Bs5839 1988

[JohnCunningham]

Here is a question. What would you do if when visiting a new customer you find a installation in PVC/PVC on detector cts.Then find out that the system was only put in 4 years ago by previous owner. Obviously a DIY job.

In theory you can't upgrade it as it wasn't done to a previous standard. etc etc. would you try to salvage the good bits, say it is ****, or leg it.

This happened to me last year on a 3 story L2. Then found out only 1 call pt by front door. detectors badly positioned, etc etc.

Fortunately I had plenty of work on and made a swift decision quickly say it was **** then legged it.

[esp-protocol]

I would say it was non compliant to the Standard that applied (pt 1 - 2002 presumably) at the time of installation and that if there is a commissioning document saying otherwise then its **** and the installation company should be reported to trading standards and sued.

The customer may choose to keep it if he signs the risk assessment.... its his risk.....!!

[esp-protocol]

........Even if there had been a small fire/fault that damaged the detection circuit that stopped a fire being detected how could culpibility be placed on the person signing the RA of a system correctly installed to relevent standards?

Because if fire proof cabling had been used throughout the likelihood is that the fire would have been detected prior to the cables burning through and presenting a potential problem in another part of the building.......

Show me the case where this has happened and I will accept your point.

Now if you stated on a service form the cables were damaged or showing signs of damage or incorrect installation and there was a fire that was contributed to this there would be poo hitting the fan!

Most of the answers will only be arrived at by a judge and test cases.

Problem is that you can't generally visually inspect all cabling .... and when was the last time anyone carried out an insulation test on a complete fire alarm system as part of any kind of regular inspection.??

From the point of view of an average engineer covering their backside you would have to recommend installing cabling and equipment to current standards.

Otherwise why are we not still installing pvc cables ?

[luggsey]

Most of the answers will only be arrived at by a judge and test cases.

Problem is that you can't generally visually inspect all cabling .... and when was the last time anyone carried out an insulation test on a complete fire alarm system as part of any kind of regular inspection.??

From the point of view of an average engineer covering their backside you would have to recommend installing cabling and equipment to current standards.

Otherwise why are we not still installing pvc cables ?

Well a FP200 cable would burn through before an MI cable so if your reasoning is followed through you would advise all your customers to have MI to replace all the FP200 because it's better? The standards change to include better design all the time otherwise we would still use manual bells for fire alarms and shout fire!

Examining all cables is never done as you know, but again the same would apply to a job done in FP200, are you going to tell all your customers to rewire 15 year old sites done in FP200 to cover your butt?

All test/service forms should include a clause that stipulates cables cannot be visually checked if they are in the fabric of the building, that applies to jobs a year old as well as the twenty year old installs but as I said you shouldn't be condeming a job for 15 year old cables on a whim, there has to be a good reason for it.

[esp-protocol]

Well a FP200 cable would burn through before an MI cable so if your reasoning is followed through you would advise all your customers to have MI to replace all the FP200 because it's better? The standards change to include better design all the time otherwise we would still use manual bells for fire alarms and shout fire!

Not really, the Standard only calls for cables to last for 30 mins or 2 hours. So if you're using enhanced FP you more than meet minimum requirements, so there is no need for MI less you are looking for increased mechanical protection.

So no need to advise customers to upgrade on that account, only the fact that if they are using PVC cables they are vulnerable to fire damage, that may create more serious issues in another areas of the building.

The old BS stated that it was ok to use pvc if it were routed through areas of low risk and providing a fire in a single location could not take out more than one detection cable.

Show me an installation where cables are not bunched together and run through loft spaces or risers that are not of low risk.....

If you do an inspection and you can't visually verify the cable routes then you can't certify the cables are even installed to an early BS therefore as said earlier... much safer for an engineer to recommend using a recognised fire proof cable and leave the decision to the Responsible Person as defined by the RRFSO.

[Guest G.J.M]

If I had tried that line on many of my customers I would not have been the one servicing their systems next time round.....

What's wrong with 15/20 year old electricial installations requiring them to be rewired? Sounds a bit daft to me?

i was using the electrical reags as an example.

You might have a house wired 50 years ago to the standard then but it will not comply to the current standards.

But as with fire always it's a case of it works. regardless that it's a twenty year old install and the regs have been updated twice.

They recommend electrical installations are rewired every 25 years for a house .

sounds a bit daft to you but we don't makes the rules.

[Guest G.J.M]

Its not that I want to fill my head with the things of yesterday. Occasionally you come across someone who thinks they know a bit and it is nice to be able to say sorry mate that was in the 1988 code not 2002. You occasionally get these customers and I would prefer to sound knowledgeable than sound stubborn. Sometimes a bit of explanation of the reasoning for the change will make them realise they should upgrade.

Everyone here who worked to the regs before 2002 automatically know a 1988 system when they see it and know the changes to expect, type fault monitoring on panel etc. Which I think is sometimes easier than working it all out as you go along. I am not talking parrot fashion regs here just handy back ground on the odd key topic.

an example is todays work.

faults finding on an L2 system that had T&E on detector and sounder cts. I know they don't comply but I don't know when the regs said. So Guys,

Pop quiz time. can anyone tell me at what date the use if T&E was stopped for detector cts on full L2 system. Was it the 1980 /1988 / 2002 version of the code and was there any exception on dates for red T&E.

