PD 6531 (1997)

Licensed Copy: Technical Information Services Dept .
, CNL Technical Information Services, 13 January 2004, Uncontrolled Copy, (c) BSI
British Standard
A single copy of this British Standard is licensed to

Technical Information Services Dept .
13 January 2004
This is an uncontrolled copy. Ensure use of the most

current version of this document by searching British
Standards Online at bsonline.techindex.co.uk
PUBLISHED DOCUMENT |
| PD 6531 : 1997
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Licensed Copy: Technical Information Services Dept ., CNL Technical Information Services, 13 January 2004, Uncontrolled Copy, (c) BSI
|
|
|
|
|
|
Queries and interpretations on |
|
|
|
BS 5839 : Parts 1 and 4 |
|
|
|
|
(as amended) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ICS 13.220.20; 13.320 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NO COPYING WITHOUT BSI PERMISSION EXCEPT AS PERMITTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW
|
|
|
|
PD 6531 : 1997
Committees responsible for this

Published Document
The preparation of this Published Document was entrusted to Technical Committee

FSM/12, Fire detection and alarm systems, upon which the following bodies were
represented:
AEA Technology
British Cable Makers Confederation
British Fire Protection Systems' Association
British Telecommunications plc
Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers
Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers' Association
Consumer Policy Committee of BSI
Department of Health
Department of the Environment (Building Research Establishment)
Department of the Environment (Construction Sponsorship Directorate)
Electrical Contractors' Association
Home Office
Institute of Fire Safety
Institution of Electrical Engineers
Institution of Fire Engineers
London Fire and Civil Defence Authority
Loss Prevention Council
Ministry of Defence
National Association of Fire Officers
National Caravan Council Limited
National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting
National Quality Assurance
Professional Lighting and Sound Association
Trades Union Congress
The following bodies were also represented in the drafting of the standard, through
subcommittees and panels:
Engineering Industries' Association

This Published Document, having Institute of Petroleum
been prepared under the
direction of the Fire Standards Institute of Sound and Communications Engineers
Policy Committee, was published
under the authority of the
Standards Board and comes into
effect on
15 July 1997
BSI 1997
Amendments issued since publication
Amd. No. Date Text affected
The following BSI reference

relates to the work on this
Published Document:
Committee reference FSM/12
ISBN 0 580 27348 2

PD 6531 : 1997
Contents
Page
Foreword iii
1 Scope 1
2 Interpretations of BS 5839 : Part 1 : 1988 1
2.1 Manual and automatic systems 1
2.2 Short circuit monitoring 1
2.3 Monitoring of alarm sounder circuits 1
2.4 The use of isolators between zones 2
2.5 Addressable detector/sounder units 2
2.6 Isolation of staircase zones 3
2.7 Sounder and detector cabling 3
2.8 Cabling of multiple sounder circuits 3
2.9 Disk memories 4
2.10 `Search distance' in addressable systems 4
2.11 Zoning of multi-storey buildings 4
2.12 Starting or restarting fire alarm sounders 4
2.13 Loudness of alarms in residential care homes 5
2.14 Loudness measurement for voice alarm signals 5
2.15 Travel distance to manual call points 5
2.16 Positioning of detectors in a roof apex 6
2.17 Detectors in ventilated ceiling voids 6
2.18 Optical beam detectors in congested roof spaces 6
2.19 Siting of detectors near ceiling obstructions 7
2.20 Detectors in lift shafts 7
2.21 Detectors in ventilation ducts 7
2.22 Use of L2 and L3 systems 8
2.23 Smoke detector standards for type L systems 8
2.24 Smoke detectors used to operate door-holding devices 9
2.25 Door smoke seals 9
2.26 Sprinkler protection 9
2.27 Time delays 9
2.28 Reduced sensitivity 10
2.29 Remote isolation facilities 10
2.30 Diagrammatic representation of the building 11
2.31 Connection to mains supplies 11
2.3 Fire protection of mains wiring to fire alarm systems 11
2.33 Use of standby generators 11
2.34 Conditions to be satisfied for absence of mechanical protection to cables 12
2.35 Rodent attack on cables 12
2.36 `Low smoke' cables 12
2.37 Fire resistant armoured cables 12
2.38 Cabling of ring-connected data-transmission systems 13
2.39 Radio-linked sounders 13
2.40 Ancillary services 13
2.41 Testing of manual call points 13
2.42 Zone testing 14
2.43 Testing voltages 14
2.44 Insulation testing at the 5-year test 14
2.45 Cable fixings 14
BSI 1997 i
PD 6531 : 1997
3 Interpretations of BS 5839 : Part 4 : 1988 15

3.1 Silencing facilities 15
3.2 Short circuit warnings 15
3.3 Fire alarm response to manual call point 15
3.4 Earth faults 15
3.5 Fault location displays 16
3.6 Memory check sums 16
3.7 Disk memories: see 2.9 of this Published Document 16
3.8 Memory check routines 16
3.9 Total loss of power 16
3.10 Battery monitoring current 16
Subject index 17
List of references Inside back cover
ii BSI 1997
PD 6531 : 1997
Foreword
This Published Document has been prepared under the direction of the Fire Standards
Policy Committee. It supersedes PD 6531 : 1992, which is withdrawn. It is intended that
this Published Document will be updated every two to three years.
This Published Document contains queries dealt with in the previous edition, some of
which have been amended, together with the inclusion of further queries. A
background to this, and the previous edition, is as follows.
Since the publication of the various Parts of BS 5839, a number of queries on
interpretation have been submitted to BSI. In some cases these queries have shown the
standards to be in need of amendment, and amendments have now been published. In
other cases, however, the queries have shown that although the standards are correct,
they are so expressed that misunderstandings have arisen over both their
interpretation and the philosophies behind their recommendations.
The subcommittees responsible for the standards have, of course, answered the
queries individually, but believe that many of them (and their answers) deserve a wider
audience. This document, therefore, gives not merely the queries and answers, but
seeks to give the intentions of the standards in the hope that these may help in future
interpretations.
Queries that have subsequently been clarified by the issue of amendments have not
been included in this Published Document (see Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 to BS 5839 :
Part 1 (AMD 6317 and AMD 6874, respectively) and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 to
BS 5839: Part 4 (AMD 6654 and AMD 6875, respectively). It is essential that readers
refer to the amended text when reading this Published Document.
Points already covered in the amendments include the following.
a) In BS 5839 : Part 1.
1) In 6.6.2, an ambiguity concerning the removal of detectors from the circuit has
been resolved by Amendment No. 1.
2) In 6.6.3, confusion over whether `sounder' refers to the whole of the sounder or
just to the sound generating part has been resolved by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2.
b) In BS 5839 : Part 4.
1) There was no requirement forbidding the use of a single cable entry point for
the mains power lead into the equipment and for cables to detectors and
sounders, although there was such a recommendation in BS 5839 : Part 1.
Amendment No. 1 to BS 5839 : Part 4 brings the two standards into line.
2) The case of signal cables, such as those to door release units, using voltages
other than extra low voltage has been inserted.
Summary of pages
This document comprises a front cover, an inside front cover, pages i to iv, pages 1
to 18, an inside back cover and a back cover.
BSI 1997 iii

iv
blank
PD 6531 : 1997
1 Scope Clause 3.6 recommends that `the type of system to

