Zaitsev Alexander Vadimovich, scientific editor of the journal “Security Algorithm”
On August 10, 2015, a message appeared on the website of the Federal State Budgetary Institution VNIIPO EMERCOM of Russia: “By the decision of the Expert Commission to conduct an examination of the codes of rules of the EMERCOM of Russia in connection with the need to update and refine the numerous proposals and comments, as well as in connection with the emergence of new technologies and fire protection means, draft SP 5.13130 has been returned to the stage of the first edition and is undergoing the public discussion procedure again.” And this is after in 2013, upon completion of the research work “SP 5”, an attempt was already made to present to the public an updated version of SP 5.13130.2009 “Fire protection systems. Settings fire alarm and automatic fire extinguishing systems. Design norms and rules." True, then the matter did not reach the public; it was cut down in the bud and hidden from the eyes of this public. Now they offer us almost the same thing, only under a new name - “Fire Protection Systems. Fire alarm systems and fire extinguishing installations are automatic. Design norms and rules."
And here I could not restrain myself and decided to express my attitude towards such rule-making in a detailed form. I would like to point out right away this material not about document errors, although there are quite a lot of them, even if we consider only the fire alarm section. We will not receive the document so necessary for daily work, until we decide on its tasks and structure.
I’ll start with the federal law of July 22, 2008 No. 123-FZ “Technical regulations on requirements fire safety" He is the starting point. And it is completely natural, first of all, to decide what the law requires in terms of automatic fire alarm installations (AUPS) and fire alarm systems (AFS). Fire protection systems must have:
■ reliability and resistance to the effects of dangerous fire factors for the time necessary to achieve fire safety goals (clause 3, article 51).
AUPS must provide:
■ automatic fire detection within the time required to turn on fire warning systems (clause 1, article 54);
■ automatic fire detection, supply of control signals to technical means of warning people about a fire and managing the evacuation of people, control devices for fire extinguishing installations, technical means of controlling the smoke protection system, engineering and technological equipment(Clause 4, Article 83);
■ automatic informing of duty personnel about the occurrence of a malfunction in communication lines between individual technical means included in the installations (clause 5, article 83);
■ providing light and sound signals about the occurrence of a fire to the reception and control device in the premises of the duty personnel or to special remote warning devices, and in buildings of functional classes fire danger F1.1, F1.2, F4.1, F4.2 - with duplication of these signals to the fire department control panel without the participation of facility employees and/or the organization broadcasting this signal.
Fire detectors must:
■ be located in the protected room in such a way as to ensure timely detection of a fire anywhere in this room (clause 8, article 83).
AUPS technical means must:
■ ensure electrical and information compatibility with each other, as well as with other technical means interacting with them (clause 1 of Article 103);
■ be resistant to the effects of electromagnetic interference with maximum permissible level values characteristic of the protected object (clause 5 of article 103);
■ ensure electrical safety. Cable lines and electrical wiring of fire detection systems, warning and control of evacuation of people in case of fire, emergency lighting on evacuation routes, emergency ventilation and smoke protection, automatic fire extinguishing, internal fire-fighting water supply, elevators for transporting fire departments in buildings and structures must:
■ maintain operability in fire conditions for the time necessary to perform their functions and evacuate people to a safe area (clause 2, article 82).
Communication lines between technical means of AUPS must:
■ maintain operability in fire conditions for the time necessary to perform their functions and evacuate people to a safe area (clause 2, article 103).
AUPS fire equipment control devices must provide:
■ the principle of control in accordance with the type of equipment being controlled and the requirements of a specific facility (Clause 3, Article 103, oddly enough, this requirement is in the requirements for AUPS).
The automatic drive of actuators and devices of supply and exhaust smoke ventilation systems of buildings and structures must:
■ carried out when automatic fire extinguishing and/or fire alarm systems are triggered (clause 7, article 85, this once again confirms that fire control devices for actuators belong to the AUPS).
Those. All components of the AUPS are subject to specific requirements for their intended purpose. These requirements are of an exclusively general nature without disclosing the mechanisms for their implementation. It would seem that nothing could be simpler - to take these requirements and consistently, step by step, reveal and specify them.
These are the main tasks facing developers of fire alarm requirements. In order, what is achieved by what:
■ reliability of fire detection;
■ timeliness of fire detection;
■ resistance of AUPS and SPS to external influences environment;
■ monitoring the current state of the automatic fire alarm system and emergency response system by the duty personnel;
■ interaction of AUPS and SPS with other fire protection subsystems;
■ safety of people from injury electric shock.
