november 2007 non-member: $5.00 cdn - cfaa · november 2007 non-member: $5.00 cdn canada post...

CFAANOVEMBER 2007 NON-MEMBER: $5.00 CDN

CANADA

POST

POSTES

CANADA

Postage paidPublications Mail

Port payéPoste-publications

40685552

From Our Senses To ModernTechnology, Smoke

Detection Is AVital Part Of

Lives.Our

FX-350 SERIES Intelligent Fire Alarm Control Panels

rcom’s FX-350 Series Intelligent Fire Alarm Control Panels feature state-of-the-art

chnology to provide systems that are easy to install, operate and maintain. These

ower packed panels are designed for small to medium commercial, institutional and

dustrial occupancies and are ideal for facilities such as banks, department stores,

staurants, schools, places of worship and other facilities requiring advanced life

fety solutions at a cost effective price.

Mi

tec

po

ind

re

saf

Single addressable loopS

Easy to read back-lit LCD displayE

Built-in LED annunciationB

ULC listedU

Canada Corporate Head Office 25 Interchange Way, Vaughan (Toronto), Ontario, L4K 5W3 Tel: 905.660.4655 Fax: 905.660.4113U.S.A 60 Industrial Parkway, Cheektowaga (Buffalo), NY 14227 Tel: 888.660.4655 Fax: 888.660.4113

www.mircom.com

Advanced Life Safety SolutionsAdvanced Life Safety Solutions sm

An Advanced Life Safety SolutionEspecially designed for small and medium sized facilities

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7

1C A N A D I A N F I R E A L A R M A S S O C I A T I O N

Contents2 Editor’s Message

3 Le message du rédacteur

4 Fire Alarm Systems - Requirements of the Building Code Applicable to Wiring

6 Alarme incendie Les exigences du Câblage du Code du bâtiment

8 Honorary Life Member Award

11 Electrical Work Related to Fire Alarms Systems

15 Detection — The Key to Life Safety

25 Détection — La clé pour la sécurité des personnes.

33 Up–Coming Events

34 CFAA 2007/2008 New and Reinstated Members

35 CFAA 2007/2008 Officers and Directors

Members Application

36 Advertising Rates/Index

Maximize the Use and Effectiveness of Fire Alarm Systems in the Protection of

Life and Property in Canada

www.cfaa.caTh e Journal is published four times per year in the interest of safety from fi re, through the use of properly de-signed, installed and maintained Fire Detection and Alarm Systems.Unless otherwise indicated, the opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily refl ect the opinions of the Canadian Fire Alarm Association. Th e Association hereby disclaims any liability resulting from information or advice given in articles or advertisements.Reproduction (for non-commercial purposes) of original articles appearing in this publication is encouraged, as long as the source credit is shown. Permission to reproduce articles from other sources must be obtained from the original source. All rights reserved.Front Cover Design: Our thanks to Earl Muise for creating the front cover art-work.

Comments, suggestions, letters and articles are always welcomed. Please send them to:Allen Hodgson, Editor-in-ChiefCanadian Fire Alarm Association#5 - 85 Citizen CourtMarkham, Ontario, L6G 1A8Tel: 905-944-0030Toll Free: 1-800-529-0552Fax: 905-479-3639Email: [email protected]

Advertising inquiries should be directed to:Ruth Kavanagh, Offi ce SupervisorTel: 905-944-0030Toll Free: 1-800-529-0552Fax: 905-479-3639Email: [email protected]

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7

2 C A N A D I A N F I R E A L A R M A S S O C I A T I O N

Editor’s MessageFrom the Editor’s DeskIn each issue of our CFAA Journal we have attempted to bring to our readers, articles that are at once informative and interesting to read. We also have done our best to carry articles that are original, articles that have been written specifi cally for our magazine. To this end, we have been quite successful. It goes without saying that we are deeply indebted to our friends across Canada, who continue to respond to our clarion calls for articles.

Th is issue is certainly no exception. We are able to bring to you very informative articles that also make for enjoyable reading:

Our long-time supporter and friend, Mr. Arkady Tsisserev of Vancouver, has submitted an article titled Electrical Work Related to Fire Alarm Systems, in which he carefully carries us through the many varied aspects of the electrical work that so importantly supports the high levels of reliability of our installed systems.

Mr. Louis Pedicelli, of Montreal, has provided us with an article relating to the current application of various codes in Quebec. Th is is very timely information and we are pleased to have received it.

Mr. Allen Hess of Mississauga has submitted an article relating to smoke detection. In it he presents an interesting perspective that chronicles the rather short but certainly fascinating history of smoke detection in our industry. Detection has come a long way from those early days, and it behooves us to strive to consider all of the detection capabilities that are provided by modern detection devices in order to more quickly (and reliably) determine the presence of a true fi re condition.

I would be remiss were I to neglect to mention the valuable contribution of one Mr. Earl Muise. Earl’s handiwork is prominently on display on most of our front covers. We convey to him our thoughts as to what we would like to see expressed on our cover (usually directly relating to an article) . . . . and Earl comes up with the perfect one-of-a-kind cover. Many thanks, Earl.

I also must mention the extremely valuable involvement of Mrs. Ruth Kavanagh. Ruth is a driving force, the hub of the wheel so-to-speak, behind the Journal. Truly, Ruth keeps all of us on track, tight to the schedule, and is most important to the success of the Journal.

Yours in fi re safety;

Allen HodgsonEditor-in-Chief

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7


Du bureau du rédacteur en chef

Dans chaque numéro de notre Journal de l’ACAI, nous essayons d’off rir à nos lecteurs des articles à la fois informatifs et intéressants à lire. Nous faisons aussi de notre mieux pour publier des articles originaux, rédigés spécifi quement pour notre magazine. Nous avons bien réussi et nous sommes très reconnaissants à nos amis, partout au Canada, qui continuent de répondre à nos appels en nous soumettant des articles.

Ce numéro ne fait certainement pas exception. Nous avons le plaisir de vous proposer des articles informatifs qui seront aussi agréables à lire :

Notre ami et supporteur de longue date, M. Arkady Tsisserev de Vancouver, propose un article intitulé Electrical Work Related to Fire Alarm Systems [Travaux électriques liés aux systèmes d’alarme-incendie] dans lequel il nous fait parcourir en profondeur les divers volets des travaux électriques qui sont si importants pour le niveau élevé de fi abilité de nos systèmes installés.

M. Louis Pedicelli, de Montréal, nous a fourni un article concernant l’application courante de divers codes au Québec. Il s’agit d’informations très pertinentes que nous sommes heureux d’avoir reçues.

M. Allen Hess, de Mississauga, nous a soumis un article relatif à la détection de fumée. Il y présente une perspective intéressante qui fait la chronique de l’histoire, relativement courte mais sans aucun doute fascinante, de la détection de fumée dans notre industrie. La technologie de la détection a parcouru un long chemin depuis ses premiers jours, et il nous appartient de bien utiliser toutes les capacités que nous off rent les dispositifs de détection modernes afi n de déceler rapidement (et avec plus de fi abilité) la présence d’un vrai foyer d’incendie.

Je manquerais à mon devoir si je négligeais de mentionner la contribution précieuse d’un certain M. Earl Muise. Le travail artistique d’Earl est bien en vue sur la plupart de nos couvertures. Nous lui expliquons ce que nous aimerions que notre couverture exprime (en général quelque chose en rapport direct avec un article)… et Earl trouve à chaque fois la solution parfaite pour une page de couverture attrayante et unique. Nous le remercions très sincèrement.

Je dois aussi mentionner le travail exceptionnel de Mme Ruth Kavanagh. Ruth est la force motrice, le moyeu de la roue, si je puis dire, qui fait avancer le Journal. Vraiment, c’est elle qui nous rappelle à l’ordre, qui veille au respect des échéances; elle est la clé du succès de notre Journal.

Cordialement,

Le rédacteur en chef,Allen Hodgson

Le message du rédacteur

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7


Th e implementation of the requirements of the Building Code regarding the wiring of a fi re alarm system seems to raise some diffi culties following the abrogation of Section 32, Fire alarm systems and fi re pumps, of the Quebec Electrical Code. Th is question was raised by the Canadian Fire Alarm Association (CFAA/ACAI) which will publish an article on this subject.

ELECTRICAL CODE

Part of Section 32 of the Quebec Construction Code – Chapter 1, Electrical Code, was repealed in order to avoid the repetition of the same requirements in various chapters of the Code. Any modifi cation made to only one of these chapters could have resulted in diffi culties in implementing the Code as it could contain confl icting requirements.

BUILDING CODE

Th e Quebec Construction Code, Chapter 1, Building Code, in its sub-section 3.2.4, Fire Alarm and Detection Systems, contains all the requirements applicable to these systems.

Article 3.2.4.1, Requirements for the installation of a Fire Alarm System, list all the types of buildings and occupancies where a fi re alarm system is required.