be installed should always be included in the
This Published Document gives queries concerning
specification'. Where necessary, the contract
the interpretation of BS 5839 : Part 1 (as amended by
specification should call up multiple types; L/M, P/M,
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2) and BS 5839 : Part 4 (as
L/P or even L/P/M.
amended by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2) together with
the relevant answers. 2.2 Short circuit monitoring
NOTE. The titles of the publications referred to in this Published Query
Document are listed on the inside back cover.
My system senses a fire alarm by monitoring for an
increase in the current taken by one or more
2 Interpretations of BS 5839: detectors, and monitors the wiring by looking for the
Part 1: 1988 current taken by an end-of-line resistor. The result is
that a fault warning is given if the line is broken, but
2.1 Manual and automatic systems a fire warning if the line is short circuited. Since this
Query method is fail-safe, is it acceptable?
BS 5839 : Part 1 seems to be ambiguous about the Answer (see also 3.2 of this Published
provision of manual call points and sounders. For Document)
instance, 10.3 says `... If manual and automatic The code is quite specific about this, both in the
devices are to be installed ...' and `Where manual call definition of monitored wiring (2.10) and in the
points are incorporated ...', but 3.2 says `... manual recommendations for circuit design (6.6.1, fourth
call points should always be provided'. Similarly, a paragraph). A fault warning, and not a fire alarm,
type L system is stated in 3.1 to be an àutomatic' should be given in response to either a short or open
system, but appendix J.1 says that the circuit of cable such that it would disable one or
recommendations for manual call points are more detectors or call points.
applicable to all types of system. If I am installing a
The purpose behind the recommendation is to avoid
type P system, do I have to include manual call
unnecessary false alarms. The committee takes the
points and the sounders required for a type M
view that any false alarm will reduce people's
system? If I am installing a type L system, do I have
confidence in the system. Thus the system proposed
to include manual call points in the system?
in the question is not fail-safe, since it may lead to
Answer an increase in the danger of a real fire alarm being
BS 5839 : Part 1 has been written to cover fire alarm ignored.
systems for a very wide range of premises. Some will
2.3 Monitoring of alarm sounder circuits
be new, while others will be older premises, with
existing fire alarm systems. Query
In most cases there will be legislative requirements 9.1 says that àdvice on the connection of sounder
for the premises to have provision for sounding the circuits is given in 6.6.3'. 6.6.3 recommends that
alarm, and often in older premises these will already disconnection of a sounder should generate a fault
have been satisfied by a manual alarm system. If the warning, but does not recommend monitoring of
occupier now wishes to protect his property by sounder cables. Does this mean that unmonitored
installing a type P system, then the code makes no cables can be used?
recommendations on whether or not the new system Answer
should incorporate or replace the old system. The No. Monitoring of sounder circuits (and other
code discriminates between `the system' and `the circuits) is covered in 6.6.1, which recommends that
building'. Thus, in 10.3, it permits, but does not `... an indication is given at the control and indicating
require, manual and automatic devices to be equipment within 100 s of the occurrence of any
incorporated into a single system. disconnection,.... or of a failure of any other
If a single system is to perform the functions of both interconnection...'. This applies even where the
type M and type P systems, then it should perform all interconnection is a short spur running from the
the recommended functions. In such a case the main sounder circuit to feed a single sounder.
type P system would need to have the sounders Furthermore, the committee believes that in this
recommended for life protection by 9.3. If the context the recommendations for sounder circuits
functions were performed by separate systems, then also cover other devices for giving the alarm,
the type M system would need to have the sounders including loudspeakers in voice alarm systems.
called up by 9.3, while the type P system would need
those called up by 9.2. Frequently in such cases the
integration into a single system will make economic
sense, since there will be a reduction in the total
amount of wiring and maintenance will be easier.
BSI 1997 1
PD 6531 : 1997
2.4 The use of isolators between zones Of course, the ability to use isolators in this way
Query depends on the use of loops or similar circuits, so
Clause 6.6.2 sets limitations as to the effect of a fault that in the event of failure at one point of the loop
or faults in the wiring. What is the philosophy behind the signal from unaffected parts can still be returned
these limitations? to the control equipment. But if both sides of the
loop return through the same fire compartment, then
Answer a large fire within that compartment could break
Clause 6.6.2, as amended by AMD 6874 (May 1992), both sides of the loop, leaving the intermediate
contains the following four recommendations detectors isolated and leaving unprotected any area
relating to wiring faults: covered by the isolated part. To prevent this,
a) ìf separate circuits are used for each zone, then 6.6.2(3) and 17.15 recommend the use of wiring able
a fault or faults on one circuit cannot affect any to withstand prolonged exposure to fire in such
other circuit; cases.
b) if any circuit is used for more than one zone, The recommendation of 6.6.2(4) is concerned with
then a single fault on that circuit cannot remove the limitation of damage to the system due to two
protection from an area greater than that allowed unrelated faults. In theory (given the necessary zone
under 7.2(a) to (d) for a single zone; isolation) it would be possible to have an
c) if a circuit is used for more than one zone and addressable system in which many thousands of
multiple faults within one fire compartment could detectors were connected to one loop circuit. Two
remove protection from an area greater than that unrelated faults could then remove protection from a
allowed under 7.2(a) to (d) for a single zone, then very large area. Although such a circumstance was
the circuit within that compartment is suitably considered unlikely, the committee felt that the
protected (see 17.15); extent of the resultant loss of protection should be
d) two simultaneous faults should not remove limited. 6.6.2(4) limits the area of the building that
protection from an area greater than 10 000 m2'. might be affected to 10 000 m2. In most cases this
These recommendations were put into the standard will limit the maximum area that can be served by a
because of the introduction of addressable systems, single loop circuit.
in which signals from individual detectors could be 2.5 Addressable detector/sounder units
separately identified even though sharing common Query
cables with other detectors. Clause 6.6.3 recommends that Ìf alarm sounders use
The objective of the committee was that the new the same wiring as detectors, then no alarm sounder
systems should be allowed to introduce advantages, should be affected by the removal of any detector'.
but that any disadvantages should be excluded or at Does this imply that combined detector/sounder
least limited. units cannot be used in BS 5839 : Part 1 systems?
In non-addressable systems each zone has a separate Answer
circuit (remember that a zone is defined as an area In 1988, when the standard was written, this type of
of the building, not as part of the fire alarm system). unit did not exist, and hence was not catered for in
Damage to that circuit (whether at one place or at the standard. Its use, therefore, should be considered
several) can affect only one zone. 6.6.2(1) maintains against the background philosophy of the
this property irrespective of system. recommendations of 6.6.3.
In addressable systems one circuit can feed many In non-addressable systems, detectors (particularly
zones. The committee could have maintained smoke-sensitive detectors) are frequently mounted in
comparability with non-addressable systems by a plug-in sockets for ease of maintenance. In many
recommendation that a single fault should affect only such systems removal of a detector will break the
one zone. Such a recommendation could have been circuit, isolating any detectors beyond the break.
conformed to by the use of fault isolators between Alarm sounders are generally considered to be more
zones, together with an alternative return path such robust, and are therefore usually wired directly into
as might be supplied by a loop circuit. the circuit, with a much reduced risk of the circuit
However, one of the advantages of the addressable being broken by removal of a sounder. However, if
system is its ability to give a more accurate location detectors and sounders are mounted on a common
of the fire by allowing the use of smaller zones, circuit a risk arises that the easy removal of a
specified only in software and without expensive detector by unplugging will isolate both detectors
wiring or additional zone modules in the control and alarm sounders beyond the break.
equipment. The committee decided that a Under 6.6.2a the removal of a detector should raise
recommendation for isolation between all zones a fault warning. In general, it would be expected that
would penalize this advantage, and therefore the fire routine for the building would include
expressed its recommendation as in 6.6.2(2), needing arrangements to deal with the loss of detection
isolation only at the same zone limits as for ability in the now unprotected area, usually by a
conventional systems. Isolation of the smaller zones wakeful watch system. However, although this may
is, of course, allowable but is optional. be adequate for the detection of the fire, it is less
2 BSI 1997
PD 6531 : 1997
likely to be of use in giving a general alarm. Removal 6.6.2(3) is more difficult. Multiple faults on the
of a single detector should not prevent the correct storey circuit could result in isolation of the detector
operation of alarm sounders throughout the building, at that level on the stairwell, although it would leave
even though the alarm may have to be initiated the detectors at other levels of the stairwell
manually. This is the reason for the first sentence unaffected. It could therefore be said that the area of
of 6.6.3. The same reasoning applies to the removal the landing at the fault level was left unprotected.
of alarm sounders in the recommendations of the Since there is no recommendation that a zone can
second and third sentences. only be fed from a single circuit, or that individual
The committee considers that the combined detectors on several different circuits cannot be
detector/sounder unit should be considered as a new combined into a single zone by software in the
type of device. Such a device would conform to the control and indicating equipment, both of these
general recommendations of 6.6.2 and 6.6.3 provided conditions are acceptable.
that:
a) removal of a detector/sounder unit requires the 2.7 Sounder and detector cabling
use of a special tool; Query
b) removal of one detector/sounder unit does not Is it permissible to include wires to both detectors
affect the operation of other detectors, sounders and sounders in the same cable?
or detector/sounder units on the circuit; Answer
c) removal of any detector/sounder unit causes a
fault signal to be given at the control and There is no recommendation in the standard which
indicating equipment. would prevent this practice. In some ways, such a
system may be advantageous, since alarm wires
The effects of the removal would then be localized
usually need better fire protection than do detector
to the immediate area of the removal, and thus be
cables, and in this case both would need the
more restricted than the separate removal of a
detector and an alarm sounder. protection recommended for alarm wires. As against
this, the designer should be aware of possible
Changes to incorporate such devices into the interference between the two sets of wires.
standard are likely to be considered at the next
revision. 2.8 Cabling of multiple sounder circuits
2.6 Isolation of staircase zones Query
Query Clause 6.6.3 recommends that two sounder circuits
We are installing a new addressable fire alarm are used. Is it permissible to run the two circuits in a
system in a building with eight stairwells, each 4-core cable?
forming a fire compartment. Under 7.2d(2), each of Answer
these stairwells is a separate zone.
Running a separate circuit to each stairwell will be The objective behind the recommendations of the
expensive. Extending one of the storey circuits (via second and third paragraphs of 6.6.3 is that damage
isolators) to cover the stairwell causes problems by caused by a fire at one point should not silence all
exceeding the maximum number of points the the alarm sounders. 6.6.3 does not recommend that
system allows for a single loop. However, it is two circuits are used. Instead, it says that if a short
technically feasible to arrange that at each level the circuit develops in any part of the sounder wiring
detector in the stairwell is joined via an isolator and during a fire, at least one sounder should continue to
a tee to the main detection loop for that storey. This sound. The use of two circuits may be one way of
would mean that the various detectors within one achieving the recommendations, but others (such as
stairwell are all connected to different circuits, but the use of a loop circuit with short-circuit isolators)
are then zoned via software in the control and are possible.
indicating equipment to give a common zone If 4-core cable is used, then clearly damage to the
indication. Is this permissible? cable at one point could affect both circuits, and the
Answer committee believes that this would not be
6.6 has been carefully written to give the conditions acceptable. Clause 6.6.5 points out that, even with
that should be satisfied while putting as few isolators, the occurrence of two faults on a loop can
limitations as possible on the methods by which put devices out of action between the two faults. If
satisfaction is achieved. Conditions covering the the out and return parts of the loop were carried in a
system you describe are given in 6.6.2(2) to 6.6.2(4). 4-core cable which were to be cut between the
6.6.2(2) covers the effects of a single fault. In your control equipment and the first sounder, then this
system the isolator is fed from both sides of the would prevent all sounder operation. The committee
storey circuit, and hence a single fault on that circuit believes that little improvement in safety is achieved
will have no effect. A fault on the tee itself will by the use of multiple signal paths within a common
isolate the detector, but will have no effect on the section of cable, and that this sort of cabling should
main storey circuit. This recommendation is be avoided.
therefore satisfied.
BSI 1997 3
PD 6531 : 1997
2.9 Disk memories Answer