Instead, in the new draft set of rules SP 5.13130 we again see a set of disparate rules: how and in what quantity to place fire detectors (IP), lay fire alarm loops and connect them to control panels. And all this without any indication of the tasks being solved. This is very similar to a rather complex recipe for making Christmas pudding.
What will it be like for the inspector? Having found a non-compliance with the set of rules SP 5.13130 at the facility, it is necessary to link it to the requirements of Federal Law No. 123 in order to substantiate your claims in the courts. In this edition, as in the previous one, it will be very difficult to find such a link.
The GOST standards of the Soviet period described how to make the same bicycle. Several wheel sizes were standardized, and, consequently, their spokes, the size of the steering wheel and seat, the diameter of the frame pipes, etc. IN modern Russia A completely new approach was adopted to national standards. Now national standards specify the requirements for the final product, and not how to make it. And then, for the most part, in terms of ensuring human security in various areas. There is compliance with the requirements - good, no - it is not subject to commissioning or further use. This is how all other types of regulatory documents should be.
The very concept of “rules” is deeply rooted in the philosophy of life of an individual or a community of individuals. Any rules are followed by people on a voluntary basis, based on understanding and perception of the correctness of their actions. This is such a tautology.
There are rules of behavior in society, rules of etiquette, rules of conduct on water, traffic rules, etc. There are also unwritten rules. IN different countries all of them may differ fundamentally in their essence and content. There are simply no universal rules.
The rules are aimed either at creating a comfortable living environment, incl. ensuring the necessary security in all areas of human activity, or for other specific tasks related to the implementation or implementation of certain processes.
But rules cannot be without exceptions, and how much it is permissible to deviate from the rules is determined by the requirements for the final result of the activity. Sometimes these requirements are more important than the rules themselves.
But before forming certain rules, it is necessary to develop evaluation criteria and/or a procedure for developing these rules. A top level of rules must be formed to create a lower level of rules. Neglecting the upper level or its absence will not allow creating a lower level of rules that can actually be implemented in life. And it turned out main problem work of the team of authors of the Federal State Budgetary Institution VNIIPO EMERCOM of the Russian Federation on the set of rules SP 5.13130.
In our case, the highest level of rules should be Federal Law No. 123. After all, it formulates the main tasks. The second level should be a document describing the requirements for the final product, for example, in our case, a fire alarm. But as a guide through the labyrinths between the tasks at hand and the specific requirements for the final result, there should be rules describing how to achieve this. These rules will act as recommendations that can be followed or not, if there is justification for this. And since the requirements for the result are laid down in the first two upper levels, there is no contradiction in this.
The structure and principle of construction of the set of rules SP 5.13130 “Fire protection systems. Fire alarm and fire extinguishing installations are automatic. Design Norms and Rules” looks modern only on the first page, but the essence of this document has not changed over the past 30 years. The roots of this document lie in the “Instructions for the design of fire extinguishing installations” CH75-76. If we take his successor SNiP 2.04.09-84 “Fire automatics of buildings and structures”, then he and his further followers NPB 88-2001 and the project new edition SP 5.13130 are absolutely similar.
Would you like an example, please? SNiP 2.04.09-84 has the following requirement:
“4.23. In justified cases, it is allowed to install reception and control devices in premises without personnel on round-the-clock duty while ensuring the transmission of fire and malfunction notifications to the fire station or other premises with personnel on round-the-clock duty and ensuring control of communication channels.”
We had the same thing in the interim regulatory document NPB 88-2001 “Fire extinguishing and alarm installations. Design norms and rules."
In the draft SP 5.13130 submitted for re-discussion, we again find:
“14.14.7. In justified cases, it is allowed to install these devices in premises without personnel on duty around the clock, while ensuring separate transmission of notifications about fire, malfunction, condition technical means to a room with personnel on duty around the clock, and ensuring control of notification transmission channels.”
And immediately there is a contradiction. Article 46 of Federal Law No. 123 provides a list of fire automatic equipment. And it has a component - a notification transmission system. The components of these systems transmit the mentioned signals from the receiving and control device, and display them on their indicators, and, most importantly, monitor the notification transmission channel. And the requirements for them are in GOST R 53325-2012. There is no need to invent anything. But the authors of the code of laws do not read... And such examples with the wording “cart and small cart” outdated for 30 years.