Paragraph 1) of article 3.2.4.5, Installation and Verifi cation of Fire Alarm Systems, reads as follows “Fire alarm systems, including the voice communication capability where provided,

shall be installed in conformance with CAN/ULC-S524, “Installation of Fire Alarm Systems”.

Th e Standard CAN/ULC-S524 is therefore included by reference in the requirements of the Building Code. Consequently, this standard applies to all fi re alarm systems where required by the Code.

WIRING

CAN/ULC-S524 includes all requirements regarding the installation and the interconnection of all components of a fi re alarm system.

Sub-section 3.4, Wiring, of this standard specifi es the requirements applicable to the wiring of these systems. Article 3.4.1. specifi es, among other requirements, that all the fi eld wiring must comply with Section 32 of CSA C22.1, Canadian Electrical Code.

Section 32 of the Canadian Electrical Code has not been repealed and applies in its entirety. Th erefore, the wiring of a fi re alarm system must comply with the requirements of this section as well as with the requirements of CAN/ULC-S524.

Furthermore, article 3.4.2 of CAN/ULC-S524 requires that when the existing wiring is re-used for a new installation, this wiring shall also comply with the requirements of Section 32 of the Electrical Code as well as with the requirements of Section 3.4. of CAN/ULC-S524.

Following is an abstract (fi rst 2 paragraphs) of article 32-102 of the Canadian Electrical

The Quebec Electrical Code had recently abolished Section 32. Many electricians assumed

that this requirement for the installation of fire alarm systems no longer applied. The

Quebec Chapter of the C.F.A.A. met with representatives of the Corporation of Master

Electricians & Régie du bâtiment (Building Code Board) to clarify this issue. The following

article was subsequently published in their journal, L’Informel, in May 2007.

FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS — REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUILDING CODE

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7


Code which you will also fi nd in the white pages of the Quebec Construction Code – Chapter V, Electricity.

32-102 Wiring Method

(1) All conductors of a fi re alarm system shall be:

(a) Installed in metal raceway of the totally enclosed type; or

(b) Incorporated in a cable, having a metal armour or sheath; or

(c) Installed in rigid nonmetallic conduit where embedded in at least 50 mm of masonry or poured concrete or installed underground; or

(d) Installed in electrical nonmetallic tubing where embedded in at least 50 mm of masonry or poured concrete.

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), conductors installed in buildings of combustible construction in accordance with the Rules of Section 12 shall be permitted to be:

(a) Nonmetallic sheathed cable; or

(b) Fire alarm and signal cable; or

(c) Installed in a totally enclosed nonmetallic raceway.

BUILDINGS OF NONCOMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION

It is clear that nonmetallic sheathed cable and cable without a metal armor or sheath cannot be used for a fi re alarm system in a

building of noncombustible construction, as well as nonmetallic conduit unless it is embedded in masonry or poured concrete. To determine if a building is considered as being of noncombustible construction, the designer of the building must be consulted.

APPLICABLE TO WIRING

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7


Le Code électrique du Québec a récemment aboli la section 32. Par conséquent, plusieurs électriciens ont présumé que ces exigences pour l’installation de systèmes d’alarme incendie ne s’appliquaient plus. Le chapitre québécois de l’A.C.A.I. a rencontré les représentants de la Corporation des maîtres électriciens et la Régie du bâtiment afin de clarifier cette question. L’article à ce sujet, a été publié dans L’Informel, le journal officiel de la C.M.E.Q. Volume XXX, No. 5, en mai 2007.

Il semble y avoir certaines diffi cultés d’application au sujet du câblage d’un réseau avertisseur d’incendie, dù au fait qu’une partie de la Section 32, Réseaux avertisseurs d’incendie et pompes à incendie, soit abrogée dans le Code de l’électricité du Québec. Cette situation nois a été signalée par l’Association canadienne de l’alarme incendie (ACAI / CFAA) qui d’ailleurs publiera un communiqué à cet eff et.

CODE DE L’ÉLECTRICITÉ

Une partie de la Section 32 du Code de construction du Québec, Chapitre V – Électricité, a été abrogée, afi n d’éviter la répétition des mêmes exigences dans diff érents chapitres de ce Code. Si un seul chapitre était modifi é, des problémes d’application pourraient alors s’en suivre à cause d’exigences contradictoires possibles.

CODE DU BÂTIMENT

Le Code de construction, Chapitre 1 – Bâtiment établit à la Sous-section 3.2.4, Systémes de détection et d’alarme incendie, toutes les caractéristiques de ces systèmes.

L’article 3.2.4.1, Installation exigée, identifi e tous les types de bâtiment où il est obligatoire d’installer un système d’alarme incendie.

Le paragraphe 1) de l’article 3.2.4.5, Installation et essai des systèmes d’alarme incendie, stipule que les systèmes d’alarme incendie et les réseaux de communication phonique doivent être installés conformément à la norme CAN/ULC S524-M, Installation des réseaux avertisseurs d’incendie.

La norme S-524 est donc adoptée par renvoi dans le Code du bâtiment. Elle s’applique alors à tous les réseaux avertisseurs d’incendie exigés par le Code du bâtiment.

CÂBLAGE

La norme S-524 établit toutes les exigences d’installation et d’interconnexion de tous les dispositifs et appareillages des réseaux avertisseurs d’incendie.

La Sous-section 3.4, Câblage, de cette norme prescrit les exigences à respecter concernant le càblage. L’article 3.4.1 stipule, entre autres, que tout le câblage eff ectué en chantier doit être conforme à la Section 32 de la norme CSA C22.1, Code canadien de l’électricité.

La Section 32 du Code canadien de l’électricité n’est pas abrogée et s’applique dans son ensemble. Le càblage d’un système d’alarme incendie doit donc être conforme aux exigences de cette section et aux exigences de la norme S-524.

De plus, l’article 3.4.2 de la norme S-524 stipule que lorsqu’on utilise le càblage existant, celui-ci doit aussi être conforme aux exigences de la section 32, ainsi qu’aux exigences de la Section 3.4 de la norme S-524.

Voici un extrait (les deux premiers paragraphes) de l’article 32-102 du Code canadien de l’électricité que vous pouvez retrouver dans les pages blanches du Code de construction du Québec, Chapitre V – Électricité.

ALARME INCENDIE LES EXIGENCES DU CÂBLAGE DU CODE

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7


32-102 MÉTHODE DE CÂBLAGE

(1) Tous les conducteurs d’un réseau avertisseur d’incendie doivent être :

(a) installés dans une canalisation métallique de type complètement fermé;

(b) incorporés à un câble recouvert d’une armure ou d’une gaine métallique;

(c) installés dans un conduit rigide non métallique s’ils sont noyés dans au moins 50 mm de béton ou de maçonnerie ou s’ils sont enfouis sous terre; ou

(d) Installés dans un tube électrique non métallique s’ils sont noyés dans au moins 50 mm de béton ou de maçonnerie.

(2) Malgré le paragraphe 1., il est permis que les conducteurs installés conformément à la Section 12 dans des bâtiments de construction combustible soient :

(a) des câbles sous gaine non métallique;

(b) des câbles pour réseaux avertisseurs d’incendie et pour circuits de signalisation; ou

(c) installés dans une canalisation non métallique complètement fermée.

BÂTIMENT INCOMBUSTIBLE

Il est donc clair que les câbles sous gaine non métallique ou câbles sans armure ou gaine métallique ne peuvent pas être installés dans un bâtiment de construction incombustible pour fi ns d’un systéme d’alarme incendie, de même

que des canalisations non métalliques sans être noyées dans du béton ou de la maçonnerie. Pour déterminer si un bâtiment est considéré comme étant de construction incombustible, il faut s’adresser au concepteur du bâtiment.

An old friend has a new look and anew listing.

to be ULC listed under new FireMonitoring standard S559-04.

Come and see what we’ve been up to.

www.electronicsurveillance.ca(905) 479-7116

Electronic Surveillance Corporation

DU BÂTIMENT

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7


Each year, the Standards Engineering Society (SES) recognizes the commitment and achievements of individuals in the Standardization activities. At the SES Annual Conference in San Francisco, California in August, Richard Morris was awarded the grade of “Honorary Life Member”. Th is award is for unusual professional distinction and outstanding accomplishment or special contribution to recognized associations or committees in the fi eld of standardization.

Richard (Rich) Morris has been involved in Fire Protection in Canada for close to 50 years and is recognized for his major role in pioneering the use of early warning smoke detectors and smoke alarms in Canada, and the development of standards thereof. He is the current Chairman of the ULC Committee on Fire Alarms and Associated Equipment, where, for 18 years, he has effi ciently led in the development of over 20 Standards. Not only has Rich made outstanding contributions towards standards development, but has also been in the forefront of promoting and implementing these standards. In addition:

• Rich Morris was the fi rst Canadian to serve as chairman of the National Fire Protection Association and served on the NFPA Board for 14 years.

• He is a Founding Director and Past President of the Canadian Fire Alarm Association (CFAA) and currently serves as Executive Director of Business Development.

