Cracking the Codes

International testing of smoke, heat, CO and multi detectors at the heart of global standards

A leading detector manufacturer recently recalled smoke/heat detectors that had been manufactured over a period of several months last year. The recall was necessary because an internal contact could have had insulating film, preventing the detector from reporting a heat alarm signal to the control panel.

This occurrence underlines strongly the need for proper functional testing -- both at installation, commissioning and acceptance and on an annual basis. Using examples from the national codes of the UK, United States, France, Germany and Canada, it is evident that other countries have similar requirements, but some can be clearer than they are now. The product recall underlines why such standards need to be adopted where they do not yet exist, clarified where they are misunderstood and upheld and enforced where they loosely followed.

Using examples from the national codes of the UK, United States, France, Germany and Canada, it is evident that other countries have similar requirements, but some can be clearer than they are now.

The Functional Check
A functional check involves a physical stimulus:

"In the case of detectors, tests must ensure that products of combustion are capable of passing unhindered from the protected area to the sensing chamber, for elements of the detector tests should focus on the ability of the detector to sample or verify the status of the atmosphere already in the sensing chamber," said the UK's BS 5839 1: 2002, a code of practice for system design, installation, commissioning and maintenance of fire alarm systems for buildings.

"The detectors shall be tested in place to ensure smoke entry into the sensing chamber and an alarm response," said NFPA 72.

But the UK's code also explains what is not acceptable. A functional check is not something that can be conducted by only checking analogue values, nor is it something that can be accomplished with a magnet. Use of a test button or a test magnet does not satisfy the recommendations states the UK's British Standard 5839 1: 2002 45.3.

In France, Regle APSAD R7 Detection automatique d'incendie, Edition 02.1997.4 (fevrier 2003) also highlights the importance of a proper functional check.

Its goal is to check that each detector has the capability of picking up that which it is designed to detect. As to how the functional checks can be performed, R7 explains that the person performing the work should be equipped with the necessary non destructive tools for the job that are compatible with the detectors and produce the appropriate stimuli to activate the detectors under test (smoke, aerosol, heat, IR or UV generators).

In a harmony rarely seen among these five nations, the Germans concur and DIN 14675:2003-11 states that the functional testing of the automatic fire detectors is, at the very least, to be carried out through the simulation of the relevant physical characteristics of fire outside of the detector (e.g. using test aerosols for smoke).

Avoiding Danger
Extending this theme many national standards now refer not only to the need to check the device, but also the need to avoid danger or other damage to -- or from -- the environment in which the detector is installed. This is encapsulated by the UK's BS 5839.

"Every heat detector should be functionally tested by means of a suitable heat source. The heat source should not have the potential to ignite a fire, live flame should not be used and special equipment might be necessary in explosive atmospheres," said the UK's British Standard.

The French and British are of one mind and France's R7 states that devices producing live flames, such as lighters, are prohibited.

The theme of avoiding damage also is explicitly recognized for other detectors. Smoke detectors, for example, might react to various stimuli, but setting them off properly with a genuine physical functional check is only part of the art. Avoiding damage to them, for example, is another. Again, this is picked up by the British Standard.

"Point smoke detectors should be functionally tested by a method that confirms smoke can enter the detector chamber and produce a fire alarm signal (e.g. by use of apparatus that generates simulated smoke or suitable aerosols around the detector). It should be ensured that the material used does not cause damage to or affect the subsequent performance of the detector," said the British Standard.

"Each heat detector shall be tested to confirm operability, NOTE: An open flame shall not be used for testing the operation of heat detectors," said the British Standard.

When all these tests should be conducted? The answer is at commissioning and annually, though the annual tests are often split over the course of two or more occasions.

Conducting Tests
In the United Stats, the National Fire Alarm Code requires both initial, reacceptance and annual functional checks. Similarly, the British standard states that tests should be conducted at commissioning.

At commissioning, the Germans also require that 100 percent of all installed system components be tested and that, in the case of automatic fire detector tests, the alarm be triggered out by simulating the characteristics of the fire at the detector.

In France, Regle APSAD R7 Detection automatique d'incendie also highlights the importance of the commissioning tests. In Section 5.2, it says that commissioning tests should be cross-referenced to periodic annual checks. The checks can be split into two, six-per-month checks. Nonetheless, the checks must not be less frequent than six per month.

Six monthly visits by a competent person to every detector is, of course, a wise step for a number of reasons. Not only can a proper functional check on an ongoing basis highlight the inability of a detector to raise an alarm for reasons which may range from component failure, to wiring damage to dust covers, or other barriers to detection. It also provides an opportunity for an expert to assess building, usage and other changes that may impact the reliability or suitability of the detector relative to its installed environment.

So, with all this clarity, what confusion can remain?