Query The relaxations you refer to come in 7.2c
Clause 6.9b of the standard says that (for program- and 7.2d(1).
controlled systems) those functions that are 7.2c allows the complete building to be a single
recommended by the standard should not depend on zone, even though there may be more than one
programs stored on moving disks. Our building storey, provided that the total floor area does not
management system uses two computers, one of exceed 300 m2. It does not apply to parts of a
which runs the system while the other monitors the building.
first and is ready to take over the running should a
fault occur. Each computer has two disk drives, each 7.2d(1) was intended to allow for the case of two or
carrying all the programs and data necessary to more multi-storied fire compartments joined together
operate the system. There is thus a triply redundant by doors at the lowest level. Such a case might arise
system, requiring four disk failures before the system where two or three houses in a terrace (each
fails to operate. Can this system be considered as forming a separate fire compartment) are joined
having adequate reliability? together. Each of the compartments can then be
Answer considered as a single zone. But notice that the
6.9b is not the only recommendation relevant to disk relaxation cannot be applied to compartments
memories. 15.2.1 recommends that `control and formed from groups of floors in a single building,
indicating equipment for automatic fire alarm since communication between the compartments can
systems should comply with BS 5839 : Part 4'. only be at the lowest level.
Clause 3.8.4.1 of BS 5839 : Part 4 : 1988 requires that The example given in the question does not appear
ìn particular software shall not be held on storage to fall under either 7.2c or 7.2d(1), and therefore
media requiring mechanical moving parts such as does not conform to the standard's
magnetic tape or disks'. recommendations.
The committee considered that the system you 2.12 Starting or restarting fire alarm sounders
describe, whilst apparently having good redundancy,
could fail if a common mode failure caused Query
simultaneous corruption of all the memories. If, for In 9.1 the standard recommends that à clearly
instance, a software `bug' caused disk corruption, labelled facility should be available for starting or
then it would be quite likely that both disks on one restarting the fire alarm sounders'. Does the use of
machine would fail, and equally that the same `bug' òr' imply that only one of these facilities needs to be
could appear on both machines. The committee provided, or do I have to be able to both start and
therefore felt that the use of redundant disks did not restart the alarm?
offer the same degree of reliability as that given by Answer
read-only memories.
The clause is intended to mean that whenever the
2.10 `Search distance' in addressable systems alarm sounders are silent it should be possible, by
Query operating a facility at or near the control and
I am installing an addressable fire detection system indicating equipment, to cause them to sound.
in my premises. In the event of a fire, the display Whether this operation is starting or restarting will
will show both the zone of origin and the depend on the state of the system at the time. If the
identification number of the initiating detector. Do I sounders have been previously silent, so that this is
still have to comply with the search distance the first alarm of fire, then the operation will be
recommendation of 7.2b? `starting'. If the sounders have been sounding, but
Answer have then been silenced with the control equipment
As BS 5839 : Part 1 is written, no distinction is drawn remaining in the `fire' condition, then the operation
between addressable and non-addressable systems, will be `restarting'. Whatever the prior condition, it
and the recommendation on search distance applies should be possible by the correct operation to cause
to both. If the search distance exceeds the the sounders to sound.
recommended limit then a deviation should be Although the standard refers to À clearly labelled
agreed (see 4.3 and 6.11) and listed in the facility ...', it is permissible for different controls to
installation and commissioning certificate. be used for starting and restarting, provided that
2.11 Zoning of multi-storey buildings these controls are clearly labelled. For instance, the
Query system could be put into the `fire' condition by the
The standard allows a zone to cover more than one operation of a break-glass manual call point
storey if the building is very small (less than 300 m2). (starting); a switch on the control equipment could
Can this be applied to part of a building? We have a then silence or restart the sounders.
building of more than 300 m2, but all the individual
floors are smaller than 100 m2. Can we lump two or
three floors into one zone, covering the building with
three zones?
4 BSI 1997
PD 6531 : 1997
2.13 Loudness of alarms in residential care Clause 9.4.6 recommends that where the level of
homes sound of a speech message falls below the level
Query recommended in 9.4.1 then `the message should be
preceded for at least 6 s by an attention-drawing
In a residential care home, we note that most, if not
signal, having at least the loudness recommended
all, of the patients will be under the influence of
by 9.4.1'. We suggest that you adopt this procedure,
sleeping pills at night. It is unlikely that these
giving the attention-drawing signal over your
patients will be rousable by sound, and they will
loudspeaker system, and measure the level of this
certainly require the assistance of staff if they are to
signal.
leave the building. The presence of a loud (75 dB(A))
fire alarm sound will make the evacuation of the BS 7443 : 1991 Specification for sound systems for
building even more difficult. Is such a loud noise emergency purposes, gives details about the
really necessary? measurement of speech intelligibilities.
Answer 2.15 Travel distance to manual call points
Clause 9.4.1 recommends that a sound level of Query
`75 dB(A) at the bedhead' is achieved if `the fire In large open-plan areas such as offices or shops,
routine for the premises requires the audible alarm BS 5588 : Parts 2 and 3 recommend that the travel
to arouse sleeping persons'. If the fire routine distance from any point to the nearest storey exit
requires the residents to be woken by staff, (normally the doorway to a protected stairway)
then 75 dB(A) may not be necessary in the residents' should not exceed 45 m. In places of assembly (to be
quarters (although it may be necessary in the staff covered in BS 5588 : Part 6) some open areas (such
quarters). as arenas) may have travel distances exceeding 45 m.
Furthermore, 9.10 allows the use in the first instance However, 10.2 of BS 5839 : Part 1 : 1988 recommends
of alarms restricted to staff. These could take the that the travel distance to a manual call point should
form of personal bleepers, quieter audible alarms or not exceed 30 m. In some cases it may be possible to
visual signals. A facility for giving a general alarm (at mount call points on supporting pillars or columns,
the 65 dB(A) level) should be retained. but frequently there will be no such support. Is there
It is important to remember that if the fire routine any way by which the two recommendations can be
requires residents to be woken (or helped to escape) brought into line?
by staff, then the general routine for the building Answer
should ensure that sufficient staff will be available in The 30 m recommendation is based on the travel
the event of fire. time of a normally active occupant, as against the
2.14 Loudness measurement for voice alarm escape time needed by other normally active
signals occupants. The standard makes the point that should
the occupants be slow in movement then it may be
Query
necessary to reduce the maximum travel distance. It
In our building the fire alarm is given by voice should be recognized that a normal person, at
messages over a loudspeaker system. The note walking speed, will take about 30 s to cover an
to 9.4.1 suggests that loudness measurement should unobstructed distance of 45 m.
be by an instrument conforming to BS 5969 and set
However, deviations from the recommendations of
to slow response. Slow response averages the signal
the code are permissible. The committee believes
over one second, and thus gives low readings on
that this is a case where such a deviation might be
discontinuous voice signals. Is there an approved
considered. The consideration should include:
method for measuring the loudness of voice signals?
NOTE. BS 5969 has been withdrawn and is replaced by
a) the abilities of the probable occupants;
BS EN 60651 : 1994. Sound level meters conforming to b) the probable rate of spread of fire and the
BS EN 60651, type 2 are suitable for measuring sound levels from effect of that rate on the escape time allowable;
fire alarm sounders.
c) the degree of obstruction to movement that
Answer
might be found in the area, and that might
The measurement of sound levels in relation to voice effectively increase the actual travel distance.
signals is more difficult than that in relation to more
Any deviation should be recorded on the completion
common sounders. Frequently the problem is not
certificate.
simply one of sound level, but also of the
intelligibility of the message.
BSI 1997 5
PD 6531 : 1997
2.16 Positioning of detectors in a roof apex Answer