• He is Co-Chair of the Ontario Fire Marshal’s Public Fire Safety Council and formerly President and Director of Pyrotronics and Siemen’s Fire Safety and is well known to the fi re service for his outstanding eff orts and contributions towards fi re safety education.

• He is a Founding Director, Past President and Current Director of the Canadian Fire Safety Association (CFSA).

• Past President of Fire Prevention Canada and Life Member of CAFC; CFSA; CFAA and Ontario Fire and Life Safety Educators Association.

• In May 1991, Rich was named the Society of Fire Protection Engineer’s “Man of the Year” and in May 1999, he became the 11th recipient of the NFPA prestigious Paul C. Lamb award for his exemplary spirit of volunteerism within NFPA and throughout the fi re safety industry. In addition, he is a recipient of the Standards Council of Canada’s 2004 Awards, for his role in the leadership of the development of ULC’s family of fi re alarm standards in Canada.

Th e Standards Engineering Society was founded in 1947 as a not-for-profi t professional membership society dedicated to furthering the knowledge and use of standards and standardization. For more information, please contact Standards Engineering Society, 13340 SW 96th Avenue, Miami , Florida, 33176, or visit the SES website at www.ses-standards.org.

Rich Morris ReceivesPrestigious Standards Engineering Society’s 2007

Honorary Life Member Award

Works on existing wire

Addressable devices and TrueAlert® notifi cation for total addressability

Backward compatible with earlier generations to protect your investment

Addressable VESDA air sampling system

.08-second alarm response far exceeds the NFPA® requirements

Simplifi ed T-Tap wiring saves on installation costs

Master annunciation, control and information sharing without centralized processing

Advanced token ring network

True interactive, two-way communications between panels

InfoAlarm™ large-screen, high-visibility command center

Multiple, redundant voice command centers allow any panel in the system to be used for command and control

Dual operating software

Advanced TrueAlarm® smoke and gas detection

Updateable programming without operational downtime

Advanced, built-in TrueWare® diagnostic software

Over 50,000 systems installed worldwide

Local Mode option provides continued operation even with loss of communication

Built-in Computer Port Protocol

Interfaces readily with most security and communications systems

Campus-wide voice announcements from a single panel

Easy, unobtrusive maintenance, inspection and compliance testing

UL listed for smoke control

A fi re alarm system should do more than detect fi res. It should be the focal point of a complete life-safety solution that integrates

security, communications and other critical applications. The Simplex® 4100U fi re alarm system does. It’s fl exible, expandable, easy to

use, and prepared for everything. So you’re ready for anything. Learn more at www.simplexgrinnell.com/besafe or 1-800-746-7539.

Unparalleled system survivability

Walk test capability allows one person to verify functionality of system components

BACnet® compatible

100% on-site programming

Storage for thousands of voice messages

Works with TCP/IP

Connects facilities up to 20 miles apart on a single fi ber

Mass notifi cation ready

Agency listed and approved for non-alarm audio applications

Releasing service for water and suppression agents

Third-party interfaces

Copper and fi ber wiring

Redundant CPU

“Take control” voice command software

Off-site reporting

SafeLINC™ Internet interface

8-channel digital audio

Multiple language capability

12,000 point Network Display Unit

©2007 SimplexGrinnell LP SimplexGrinnell and Be Safe are trademarks of TycoInternational Services AG or its affiliates or subsidiaries.

540-53809_4100U_CFAA.indd 1 11/2/07 11:58:13 AM

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7

1 1C A N A D I A N F I R E A L A R M A S S O C I A T I O N

Electrical installations related to fi re alarm systems appear to be no diff erent from other types of electrical work. A typical fi re alarm system is an interconnected combination of:

1. the alarm initiating devices (i.e. fi eld devices that constitute system inputs).

2. various audible signal devices such as bells, horns and speakers (i.e. fi eld devices that constitute system outputs), and

3. central processing units such as a control unit, an annunciator, graphic display, a voice communication panel etc. (i.e. equipment that represents system interface between inputs and outputs)

Wiring between these fi re system components must be done in accordance with Section 32 of the Canadian Electrical Code, Part I. Installation of these components must comply with ULC Standard S524 “Installation of Fire Alarm Systems”. Th is standard must be well understood by an electrical installer as the standard governs installation requirement (locations, height, spacing, etc.) for each fi eld device and for each control unit/annunciator that is included in a typical fi re alarm system.

An installer (and a designer) of the fi re alarm system must also have a full understanding of the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) requirements with respect to fi re alarm systems, as the NBCC regulates the extent of the required fi re alarm system components depending on the type of building occupancy and building classifi cation. For example, if a fi re alarm system is required in a hospital, then every sleeping room must be equipped with a smoke detector, and smoke detectors must be also installed in every hospital corridor that serves as a means of egress from these sleeping rooms. If, however, a fi re alarm system is installed in a typical school,

church, or restaurant, the NBCC does not require that smoke detectors be located in the corridors of such buildings. Th erefore, if the designers or installers are not familiar with the NBCC requirements, they may needlessly spend time and money on installation of smoke detectors where such detectors are not mandated, or may omit them where their installation is necessary.

Another example of specifi c NBCC requirements regarding fi re alarm systems is the additional requirement for a voice communication feature, which must be provided as a part of a fi re alarm system. Th is feature is only mandated by the NBCC in high buildings under specifi c conditions, and the NBCC describes criteria for a two-way voice communication system when it has to be part of a fi re alarm system. Th e NBCC also states that high buildings must be provided additionally with a piece of equipment called “Central Alarm and Control Facility” (CACF). Th e CACF must always be located on the storey containing the entrance for fi refi ghter access, and it must include the following means:

(a) a means to control voice communication;

(b) a means to indicate fi re alarm signals audibly and visually;

(c) a means to activate auxiliary equipment appropriate to the measure for fi re safety provided in the building;

(d) a means to transmit fi re alarm signals to the fi re department; and

(e) a means to transmit abnormal supervisory conditions on an automatic sprinkler system to a “Fire Signal Receiving Centre” (a central station).

Electrical Work Related to Fire Alarms Systems

By: A. Tsisserev, P.Eng.

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7

1 2 C A N A D I A N F I R E A L A R M A S S O C I A T I O N

A CACF must be equipped with numerous other features, and Article 3.2.6.7 of the NBCC should be checked for all relevant requirements.

It is interesting to note that not all features required by the NBCC to be provided at a CACF actually belong to a fi re alarm system. Some of these features are outside of a fi re alarm system proper (i.e. they do not constitute any part of the fi re alarm system input, interface or output components), and wiring methods to various pieces of this “ancillary” equipment are not regulated by provisions of Section 32 of the CEC. As this “ancillary” life and fi re safety equipment does not directly belong to a fi re alarm system, wiring to this equipment is not required to be electrically supervised by ULC S524 ( it should be noted that Clause 3.3.1.1 of ULC S524 requires electrical supervision of the wiring to the fi re alarm system devices and lists the devices that must be electrically supervised). It is also interesting to note that operational testing of ancillary equipment is not required to be conducted during a verifi cation of a fi re alarm system, and such verifi cation is limited only to the devices that constitute a fi re alarm system proper (devices that are electrically supervised).

Now is the time to fi nd out what does, in fact, a “verifi cation” of a fi re alarm system mean. Verifi cation of a fi re alarm system is a procedure mandated by the NBCC to test operation and performance of all fi re alarm system components upon completion of the fi re alarm system installation.

Article 3.2.4.5. of the NBCC states that upon completion of installation, a fi re alarm system must be verifi ed in accordance with ULC standard S 537 “Verifi cation of Fire Alarm Systems”. ULC S537 requires that such verifi cation must be conducted by a third party (not the installing contractor) acceptable to the AHJ, to ensure that the fi re alarm system is installed in conformance with ULC S524 and in accordance with the CEC, Part I, and that the fi re alarm system operates satisfactorily.

And what about this mysterious “ancillary” life of fi re safety equipment? ULC S524 defi nes an “ancillary” as a “device which has a life

safety application, and is actuated by the fi re alarm system, but is not part of the fi re alarm system”. As it was mentioned earlier, the ULC S537 requires that a verifi cation report only confi rms that appropriate signals have been sent from the fi re alarm system to actuate such ancillary equipment, but the standard does not mandate that the operation of this equipment must be tested as well. Th is latter requirement is governed by a coordinated life safety test in a building prior to the building’s occupancy, and it will be discussed in a separate article.

So, what is this “life and fi re safety equipment” that is activated by a fi re alarm system, and yet is not part of it?

Okay, let’s raise the curtain of mystery. Th ere are diff erent types of electrical equipment which must be activated by a fi re alarm system. One of them is an electromagnetic lock installed on the exit door. When a fi re alarm system is actuated, a signal must be sent to release each electromagnetic lock, unless a special relaxation is allowed by the NBCC. Another example is a hold-open device installed on a door in a required fi re separation. A signal from a fi re alarm system must release all hold-open devices on the doors and allow these doors to close. Where a measure for fi re safety in a high building is achieved by use of a stair shaft or elevator shaft pressurization, a signal must be sent from a fi re alarm system to activate all relevant motorized dampers and to start pressurization fans. Another example of fi re safety equipment that could be controlled by a fi re alarm system is the automatic recall (homing) of all elevators to a recall level. Th is “homing” feature also provides for an alternate fl oor recall option if the fi re alarm initiating device has been activated on the elevator recall fl oor.