It has reached the point that the very name of SP 5.13130 in its discussed edition will contradict the law that gave birth to it. The law specifies the term “automatic fire alarm installations (AUPS).” And in the set of rules - “fire alarm systems (FAS)”, which, according to the same law, are defined only as a combination of several such installations. All the requirements in the law, as I showed a little earlier, are prescribed for AUPS, and not for ATP. What’s easier is to indicate in the introduction that the requirements for fire alarm systems and the automatic fire alarm installations included in them are identical, and the issue would be closed. Here it is, the legal purity of our fire safety standards. And most importantly, the tasks at hand in Federal Law No. 123 were generally “remained behind the scenes.” And I will try to show this with several examples.
It’s unlikely that anyone remembers where the requirements for organizing fire alarm control zones came from in our standards (now it’s clause 13.2.1 in SP5.13130.2009).
Also in the “Manual to the rules of production and acceptance of work. Security, fire and security and fire alarm system» of 1983 it was provided that:
"For administrative buildings(premises) it is allowed to block up to ten rooms with one fire alarm loop, and if there is a remote alarm from each room - up to 20 rooms with a common corridor or adjacent ones.”
At that time, we were talking only about the use of thermal IP; there were no others yet. And about maximum savings, both of the technical fire alarm systems themselves and of cable products. At one time, this made it possible to equip a fairly large administrative facility with just one single-loop receiving and control device of the UOTS-1-1 type.
Subsequently, in SNiP 2.04.09-84 the situation changes somewhat:
“Automatic fire detectors of one fire alarm loop can be used to control up to ten in public, residential and auxiliary buildings, and with remote light alarms from automatic fire detectors and installed above the entrance to the controlled premises - up to twenty adjacent or isolated premises located on one floor and having exits to a common corridor (room).”
By this time, smoke fire detectors had already appeared, and therefore the scope of application of this standard in terms of the purpose of premises expanded.
And in NPB 88-2001 the concept of “control zone” appears:
“12.13. It is allowed to equip a control zone with one fire alarm loop with fire detectors that do not have an address, including:
Premises located on no more than 2 interconnected floors, with a total area of 300 m2 or less;
Up to ten isolated and adjacent rooms with a total area of no more than 1600 m2, located on one floor of the building, while isolated rooms must have access to a common corridor, hall, vestibule, etc.;
Up to twenty isolated and adjacent rooms with a total area of no more than 1600 m2, located on one floor of the building, while the isolated rooms must have access to a common corridor, hall, vestibule, etc., with a remote light alarm indicating the activation of fire detectors above the entrance to each controlled premises."
It is unlikely that these area sizes have made any changes in the practice of applying this norm. But a lot of work has been done, there is something to be proud of.
Approximately the same requirement for the control capabilities of one fire alarm loop with fire alarm broadcasters that do not have an address is also provided for in the draft SP 5.13130. Why this happened, how this is determined, no one can say. There is such a norm, born 35 years ago, which has undergone several changes along the way, but no longer has any basis. The authors of fire regulations have plenty of other worries. It's like rolling a snowball, in which the original task is completely forgotten. If we are trying to solve the issues of survivability of fire alarm systems in this way, then why are we talking only about threshold loops with non-addressable detectors. During this time, addressable and addressable-analog systems have taken their rightful place, but for some reason restrictions on the same survivability are not imposed on them. And all because zoning of AUPS is not yet perceived as one of the components of the fight for their survivability, as was done from the very beginning in the foreign rationing system, from which the mentioned figures were taken. This once again shows that the authors of the document are not trying to solve the problems at hand. It's time to bake Easter cakes, and not make adjustments to the existing recipe for making Christmas pudding.
And what is the cost of another attempt to introduce stupidity into SP 5.13130, which can baffle any competent specialist:
"14.1.1. It is recommended to select the type of automatic fire detectors in accordance with their sensitivity to test fires in accordance with GOST R 53325.”
Test lesions for all types of IP, with the exception of special additional test lesions for aspiration, are the same. And the task of any individual entrepreneur is to pass these tests. And no one anywhere will find specific numerical indicators of this sensitivity to test fires, so that one specific detector can be compared with another and make a choice. Apparently, this was done only in order to original text from NPB 88-2001 do not make major changes:
"12.1. It is recommended that the type of point smoke detector be selected according to its ability to detect Various types fumes, which can be determined according to GOST R 50898."