Query As you have described it, the installation does not
12.2.3 recommends that under a pitched roof a conform to the code. Reasons for non-conformity
detector should be sited within the apex of the roof, include:
but gives that detector additional coverage a) the effect of the ceiling ventilation in drawing
(depending on the angle of the roof). In a shallowly smoke away from the under-ceiling detectors, with
sloped roof, the recommendation for a detector the associated possible need for a spacing between
within the apex could mean that more detectors under-ceiling detectors of less than the present
were needed than under a flat roof, but the maximum allowed by the standard (i.e. a need for
shallowness of the slope could prevent a greater number of detectors);
compensation by the increase of allowable coverage. b) the possible existence of combustible material
Was this intended? above the false ceiling with the associated
Answer possibility of fire above the ceiling;
The recommendation for detectors to be placed in c) the inability to detect a fire in the ceiling void
the apex stems from the fact that the hot gases from when the ventilation is turned off.
the fire will tend to rise to the roof, then move along
the upwards slope until they reach the apex. If the 2.18 Optical beam detectors in congested roof
apex fell between two rows of detectors, then there spaces
would be a possibility of the hot gases remaining in Query
the apex and not moving down towards the We have a large warehouse with a series of bays,
detectors. The increased coverage allowed for the each having a shallow pitched roof. The warehouse
apex detectors stems similarly from the more rapid is protected by optical beam smoke detectors, the
flow of the smoke towards the apex detector beams passing close above the trusses supporting
because of the slope. the roof. There is a high rate of false alarms
Under a shallowly sloped roof the major problem is (possibly due to birds perching in the beams), and
usually the determination of the allowable range of our installers have recommended mounting the
positions of the àpex' detector. Clause 12.2.3 detectors so that the beams pass below the trusses.
recommends that the sensitive elements are not The beams will then be 1.8 m below the underside of
more than 150 mm (for heat detectors) or 600 mm the roof, although 12.2.3 says that this distance
(for smoke detectors) below the roof. The committee should not exceed 600 mm. What should we do? The
believes that the detector can be considered as an apex of the roof is 15 m above the ground, the eaves
àpex' detector provided that it is within this depth are 13 m above the ground and the bays are 25 m
below the apex, even though it may not be vertically wide.
below the apex. Under shallowly sloped ceilings this Answer
allows a significant tolerance on the detector's The revised system would not conform to the
position. For a slope of 5, for instance, the àpex' standard, but this might be a case in which a
detector could be more than 5 m horizontally from deviation from the standard should be considered. In
the apex. a building of this type the smoke will usually rise
2.17 Detectors in ventilated ceiling voids into the apex of the roof, then gradually build
Query downwards until it can pass under the valley of the
roof into the next bay. It may be that detection
Under 12.2.3 and 12.2.11, voids greater than 800 mm beams at valley level would be satisfactory, since
high should have detectors installed in them. We detection will occur while the smoke is restricted to
have such a void forming a return air plenum above one bay.
a false ceiling, with air being pulled up through vents
in the ceiling. We are proposing to put a normal However, these beams would not be able to detect
smoke detection system underneath the false ceiling, fires starting within the roof apex. If the apex
but to rely on smoke detection in the extract duct contains fuel and ignition sources (such as electrical
for fire detection in the ceiling void. Does this or mechanical equipment), then it is important that
conform to the standard? detection facilities are placed higher than any
potential fire.
6 BSI 1997
PD 6531 : 1997
2.19 Siting of detectors near ceiling obstructions Since the laws of convective flow apply equally to
Query hot gas and to the smoke contained in it, the rules
The first paragraph of 12.2.10 talks about of 12.2.10 apply equally to heat-sensitive and
obstructions to the `.... passage of smoke or hot gas smoke-sensitive detectors. Both types of detector
from a point to a detector ....'. The second paragraph should be spaced away from isolated ceiling
says that ìsolated attachments to the ceiling such as attachments by at least twice the depth of the
lighting fittings and luminaires do not normally act attachment.
as obstructions to the general flow of smoke. They 2.20 Detectors in lift shafts
may, however, cause a local disturbance, and Query
detectors should not be mounted closer to such 12.2.12 recommends that a detector be mounted at
attachments than twice the depth of the attachment'. the top of any lift shaft. Has any thought been given
Since the first paragraph refers to both smoke and to how this detector is to be maintained? BS 5655,
hot gas, while the second refers only to smoke, Lifts and service lifts, recommends that other
should we assume that the isolated attachments act services are not run in lift shafts. How are the two
as obstructions to hot gas but not to smoke, and that standards reconciled?
therefore the decrease in distances given in the first Answer
paragraph should be applied to both heat and smoke
detectors, while the restriction on mounting in the It is not unknown for fires to start in lift shafts,
second paragraph applies only to smoke detectors? either accidentally or by arson. The committee
therefore thought it necessary to provide a means by
Answer which such fires can be detected more quickly than
Both heat-sensitive and smoke-sensitive detectors by waiting for the smoke to penetrate lift doors to
rely on the effects of convection for the transfer of operate external detectors.
fire products from the fire to the detector. In the However, if the siting of a detector in the lift shaft is
first case the product detected is hot gas, in the inconvenient, then a possible alternative is the use of
second it is smoke particulates, but in both cases the an aspirating detector. In this case the detector and
transfer processes are those of gas convection, with its aspirator can be outside the shaft, with just a
the gas acting as a carrier for the particulates. tube leading into the shaft. 11.3 states that the entry
Most of the recommendations in 12.2 assume that hole into the system can be considered as a point
this transfer takes place under a flat, open ceiling, smoke detector, even though the actual detector is
but 12.2.8 to 12.2.10 deal with the effects of walls mounted outside the shaft. Movement of the lift
(including corridor walls), beams and other within the shaft can cause pressure surges, and this
obstructions. should be taken into account in the design of the
12.2.10 deals with the effects of obstructions other system.
than walls. The most significant of these obstructions
2.21 Detectors in ventilation ducts
will be ceiling downstands such as beams.
Query
When the expanding layer of hot gas under the
ceiling hits a shallow downstand it will build Our building is continuously air-conditioned. This
downwards until it passes under the downstand to causes air movement which will draw any smoke
continue its flow on the far side. This can slow the away from room-mounted detectors. Can we mount
movement of the smoke (and may also introduce the detectors inside the extract duct?
some additional dilution). To allow for this slowing, Answer
the effective radius of the detector is reduced by The effectiveness of smoke detectors in ducts is
twice the depth of the obstruction. questionable. Smoke drawn into a duct will often
If, however, the depth of the downstand is too great form a stream, without mixing with air from other
then the smoke may not pass under it until the extract points. For this smoke stream to be detected,
whole of the area bounded by the downstand is the detector would have to be placed very precisely
filled with smoke, with the downstand acting as a within the duct. More usually, precautions are taken
containing wall. As a rule of thumb, the change in to ensure that air in the duct is mixed, so that a
behaviour starts to occur when the downstand is detector will see a mixture of air from several
about as deep as the undisturbed thickness of the extract points, making positioning less critical.
layer, i.e. about 10 % of the distance from fire to However, this dilutes the smoke, so that the detector
ceiling. Thus the standard recommends that sees much lower density smoke than might be found
obstructions deeper than 10 % of the ceiling height in the fire room. While adequate to prevent
should be treated as walls. recirculation of unacceptably dense smoke, this is
Isolated attachments such as lighting fittings may act unlikely to give early warning of fire. Additionally,
as local obstructions, but the general flow is able to air conditioning will sometimes be turned off (if only
pass round the obstructions as well as under them. for maintenance).
The standard thus recommends that detectors avoid It is for these reasons that 12.4.2 says that duct
the local disturbance by not being mounted closer to mounted smoke detectors `should not normally be
the attachment than twice the depth of the considered as constituting on their own a
attachment. satisfactory fire detection system'.
BSI 1997 7
PD 6531 : 1997
2.22 Use of L2 and L3 systems A lower level of risk may be obtained by installing a
Query type L2 system. This will normally start with a
type L3 system, with additional detectors installed
In protecting residential premises such as hotels and
either where they are likely to cause special damage
boarding houses, how does BS 5839 : Part 1
to life or where fires are likely to start. These are
recommend that choices be made between L2 and L3
defined in 13.6.2 as:
systems, and between the use of smoke and heat
detectors in bedrooms? a) `those areas in which the normal occupants are
especially vulnerable to fire starting in their
Answer vicinity;
The function of BS 5839 : Part 1 is to define the b) those areas having a particularly high
various types of system and to give some guidance probability of ignition and from which fire or fire
on their choice. The standard is not intended to products could spread to affect the building
usurp the function of regulatory authorities in occupants'.
specifying the degree of protection required for Notice that in 13.6.2a `normal occupants' was
particular risks. If the standard gave more specific intended to mean `those occupants who are normally
recommendations then it would run the risk of in the areas', not `those occupants of the areas who
conflicting with legal requirements. are normal in their abilities'.
However, the background to the definition of types The code is not specific in saying which rooms
for life safety may be helpful. should be included under (a) and (b) above. In
The original impetus to the provision of particular, there is no specific recommendation in
recommendations for detectors for life safety came the code for detectors to be installed in bedrooms in
with the passing of the Fire Precautions Act (1971). an L2 system (other than those which might be
This required the installation of suitable alarm needed in achieving the L3 standard). The areas to
systems in certificated premises. During research be protected in an L2 system should be part of the
leading up to the Act it had been found that by specification for each individual installation. As
spending a night in a hotel a person had about ten recommended in 3.6, `the specification of a type P2,
times as much risk of losing his or her life from fire L2 or L3 system should always include details of
compared with spending the same night at home. those areas of the building which are to be
Since the risk of loss of life in the home was protected'.
generally at an acceptable level, the first intention of If the additional detectors are installed in areas
the standard was to bring the two levels of risk to where there is an immediate risk to life, such as
comparable levels. those defined in 13.6.2a, then they would be
In the normal British home you may be at risk of expected to be smoke-sensitive. If they are installed
loss of life from fires started by yourself or your in areas where fire might start with risk to life only
immediate family, but generally there is little risk if the fire or its products spread, then they could be
from fires started by your neighbours. In hotels, of either heat-sensitive or smoke- sensitive types.
however, a fire started by a neighbour may spread to Decisions on types of system or types of detector
kill you if no warning is given. The lowest level of will often depend on a knowledge of the particular
protection (L3) was therefore intended to give the building being protected and of the occupants and
risk level of normal homes, by providing warning risks it might contain. Without such knowledge only
while there was still time to use the escape routes. general guidance can be given.
In 1980, when this concept was first introduced to 2.23 Smoke detector standards for type L
BS 5839 : Part 1, it was expected that a suitable systems
warning would be obtained from detectors mounted Query
on escape routes, but research then showed that in
certain circumstances smoke logging could occur BS 5839 : Part 1 : 1988 covers the choice of fire
before these detectors operated (see also 2.25 of this detectors for life safety under 13.3. It says that point
Published Document). Where these circumstances smoke detectors `should comply with .... BS 5445 :
might occur the standard recommended that fire Part 7 or, for residential premises only, BS 5446 :
detectors be installed in rooms adjoining escape Part 1 (other than self contained smoke alarms)'.
routes. Since this type of smoke logging could only Does this mean that detectors conforming to
occur after the gas temperature in the rooms BS 5445 : Part 7 cannot be used in residential
exceeded 200 C, and then only proceeded slowly, premises?
the detectors could be either heat-sensitive or Answer
smoke-sensitive. No. 13.3.2 was intended to mean that detectors
conforming to BS 5445 : Part 7 can be used for life
safety in any premises. Detectors conforming to
BS 5446 : Part 1 (other than self-contained smoke
alarms) can be used in residential premises, but not
elsewhere.
8 BSI 1997
PD 6531 : 1997
The differentiation between the two standards is heat conducted through the door will carry the
based on the differing requirements for resistance to smoke up to the ceiling. The problem with
environmental conditions. intumescent seals is that they can easily be lost or
The differentiation in 13.3.2 is likely to be overtaken removed from doors. Sometimes this is because the
by events. The latest edition of BS 5446 : Part 1 will door has been adjusted in height to fit a frame by
have a changed scope. It will be restricted to self planing off the top of the door, together with the
contained smoke alarms, and will no longer be intumescent strip. The provision of intumescent seals
applicable to installations under BS 5839 : Part 1. on all doors would certainly give the necessary
However, detectors conforming to the earlier edition protection to escape routes, but would require
can still be used. detailed examination of the doors.
2.24 Smoke detectors used to operate In the end the committee came to the conclusion
door-holding devices that the most reliable method of protection was the
installation of detectors in rooms leading on to
Query escape routes. However, if the purpose is solely to
We have a type L3 fire detection system in our protect the escape route, then these detectors need
building, comprising a mixture of smoke detectors not be smoke detectors. Heat detectors will give
and heat detectors. Smoke control doors in the adequate warning and have a lower false alarm rate.
corridors have hold-open devices operated from the 2.26 Sprinkler protection
fire detection system. Do we have to have additional
Query
smoke detectors close to each of the smoke control
doors? In an L3 system, 13.5.1 recommends detectors to be
installed in both escape routes and adjoining rooms,
Answer
although in adjoining rooms the detectors may be of
A type L3 fire detection system is designed to give a the heat-sensitive type. If the adjoining rooms are
warning before unacceptable amounts of smoke protected by sprinklers, is it still necessary to
spread on to the escape routes. In general, the provide detectors in them?
smoke control doors are intended to prevent Answer
unacceptable amounts of smoke spreading along the
The detectors in the adjoining rooms are intended to
escape routes. The warning from the system should
give warning of fire before the fire becomes so large
therefore always be given before the doors need to that excessive quantities of smoke move through (or
close. This subject will be given greater attention in are generated in) the doorcrack. Even relatively
the next revision. insensitive detectors can give a warning adequately
2.25 Door smoke seals early for this purpose, and the committee accepts
Query that a sprinkler element would give adequate
We are installing a type L3 system. 13.5.3 warning. It would, of course, be necessary for the
recommends that detectors be fitted in rooms sprinkler to be linked to the fire alarm system so
adjoining escape routes to give warning before that when the sprinkler operates an audible alarm is
smoke passes through the door crack to smoke-log given.
the escape route. All our room doors are fitted with 2.27 Time delays
brush-type seals to prevent this from happening. Do Query
we still need detectors in the rooms? I would like to install a type L3 system, using smoke
Answer detectors in rooms adjoining the escape routes.
One of the main reasons for this recommendation is Because of the possibility of false alarms from
a phenomenon seen in experimental fires. In passing smoke detectors, the detectors in adjoining rooms
through a door crack, the hot oxygen-reduced gases would operate initially only staff alarms, turning to a
from a flaming fire in a room can pyrolize the wood general alarm if no action were taken in 3 min
of the door and door-frame to produce a dense, to 4 min. In view of the higher sensitivity of the
tar-laden smoke. This smoke, cooled in its passage smoke detectors compared with heat detectors,
through the crack, can be so heavy that it fails to could such a system be accepted as meeting the
rise to the corridor ceiling, and spreads at lower L3 recommendations?
levels to smoke-log the corridor without operating Answer
the detector. At a later stage in the fire, heat The system as described appears to raise two
conducted through the door will cause an upcurrent problems:
to carry the smoke to the detector, but this may be a) No early warning is given to the occupant of the
after the corridor is already impassable. fire room. However, the L3 system (see 3.3) is not
Use of a brush-type seal will slow the initial intended to protect the occupant of the room of
movement through the door crack, but at the gas fire origin, but only the occupants of the
temperatures achieved in the fire (600 C or more) remainder of the building. The committee
brush seals will quickly melt and become ineffective. therefore accepts that from this point of view the
Intumescent seals, however, can be effective in system outlined would satisfy the general
preventing the effect, holding the smoke back until principles of a type L3 system.
BSI 1997 9
PD 6531 : 1997
b) No mention is made of the method of calling 2.29 Remote isolation facilities