It may appear that the particular NBCC requirement to transmit an alert/alarm signal to a fi re department, or a signal of an abnormal supervisory condition on an automatic sprinkler system has been forgotten in our discussion. Th e fact is, that it has not. Th is is a very unique fi re alarm system output, and it will be discussed a bit later.

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7


First of all, let’s confi rm the following:

1. ALL wiring between components of a fi re alarm system must be done in accordance with Section 32 of the CE Code, and all fi re alarm system components must be installed in conformance with ULC S524.

2. Th e installed fi re alarm system must be verifi ed by a third party acceptable to the AHJ (by other than a designer of the fi re alarm system or its installer), and a verifi cation must be done in accordance with ULC S537.

3. ALL wiring between a fi re alarm system and “ancillary” life and fi re safety equipment must be done in conformance with applicable rules of the CE Code.

4. ALL electrical work indicated in items 1 and 3 above must be done by a licensed electrical contractor under electrical permit.

Now we can deal with signals to the fi re department or to a central station. Th e NBCC requires that actuation of a 1st stage (alert) signal in a 2-stage fi re alarm system, or actuation of a water fl ow indicating device (a fl ow switch of a sprinkler system) must trigger transmission of a signal to the fi re department. It should be noted that NBCC also requires transmission of such a signal to the fi re department under other conditions (see Article 3.2.4.7.).

In addition, the NBCC mandates that electrical supervision of an automatic sprinkler system must be monitored by the central

station, to allow a building management/building maintenance staff timely correction of any problems on the sprinkler system.

So, if electrical work as indicated in item 4 above must be done by an electrical contractor, who is responsible for the wiring between an acceptable central monitoring station (or fi re department) and a fi re alarm system installed in the building? Does this wiring have to be done under permit by an electrical contractor? Is this electrical work subject to inspection?

Th e answer may be found in Figure 1 below.

As can be seen in Figure 1, the entire business of transmitting signals to a central monitoring station is dealt with by the applicable provisions of ULC S561. Th e scope of this standard covers the installation of a transmitter between a building’s fi re alarm system and a central station, wiring between the fi re alarm system and the transmitter installed adjacent to the control unit in the building, and installation (or use of the existing) acceptable communication lines between the transmitter and the monitoring station.

So, what happens if a communication line between a fi re alarm system and a monitoring station is interrupted?

How will the building management staff know that the building fi re alarm system is not actually connected to the monitoring

Building Fire Alarm

System

Fire alarm bells

Voice communication speakers

Release of hold open devices

Release of electromagnetic locks

Elevator homing

Activation of smoke control equipment (fans and dampers)

Part of the F.A.S. output (electrically supervised). Operation of these outputs is part of a fire alarm system verification report.

Output to activate ancillary life and fire safety equipment(equipment is not electrically supervised by F.A.S.)Verification report only indicates that signals are sentfrom a fire alarm system to activate ancillary equipment.

Installation of communications and monitoring are essential parts of the ULC standard ULC S561 “Installation and Services for Fire Signal Receiving Centres and Systems”

transmitter approved for the purpose“Silent Knight”

communication linesFire signalreceiving centre(Central stationmonitoring facility)

Installation of all these devices and wiring between them is doneby an electrical contractor underthe permit in accordance withapplicable requirements of theCE Code.

communication

lines

Installation of equipment andcommunication lines between afire alarm system and monitoringfacility (central station) is coveredby ULC S561. This work is done by a central station listed for full service or for shared service/installation.This work is not done by anelectrical contractor.

Figure 1

continued on next page...

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7


station because of a potential open or short circuit on communication line?

Th e answer is found in ULC S 561. Clause 10.1.7 of this standard mandates that “Th e integrity of the communication system and its communication channels shall be continuously monitored”. Th erefore, if a central station is listed for conformance with ULC S 561, all applicable requirements of this standard would have to be met by the central station.

ULC lists such central stations or “Fire Signal Receiving Centres” for:

1. full service to provide installation and monitoring

2. for shared service/installations, or

3. shared service/monitoring.

Th us, electrical work related to the installation of a transmitter and to connection of a fi re alarm system to the monitoring station must be done by the organization that is listed by the ULC as a “Fire Signal Receiving Centre – full service, or shared service/installation”.

Acceptance criteria of each central station’s “Fire Signal Receiving Centre” must be discussed with the applicable AHJ.

Th e City of Vancouver has published bulletins to clarify verifi cation requirements for fi re alarm systems, acceptance criteria for verifi cation organizations and acceptance criteria for central stations. Th ese Bulletins: 2000-019-EL; 2000-021-EL; and 2003-009-EL are available on the City of Vancouver website http://vancouver.ca. Refer to the Community Services Department under Licenses and Inspections/Related Information.

…

Ark Tsisserev is Chief Electrical Inspector for the City of Vancouver. He is a registered Professional Engineer with a Master's degree in Electrical Engineering. He is a member of ULC Committee on Fire Alarm Equipment and Systems (ULC S 500 series) and is Chair of Technical Committee for the CE Code, Part I. He can be reached at: [email protected]

Our graduates prepare for the career of alifetime at the college that’s set Canadianstandards for more than thirty-five years.Seneca’s renowned School of FireProtection Engineering Technology offersthe full, intensive academic component forCanadian Fire Alarm Certification.

What our graduates offer

• Top quality training

• Hands-on experience in state-of-the-art labs

• Knowledge of sprinkler systems

• Understanding of Canadian codes and standards

Find out more

Join the list of satisfied Canadian employers who continue to

hire our graduates. Call Stuart Evans 416 491 5050 ext. 2394

[email protected] www.senecac.on.ca/fire

Hire top quality technicians here

Careers for the real world

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7


Much attention has been paid to the development of standards for Life Safety Systems.

Th is, of course, is a good thing. Recent world events have caused considerable attention to, and consideration of, system survivability, with net-work redundancy, system “stand alone” perfor-mance defi nition, application of fault isolation and so on.

Similarly, voice communications and evacuation strategies along with egress management have also become very hot topics, particularly in large buildings. Interesting as well is the attention in our standards development to the silencing of signals in residential hi-rise.

Th ese are, naturally, all worthy topics in the eff ort to improve the protection of life and property.

Attention to Detection

Less attention has been paid to the development of the technology and strategies surrounding the system input—the detector.

As we all know, when it comes to computerized systems, “garbage in means garbage out.” And—although at one time topical—the balance between nuisance alarm prevention and early warning is somehow assumed to have reached the right balance.

However, is it possible that addressing the silencing of signals caused by false alarms not treating the “symptom” and not the cause?

It was not so long ago that media events brought a lot of attention to the performance diff erences between Ionization and Photoelectric smoke alarms. To the public at large, this level of information has always been considered a detail. Other than people close to design decisions, few have spent any time concerning themselves with

whether their building is protected by one type of smoke detector or another. In fact, few have concerned themselves with whether they have smoke detectors, heat detectors, sprinklers, or in some cases anything at all.

Th e sobering reality is that we still see design professionals tendering projects with detection design standards more than a decade old. As an example, we regularly see the application of cross-zoned Ionization with Photoelectric detectors in computer facilities. On the contrary, rarely do we see any level of attention in designs paid to the se-lection of detection profi le or application setting.

It is to be expected that the general public at large respond to current events, but as professionals we must continue to be vigilant in addressing all aspects of the Prevention-Detection-Intervention-Notifi cation-Suppression challenge. It appears that—while we have made strides in certain areas—we may have to pay a little more attention to other important aspects of Life Safety.

What has become topical in construction is the determination to develop “Green” construction methods.

Detection –The Key to Life Safety

The Life Safety System

By: Allen HessSiemens Building Technologies

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7


But long before “LEED” was a known term, the manufacturers of smoke detectors were conscious of our duty not only to protect life and property but also to the environment.

It was recognized several decades ago that the ionization detector’s reliance on radioactive materials to provide stable and broadband detection was an environmental problem. Consequently, the leaders in detection technologies spent considerable resources to develop reliable broadband detection that did not rely on a radioactive source.

To really understand the development of detection, a solid understanding of the science behind detector technology is required. Th e science of fi re and detection technology is in fact very complex and diffi cult to explain in short order. However the history of detector development provides some insight into current application strategy.

Briefly, the Science of Fire

It is no wonder that young children fi nd it diffi cult to see how damaging a small fl ame from a match can be.

Th ere is an old Oriental Fable that nicely demonstrates the science of fi re. Th e story goes: Th e inventor of Chess asks to be rewarded by the King. He requests that he be paid in grains of rice by placing one grain on the fi rst square, two on the second, and four on the third and so on. Th e King laughed at such a modest demand.

