Its occurrence, however, underlinesstrongly the need for proper func-tional testing – both at installation/

commissioning/acceptance and, on anannual basis. This paper clarifies what thismeans, using examples from the nationalcodes of the UK, US, France and Ger-many. Many other countries have similarrequirements but some could be clearerthan they are now. The above productrecall emphasises why such standardsneed to be adopted where they do notyet exist, clarified where they are misun-derstood and upheld and enforcedwhere they already exist unambiguously.

A functional check involves a physicalstimulus:

“In the case of detectors (all types)tests must ensure that products ofcombustion are capable of passingunhindered from the protected areato the sensing chamber/elements ofthe detector and not simply test theability of the detector to sample/veri-fy the status of the atmospherealready in the sensing chamber.”

BS 5839 1: 2002 Clause 45.3,December 2004 update

The US code agrees:

“The detectors shall be tested in placeto ensure smoke entry into the sens-ing chamber and an alarm response.”

NFPA 72 National Fire Table 10.4.2.2 (g) Smoke detectors

But the UK’s code also explains whatis not acceptable. A functional check isnot something that can be conductedonly by checking analogue values.Neither is it something that can beaccomplished with a magnet:

“Since stimulus of the sensingelement through introduction of thephenomena or surrogate phenomenawhich the detectors are designed todetect forms part of the test(s), useof a test button or a test magnet (for example) or compliance with45(i) (confirmation of analoguevalues) does not satisfy therecommendations. . .”

BS 5839 1: 2002 45.3 (Note 4)

In France Règle APSAD R7 Detectionautomatique d’incendie, Edition02.1997.4 (fevrier 2003) also highlightsthe importance of a proper functionalcheck:

5.2.2.3 Essai de fonctionnement desdetecteursL’essai a pour but de verifier lareponse de chaque detecteur a lagrandeur caracteristique qu’il doitdetecter.

Or, put another way, the goal is tocheck that each detector has the capa-bility of picking up that which it isdesigned to detect.

As to how the functional checks canbe performed, R7 Section 5.2.2.3explains that the person performing thework should be equipped with:

INTERNATIONAL FIRE PROTECTIONwww.ifpmag.com

International Testing of Smoke, Heat, CO and Multi Detectors By Bill Rossiter,

Managing Director of No Climb Products

A leading detector manufacturer recently recalled smoke/heat detectorsthat had been manufactured over a period of several months last year. Therecall was necessary because an internal contact might have an insulatingfilm preventing the detector from reporting a heat alarm signal to thecontrol panel. Fortunately the detectors could still have detected smoke andthis is a reputable manufacturer whose follow up will be excellent.

Detector Testing Technology by No Climb

International Testing of Smoke, Heat, CO and Multi Detectors

No Climb article p35-38 11/10/05 2:39 pm Page 35

“. . . dispositifs necessaires nondestructibles pour le materiel et com-patible avec l’environnement desdetecteurs pour produire lesgrandeurs caracteristiques d’excita-tion des detecteurs essayes (genera-teurs de chaleur, d’aerosols, defumee, de rayons IR or UV, etc)”

or translated ‘the necessary non destruc-tive tools for the job that are compatiblewith the detectors and produce theappropriate stimuli to activate thedetectors under test (heat, aerosol,smoke, IR or UV generators.)’

In a harmony rarely seen among thesefour nations the Germans concur andDIN 14675:2003-11 states:

8.2 Überprüfung Die Funktionsprüfung der automatis-chen Brandmelder ist mindestens durchSimulation der relevanten physikalis-chen Brandkenngröße außerhalb desMelders durchzuführen (z.B. Verwen-dung von Prüfaerosolen für Rauch).

which translated, means that the func-tional testing of the automatic firedetectors is, at the very least, to becarried out through the simulationof the relevant physical characteris-tics of fire outside of the detector(e.g. using test aerosols for smoke).

Extending this theme manynational standards now refer notonly to the need to check thedevice but also the need to avoiddanger or other damage to – orfrom – the environment in whichthe detector is installed. This isencapsulated by the UK’s BS 5839:

Every heat detector should be func-tionally tested by means of a suit-

able heat source . . . the heat sourceshould not have the potential to ignitea fire; live flame should not be used,and special equipment might be neces-sary in explosive atmospheres.