But even in the edition of NPB 88-2001 this was already unprofessional. A smoke detector must detect all types of smoke, otherwise it cannot be called a smoke detector. The problem of reliable and timely fire detection needs to be solved from a completely different perspective, and not try to replace one stupidity with another. It would be good, first of all, to determine such characteristics of the system as timeliness and reliability of fire detection, how they are determined, achieved and how to standardize them. And only after that give some recommendations.
In my opinion, without a clear understanding of the meaning of these characteristics, one cannot talk about any effectiveness of the fire alarm itself, and this requires serious study and discussion.
And here, in the draft of the new edition of SP 5.13130, a new twist appears - attempts were discovered to give some preferences to gas fire alarms, which have been finally decided on for about ten years abroad, and not in their favor.
All the above examples are the results of haphazard work. The lack of requirements for the main characteristics of the AUPS is replaced by a chaotic set of private design rules.
The set of rules SP 5.13130 is normative document lower level. And sooner or later it will be necessary to develop a national standard instead. But with SP 5.13130 in its current edition there is no need to even talk about this.
The European standard EN 54-14 “Requirements for planning, design, installation, operation and maintenance” states right in the introduction:
"1. Application area
This standard sets out the mandatory requirements for the use of automatic systems fire alarm, i.e. detection and/or notification in the event of a fire. The standard addresses issues of planning and design of fire alarm systems, their installation, commissioning, operating procedures and Maintenance».
Note the term "requirements" used. And these requirements apply specifically to the final product - the fire alarm.
There is no need to separate design, installation, operation and maintenance according to different regulatory documents. Let us note that in our country no documents have yet been created either on installation, or on operation and maintenance of fire alarms. Fire alarm requirements at all stages life cycle must remain unchanged. And now it is simply impossible to make claims for non-compliance of the fire alarm system in use with existing requirements on the basis of existing regulatory documents. One thing was designed, it was installed differently, and after several years of operation and maintenance a third one appeared. And this question in EN 54-14 was closed forever.
And now, for example, one more of the general provisions from EN 54-14:
"6.4.1. Fire detectors: General provisions
When choosing the type of detector, the following factors should be considered:
Type of materials on the protected object and their flammability;
Dimensions and location of rooms (especially ceiling height);
Availability of ventilation and heating;
Indoor environmental conditions;
Probability of false positives;
Regulatory acts. The selected type of fire detectors must, taking into account the environmental conditions in the places where they are planned to be installed, ensure the earliest possible guaranteed detection of a fire and transmission of a fire alarm signal. There are no types of detectors that are suitable for use in all conditions. Ultimately, this choice depends on specific conditions.”
And only after this are specific instructions given on the use of each type of IP, which to some extent are also available in our SP 5.13130.
However, there are also fundamental differences. One of the factors influencing the choice of IP, as can be seen from the list above, is the probability of false positives. And this concept found a place in EN 54-14:
"4.5. False alarm
False alarms and the resulting system disruption are a serious problem and can result in a genuine fire alarm being ignored. Therefore, those responsible for planning, installing and operating the system must take the utmost care to avoid false alarms.”
Thus, in many national standards, which are sometimes more stringent than pan-European standards, the probability of false positives has been standardized for more than ten years. This is the approach of real experts in their field.
And in our country at this time, the authors of the standards prefer not to give direct answers to questions from many years of everyday practice. Or maybe they are deliberately doing it so that they can constantly communicate with people through letters of explanation and letters of “happiness”.
Just look at the following requirement in the SP 5.13130 project:
"18.5. The required probability of failure-free operation of technical equipment, adopted in accordance with the methodology for calculating risks depending on the fire danger of the facility, is ensured by the reliability parameters of the technical equipment of a particular system when conducting functional checks during operation, with a calculated frequency in accordance with the Comments to ".
That is, before developing working documentation for a fire alarm and determine the required probability of failure-free operation, you need to conduct a functional test during operation of this particular fire alarm at this particular facility with a certain frequency. Do you think someone will be guided by this when designing? And then why write such a rule?
So that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between fire alarm requirements Federal law dated July 22, 2008 No. 123-FZ “Technical Regulations on Fire Safety Requirements” and a new regulatory document, it is proposed to present it in the following form.
List the tasks to be solved in the same order as I did at the very beginning of this article: reliability of fire detection, timeliness of fire detection, resistance of AUPS and SPS to external environmental influences, monitoring the current state of AUPS and SPS by duty personnel, interaction between AUPS and ATP with other fire protection subsystems, the safety of people from electric shock, and after that, disclose each component.
