
Exemptions and ambiguity The issue of exemptions is vital to an understanding of EN54, CPR and their drawbacks. Under the terms of Article 5, a manufacturer may refrain from drawing up a declaration of performance when placing a construction product covered by a harmonised standard on the market where “the construction product is individually manufactured or custom- made in a non-series process in response to a specifi c order, and installed in a single identifi ed construction work…” As Hemming observes, this is an exemption that,
could theoretically be applied to any number of projects, although that was not the intention behind it. A relatively small proportion of voice alarm projects undertaken by our respondents since 2011 have been EN54-16/24 compliant, but it is unlikely that all the others invoked Article 5.
For example, the largest single share of participants (33%) stated that less than 25% of their projects had satisfi ed this part of the standard. Meanwhile, nearly half the respondents stated that they had been involved with no compliant projects since 2011, but elsewhere the responses were, frankly, all over the place – ranging from four to 400. Hemming identifi es multiple basic issues concerning EN54-16 that have given rise to “over- interpretation… although you could argue that it could have been better written in the fi rst place. For example, [this section of the standard] does not actually say you have to have an amplifi er; it implies it, but does not specifi cally say it. And that, of course, could open up other products to be tested that do not incorporate amplifi ers.” No wonder, then, that 61% (the largest single share) of respondents agreed with the statement that EN54-16 is ambiguous
Responsibility for voice alarm aspects Who has fi nal responsibility for…
Compliance with building regulations? Most popular answer: Local authority/council (32%) Is this correct? Yes
Building safety? Most popular answer: Venue owner/operator (54%) Is this correct? Yes
Verifi cation of the voice alarm? Most popular answer: Consultant/system designer + installer (23% each) Is this correct? Yes
EN54-16 compliant system? Most popular answer: Installer (28%) Is this correct? No – it’s the manufacturer
Performance of EN54-16/24 compliant product? Manufacturer (41%) Is this correct? Yes
Design of voice alarm? Most popular answer: Consultant/system designer (59%) Is this correct: Yes (installer in case of design and build)
Adherence to voice alarm code of practice? Most popular answer: Consultant/system designer + installer (24%) Is this correct? Almost – it's consultant, installer and venue owner/operator
in many areas. There was a little more clarity among respondents over EN54-24, with 46% agreeing that it is ambiguous, while 55% of participants agreed that EN54 had suff ered from a lack of pro-audio expertise in the committee that drew it up. Moreover, there was a suspicion that the ambiguity may well be open-ended; to wit, 56% of respondents said that because EN54 confl icts with some codes of practice, they were unclear how to proceed in certain areas.
“Education is needed so all concerned understand the diff erence between product standards and system standards,” remarked one participant – and few would argue with that. There was also general agreement with the expressed view that EN54 is working “pretty well” in retail, corporate and smaller venues, but that for larger facilities it is simply not fi t for purpose. In venues like arenas,
August 2014
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60