FP_AUGUST.
INTELLIGENT 21/7/04 7:58 AM Page 32
F OCUS: DETECTION
Intelligence network
Peter Freestone explains how intelligent technology is helping to
combat false alarms in industrial and commercial premises
AJOR ADVANCES have been made
M in terms of the intelligence of alarm
control systems over the last 30 years.
At one stage, virtually all smoke detectors used
to be of the ionisation chamber variety, but this
technology has gradually changed over the
years in favour of the optical kind. These days,
besides smoke, other phenomena can be
detected, such as carbon monoxide, flame and
heat. Also, the multi-sensor (a combination of
optical and heat detection) is becoming
commonly used.
However, despite these technological advances,
every type of detection technology is prone to
false alarms in one way or another. This
problem can only be overcome by introducing
an element of intelligence into the control of
fire detection and alarm systems whether
human or electronic.
The conventional type of control system, most
typically seen in smaller premises, is known as
non-addressable. Such systems have little or no intelligence in
terms of avoiding false alarms. This is mainly due to the whole
decision-making process, for determining whether or not
there is a fire, being vested in the individual detectors. Also,
being non-addressable, these systems do not have the ability
to pinpoint the exact location of an incident if one of the
detectors triggers an alarm.
Analogue addressable systems
By contrast, early analogue addressable systems changed this
completely. These systems took the decision-making process
from the detector and put it into the control panel. This had
the effect of transforming the detectors into sensors that
merely reported their status for evaluation by the control
equipment. Due to the addressability of the devices, it is also
possible to pinpoint the exact location of the alarm source.
Even with quite simple intelligence, such as verifying the
presence of an alarm signal for two or three consecutive scans,
these systems have been shown to produce up to 65% less
false alarms than those of non-addressable systems of a similar
size. Yet, despite this, there has since been a move to create a
new type of addressable system in which the decision factor
has been put back into the detectors once again.
This is not quite the retrograde step that one might be
forgiven for first thinking. The miniaturisation of
32
microprocessor technology has enabled the
intelligence in such systems to be distributed
around the protected environment, instead of
having the decision-making process confined to
one point. Having decisions made by intelligent
detectors also reduces the amount of electronic
traffic on the systems control cable. This form
of analogue addressable system is currently
regarded as state-of-the-art.
The intelligent features that are available in
modern detectors are many-fold. The prime
factor is that they should be able to filter out
transient alarm signals (such as a passing cloud
of dust, for example), thus enhancing the ability
to determine whether or not a real fire is present
and eliminating many false or unwanted
alarms.
Intelligent detectors should also be able to
detect slow-burning fires. These may take an
hour or more to develop. In this instance, even
a slow build-up of smoke should be sufficient
for the detector to sense that there may be a problem and
respond by automatically lowering its level of sensitivity or
speeding up the response.
Automatic optimisation of individual detector sensitivity is
another possibility of intelligent detectors, whereby each
detector can optimise the best sensitivity for the environment
in which it is fitted. Adjustments can also be made to allow for
pollution of the detector chamber. Intelligent systems also have
detectors that automatically self-test to calibrated levels on a
daily basis. This results not only in huge increases in the
reliability and availability of the protection, but also gives major
lifecycle reductions to maintenance and downtime costs.
Putting the intelligence back into detectors does not mean
that there is none in the system control panel. The latest
distributed systems include many intelligent features, such as
the ability to isolate specific detection areas at different times
of the day or night, to increase or reduce the sensitivity of
particular detectors and to measure pollution levels in the
protected environment. There is also the pre-alarm facility,
whereby staff can be alerted to the possibility of a fire incident
following activation of an addressable detector, giving them
time to investigate and/or deal with the incident before
implementing a full-scale building evacuation. Other
features, such as alarm organisation, can be implemented.
This is where a single smoke detector operating will not cause
FEJ & FP August 2004
FP_AUGUST.INTELLIGENT 21/7/04 7:58 AM Page 33

F OCUS: DETECTION
a full evacuation signal, but instead gives staff a chance to
investigate the incident. Timers and other safeguards ensure
that any delays can be overridden.
All these intelligent detector and control panel features are
now available using current technology. When purchasing a
new system, it is vital to check with the supplier that it
includes all the features required and at least some form of
anti-false alarm features.

The ideal protocol

Addressable systems with distributed intelligence fall into
various categories, depending on the type of protocol that
applies to them. There are two options available to users: open
or closed protocol. A closed protocol system is one where the
same manufacturer produces both the control panel and
detection equipment, delivering the certainty of 100%
compatibility and with full technical features being
implemented between the two. By contrast, the various
elements of an open protocol system may be supplied and
maintained by different manufacturers, offering a greater
degree of flexibility. When purchasing such an open system,
however, it is vitally important to ensure that the control
equipment selected is capable of using all of the intelligent
features available from the detectors to their fullest extent.
There is a third option available, which perhaps may be the
ideal option, and this is known as managed protocol: that is,
a closed protocol with managed flexibility. This is where the
manufacturer is responsible for ensuring full compatibility
between the control equipment and detectors, but will make
available to the user the necessary software package and
training to ensure he has full control of any of the
configuration changes.
Whichever type of protocol is chosen, the choice of system
supplier and service provider is extremely important. These
systems can be complex; untrained staff can render systems
completely inoperative if not properly trained or backed-up.
To establish whether or not a company is worth dealing with,
it is essential to ask searching questions about their technical
support facilities, spares availability and the techniques which
are employed to combat false alarms. Any company that
cannot answer these questions satisfactorily should
immediately be ruled out. It is also vital to ensure that the
chosen supplier is competent to specify, install and maintain
the system for which you will, in future, be legally
responsible. This is easy to accomplish by dealing with a
company that has received independent third-party
accreditation.
In future, every aspect of fire safety will be based on risk
assessment. By applying a degree of intelligence to the
equation, both in terms of system technology and choice of
supplier, the burden of responsibility may not be as onerous
as it first appears

Peter Freestone is marketing manager of

Kidde Fire Protection Services

August 2004 FEJ & FP

33