BS 5839 1: 2002 Clause 45.4,December 2004 update

The French and British are of onemind and France’s R7 states that devicesproducing live flames, such as lighters,are prohibited:

“sont exclus ici les generateurs aflamme vive tels que les briquets”

R7 Section 5.2.2.3

The theme of avoiding damage is alsoexplicitly recognised for other detectors.Smoke detectors, for example, mightreact to various stimuli but setting themoff properly with a genuine physicalfunctional check is only part of the art.Avoiding damage to them (with lessthan the best detector testers for exam-ple!) is another. Again, this is picked upby the British Standard:

“Point smoke detectors should befunctionally tested by a method thatconfirms smoke can enter the detec-tor chamber and produce a fire alarmsignal (e.g.: by use of apparatus thatgenerates simulated smoke or suit-able aerosols around the detector). Itshould be ensured that the materialused does not cause damage to, oraffect the subsequent performance ofthe detector . . .”

BS 5839 1: 2002 45.4 (d)

In fact BS 5839, having recently beenreviewed (the last update was December2004) is refreshingly clear in many areas.It encapsulates the various possibilitiesfor problems when it talks of the needfor proper testing of CO fire detectors.

“Carbon monoxide fire detectorsshould be functionally tested by amethod that confirms that carbonmonoxide can enter the detectorchamber and produce a fire alarmsignal (e.g. by use of apparatus that

generates carbon monoxide or a gasthat has a similar effect on the elec-tro-chemical cell as carbon monoxide).WARNING: Carbon monoxide is ahighly toxic gas and suitable precau-tions should be taken in its use”.

BS 5839 1: 2002 Clause 45.4 (d),December 2004 update

As regards when all these tests shouldbe conducted, the answer is both:

1) At commissioning and,

2) Annually (though the annual testsare often split over the course oftwo or more occasions).

In the US, National Fire Alarm CodeNFPA 72 2002 Edition, Table 10.4.3Testing Frequencies requires both Ini-tial/Reacceptance and Annual functionalchecks. Similarly, the UK’s NationalCode, states:

“At commissioning, the entire systemshould be inspected and tested toensure that it operates satisfactorilyand that, in particular, . . .

1) all manual call points and auto-matic fire detectors function cor-rectly in accordance with therecommendations in 45.4;

BS 5839 Part 1: 2002 39.2 c:

where 45.4 clarifies the ‘physical nature’of the functional check.

Germany too requires, at commission-ing, that 100% of all installed systemcomponents be tested and that, in thecase of automatic fire detector tests, thealarm be triggered by simulating thecharacteristics of fire at the detector.

Anhang I – I.2.5 Funktionsprüfungen Die nachfolgenden Funktionsprüfun-gen bilden den Abschluss der Inbe-triebsetzungsarbeiten für eine BMA.Sie sollten daher als 100%-Prüfungenmit allen installierten Anlagenbe-standteilen durchgeführt werden . . .aller automatischen Brandmelder . . .sollten geprüft werden. . . . Für diese

Prüfungen sollte die Alarmaus-lösung der automatischenBrandmelder durch Simulationder relevanten Brandkenngrößeam Melder . . . vorgenommenwerden.”

DIN 14675:2003-11

In France Règle APSAD R7Detection automatique d’in-cendie, Edition 02.1997.4 (fevrier2003) also highlights the impor-tance of the commissioning tests.In Section 5.2 Operation de visitede conformite (the commission-ing visit) it states:

INTERNATIONAL FIRE PROTECTIONwww.ifpmag.com

Solo Smoke Testing from No Climb

No Climb article p35-38 11/10/05 2:39 pm Page 36

5.2.2 Verification fonctionelle de l’in-stallationLa verification fonctionelle d’installa-tion a pour but de s’assurer quetoutes les fonctions sont correcte-ment remplies. . . .