One area relates to the ongoing sensitivity of a detector. This is something that cannot be assessed at all with most conventional detectors without a specialist test device. It also is one where even the faith in analog detectors,assessing as they do only the sensors as opposed to the ability of them to receive stimuli, is flawed.

NFPA 72 said that to ensure that each smoke detector or smoke alarm is within its listed and marked sensitivity range, it shall be tested using any of the following methods:

  • Calibrated test method.

  • Manufacturer's calibrated sensitivity test instrument.

  • Listed control equipment arranged for the purpose.

  • Smoke detector/control unit arrangement whereby the detector causes a signal at the control unit where its sensitivity is outside its listed sensitivity range.

  • Other calibrated sensitivity test methods approved by the authority having jurisdiction.

Detectors or smoke alarms found to have a sensitivity outside the listed and marked sensitivity range shall be cleaned and recalibrated, or be replaced.

The Canadian code is in concert with this, as well. CAN/ULC S536-04 said that each smoke detector sensitivity measurement and, if applicable, the cleaning date shall be recorded on the individual device record. Acceptable methods of determining the smoke detector sensitivity are:

  • Manufacturer's recommended test instrument, equipment or method.

  • Installed control units or transponders designed to test the sensitivity of individual smoke detectors.

  • Calibrated instruments that provide the operation as described in CAN/ULC-S529, Standard for Smoke Detectors for Fire Alarm Systems, for the purpose of testing smoke detector sensitivity.

Finally, the other area looking for clarification is that of multi-sensor detectors. Or multi-criteria detectors. The confusion has a single clarification for the purpose of field testing -- it does not matter whether one defines them as multi-criteria or multi-sensor. Neither does it matter how they are configured or when. Wherever possible, sometimes limited by the test modes available, each of their separate sensing abilities must be tested in the same real functional manner and at the same times.

This article originally appeared in the October 2006 issue of Security Products, pgs. 84-86.

Featured

  • Mall of America Deploys AI-Powered Analytics to Enhance Parking Intelligence

    Mall of America®, the largest shopping and entertainment complex in North America, announced an expansion of its ongoing partnership with Axis Communications to deploy cutting-edge car-counting video analytics across more than a dozen locations. With this expansion, Mall of America (MOA) has boosted operational efficiency, improved safety and security, and enabled more informed decision-making around employee scheduling and streamlining transportation for large events. Read Now

  • Security Industry Association Launches New “askSIA” AI Tool

    The Security Industry Association (SIA) has unveiled a brand-new SIA member benefit – askSIA, a conversational AI agent designed to help users get the most out of their SIA membership, easily access SIA resources and find the latest information on SIA’s training and courses, reports and publications, events, certification offerings and more. SIA members can easily find askSIA by visiting the SIA homepage or looking for the askSIA icon in the top left of webpages. Read Now

    • Industry Events
  • Industry Embraces Mobile Access, Biometrics and AI

    A combination of evolving workplace dynamics, technology innovation and new user expectations is changing how people enter and interact with physical spaces. Access control is at the heart of these changes. Combined with biometrics and AI, mobile access control has become increasingly crucial for deploying entry solutions that are seamless, secure and adaptive to user needs. Read Now

  • Sustainable Video Solution Delivered for Landmark City of London Office Development

    An advanced, end-to-end video solution from IDIS, with a focus on reducing waste and costs, has helped a major office development in the City of London align its security with sustainability objectives. Read Now

  • DHS to End ‘Shoes-Off’ Travel Policy

    Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced a new policy today which will allow passengers traveling through domestic airports to keep their shoes on while passing through security screening at TSA checkpoints. Read Now

New Products

  • 4K Video Decoder

    3xLOGIC’s VH-DECODER-4K is perfect for use in organizations of all sizes in diverse vertical sectors such as retail, leisure and hospitality, education and commercial premises.

  • Compact IP Video Intercom

    Viking’s X-205 Series of intercoms provide HD IP video and two-way voice communication - all wrapped up in an attractive compact chassis.

  • PE80 Series

    PE80 Series by SARGENT / ED4000/PED5000 Series by Corbin Russwin

    ASSA ABLOY, a global leader in access solutions, has announced the launch of two next generation exit devices from long-standing leaders in the premium exit device market: the PE80 Series by SARGENT and the PED4000/PED5000 Series by Corbin Russwin. These new exit devices boast industry-first features that are specifically designed to provide enhanced safety, security and convenience, setting new standards for exit solutions. The SARGENT PE80 and Corbin Russwin PED4000/PED5000 Series exit devices are engineered to meet the ever-evolving needs of modern buildings. Featuring the high strength, security and durability that ASSA ABLOY is known for, the new exit devices deliver several innovative, industry-first features in addition to elegant design finishes for every opening.