Of course the story goes on to tell of the King’s wrath when he discovers what an enormous sum the inventor has requested.

Th is fable demonstrates the principal of exponen-tial development. Fire develops through an expo-nential curve and this story helps demonstrate the importance of detection in early stages.

Th ere are four stages in the development of a fi re that are set upon this exponential development

curve. Initially the seat of the fi re is very small. Products of combustion are invisible. Th is phase of the fi re is known as the Incipient stage. When smoke appears, this is considered to be the Smouldering stage and the rate of burn begins to increase at a more noticeable rate. Eventually, if left unchecked, a fi re will develop to the Flaming stage, wherein fl ames appear. Th e rate of fi re growth becomes more substantial. Finally the last

stage is referred to as the Heat stage.

Th e rate of development through these stages varies dramatically, depending on the nature of the fi re. Fires can develop through these stages in fractions of a second as in the case of an explosion, while most of the more infamous and tragic fi res been known to smoulder for hours and even days before being detected.

Nonetheless every fi re follows this order: incipient, smouldering, fl ame, and heat.

Th e fl aming stage is considered by many outside of our industry to be the most dangerous as it develops at a very high rate. As the smouldering stage precedes the fl aming and heat stages, we as professionals understand why most lives lost to fi re are not as a result of heat or burns, but rather are due to smoke inhalation.

It is for this reason that heat detection has normally been viewed as a property protection strategy while smoke detection has—in most cases—been applied strategically to protect lives. Th is is why you will normally fi nd smoke detection outside sleeping areas, in egress routes such as stairways, and hallways, as well as in air handling systems.

continued on page 21

TWO HOURFIRE-RATEDR90

INTRODUCING THE LOW-COST, EASY-TO-INSTALL ALTERNATIVE TO

MINERAL INSULATED CABLE

LIFELINE™ R90 is a CSA certifiedsingle conductor conduit cablefor use with Emergency PowerFire Pumps, Elevators, VentingFans and Fire Alarm Systems.When installed per theCANADIAN ELECTRICAL CODE,Lifeline™ R90 meets the 1 and 2hour fire rating requirements ofthe NATIONAL BUILDING CODEOF CANADA. Say goodbye to MI,say hello to LIFELINE™ R90.

WHEN SURVIVABILITYIS ON THE LINE

BYE,BYEM.I.

CSA CERTIFIED R90 POWER CABLEULC CLASSIFIED TWO-HOUR FIRE RATED PER S-139WITH HOSE STREAM WHEN INSTALLED IN CONDUIT

Call your LIFELINE™ friend at:

800-333-4248 x2600or visit www.drakausa.com/lifeline

The Advance You’ve Been Looking For

Cut your installation times and maximize your profits when you commit

to SpectrAlert Advance, the industry’s newest, most refined series of audible/visible

notification appliances.

SpectrAlert Advance wall and ceiling, indoor and outdoor devices boast:

• A plug-in design that allows you to pre-wire your mounting plates.

• Shorting springs to check for wiring continuity before installing your devices.

• Eleven candela settings so you can select the ideal light output for each installation.

To uncover more features and benefits of SpectrAlert Advance, visit System Sensor’s

website at www.systemsensor.ca or call for a comprehensive SpectrAlert Advance

brochure or E•DOCS CD-ROM at 800-SENSOR2.

Click your way through recording the inspection on a handheld

A few CLICKS canchange your business

4 clicks to a reportand just a few more to a repair quote!

www.BuildingReports.caYour Inspection Report Solution

(416) 483-2895

ALL DONE!

One-Stop Shop for Fire Protection Products

www.controlfire.ca

416-236-2371

*Stocking Warehouse *Factory Trained Support Staff

The CFAAAnnual Technical Seminar

Thursday May 1, 2008

York University, Toronto

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7


The History of Smoke Detection

Early Fire Detectors used heat detection principles simply because this technology was easier to develop, and heat could be reliably measured.

However, technology has always brought about possibilities for change, and in 1896 an inventor applied for a patent on an early version smoke detector. It involved two birds in a cage that, when overcome by fumes, would fall into a funnel at the bottom of their cage. Th e weight of their bodies would activate a circuit and register an alarm. Two birds were used so that in the event one died of natural causes, the detector would not be triggered. Th is was the earliest form of false alarm protection and would signal the beginning of the principles of balanced detection. Balancing early warning and false alarm immunity is a design consideration that has lasted to present day.

Forty years later on the brink of the Second World War, a young Swiss scientist worked to invent a poison gas detector. He used a weak radioactive source to produce ions. Th ese ions introduced in a chamber between two conductive plates, with an electrical voltage applied, would allow an electric current to fl ow between the plates.

His detector proved to be impractical, but he did discover that smoke from his cigarette, would aff ect the ions in the chamber and thus aff ect the current fl ow. Th is change in fl ow was measurable. Th is young engineer had stumbled onto what the world would come to know as the ionization smoke detector.

Th is detector has changed physically a number of times over the last 60 years, but the principle has not. Th e ionization detector has a broad detection spectrum and is capable of reliably detecting smoke from the most common combustible products.

Th e photoelectric detector has also taken on a number of forms and has evolved considerably over the last few decades. All photoelectric detectors generally rely on the principle of detecting smoke either by the obscuration of light by smoke particles introduced between a light transmitter and receiver, or by the refl ection principal. Th is relies on the refl ection of light from a transmitter off smoke particles, towards a receiver.

Th e latter principle is most commonly used in spot detectors of commercial and residential use.

By itself, the photoelectric detector cannot see the full range of smoke at the same intensity as an ionization detector does. Th e photoelectric detector sees white visible smoke particles very well. Dark smoke produced by fi re containing plastics, rubbers, etc. do not have the same refl ection characteristics. Provided, however, that signal sensitivity can be increased without risk of false alarm, the photo principle can be applied in most cases in place of the Ion.

Th e reality is that all smoke detectors must pass the same tests. Th e relative response of one detector to one type of smoke over another is somewhat academic and for detection purists. Th ere is no practical discernable diff erence in the detection performance of these two technologies in their present form except in certain applications.

What is diff erent is in the types of stimuli that will cause them to false alarm. Th ere are several false signatures that will cause one or the other detector type to be fooled into falsely signalling an alarm. As an example, wind gusts can blow ions out of the chamber causing a false alarm in an Ionization detector while a photoelectric detector requires much higher signal amplifi cation and is therefore more susceptible to false alarms generated in the presence of strong radio signals.

Computer room users and telecommunication companies as an example would provide Ions and Photos mixed with the strategy of the “best of both worlds”. Th e function of the second detector type wasn’t so much to pick up what the fi rst may not detect, but to confi rm the presence of smoke in the fi rst. Th is “cross zoning” principle was designed to avoid pouring expensive extinguishing chemicals into the room in a false fi re scenario. Th e idea was that Ions and Photos tended to respond to diff erent types of false alarms.

Detection Developments

Detection experts largely agree that the Ionization detector remained the unchallenged standard application detector of choice for 50 years. Its ability to detect the broadest range of smoke, its ability to detect in the earliest stages of fi re

continued from page 16...

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7


development, its ability to reliably distinguish almost all real and false fi re stimuli, and its cost eff ectiveness, have left it as the reigning champion.

In practice, ionization and photoelectric detectors both detect fi res consistently and have proven their worth, having an unchallenged record for reducing loss of life to fi re.

Algorithm Technology

Over the past 20 years the detection scientists have been working on developing detectors that respond more reliably and sooner to the earliest stages of fi re.

Earlier response will aff ord early intervention, hopefully making system survivability a little less necessary.

Increased stability will reduce the public’s exposure to false alarms and—along with education—will improve human response and behaviour to real fi re threats.

Scientists have also been developing a photoelectric detector that has the broad detection spectrum capabilities of the Ionization detector, and can discriminate against false alarms. Th e heightened sense of responsibility to the environment has underscored the need to relegate the ionization detector to a status “of historical signifi cance only.”

Th is development has produced a new generation of detection known as “Multicriteria Multisensor.”

Th ese new detectors compliment the photoelectric detection principle with a supersensitive thermal sensing detector in a single package. Th is is the multisensor part of the technology.

Multi-criteria allow the detector to consider the signal of each sensor as in conventional detec-tion. Th rough advanced mathematical analysis performed by an onboard microprocessor, the detector can evaluate various attributes of these signals. Rate of change and fl uctuation are signal dynamics that accompany values provided by

both sensors. Th ese signals can now be amplifi ed and evaluated. Due to these advancements in technology, these new detectors are evaluating six signals in contrast with one signal component provided by conventional detection. Th is provides an exponen-tial increase in detection information. Where conventional detectors would make a threshold decision about the presence of smoke, this new detector can evaluate the nature of the smoke, providing data as to the source of the signal, fi re type, etc.

Th e proof of this improved eff ectiveness is in the results. Th e following chart (pg.23) outlines the characteristics of six fi re test types. Th ese fi re

Algorithm Technology

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7


tests are intended to represent the broad range of possible fi res as outlined in the European Norm EN54-9.