And cross refers this, in 6.3.3, to theperiodic annual checks (while confirm-ing in 6.4 that that the annual checkscan be split into two six monthly checksthough, in common with most coun-tries, indicating that the period mustnot be less frequent than six monthly).

Six monthly visits by a CompetentPerson to every detector are, of course,a wise step for a number of reasons. Notonly can a proper functional check onan ongoing basis highlight the inabilityof a detector to raise an alarm (for rea-sons which may range from componentfailure through wiring damage to dustcovers or other barriers to detection). Italso provides an opportunity for anexpert to assess building, usage andother changes that may impact the reli-

ability or suitability of the detector rela-tive to its installed environment.

So, with all this clarity, what confu-sion can remain?

One area concerns the ongoing sensi-tivity of a detector. This is somethingthat cannot be assessed at all with mostconventional detectors without a spe-cialist test device. It is also one whereeven the faith in analogue detectors –assessing as they do only the sensors asopposed to the ability of them toreceive stimuli – is flawed. As the FrenchR7 notes (with reference to the func-tional checks):

5.2.2.3 Essai de fonctionnement desdetecteursEn aucun cas ce test ne doit etreconsidere comme une mesure de sen-sibilite . . . il ne peut etre confonduavec la verification du niveau de per-formance efffectuee au moyen desfoyers-types de site.

Which translated, means that, in noinstance can this (functional) test bemistaken for a sensitivity check norconfused with site performance checks(carried out separately and according tostrict controls).

This, at least, goes to show that theFrench and Americans agree on somethings – as the US Code NFPA 72confirms:

“10.4.3.2.6 The detector or smokealarm sensitivity shall not be testedor measured using any device thatadministers an unmeasured concen-tration of smoke or other aerosol intothe detector or smoke alarm”

and the American code is equally clearon how sensitivity checks can – andmust – be performed as it is on howthey cannot be:

10.4.3.2.4 To ensure that each smokedetector or smoke alarm is within itslisted and marked sensitivity range, itshall be tested using any of the fol-lowing methods:

(1) Calibrated test method(2) Manufacturer’s calibrated sensi-tivity test instrument(3) Listed control equipment arrangedfor the purpose(4) Smoke detector/control unitarrangement whereby the detectorcauses a signal at the control unitwhere its sensitivity is outside itslisted sensitivity range(5) Other calibrated sensitivity testmethods approved by the authorityhaving jurisdiction

10.4.3.2.5 Detectors or smoke alarmsfound to have a sensitivity outside thelisted and marked sensitivity rangeshall be cleaned and recalibrated or bereplaced.

Finally, the other area looking forclarification is that of multi sensordetectors. Or multi criteria detectors(even the names and definitions are not clearly understood or agreed). In the opinion of the author the ‘multiconfusion’ has a ‘single clarification’ –that, for the purpose of field testing itdoes not matter whether one definesthem as multi criteria or multi sensor.Neither does it matter how they areconfigured or when. Wherever possible(sometimes limited by the test modesavailable) each of their separate sensingabilities must be tested in the same realfunctional manner and at the same(commissioning and annual) times asdescribed throughout this document.The logic behind this, however, needsanother paper. . .

INTERNATIONAL FIRE PROTECTIONwww.ifpmag.com

Solo Heat Testing from No Climb

Bill Rossiter is Managing Director ofNo Climb Products, the world lead-ing manufacturer of Solo andTrutest detector testers and winnerof the Queen’s Award for Enter-prise. Bill is also Chairman of SDIin New Jersey, USA (No Climb’s USoperation) and Chairman of theBFPSA Technical Working Groupon Maintenance and a member ofboth FD&A Executive committeeand the Council of the BFPSA. Thecompany designs, manufacturesand supplies detector testers rang-ing from field testers to laboratorysmoke tunnels directly to over 50countries. www.detectortesters.com

Solo Detector Removal Tool from No Climb

No Climb article p35-38 11/10/05 2:39 pm Page 37

INTERNATIONAL FIRE PROTECTIONwww.ifpmag.com

www.detectortesters.com

No Climb article p35-38 11/10/05 2:39 pm Page 38