FIRE SAFETY Protection versus false alarms
Organisations face numerous challenges when implementing fire detection systems, but the conflict of how to operate an effective system while avoiding false alarms occurs across all sectors.
Building Technologies division, looks at the impact of false alarms on productivity and profit, and how recent government legislation could see companies fined for repeated false alarms. The impact of a false alarm should not be underestimated. In certain environments, the cost and disruption can be significant. For organisations trying to avoid
M
false alarms, switching off or removing detectors can seem like a simple solution. However, the stark reality of the damage caused by a major fire shows this is a short-term and flawed approach. In fact, 70 percent of businesses go into liquidation within three years
Wireless fire
detection Traditionally, fire detection systems in industrial and commercial applications have used hard wired installations, but certain applications don’t lend themselves to this approach. Wireless fire systems provide the ideal solution in applications including occupied buildings, heritage sites, stately homes, annexes and temporary structures. It is for these types of buildings that XPander has been designed. Developed by Apollo Fire Detectors Ltd, XPander is a range of wireless products in which individual detectors, call points, alarm devices and interfaces communicate through a Loop interface with an Apollo addressable system. XPander has been certified to a number of worldwide approvals including LPCB and CPD. The entire range is approved to EN54-25 - the industry standard for radio equipment used in fire safety areas. Apollo also offers a Product Lifetime Guarantee on all products, which supports Apollo’s recommended working life - ten years for detectors and five years for CO detectors. For more information visit
www.apollo-fire.co.uk/xpander
artin Watson from UK Fire Safety and Security within the Siemens
of having a major fire. In addition, ‘alarm apathy’ can set in when a site has repeated false alarms. This may mean alarms are not taken seriously by staff and therefore, appropriate action is not taken. Ultimately, this could put lives at risk in the most serious of circumstances. Another important fact for
organisations to consider is that the Chief Fire Officers Association is aiming for a policy of zero tolerance on false alarms. This will mean there are likely to be financial and reputational consequences of false alarms which organisations should seek to avoid. In addition, the laws outlined in
the Localism Bill mean individual Fire Services throughout the UK will be able to charge per false alarm. Therefore, organisations will not only face the costs of an unnecessary evacuation or disruption to business from a false alarm, but will also face potential fines from Fire Services to cover the costs they face from false alarms. To overcome the issue of
false alarms, organisations should ensure they have the optimum number of detectors and ensure the detectors are robust and individually programmed to suit the specific environment. The main issue with smoke
detectors is that many are unable to detect between expected fire phenomena (e.g. smoke) and deceptive phenomena (e.g. steam) leading to false alarms. Fire detectors which use sophisticated advanced signal analysis (ASA) detection technology allow optimal protection across every application and organisations should seek to utilise this unique technology in their fire safety systems. The ASA technology is
innovative in its ability to record signals (e.g. smoke) and compare with pre-programmed parameter sets. This means the system is able to analyse the stimuli it is confronted with, and identify it as being either expected fire phenomena such as smoke, or deceptive phenomena such as steam. This ability to modify the threshold levels of the detectors
also means the same product can be used throughout a whole building across all applications. From a clean room to industrial production facilities, the system can be tailored to best suit the environment in which it is placed, so it is able to both protect fully but also minimise the disruption caused by false alarms. In addition to ensuring the right
fire detection systems are in place, it is also important that staff are properly trained to use and maintain the systems. Ultimately, no matter how accurate a fire detection system is, if it is maintained inadequately, false alarms will pose a risk. Given the potential financial, reputation and environmental disadvantages from false alarms, it is crucial organisations do all they can to protect themselves. At a time when focus is on
cutting costs and the bottom line across private and public sectors, organisations should not miss the opportunities offered simply by effectively reducing their false alarms on site.
Meeting strict standards
The case for the suitability of aluminium for the fabrication of fire protection products is made strongly by building envelope and solar products specialist, Schueco UK Ltd, whose range of specialist glazed aluminium doors, façades and windows is one of the most comprehensive in the UK market. Based on many years of experience, independent test evidence and assessment, Schueco’s aluminium fire protection systems fully satisfy Building Regulations’ requirements. Almost indistinguishable in appearance from standard products, they meet all the criteria for Integrity (E) – the prevention of the spread of flame – and integrity/insulation (EI) – the prevention of the spread of flame and the provision of a barrier to heat. Single and double Schueco ADS 80 FR doors can be specified with either a 30- minute integrity or 30/60-minute integrity/insulation rating and, like every system in the Schueco fire-protection range, they meet the performance classification of EN 13501. For more information telephone 01908 282 111 or visit
mkinfobox@schueco.com
ArchitectNews.co.uk | Architects Choice | 33
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