EN 54 Test Fires

Th e graph below plots detector performance against the spectrum of fi re types. Th e bottom of the graph indicates the EN standard fi re tests.

Th e ionization type detector “sees” fi res across the spectrum rather well.

Th e photoelectric or “Optical” type detector sees fi res on the far right of the spectrum rather well.

Fires to the left of TF5 that either have black smoke or invisible products are not detected as well.

Th e Multi-criteria Optical/Th ermal type detector extends the ability of the conventional photoelectric and practically provides the same performance range as the ionization detector. Th is detector has the broadest spectrum capabilities of all detectors

Advanced Signal Analysis

Advanced Signal Analysis is the continued development of algorithm technology. Th e detection behaviour can be adapted to the relevant application, owing to corresponding parameter

sets. Th e major diff erence between this technology and algorithm technology is the real-time interpretation of the situation and, based on that, the dynamic impact of the selected parameter set. Th e individual parameters of the selected parameter set are no longer static—they are modifi ed depending on the sensor signals. Th e application range of the detector is extended, which is the equivalent of larger

Relative Detection Performance

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7


detection dynamics. In the event of fi re, a detector using this technology responds in a more sensitive way. In case of deception, it is more robust than a detector using algorithm technology. Th e result is unparalleled fi re detection, combined with an inimitable immunity to deception.

Detection Selection

What is important in applying detection strategies is not so much choosing one sensor type over another, but—fi rst and foremost—applying detection to be an eff ective means to protect lives and not just to satisfy code requirements. As high-quality detection becomes more reliable and aff ordable, the need to apply it selectively becomes less important. As detection increases in a facility, the system’s ability to provide the opportunity for earlier intervention increases immensely. Th is development, in itself, will increase system survivability. It will increase egress times. It will do this with a much lower risk of nuisance alarms and consequently the need to silence the system.

In comparison to the rest of the industrialized world, the application of automatic detection in North America and Canada is comparatively low. Is there an opportunity for us to improve our standards?

• Smoke detection has proven to be very eff ective in protecting lives.

• Th e largest failure in the application of smoke detection is the failure to have any at all.

• Th e second largest failure is the failure to maintain them in working order. How many lives have been lost to fi re where smoke alarms were installed but were inoperative due to a missing battery?

• Th e third largest failure has been as a result of response. People have come to ignore signals provided by smoke alarms and fi re alarm systems. Th e most common reason for this public ignorance is complacency due to false and nuisance alarms.

It is with this knowledge that the quest for perfect smoke detection continues.

Allen Hess is the Director of Fire Safety with Siemens Building Technologies, Ltd.

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7


Détection –La clé pour la sécurité des personnes

Une attention particulière a été portée à l’élaboration des normes des systèmes de sécurité des personnes.

Ce qui est une bonne chose. Les récents événements survenus dans le monde ont attiré l’attention vers la tenue des systèmes, ainsi que la redondance du réseau, la défi nition du rendement « autonome » des systèmes, l’application de la localisation d’incidents et ainsi de suite.

De même, les stratégies de communications vocales et d’évacuation, ainsi que la gestion des issues sont devenues des sujets brûlants, particulièrement dans les gros immeubles. Il est intéressant de noter que l’on a également porté attention à l’élaboration des normes et à l’amortissement du bruit émis par les signaux dans les gratte-ciel résidentiels.

Ce sont donc des sujets dont il faut tenir compte afi n d’améliorer la protection de la vie et des biens.

Attention à la détection

Moins d’attention a été portée au développement de la technologie et des stratégies entourant l’entrée du système : le détecteur.

Comme vous le savez, en matière de système informatisé, « qualité médiocre à l’entrée, qualité médiocre des résultats ». Et bien que topique à une certaine époque, l’équilibre entre la prévention des alarmes nuisibles et l’alerte rapide est parfois considéré comme l’équilibre idéal.

Cependant, est-il possible qu’en abordant l’amortissement du bruit des signaux causés par les fausses alertes, on ne traite ni le «symptôme», ni la cause?

Il n’y a pas si longtemps, les événements média-tiques ont attiré l’attention sur les diff érences de rendement entre les détecteurs de fumée par ioni-sation et les détecteurs photoélectriques. Pour le

grand public, ce type d’information est un détail. Sauf les personnes impliquées dans le processus décisionnel, peu de gens veulent savoir si leur im-meuble est protégé par tel ou tel type de détecteur de fumée. En fait, peu de gens se préoccupent de la présence de détecteurs de fumée, détecteur de chaleur, gicleurs dans leur immeuble, et dans cer-tains cas, on n’y réfl échit même pas.

La réalité est que nous voyons encore des professionnels s’attarder à des projets dont les normes de conception de détection datent de plus d’une décennie. Par exemple, nous constatons régulièrement l’application de l’ionisation inter-zones avec détecteurs photoélectriques dans les salles d’ordinateurs. Par contre, on porte rarement une aussi grande attention à la conception lors de la sélection du profi l de détection ou du réglage de l’application.

On s’attend à ce que le grand public réagit à l’actualité, mais en tant que professionnels, nous devons toujours être vigilants lorsqu’on aborde tous les aspects du défi lié à la prévention-détection-intervention-notifi cation-suppression. Bien que des progrès aient été réalisés dans certains secteurs, il semble que nous devrons nous

Système de protection des personnes

Par: Allen HessSiemens Building Technologies

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7


soucier davantage d’autres aspects importants de la sécurité des personnes.

Il est devenu topique lors de la construction d’élaborer des méthodes « vertes ».

Mais bien avant que « LEED » ne devienne un terme connu, les fabricants de détecteurs de fumée étaient conscients de notre devoir de protéger non seulement la vie et les biens, mais aussi l’environnement.

Il y a plusieurs décennies, on a reconnu que la dépendance du détecteur par ionisation envers les matières radioactives pour off rir une détection stable et à large bande était néfaste pour l’environnement. Les chefs de fi le des technologies de détection ont donc investi d’importantes ressources pour développer un type de détection à large bande fi able qui ne dépendait pas d’une source radioactive.

Pour bien comprendre le développement de la détection, il faut bien comprendre la science qui se cache derrière la technologie du détecteur. La science du feu et la technologie de la détection sont très complexes et diffi ciles à expliquer en quelques mots. Cependant, l’historique du développement du détecteur nous permet de comprendre la stratégique d’application actuelle.

La science du feu en bref

Il n’est pas surprenant que les jeunes enfants ne réalisent pas à quel point la petite fl amme d’une allumette peut causer des dommages.

Une fable orientale ancienne explique intelligemment la science du feu. L’histoire se lit ainsi : l’inventeur du jeu d’échecs demanda au roi de le récompenser. Il exigea d’être payé en grains de riz en plaçant un grain sur le premier carré, deux sur le second, quatre sur le troisième et ainsi de suite. Le roi éclata de rire en entendant une requête aussi modeste.

Bien sûr, l’histoire raconte la fureur du roi lorsqu’il découvrit l’immense somme exigée par l’inventeur.

Cette fable démontre le principe du développement exponentiel. Le feu se propage à un rythme exponentiel, et cette histoire permet de démontrer l’importance de la détection hâtive.

Le feu se propage en quatre étapes au développement exponentiel. Au départ, le foyer principal est minuscule. Les produits de combustion sont invisibles. Cette étape du feu est connue sous le nom de phase de naissance. Lorsque la fumée apparaît, c’est la phase de combustion lente, et le taux de matière brûlée commence à augmenter de façon plus remarquable. Éventuellement, s’il n’est pas maîtrisé, le feu passe à la phase fl ambante, et les fl ammes apparaissent. Le taux de croissance du feu devient plus important. On arrive fi nalement à la phase de chaleur intense.

Le taux de développement à travers ces étapes varie de façon dramatique, selon la nature du feu. Le feu peut se développer en quelques fractions de seconde, par exemple lors d’une explosion, tandis que la plupart des incendies tragiques notoires sont demeurés à la phase de combustion lente pendant des heures et même des jours avant d’être détectés.

Néanmoins, chaque incendie se développe dans cet ordre : naissance, combustion lente, fl ammes et chaleur.

La phase fl ambante est considérée comme la plus dangereuse par plusieurs personnes ne travaillant pas dans notre industrie, car elle se développe à un rythme très rapide. Comme la phase de combustion lente précède la phase fl ambante et la phase de chaleur intense, nous comprenons en tant que professionnels pourquoi la plupart des décès causés par un incendie ne résultent

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7


pas de la chaleur ou des brûlures, mais plutôt de l’inhalation de fumée.

C’est pourquoi la détection de chaleur est généralement perçue comme une stratégie de protection des biens, tandis que la détection de fumée est, dans la plupart des cas, appliquée stratégiquement afi n de sauver des vies. C’est pourquoi vous trouverez généralement des détecteurs de fumée à l’extérieur des chambres à coucher, en chemin vers les sorties, par exemple, dans les escaliers et les corridors, ainsi que dans les systèmes de traitement de l’air.