the fire brigade. Normally it would be expected Query
that the fire brigade would be called at the first
(staff) alarm, either automatically or via We have a large complex in which each unit has its
the 999 system. If the call to the fire brigade is to own local fire detection system, but in which all the
be delayed pending the investigation by staff, then systems report back to a remote central security
the system effectively has a transmission delay, as room. The individual local systems all have provision
covered under 14.7. Bearing in mind the greater for isolation of individual circuits (including alarm
sensitivity of smoke detectors compared with that sounder circuits) for maintenance, etc., using a
of heat detectors, the committee believes that the software code at access level 3.
system proposed would still satisfy the principles However, we are worried that, if the access code
of the type L3 system. The committee would point becomes known, this provision might be used by
out that the use of transmission delay units is unauthorized persons to disable the system as a
subject to approval by the fire brigade, and that means of preventing false alarms. To prevent this,
this system, although not a `transmission delay we are making the system such that circuits can only
unit' in the full sense, would have the same effect be isolated if the isolation is previously enabled by
and should therefore be discussed with the fire staff at the remote security room. Requests for
brigade. It would be expected that approval of the isolation are sent to the security room, where the
system would depend on the provision of a requested period is entered on to a data base.
suitable staffing level while it is in operation. Outside the requested period operation of the local
disablement control will have no effect. During the
2.28 Reduced sensitivity period the isolation control is automatically enabled,
Query but actual isolation will still require a manual action
We have a fire detection system in our theatre. When in the individual unit. Isolation will be indicated both
the genie comes up in a puff of smoke in our in the individual shop and in the security room.
pantomime, everyone leaves the theatre because the Our understanding (from definition 2.1 of BS 5839 :
fire bells start ringing. What should we do? Part 4 : 1988) is that access level 1 is intended for
Answer open access, access level 2 for authorized staff, and
access level 3 for trained engineers. Table 1 of
14.6 allows the use of time related systems in such
BS 5839 : Part 4 : 1988 requires that disablement of
applications, and gives several examples of their use.
fire alarm devices (if provided) is at access level 3,
The examples are not exclusive, however, and other
and is prohibited at access level 2. In our system the
possibilities exist.
enabling of the isolation will be by security staff,
In the case of your theatre, you will need to who are not trained engineers. 15.2.1 of BS 5839 :
desensitize (or turn off) the smoke detectors which Part 1 : 1988 recommends that control and indicating
might be subjected to smoke. This should only be equipment should conform to BS 5839 : Part 4. Does
done during the times at which smoke is expected; our system conform to the two standards?
at other times the full sensitivity should be restored.
Answer
14.6 places no precise limits on the period for which
the low sensitivity condition may be held, but says There is nothing in the system you describe which
that the recovery to full sensitivity should be would directly conflict with either the
automatic. recommendations of BS 5839 : Part 1 or the
requirements of BS 5839 : Part 4. Although enabling
If it is found that the low sensitivity needs to be
of the disablement control is by the security staff,
maintained after the nominal recovery time, then a
actual operation of the control is still locally at
manually operated switch may be provided to extend
access level 3. There is no objection to the system
the time by not more than 45 min after each
you describe being used for temporary disablement
operation of the switch.
for specific purposes such as maintenance or to
The standard recommends that no automatic cover fault situations.
switching device should be readily accessible to the
However, care should be taken if it is possible for
user. However, in the case of a theatre, the times at
the system to carry times such as `0700 to 0900 on
which smoke might appear may be predetermined
every weekday', intended to allow regular
for each production, but need to be changed for a
maintenance periods. If the local disablement switch
new production. It might be possible for the times to
were to be left in the `disable' position, then this
be programmed in for each production, subject only
could give the effect of the system being regularly
to an overall limit on the time at which full
disabled without local staff realising it. Such a
sensitivity is restored.
system could conform to BS 5839 : Part 1 : 1988 as a
time related system under 14.6 but would then
require prior agreement under the procedures of
clause 4.
10 BSI 1997
PD 6531 : 1997
2.30 Diagrammatic representation of the 2.32 Fire protection of mains wiring to fire
building alarm systems
Query Query
15.4.3a states that the location of the fire may be My fire alarm system has control equipment which is
shown by à display of letters and/or numbers, integrated with the power supply unit and battery.
together with a suitable key (which may be a plan of Under 17.2a of BS 5839 : Part 1 : 1988, cables
the building)'. required to operate after a fire include power
Our system has a liquid crystal display (LCD) which supplies. Does this mean that the mains wiring to my
names the room in which the fire starts. Is this system must be protected against fire?
sufficient for the `suitable key'. Answer
Answer The recommendations of 17.2a should be considered
as depending on the effects of any cable failure in a
The purpose of this recommendation is to provide a
fire. In a system such as you describe, failure of the
means by which firefighters, possibly unfamiliar with
mains wiring would not cause failure of the system
the building, can find their way to the fire. This
because the system would continue to operate on its
cannot be achieved by just identifying the name or
internal battery supply. The mains wiring in your
number of the room containing the fire, since this
system would therefore not need protection against
will not show the route to the fire. It is essential that
fire. However, in a system with a separate power
the location is shown together with a diagrammatic
unit (particularly where the power unit is remote
representation of the building (which could be that
from the control and indicating equipment), integrity
recommended by the final paragraph of 15.4.3).
of the entire system could depend on a single cable.
2.31 Connection to mains supplies Such a cable should be well protected from fire.
Query 2.33 Use of standby generators
In 16.2 of BS 5839 : Part 1 : 1988 it is recommended Query
that connection to the mains should be via an We are planning to use our public address system as
isolating protective device, e.g. a switch fuse. part of our fire alarm system, but cannot find
Normally connection from this protective device to sufficient accommodation for the necessary 24 h
the power supply unit is via a fused connection unit standby capacity. Is it permissible to use a standby
(fused spur unit). We would like to make this a generator instead?
switched unit, since this will make maintenance Answer
easier and safer. In accordance with the final
paragraph of 16.2, it will be coloured red and Under 16.3, standby generators are permissible at
marked `FIRE ALARM: DO NOT SWITCH OFF'. Will least as a partial replacement for standby batteries.
this satisfy the recommendations of the standard? However, it is recognized that when a fire occurs
standby generators may not be running, and may not
Answer start on demand. The standard therefore
The security recommended for the power supplies is recommends in 16.5.1.4 that sufficient battery
expressed in the third paragraph of 16.1 `... to ensure capacity be provided to run the system until another
continuity of supply to the fire alarm system ...', and source of power can be obtained.
the fifth paragraph of 16.2 which states ìt is The standard gives no details of this òther source of
important that the electricity supply to the fire alarm power', or of the time required to obtain it. If, for
system should be so arranged that continuity of instance, the premises have two generators, one of
supply is ensured'. The security recommended for which is automatically started on failure of the mains
the system controls is given in 15.5 where it says while the other needs manual starting, then the
that `the operation of all ... isolating devices should standby capacity recommended is that needed to
be limited to authorized personnel', reinforced by the cover the time taken to recognize failure of the first
second paragraph of 16.2 which says that `the generator and then to start the second. If the
isolating protective device should be secure from premises were continuously manned (or for type L
unauthorized operation'. The ùnauthorized systems, were manned by competent staff at all
operation' is usually taken as switching off, reflecting times when people were present) then a 30 min
the need for continuity of supply, but where standby capacity might be deemed sufficient.
maintenance is in progress unauthorized switching It might be possible for the alternative supply to
on may also cause a risk to life. come from another source. To reduce the probability
A local switched fused connection unit will therefore of common failure, two separate main supplies
only be acceptable if it is provided with a method of coming by differing routes might be used, or two
securing it from unauthorized operation, such as by factories might have a mutual agreement to share
placing it in a lockable box. two generators. The basic recommendations are:
The committee believes that connection via a spur a) sufficient standby should be provided to allow
from a general-purpose circuit does not meet the for the probable time taken in detecting and
recommendations of the standard. repairing the faulty supply; and
BSI 1997 11
PD 6531 : 1997
b) if the standby supply is provided by local Answer