Actually same goes for T&E for bell circuits also (although I think that was 1980).

This job was out of my geographical area. My local authority has insisted on fire cable since the flintstones so I have never needed to know the answer.

Tomorrow I can jovially say come on on mate this has not complied for 20 years, about time you did something. Which will go down better chastising him for not changing it before. That was I'll probably get the install work and chase him up for annual servicing.

John

John@epl i pressume?

[luggsey]

Not really, the Standard only calls for cables to last for 30 mins or 2 hours. So if you're using enhanced FP you more than meet minimum requirements, so there is no need for MI less you are looking for increased mechanical protection.

Yes back to standards again, I'm saying that if you recomend replacing a PVC-PVC detection circuit which is installed acording to 5839-88 then you are not simply meeting requriments but upgrading a legal installation to a state that exceeds the required legislation in place, therefore following that reasoning you would recomend upgrading a detection circuit cable to exceed the new 5839 with a cable of a higher spec then the minimum required. That's the way I read your posting

So no need to advise customers to upgrade on that account, only the fact that if they are using PVC cables they are vulnerable to fire damage, that may create more serious issues in another areas of the building.

Well that would only be the case if the installation was poor in the first place which is not the same as recomending replacing cables simply due to their age as you imply.

The old BS stated that it was ok to use pvc if it were routed through areas of low risk and providing a fire in a single location could not take out more than one detection cable.

Show me an installation where cables are not bunched together and run through loft spaces or risers that are not of low risk.....

Again this would be down to the original installation, if it was installed to 5839-88 then there is no reason to condem it, as I said condeming an installation for not meeting the requriments of the legislation that applies to it is different to condeming an installation simply because it is more then 15 years old. All installations have bunched cables at the panel so are you saying no PVC detection circuits met 5839-88 because a fire near the fire alarm panel would cause the loss of detection circuit(s), I don't think you could ever meet that requriment using your logic. Most voids and cable routes (including lofts) are in low risk areas to begin with and if the system is installed to 5839-88 this will be within the regs, again no reason to recomend replacement.

If you do an inspection and you can't visually verify the cable routes then you can't certify the cables are even installed to an early BS therefore as said earlier... much safer for an engineer to recommend using a recognised fire proof cable and leave the decision to the Responsible Person as defined by the RRFSO.

Which again means you will recomend rewiring any installation you inspect (no matter it's age) unless it's a complete surface job as you won't be able to confirm every last bit of cable is installed to the regs, as I said earlier all inspections on installations should carry the caveat that wiring within the fabric of the building cannot be checked, thats' always been the case, things are not as simple as condeming systems due to age or inability to examine every last bit of cable, if I was the customer and you gave me a report that recomended replacing a 15 year old systems wiring simply because you couldn't visually check every last bit of cable I would show you the door and get another company in, this is the attitude most of my customers would show me if I recomended replacing expensive fire alarms with such reasoning. By all means be honest with a customer and tell them they "can" improve their system should they want to upgrade it to the latest spec but to write up a report on an older system saying it does not comply to the regulations would in my opinion be misleading a customer unless it was made clear to them they don't "have" to comply with these regulations. In my book that would be miss-selling and we all know where that leads!

[luggsey]

i was using the electrical reags as an example.

You might have a house wired 50 years ago to the standard then but it will not comply to the current standards.

But as with fire always it's a case of it works. regardless that it's a twenty year old install and the regs have been updated twice.

They recommend electrical installations are rewired every 25 years for a house .

sounds a bit daft to you but we don't makes the rules.

Where in BS7671 does it say that? A 1982 PVC T&E electricial installation may well have smaller earth cables than a modern PVC cable but this in it's self is not reason enough to rewire an installation. The trade bodies (NICEIC etc) may well recomend this but that's their business isin't it?

50 year old houses well that's going to an extreme now, that would be rubber cable which is considered dangerous so that would be good enough reason to have a fire alarm fitted! I don't think 15 year old (serviced) fire alarms are considered dangerous are they?

[JohnCunningham]

John@epl i pressume?

Ahhh yes.

Never was very original with nicknames. I go with the ones I can remember. I guess you have seen a similar post of mine on fire net forum (another great forum) I have got in to the habit on forums to ask the same or similar questions on different forums. Can't always guarantee someone will pick it up and answer a question if I leave it on one forum only. I'll have to start thinking of a name that is a bit covert now.

As far as rewires go on electrical installations there is noting wrong with 20yr + T&E if it tests good. Most of the pvc cables of this age I test are still very high insulation resistance. Generally it is not the cable that goes it is the cutting into cables by the owner for the extra socket which makes them test badly. A good untouched wire is still good. Unfortunately the same can't be said for the earthing cables and fuse box which have moved on so much.

Often I upgrade installations rather than rewire. Only problem is I get is pre 1970s lighting cts without earths which is a no no.

Everything needs a stake in the ground to get a response and it makes sense to upgrade to take advantage of extra safety suggestions. As long as people believe a rewire is every 20 yrs they will upgrade at some point. Without the general rule people wouldn't think about it.