It might look something like this: 1. The reliability of fire detection is ensured by:
■ choosing the IP type;
■ formation of fire alarm control zones;
■ algorithm for making decisions about a fire;
■ protection from false positives.
1.1. Selecting IP type:
1.1.1. EITI allows...
1.1.2. IPT allows...
1.1.3. IPDL allows...
1.1.4. IPDA allows.
1.2. Formation of fire alarm control zones:
Why are they formed, what restrictions are imposed on them?
1.3. Algorithms for making decisions about a fire that increase reliability:
1.3.1. . "Fire 1". "Fire 2".
1.3.2. ... "Attention" ... "Fire." 1.4. Protection against false positives:
1.4.1. The use of combined IP...
1.4.2. Using multi-criteria IP... (just first you need to understand what it is).
1.4.3. Using IP with protection against particles that are not combustion products...
1.4.4. The degree of rigidity of fire automatic equipment to electromagnetic influences.
2. Timely detection of fire is ensured by:
2.1. Thermal IP should be placed in such and such a way.
2.2. Place smoke point IP...
2.3. Manual call points should be located.
3. The stability of AUPS and SPS to external influences is achieved:
■ choosing the appropriate topology for constructing an installation or fire alarm system;
■ resistance to external mechanical stress;
■ resistance to electromagnetic interference;
■ stability of communication lines in fire conditions;
■ redundancy of power supplies and power lines.
3.1. Selection of structure topology.
3.2. Resistance to external mechanical influences:
3.2.1. Devices should be placed...
3.2.2. Communication lines should be laid.
3.3. Stability of communication lines in fire conditions.
3.4. Immunity to electromagnetic interference.
3.5. Power requirements.
4. Visualization current state AUPS and SPS are provided by:
4.1. Personnel on duty must have continuous visual and audible monitoring.
4.2. Personnel on duty must have access to the necessary information...
4.3. Personnel on duty must have access to controls for prompt intervention.
5. Interaction of AUPS with other fire protection subsystems:
5.1. Management of AUPT and SOUE type 5 must be carried out.
5.2. Management of SOUE types 1-4 must be carried out.
5.3. Smoke ventilation must be controlled.
5.4. Fire signals from fire category facilities F1.1, F1.2, F4.1, and F4.2 must be duplicated...
5.5. Fire signals from facilities that do not have 24-hour fire stations must be transmitted...
5.6. Compatibility of various fire automatic equipment with each other.
6. Ensuring the safety of people from electric shock is ensured by:
6.1. Grounding...
6.2. Controls must be protected from accidental access.
This, of course, is not a dogma; it can be considered as one of the proposals for the structure of the new document.
As soon as the requirements already existing in SP 5.13130 are placed in the proposed places, it will become clear whether they are sufficient to solve the problems at hand or not. Requirements will appear that never found a place in this structure. In this case, you will have to evaluate their necessity. It is quite possible that it would make sense to concentrate some of the provisions or rules in some recommendations, which may not be of a mandatory nature.
I can say that in the process of working on such a structure of a fundamentally new document, many new problems will appear. For example, how to correlate the required reliability of fire detection and timeliness of detection. If increased timeliness of detection is required, then two PI located in the same room must be switched on using the “OR” scheme, otherwise one PI is sufficient if, at the same time, some other boundary conditions are met. And, if increased reliability is required at the expense of timely detection, then these two PIs will have to be included according to the “AND” scheme. Who should make this decision and in what case?
Here I would like to recall the issue of electrical and information compatibility of various fire automatic equipment with each other. In order to minimize costs for fire automatic equipment, a decision is often made to use one unit from one manufacturer and another unit from a second manufacturer. And the third from the third. Those. Hedgehogs and grass snakes are crossing with each other. The draft new edition states that for this they must be compatible with each other. But there is nothing about who should check and evaluate this compatibility. If we are talking about products from one manufacturer, then this is checked during certification tests by specially trained experts.
But the right to combine device components from different manufacturers is given to anyone. Miracles, and that's all. In response to my corresponding question to the authors of such a norm, I was given the answer that “experienced specialists” are doing this. Then why does the set of rules for these “experienced specialists” indicate so many small and detailed features for laying fire alarm cables and other small things. Why transfer so much paper for this? If necessary, they will figure it out themselves. This is the approach of the authors to their own regulatory documents.