generators (or by other generators having a lower Cables conforming to BS 6724 are designed to be
reliability than the normal supply) then sufficient enhanced alternatives to the equivalent constructions
battery capacity should be provided to carry the in BS 5467 and BS 6346, and cables conforming to
system over until a further temporary supply can BS 7211 are designed to be enhanced alternatives to
be obtained. the equivalent constructions in BS 6004. These `low
2.34 Conditions to be satisfied for absence of smoke' cables therefore form acceptable alternatives
mechanical protection to cables under 17.6.
Query 2.37 Fire resistant armoured cables
Under 17.5.2c, certain cables should be given Query
mechanical protection if: In 17.5.2 the standard recommends that `where it is
1) `they are not monitored; or appropriate to use armoured cable ..... the cables
2) they are less than 2.25 m above the floor; or described in 17.3(h) or 17.3(i) should be used' which
means that the cables used should be either PVC
3) physical damage or rodent attack is likely'.
insulated, and sheathed steel wire armoured cable
Does this mean that if the cables are monitored then conforming to BS 6346 or sheathed
they do not need to be protected? steel-wire-armoured cables with cross-linked
Answer polyethylene or hard ethylene propylene rubber
No, it is not enough to simply monitor the cables. insulation conforming to BS 5467. Neither of these
17.5.2c should be read as meaning the following: cables meets the recommendations for prolonged
operation in a fire.
Cables should be given mechanical protection if
any one or more of the following conditions Armoured cables are now available, which would
occurs: appear to have both the necessary mechanical
strength and the ability to withstand fire. The
1) they are not monitored; manufacturers tell us that although these cables can
2) they are less than 2.25 m above the floor; withstand the fire tests of BS 6387, they cannot be
3) physical damage or rodent attack is likely. given the W and X ratings because of dimensional
limitations of the test apparatus. Would it be
2.35 Rodent attack on cables permissible to use such cables?
Query Answer
Under 17.5.2c mechanical protection is Clause 17.6 says:
recommended for cables that are liable to rodent
attack. How does one discover this liability? `Types of cable or cable system other than those
described in 17.3 may be used only if it can be
Answer shown that, in the application in which they are to
Rodent attack tends to be more of a problem in old be used, all the following apply:
buildings than in new ones. The best indication as to a) their resistance to heat and fire is not less than
whether rodent attack is likely comes from other that of the types described in 17.3 and
cables of similar type. If there has been a previous recommended by 17.4 as suitable for the
attack, then it is probable that it will happen again. If application;
there are any other signs of rodent infestation, then
the cables should be considered as vulnerable. Bear b) their resistance to ambient conditions including
in mind that rodent attack on power cables increases resistance to mechanical impact and abrasion is
the probability of ignition, and that rodents include not less than that of the types described in 17.3
squirrels as well as rats and mice. A cat may give and recommended by 17.5 as suitable for the
useful protection, but in old buildings the presence application;
of a cat may be a warning that there are rodent c) they are not prone to faulty assembly or
problems. In the end, as with much else in the fire installation;
field, the problem becomes one of common sense, d) their electrical properties under both normal
laced with experience! and fault conditions are suitable for the
2.36 `Low smoke' cables application;
Query e) they are operated within their manufacturer's
ratings.
Our client is asking us to use `low smoke' cable
types conforming to BS 6724 and BS 7211. These We assume from the description of the cables that
types are not in the list of recommended cables conditions c), d) and e) are satisfied. The
given in 17.3. Are they allowed? manufacturer states that the resistance to heat and
fire is at least that required by BS 6387 AWX or SWX,
so condition a) would be at least partly satisfied. The
12 BSI 1997
PD 6531 : 1997
manufacturer also states that the cables conform to Answer

BS 6724 in respect of construction and dimensions, The use of radio-linked sounders with primary
and so the general strength (which will depend on battery power supplies is one of the technical
the armouring) will be equivalent to the armoured developments that arise from time to time and that
cables already recommended by the standard, and are not covered by the relevant standards because
the resistance to ambient conditions will be the particular technologies or practices did not exist
sufficient to satisfy b). and were not anticipated when the standard was
The only difficulty remaining is the ability to test written. Under such circumstances it is primarily for
such cables. The tests for water and impact in the user, purchaser, manufacturer and other
BS 6387 are limited to cable diameters not greater interested parties such as enforcing authorities
than 20 mm, and hence it would appear impossible to (see 4.3) to decide whether the practice is
carry out these tests on the full range of cable sizes. acceptable. In general the decision will depend on
The standard's recommendations are then best met whether the level of reliability, integrity, etc. is
by some sort of ad-hoc test similar to that in equivalent to the practices or technologies
BS 6387. recognized by the standard.
If the manufacturers of the cable are willing to In this particular case, the fire alarm system does not
demonstrate that the cable has been subjected to conform fully to BS 5839 : Part 1. However, if, for a
such tests and has performed satisfactorily, then the particular installation, the use of these sounders
cable can be accepted as an alternative under 17.6. were agreed as a deviation, and that deviation were
To cover the matter fully, the use of the alternative recorded on the installation certificate, then the
cable could be included on the commissioning system as installed would conform. In effect, the act
certificate. of obtaining agreement from the interested parties
and recording the deviation precludes the installed
2.38 Cabling of ring-connected
system from not conforming.
data-transmission systems
Query 2.40 Ancillary services
We have a system in which a number of remote Query
sector panels are connected together via a ring The first paragraph of clause 19 states that the fire
network, such that a single failure will always leave alarm system `may' be used to operate ancillary
an alternative signal path. Our understanding is that services. Does this mean that the system is allowed
we do not need to fire protect this cable. Are we to be used to operate ancillary services (which may
correct? alternatively be operated in other ways), or that the
Answer fire alarm system is the only method by which the
system may be operated?
In general you are correct. However, if two portions
of the cable pass through the same fire compartment Answer
so that multiple failures within that compartment The use of a fire alarm system to switch ancillary
could prevent the correct operation of devices in services on or off is entirely optional. Data or
another compartment, then fire protection will be control signals may be passed between the fire alarm
necessary. Such a case might arise where the two system and the system controlling the ancillary
sides of a loop enter a building to connect to one of services using a suitable communications protocol.
the sector panels. If the two cables run together then However, the combined system should be such that
one fire could attack both cables and inhibit the the ancillary system (even if faulty) cannot affect the
correct operation of the sector panel. Under the final operation of the fire alarm system.
paragraph of 17.15, fire protection for the portion of
the cables within a common fire compartment could 2.41 Testing of manual call points
then be necessary. Query
2.39 Radio-linked sounders We have a large analogue addressable fire detection
and alarm system, with two stage alarms. Operation
Query of a detector or manual call point in a zone will
We have a fire alarm system using radio-linked alarm cause sounders in that zone to give a continuous `fire
sounders. We believe that the system conforms to alarm' sound, while sounders in other zones give an
BS 5839 : Part 1, except that the power supply for the intermittent àlert' warning. To test the alarm mode
sounder is derived from a primary battery (with a of sounders in one zone, it is necessary to put all the
second primary battery in reserve as specified other sounders in the building into the àlert' mode.
by 18.2.3b for detectors). However, clause 16 Although 29.2.4 only recommends us to test the
recommends that the normal supply is derived from ability to sound the àlarm', to do this in each
the mains. Is our system acceptable? individual zone requires us to sound the àlert' signal
in the other zones, causing considerable disturbance.
Is there a way out of this problem?
BSI 1997 13
PD 6531 : 1997
Answer 2.43 Testing voltages