Historique du détecteur de fumée

Les premiers détecteurs de fumée avaient recours aux principes de détection de chaleur, car cette technologie était plus facile à développer, et la chaleur pouvait être mesurée avec fi abilité.

Cependant, la technologie ouvre toujours la voie aux changements, et en 1896, un inventeur soumit une demande de brevet pour une version ancienne du détecteur de fumée. Elle comprenait deux oiseaux en cage qui tombaient dans un tuyau situé au fond de leur cage après avoir succombé à la fumée. Le poids de leur corps activait un circuit et déclenchait une alarme. Deux oiseaux étaient utilisés, car si l’un des deux mourait de causes naturelles, le détecteur ne se déclencherait pas. C’était la forme la plus ancienne de protection contre les fausses alertes, et cela signifi a l’arrivée des principes de détection équilibrée. L’équilibre entre l’immunité contre une fausse alerte et l’alerte rapide est un facteur dont on tient encore compte aujourd’hui lors de la conception.

Quarante ans plus tard, à l’aube de la Deuxième Guerre mondiale, un jeune scientifi que suisse travaillait à l’invention d’un détecteur de gaz toxique. Il utilisa une source radioactive faible afi n de produire des ions. Ces ions introduits dans une chambre entre deux plateaux conducteurs, avec tension électrique appliquée, permettaient à un courant électrique de circuler entre les plateaux.

Son détecteur ne s’avéra pas pratique, mais il découvrit cependant que la fumée de sa cigarette aff ectait les ions dans la chambre, ce qui nuisait au débit du courant. Ce changement était mesurable. Ce jeune ingénieur avait découvert

par hasard ce qui allait devenir le détecteur de fumée par ionisation.

Ce détecteur subit plusieurs modifi cations physiques au cours des 60 dernières années, mais le principe demeure le même. Le détecteur par ionisation est doté d’un spectre de détection à large bande, et peut détecter en toute fi abilité la fumée parmi les produits de combustion les plus courants.

Le détecteur photoélectrique a également pris diverses formes, et a grandement évolué au cours des dernières décennies. Tous les détecteurs photoélectriques fonctionnent généralement selon le principe de la détection de fumée, soit par l’obscuration de la lumière par les particules de fumée introduites entre le transmetteur et le récepteur de lumière, ou par le principe de la réfl exion, qui compte sur la réfl exion de la lumière provenant d’un transmetteur qui reçoit les particules de fumée vers un récepteur.

Ce principe est d’ailleurs couramment utilisé dans les détecteurs à usage commercial et résidentiel.

De façon autonome, le détecteur photoélectrique ne peut utiliser toute la fumée à la même intensité que le détecteur par ionisation. Le détecteur photoélectrique aperçoit très bien les particules de fumée blanche visibles. La fumée noire produite par le plastique, le caoutchouc, etc. ne possède pas les mêmes caractéristiques de réfl exion. Le principe photoélectrique peut remplacer dans la plupart des cas celui de l’ionisation si la sensibilité du signal peut être accrue sans risque de fausse alerte.

La réalité est que tous les détecteurs de fumée doivent subir les mêmes tests. La réponse relative d’un détecteur à un type de fumée par rapport à un autre est plutôt académique et n’intéresse que les puristes de la détection. Il n’existe aucune diff érence pratique discernable entre le rendement de la détection de ces deux technologies dans leur forme actuelle, sauf dans certaines applications.

Ce qui diff ère est le type de stimuli qui cause les fausses alertes. Il existe plusieurs éléments trompeurs qui font en sorte que l’un ou l’autre de ces détecteurs se fait duper et déclenche une fausse alerte. Par exemple, une bourrasque de vent

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7


peut propulser les ions hors de la chambre et ainsi causer une fausse alerte dans un détecteur par ionisation, tandis qu’un détecteur photoélectrique exige une amplifi cation de signal beaucoup plus puissante, ce qui le rend moins susceptible de déclencher une fausse alerte en présence de signaux radio puissants.

Les utilisateurs des salles d’ordinateurs et les entreprises de télécommunications favorisent l’usage des deux types de détecteur afi n de profi ter du « meilleur des deux mondes ». La fonction du second type de détecteur ne consistait pas nécessairement à détecter ce que le premier ne peut faire, mais plutôt confi rmer la présence de fumée dans le premier. Ce principe « inter-zones » a été conçu pour éviter de verser des produits chimiques d’extinction coûteux dans la salle en cas de fausse alerte. Le principe était basé sur le fait que les détecteurs photoélectriques et par ionisation ont tendance à réagir à diff érents types de fausse alerte.

Développements en matière de détection

Les experts en détection s’accordent à dire que le détecteur par ionisation demeure le détecteur d’application standard de choix des 50 dernières années. Sa capacité de détecter plusieurs types de fumée, sa capacité de détecter les premières phases de développement du feu, sa capacité de distinguer avec fi abilité presque tous les stimulus réels et faux du feu, et son excellent rapport coût-effi cacité en font le champion en titre de sa catégorie.

En pratique, les détecteurs photoélectriques et par ionisation détectent tous deux le feu de façon constante, et ils ont démontré leur valeur, eux qui présentent une fi che inégalée en ce qui a trait à la réduction des pertes de vie lors d’incendies.

Technologie de l’algorithme

Depuis 20 ans, les scientifi ques de la détection cherchent à concevoir des détecteurs plus fi ables qui réagiront plus rapidement aux premières phases du feu.

Une réaction plus rapide entraînera une intervention hâtive, ce qui rend la tenue du système moins cruciale.

La stabilité accrue permettra de réduire l’exposition du public aux fausses alertes, et jumelée à l’éducation, elle permettra d’améliorer la réaction des humains ainsi que leur comportement en cas de menaces réelles d’incendie.

Les scientifi ques ont également conçu un détecteur photoélectrique doté du très grand spectre de détection du détecteur par ionisation, tout en distinguant les fausses alertes. Cette sensibilisation accrue envers l’environnement souligne l’importance de reléguer aux oubliettes le détecteur par ionisation.

Ce développement a produit une nouvelle génération de détection appelée « multi-capteurs à multiples critères ».

Ces nouveaux détecteurs agissent comme complément au principe de détection avec un détecteur de chaleur ultra-sensible en un seul dispositif. C’est l’aspect multi-capteurs de la technologie.

L’aspect « multiples critères » permet au détecteur de tenir compte du signal de chaque capteur tout comme dans la détection conventionnelle. Grâce à l’analyse mathématique avancée exécutée par un microprocesseur intégré, le détecteur peut évaluer les divers attributs de ces signaux. Le taux de changement et de fl uctuation constituent les éléments dynamiques du signal qui accompagnent les valeurs transmises par les deux capteurs. Ces

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7


signaux peuvent maintenant être amplifi és et évalués. Suite aux progrès technologiques, ces nouveaux détecteurs évaluent six signaux par rapport à une composante de signal fournie dans le cas de la détection conventionnelle. Cela permet une augmentation exponentielle de l’information fournie par la détection. Tandis que les détecteurs conventionnels prennent une décision basée sur un seuil déterminé concernant la présence de fumée, ce nouveau détecteur peut évaluer la nature de la fumée, fournir des données quant à la source du signal, le type de feu, etc.

Les résultats démontrent clairement l’effi cacité de cette amélioration. Le tableau suivant indique les caractéristiques de six types de test de réaction au feu. Ces tests ont pour objet de représenter les diff érents types de feu défi nis par la norme européenne EN54-9.

Feux expérimentaux NE 54

Le graphique ci-dessous indique le rendement des détecteurs par rapport aux diff érents types de feu. Le bas du graphique indique les feux expérimentaux NE.

Le détecteur par ionisation « voit » assez bien tous les feux du spectre.Technologie de l’algorithme

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7


Le détecteur photoélectrique ou « optique » voit assez bien les feux à l’extrême droite du spectre. Les feux se trouvant à gauche de TF5 qui produisent de la fumée noire ou des produits invisibles ne sont pas aussi bien détectés.

Le détecteur de type optique/thermique à multiples critères élargit les compétences du détecteur photoélectrique conventionnel et off re pratiquement la même plage de rendement que le détecteur par ionisation. Ce détecteur possède le plus grand éventail de compétences parmi tous les détecteurs.

Analyse du signal avancée

L’analyse du signal avancée représente la suite du développement de la technologie de l’algorithme. Le comportement de détection peut être adapté à l’application pertinente, en fonction des ensembles de paramètres correspondants. La grande diff érence entre cette technologie et la technologie de l’algorithme est l’interprétation en temps réel de la situation, et d’après cela, l’impact dynamique de l’ensemble de paramètres sélectionné. Les paramètres individuels du paramètre sélectionné ne sont plus statiques. Ils sont modifi és selon les signaux du capteur. La gamme d’applications du détecteur est étendue, ce qui constitue l’équivalent d’une dynamique de détection plus grande. En cas d’incendie, le détecteur utilisant cette technologie réagit de façon plus sensible. En cas de déception, il est plus robuste qu’un détecteur utilisant la technologie de l’algorithme. Il en résulte une détection d’incendie sans égal, jumelée à une immunité inimitable contre les fausses alertes.