The primary purpose of the testing of 29.2.4a is to Query
test the ability of the control equipment to receive an Under 26.3 the standard recommends extra-low
alarm signal from a manual call point or detector. voltage cables to be tested at 500 V. Why is the
The second paragraph of 29.2.4a implicitly allows voltage so high?
the sounders to be isolated or disconnected for this
test, provided that a final test is carried out to prove Answer
proper reconnection. There are two reasons. The first is purely practical.
Clause 29.2.4 only recommends one zone to be Most of the people installing fire alarm systems in
tested each week, although if there are more the UK are electrical installers, and they are
than 13 zones then more zones may need to be tested equipped with 500 V testers. 500 V was therefore
so that the cycle is completed within the period called up in the standard.
between quarterly tests. The interval between tests The second is one of experience. We have found that
on an individual zone should not exceed 13 weeks. any reasonable wiring installation (and this is a test
of the wiring only) will pass at 500 V. The ones that
2.42 Zone testing fail are systems having incipient faults such as
Query hairline insulation faults, hairs caught in the
Clause 29.2.4 recommends that one or more zones is insulation and wires which are almost touching. We
tested each week in such a way that the interval have found that the 500 V test will often reveal such
between tests on one circuit does not incipient faults, while a test at, say, 24 V may show
exceed 13 weeks. Clause 29.2.6 recommends that at nothing. 500 V testing makes the faults show up
the quarterly test all zones should be tested. If I during the test, rather than later on in service, and
ensure that in the course of the weekly tests all the hence gives greater assurance of reliability.
zones are tested, do I need to carry out the quarterly 2.44 Insulation testing at the 5-year test
test?
Query
Answer
Clause 29.2.8 recommends that the wiring should be
The question raises two points of interpretation. checked in accordance with the testing and
Firstly, in the note to 7.1, we are warned to inspection requirements of the IEE Wiring
distinguish between `zone' and `circuit'. In 29.2.4 the Regulations, at not more than 5 year intervals.
intention is primarily to check that the circuit is Should the test voltage be 500 V (as in 26.3) or can
properly connected. The recommendation is that the the voltage be reduced to prevent damage to
interval between tests on one circuit should not equipment?
exceed 13 weeks. In an addressable system that Answer
circuit may carry more than one zone, but still only
needs to be tested once in the 13 week cycle. The committee accepts that this test can be carried
In 29.2.6, however, the intention is to check not just out àt a voltage recommended by the manufacturer',
continuity but also correct indication. The clause as recommended in the final sentence of 26.3.
therefore recommends that each zone is checked at 2.45 Cable fixings
the quarterly inspection, and in an addressable Query
system this may need an individual circuit to be
operated several times. Clause 24.4.4 recommends that surface-laid cables
be `neatly run and securely fixed at suitable
Secondly, 29.2.6 recommends that the check be intervals', but says nothing about how this fixing is
carried out by a `competent person'. No such to be achieved. Can I secure my cables with plastic
recommendation appears in 29.2.4. The weekly test cable ties?
may be carried out by local (unqualified) staff, while
the quarterly check is carried out by trained and Answer
competent staff. The committee considers that the security of the
Taking these two points together, the committee is fixing should be commensurate with the security
of the opinion that the recommendations of the code required for the cable's application. In particular,
would be met if: under 17.2a cables used in applications requiring
prolonged operation during a fire are expected to
a) the weekly tests are carried out by competent resist fire for 0.5 h, and hence for these cables the
persons; and committee considers that the fixings should maintain
b) during the 13 week period all zones and circuits their integrity for a similar period. Plastic cable ties
are tested. should only be used where early failure of the ties,
due to a fire, could not lead to loss of support for
the cables.
14 BSI 1997
PD 6531 : 1997
3 Interpretations of BS 5839 : Part 4 : 3.3 Fire alarm response to manual call point
1988 Query
3.1 Silencing facilities We have had a new fire alarm system installed on
Query our site. On operation of a manual call point the
indicator panel initially gives a fault indication.
In inspecting a recently installed system we found
After 3 s to 4 s this changes to a fire indication and
that operation of the Àlarm Silence' switch also
the alarm sounds. Does this conform to the
returned all the ancillary systems to their normal
condition, thus closing the smoke vents and turning standard?
off the smoke extraction system. Does this conform Answer
to BS 5839 : Part 4? Clause 3.1.1 requires that `the transition of the
Answer decision element from a non-fire state to the fire
The control of ancillary systems in the event of fire state shall result in the following.
is covered under 3.1.1e as follows. a) Outputs to external circuits for the energization
`The transition of the decision element from a of fire alarm devices......
non-fire state to the fire state shall result in the b) A visible indication of the fire alarm'.
following.
(e) Operation of such other functions as specified Clause 3.1.2 (as amended by AMD No. 6875) requires
in the manufacturer's data, for example that Àny delay in the giving of the responses listed
transmission of signals to fire protection in 3.1.1 shall be limited as follows.
equipment'. b) Where the response is to the operation of a
The function of the silencing switch is covered manual call point, the delay shall not exceed 3 s'.
under 3.1.3. The final paragraph of 3.1.3 states that The standard does not define the state of the system
òperation of either or both of the silencing switches during the delay time, and thus your system will
shall not cancel the alarm condition responses conform to the requirements of the standard
specified in items (b), (d) and (e) of 3.1.1'. The two provided that the delay in giving the indications
silencing switches referred to here are those for the of 3.1.1 is not greater than 3 s. If, as you state, the
fire alarm devices and for the control sounder. delay is between 3 s and 4 s, then the system does
The standard is therefore quite specific in saying that not conform.
the operation of the silencing switch for the fire
3.4 Earth faults
alarm devices `shall not cancel' the transmission of
signals to fire protection equipment, and hence the Query
system described in the question cannot conform to Clause 3.2.2 requires a fault warning to be given in
the requirements of the standard. response to short-circuit or disconnection of various
3.2 Short circuit warnings cables, but makes no mention of earth faults. Does
Query this mean that there is no need to monitor for earth
My system senses a fire alarm by monitoring for an faults?
increase in the current taken by one or more Answer
detectors, and monitors the wiring by looking for the Firstly, it should be appreciated that the
current taken by an end-of-line resistor. The result is requirements of this clause are aimed at maintaining
that a fault warning is given if the line is broken, but the function of the system, and are not concerned
a fire warning if the line is short circuited. Since this with protection from electric shock.
method is fail-safe, is it acceptable?
Many fire alarm systems are operated earth-free. In
Answer (see also 2.2 of this Published such systems a single earth fault will not prevent
Document) correct operation. However, should a second earth
3.2.2 is specific in requiring that a fault warning is fault then occur from a point having a different
given in response to a short-circuit of the leads to potential, there will, in effect, be a short-circuit
one or more detectors. between the two fault points and a warning should
BS 5839 : Part 4 does not say that a fire alarm shall be given.
not be given in response to such a fault. However,
A single earth fault on a nominally unearthed system
6.6.1 of BS 5839 : Part 1 : 1988 says that `circuits
should be so arranged that an indication is given ... therefore jeopardises, but does not of itself prevent,
of any ...short circuit in a cable which would disable correct operation. No immediate warning is required,
one or more detectors ... , and this should be done but it would be expected that the fault would be
without giving a false alarm'. Thus control equipment discovered in the course of routine servicing. This
which responded to a short-circuit fault by giving a should be covered in the instructions provided
fire alarm could only be used in an installation under 6.2i.
conforming to BS 5839 : Part 1 if a deviation were
declared and agreed under 6.11 and 4.3 of that
standard.
BSI 1997 15
PD 6531 : 1997
Where the system is intended to be earthed, one of 3.8 Memory check routines
the lines within the system will be at earth potential. Query
If this line is subjected to a further earth connection
via an earth fault, then the system may continue to Clause 3.8.4.1 requires provision to be made for the
operate normally. If, however, one of the other lines regular checking of memory contents. I am using a
is subjected to an earth fault, then the effect will be fuse-blown, one time programmable micro-controller,
of a short circuit between the earthed line and the in which it is impossible to alter any program
fault point, and a warning should be given. memory once the device has been programmed.
Does this eliminate the need for checking program
3.5 Fault location displays memory?
Query Answer
Is it permissible to use a liquid crystal alpha-numeric Clause 3.8.4.1 is specific in requiring provision for
display, rather than individual zone lights, to give the the regular checking of memory contents. Equipment
location of a fault? without this provision cannot be said to conform to
Answer the standard.
Separate indication for each zone is required only for Although the note to 3.8.4.1 quotes a `check-sum'
fire alarms (see 3.1.1d). procedure as a checking routine, this is only as an
example. Any method capable of checking that the
Although indication of the fault zone is required
memory content has not changed is acceptable.
(see 3.2.1c), the standard only requires the first fault
to be indicated. However, if there are multiple faults 3.9 Total loss of power
then, after repair of the first fault, the warning shall Query
return for a further fault within 100 s of resetting in
accordance with 3.2.5. This process will recur until Test 3 of clause 16 requires the battery to be fully
all the faults have been repaired. Clearly it may be discharged, while the subsequent functional test,
desirable for indications of multiple faults to be given in appendix A(e), requires a test to be carried
given, but although this would be permissible under out with the normal power disconnected. Is the
the standard, it is not required. equipment expected to respond without normal or
standby power?
A liquid crystal display is therefore sufficient to
conform to the requirements for fault location. Answer
The requirement in response to test 3, given
3.6 Memory check sums in 16.3.1, is that `the specimen shall respond
Query correctly during each functional test'. The committee
3.8.1c requires a check-sum to be performed on the accepts that, since equipment without power cannot
program memory contents. We are proposing a respond, the `correct' response in this case may be
system which checks the functions carried out, no response at all. The equipment is thus not
rather than the memory itself. Is this acceptable, and expected to respond when it is unpowered.
how can we comply with 3.8.1c? 3.10 Battery monitoring current
Answer Query
The purpose behind 3.8.1 is that if the program is Clause 16.3.2 requires that `no discharge current
improperly executed then the processor is shall flow from the battery in tests 1, 3 and 4 of
reinitialized and the memory is checked. The table 3'. Our battery monitoring circuit draws 200 mA
standard does not require this to be done by check- during these tests. Is this acceptable?
sums, but if the checking method is by check-sum,
then as part of the reinitialization all (rather than Answer
some) memory check-sums should be checked. If, as In the past, systems have been produced in which
in your case, the checking is by some other method the maximum alarm load could be met only by the
then we would expect the reinitialization to perform combination of normal and standby power supplies.
an equivalent check, or to ensure by some other Clause 5.2.1 now requires that each supply on its
means that any stored data is uncorrupted. own shall be capable of supplying the maximum
alarm load and this test is intended to ensure that
3.7 Disk memories: see 2.9 of this Published the requirement is met. The committee believes that
Document this small discharge current should be allowed,
provided that complete failure of the battery will not
affect the alarm function under normal supply
conditions.
16 BSI 1997
PD 6531 : 1997
Subject index
Alarm sounders: see Sounders Delayed alarms: see False alarms Radio systems:
Ancillary services: Detectors: see also False alarms power supplies for sounders 2.39
alternative methods of operation 2.40 combined with sounders 2.5 Rodent attack on cables: see Cabling
interaction with silencing facility 3.1 in congested roof spaces 2.18 Search distance: see Zones
Armoured cables: see Cabling in lift shafts 2.20 Silencing facilities: see Control equipment
Batteries: see Power supply in ventilated ceiling voids 2.17 Sounders:
Cabling: in ventilation ducts 2.21 circuits to 2.3
armoured cables 2.37 near ceiling obstructions 2.19 combined with detectors 2.5
fire protection of mains wiring 2.32 positioning in a roof apex 2.16 loudness in residential care homes 2.13
`low smoke' cables 2.36 standards in type L systems 2.23 loudness measurement for voice alarms
mechanical protection 2.34 used to operate door-holding devices 2.24 2.14
multicore cables for sounder circuits 2.8 use with sprinklers in L3 systems 2.26 multicore cables to 2.8
multicore cables to detectors and Disk memory: see Control equipment radio-linked: see Radio systems
sounders 2.7 Doors: starting or restarting 2.12
ring-connected data-transmission detector operation of holding devices Short circuit: see Cabling
systems 2.38 2.24 Siting of detectors: see Detectors
rodent attack 2.35 smoke seals 2.25 Sprinklers: use in L3 systems 2.26
short circuit monitoring 2.2, 3.2 False alarms: Staff alarms 2.27
Combined detector/sounder units 2.5 use of delayed alarms 2.27 Standby generators: see Power supply
Control equipment: time related systems 2.28 Starting or restarting fire alarm sounders:
battery monitoring current 3.10 Fire alarm sounders: see Sounders see Sounders
diagrammatic representation of the Generators, standby: see Power supply Testing:
building 2.30 Isolators: see Zones manual call points 2.41
earth-fault monitoring 3.4 Isolation: see Control equipment voltages 2.43
fire indications 3.3 Loudness: see Sounders weekly and quarterly zone testing 2.42
disk memories 2.9 Manual call points: insulation testing at the 5-year test 2.44
display of fault location 3.5 travel distance 2.15 Time related systems: see False alarms
indication of multiple faults 3.5 testing 2.41 Travel distance: see Manual call points
interaction of silencing with ancillary time to respond 3.3 Types of system:
equipment 3.1 Memory: see Control equipment general 2.1
isolation facilities at remote centres 2.29 Multicore cables: see Cabling use of L2 and L3 systems 2.22
memory check routines 3.8 Power supply: Voice alarms: see Sounders
memory check-sums 3.6 battery monitoring current 3.10 Wiring: see Cabling
response times 3.3 connection to mains supplies 2.31 Zones:
short-circuit monitoring 3.2 fire protection: see Cabling isolators between 2.4
total loss of power 3.9 radio-linked sounders: see Radio systems multi-storey buildings 2.11
standby generators 2.33 search distance 2.10
total loss of power: see Control staircases 2.6
equipment
BSI 1997 17
18
blank
PD 6531 : 1997
List of references
BSI publications
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION, London
BS 5445 Components of automatic fire detection systems