Sélection du type de détection

Ce qui importe dans l’application des stratégies de détection n’est pas tellement de choisir un type de capteur par rapport à un autre, mais plutôt, d’abord et avant tout, d’utiliser la détection comme

un moyen effi cace de sauver des vies et non seulement pour satisfaire aux exigences des codes locaux. Étant donné que la détection de haute qualité est devenue de plus en plus fi able et abordable, la nécessité de l’appliquer de façon sélective est moins importante. Plus la détection est effi cace dans un lieu quelconque, plus la chance d’intervenir rapidement s’accroît. Ce développement en lui-même permet d’améliorer la tenue du système. Il améliore également le délai d’évacuation. Et tout cela peut être réalisé en réduisant le risque de fausses alertes, ce qui élimine donc la nécessité de rendre le système muet.

Par rapport au reste du monde industrialisé, l’application de la détection automatique est moins fréquente en Amérique du Nord et au Canada. Est-il possible de rehausser nos standards?

• Le détecteur de fumée s’avère très effi cace pour sauver des vies.

• La plus grande faiblesse de l’application du détecteur de fumée est de ne pas en posséder un.

• La deuxième plus grande faiblesse consiste à négliger son entretien. Combien de gens ont perdu la vie parce que les détecteurs de fumée n’étaient pas fonctionnels en raison d’une pile manquante?

• La troisième plus grande faiblesse du système est la réaction des gens. On en est venu à ignorer les signaux fournis par les détecteurs de fumée et les systèmes d’alarme. La raison la plus souvent évoquée pour expliquer cette négligence est le grand nombre de fausses alertes.

Fort de ces connaissances, la quête du détecteur de fumée idéal se poursuit.

Allen Hess est directeur de la sécurité contre l’incendie chez Technologies du bâtiment Siemens ltée.

Performance relative des détecteurs

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7


Up-Coming EventsWalk Your Talk to Zero Tolerance!One Day Workshop for Fire Prevention OfficersOntario Fire College, Gravenhurst, ONDates: December 13, 2007 January 21, 2008 February 25, 2008For details and registration go to www.omfpoa.com

November 26 – 30, 2007Ontario Fire Officer’s Annual Training SeminarOntario Fire College, Gravenhurst, ON

November 28 – 30, 2007PM Expo/Construct CanadaMetro Toronto Convention Centre,Toronto, ONCome visit us at the CFAA booth #2101www.pmexpo.org

November 28, 2007CFSA Dinner MeetingTopic: The 2007 Ontario Fire CodeDelta Markham HotelEmail: [email protected]

November 29, 2007CFAA will be making a presentation at the Fire Prevention Officers Public Education Training session at the Ontario Fire College from 8:15 to 10:00 AM

May 1, 2008CFAA Annual Technical SeminarSchulich School of BusinessYork University, Toronto, ONWatch for details on our website at www.cfaa.ca

June 2 – 6, 2008NFPA World Safety Conference & ExpositionMandalay Bay Convention CentreLas Vegas, NV

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7


PARTICIPATING MEMBERSA1 Ontario Alarms & SecurityAli Goshtasbi167 Leyton AveToronto, ON M1L 3V5Tel: 416-522-2746

ATMS Fire Protection Services Inc.Marcel Vincent33 Dekker St.Everett, ON L0M 1J0Tel: 305-434-2867

Applied Voltage Electrical SolutionsRobert Muirhead27 Bolland CresAjax, ON L1S 3G8

BC Fire Safe Protection Services Ltd.Troy MiddletonBox 298Dawson Creek, BC V1G 4G7Tel: 250-784-5603

Fire Alarm Tech 4 HireAlex Martin27 Jessica Dr.Barrie, ON L4N 5S7Tel: 705-794-2308

Firetronics Inc.Mario Campos109 Ormont Dr, Unit 24Toronto, ON M9L 2Z1Tel: 416-614-3473

First Signal Fire Alarm Technology.Wayne Gallant3288 North Carleton RdAlbany, PEI C0B 1A0Tel: 902-855-3473

Richmond Fire Systems Ltd.Anthony Doria499 Edgeley Blvd., Unit 10Concord, ON L4K 4H3Tel: 905-660-4077

Total Tech Fire Protection Ltd.David Albanese29 Calm CourtToronto, ON M9M 1N2Tel: 416-898-0179

Troy Sprinkler LimitedJeremy McCoubrey4697 Christie DriveBeamsville, ON L0R 1B4Tel: 905-563-4889

ASSOCIATE MEMBERS

STUDENT MEMBERS

Th ames Valley District School BoardEdward Clarke951 Leathorne StLondon, ON N5Z 3M7Tel: 519-452-2444

Harpal Singh SainiBrampton, ON

CFAA 2007/2008New and Reinstated Members

Notice to Technicians and MembersPlease make sure you notify the CFAA administration office

at 1-800-529-0552 of any address changes. We’d like to keep our database as current as possible! Thanks!

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7


CFAA 2007/2008Offi cers and DirectorsPRESIDENTAndrew Hewitson, Mircom Technologies

PAST PRESIDENTStephen Ames, System Sensor

1st VICE PRESIDENTDavid Sylvester, Morrison Hershfi eld

2nd VICE PRESIDENTVictor Repovz, Centra Fire Protection

SECRETARYSimon Crosby, Randal Brown & Associates

TREASURERJohn Hurdis, Durham Central Fire Systems

EXECUTIVE DIRECTORSAllen HodgsonRichard Morris

OFFICERS AT LARGEStephen Ames, System SensorKen Baird, Leber/RubesRandy Barnes, GE SecurityRalph Coco, Potter Manufacturing David Duggan, Fire Detection DevicesHoward Diamond, Notifi erDon Faulkner, Mircom TechnologiesDavid Goodyear, D. Goodyear ConsultingAllen Hess, Siemens Building TechnologiesMike Hugh, SimplexGrinnellPaul Jewett, Jewett TechnologiesGreg Kester, Robinson SolutionsGerry Landmesser, Vipond Systems GroupKeith Lush, Life MemberVictor Tantalo, Durham Central Fire SystemsDennis Weber, Vipond Systems Group

BUSINESS MANAGERShelley Whetren

OFFICE SUPERVISORRuth Kavanagh

ADMINISTRATIONJacqueline Jones

YES, I wish to join the CFAA as a member!

This application is for membership as a:

sustaining member ($ 1,060.00 annual dues) sustaining chapter member ($ 530.00 annual dues) participating member ($ 238.50 annual dues) associate (individual) member ($ 53.00 annual dues) student ($ 20.00 annual dues)All of the above dues include GST.Company Name:Personal Name:Address:City: Prov.: Postal Code:Type of work performed:

Return your membership application with cheque payable to:The Canadian Fire Alarm Association, 85 Citizen Court, Unit 5, Markham, Ontario L6G 1A8

CFAA Membership Application Form (November 2007)

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7


Advertising Rates

Inside Front Cover – Colour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 840Inside Back Cover – Colour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 840Outside Back Cover – Colour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 1,095Centerfold Inside Left – Colour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 890Centrefold Inside Right – Colour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 890Inside Full Page – Colour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 830Inside ½ Page – Colour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 430Inside ¼ Page – Colour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 230Inside Full Page – B/W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 625Inside ½ Page – B/W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 345Inside ¼ Page – B/W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 175

Advertisers Index

Building Reports Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Centre Fold BackControl Fire Systems Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Centre Fold BackDraka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Centre Fold FrontElectronic Surveillance Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Simplex Grinnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Fire Detection Devices Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Centre Fold BackGE Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Back CoverHealth & Safety Management Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Honeywell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Mircom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Front CoverPotter Signal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27SDI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Centre Fold RightSeneca College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Siemens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Outside Back CoverSystem Sensor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Centre Fold LeftTyco Thermal Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Advertising Rates/Index

perfect fitlife safety for small and midsize projects, like bakeriesFireShield is a competitively priced conventional fire alarm system that is easy to install, operate, and maintain.

Features like simple option programming, large accessible terminals, and one person audible or silent walk test mean you save time and money.

Call us today at 1 800 691 5677 to see how you can save some dough on your next small application.

www.siemens.ca/buildingtechnologies

Good question. Good answer: FirePrint™ detectors from Siemens do not generate false alarms. Guaranteed.

Siemens is the only company in the industry to offer the No False Alarms Guarantee. It’s your assurance that the detector can identify a true re emergency with unmatched speed, accuracy and false alarm resistance. Silencing the signals treats the symptoms and not the cause. Ask for FirePrint™ from the real leader in re detection...past, present, and future.

But what happens when the re alarm is false?But what happens when the re alarm is false?

november 2007 non-member: $5.00 cdn - cfaa · november 2007 non-member: $5.00 cdn canada post...

Documents