BS 5445 : Part 7 : 1984 Specification for point-type smoke detectors using scattered light,
transmitted light or ionization
BS 5446 Components automatic fire alarm systems for residential
premises
BS 5446 : Part 1 : 1990 Specification for self-contained smoke alarms and point-type
smoke detectors
BS 5467 : 1989 Specification for cables with thermosetting insulation for
electricity supply for rated voltages of up to and including
600/1000 V and up to and including 1900/3300 V
BS 5588 Fire precautions in the design, construction and use of buildings
BS 5588 : Part 2 : 1985 Code of practice for shops
BS 5588 : Part 3 : 1983 Code of practice for office buildings
BS 5588 : Part 6 : 1991 Code of practice for places of assembly
BS 5655 Lifts and service lifts
BS 6004 : 1995 Specification for PVC-insulated cables (non-armoured) for electric
power and lighting
BS 6346 : 1989 Specification for PVC-insulated cables for electricity supply
BS 6387 : 1994 Specification for performance requirements for cables required to
maintain circuit integrity under fire conditions
BS 6724 : 1990 Specification for armoured cables for electricity supply having
thermosetting insultation with low emission of smoke and
corrosive gases when affected by fire
BS 7211 : 1994 Specification for thermosetting insulated cables (non-armoured)
for electric power and lighting with low emission of smoke and
corrosive gases when affected by fire
BS 7443 : 1991 Specification for sound systems for emergency purposes
BS EN 60651 : 1994 Specification for sound level meters
BSI 1997
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BSI British Standards Institution
|
|
|
|
|
|
| BSI is the independent national body responsible for preparing British Standards. It
|
| presents the UK view on standards in Europe and at the international level. It is
| incorporated by Royal Charter.
|
|
| Revisions
|
|
| British Standards are updated by amendment or revision. Users of British Standards
|
| should make sure that they possess the latest amendments or editions.
|
|
| It is the constant aim of BSI to improve the quality of our products and services. We
|
| would be grateful if anyone finding an inaccuracy or ambiguity while using this
| British Standard would inform the Secretary of the technical committee responsible,
|
| the identity of which can be found on the inside front cover. Tel: 020 8996 9000.
|
| Fax: 020 8996 7400.
|
|
| BSI offers members an individual updating service called PLUS which ensures that
|
| subscribers automatically receive the latest editions of standards.
|
|
| Buying standards
|
| Orders for all BSI, international and foreign standards publications should be
|
| addressed to Customer Services. Tel: 020 8996 9001. Fax: 020 8996 7001.
|
|
| In response to orders for international standards, it is BSI policy to supply the BSI
|
| implementation of those that have been published as British Standards, unless
|
| otherwise requested.
|
|
| Information on standards
|
| BSI provides a wide range of information on national, European and international
|
| standards through its Library and its Technical Help to Exporters Service. Various
|
| BSI electronic information services are also available which give details on all its
|
| products and services. Contact the Information Centre. Tel: 020 8996 7111.
|
| Fax: 020 8996 7048.
|
|
| Subscribing members of BSI are kept up to date with standards developments and
| receive substantial discounts on the purchase price of standards. For details of
|
| these and other benefits contact Membership Administration. Tel: 020 8996 7002.
|
| Fax: 020 8996 7001.
|
|
| Copyright
|
|
| Copyright subsists in all BSI publications. BSI also holds the copyright, in the UK, of
|
| the publications of the international standardization bodies. Except as permitted
| under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 no extract may be reproduced,
|
| stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic,
|
| photocopying, recording or otherwise without prior written permission from BSI.
|
|
| This does not preclude the free use, in the course of implementing the standard, of
|
| necessary details such as symbols, and size, type or grade designations. If these
|
| details are to be used for any other purpose than implementation then the prior
| written permission of BSI must be obtained.
|
|
| If permission is granted, the terms may include royalty payments or a licensing
|
| agreement. Details and advice can be obtained from the Copyright Manager.
|
| Tel: 020 8996 7070.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BSI |
|
389 Chiswick High Road |
|
London |
|
W4 4AL |
|
|
|
|
|
|

PD 6531 (1997)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PD 6531 (1997)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PD 6531 (1997)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Licensed Copy: Technical Information Services Dept .

A single copy of this British Standard is licensed to

This is an uncontrolled copy. Ensure use of the most

Committees responsible for this

The preparation of this Published Document was entrusted to Technical Committee

Engineering Industries' Association

The following BSI reference

ISBN 0 580 27348 2

3 Interpretations of BS 5839 : Part 4 : 1988 15

BSI 1997 iii

1 Scope Clause 3.6 recommends that `the type of system to

2.9 Disk memories Answer

2.16 Positioning of detectors in a roof apex Answer

b) No mention is made of the method of calling 2.29 Remote isolation facilities

b) if the standby supply is provided by local Answer

manufacturer also states that the cables conform to Answer

Answer 2.43 Testing voltages

BS 5445 Components of automatic fire detection systems

You might also like