And I also want to return to the place of fire control devices, which I have already mentioned twice here. If we take the sets of rules for related fire protection systems (for notifying people about a fire, smoke protection, internal fire water supply, elevators, etc.), then in them we're talking about only about the procedure for using final actuators (annunciators, fans, electric drives, valves, etc.). It is understood that the signals to them come from fire alarm installations or systems, but nothing is written about the use of fire control devices to control these actuators. Thus, over the course of many years, a whole link in the form of control devices has fallen out of the norm. Everyone knows about this, but until now all authors fire safety standards this topic is carefully avoided, everyone nods to Federal Law No. 123. Only according to the law in paragraph 3 of Art. 103 and in paragraph 3. Art. 103 these control devices, strange as it may seem, relate to fire alarms. Maybe it's not so bad. Only then should they be taken into account in the relevant requirements. There should be no blind spots in fire safety.
If work is not carried out to radically revise the principle of construction and content of the set of rules SP 5.13130, then there will be no need to talk about its trouble-free application in practice. Further rolling the snowball will not yield results, everyone has long understood this. Over more than 30 years of “improving” it, too much has changed. Without identifying the tasks facing this document, we will never achieve them, and it will remain a kind of cookbook with a very complex and contradictory recipe. We hope that the employees of the Federal State Budgetary Institution VNIIPO EMERCOM of Russia will find a solution to this problem, otherwise they will have to involve the public.
MINISTRY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION FOR CIVIL DEFENSE, EMERGENCIES AND DISASTER ELIMINATION
ORDER
01.06.2011 № 000
Moscow
On approval of amendment No. 1 to the set of rules SP 5.13130.2009 “Fire protection systems. Fire alarm and fire extinguishing installations are automatic. Design standards and rules”, approved by order of the Russian Ministry of Emergency Situations
In accordance with the Federal Law of 01.01.01 “Technical Regulations on Fire Safety Requirements” (Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation, 2008, No. 30 (Part 1), Article 3579), Presidential Decree Russian Federation dated 01.01.01 No. 000 “Issues of the Ministry of the Russian Federation for Civil Defense Affairs, emergency situations and liquidation of consequences natural Disasters"(Collected Legislation of the Russian Federation, 2004, No. 28, Art. 2882; 2005, No. 43, Art. 4376; 2008, No. 17, Art. 1814, No. 43, Art. 4921, No. 47, Art. 5431; 2009, No. 22, Article 2697, No. 51, Article 6285; 2010, No. 19, Article 2301, No. 20, Article 2435, No. 51 (part 3), Article 6903; 2011, No. 1, Article 193 , Art. 194, No. 2, Art. 267), Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 01.01.01 No. 000 “On the procedure for developing and approving sets of rules” (Collected Legislation of the Russian Federation, 2008, No. 48, Art. 5608) and in order to ensure compliance of certain provisions (requirements, indicators) of the set of rules SP 5.13130.2009 with the interests of the national economy, the state of the material and technical base and scientific progress, I order:
Approve and put into effect from June 20, 2011 the attached amendment No. 1 to the set of rules SP 5.13130.2009 “Fire protection systems. Fire alarm and fire extinguishing installations are automatic. Design standards and rules”, approved by order of the Russian Ministry of Emergency Situations.
|
Director of the Administrative Department |
Application
to the order of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia
from 01.06.11 No. 000
Change #1
to SP 5.13130.2009
OKS 13.220.01
CHANGE No. 1 to the set of rules SP 5.13130.2009 “Fire protection systems. Fire alarm and fire extinguishing installations are automatic. Design norms and rules"
Regardless of area and number of floors
4.2 For maintenance and repair
Object of protection
Standard indicator
5 Buildings with a height of more than 30 m (except for residential buildings and industrial buildings categories G and D for fire hazard)
Regardless of area
6 Residential buildings:
6.1 Dormitories, specialized residential buildings for the elderly and disabled1)
Regardless of area
6.2 Residential buildings with a height of more than 28 m 2)
Regardless of area
footnote “2)” should be worded as follows:
“2) AUPS fire detectors are installed in the hallways of apartments and are used to open valves and turn on fans of air supply and smoke removal units. Residential premises of apartments in residential buildings with a height of three floors or more should be equipped with autonomous optical-electronic smoke detectors.”; in table A.Z:
paragraph 6 should be included in the section “ Industrial premises", excluding it from the section "Warehouse premises";
paragraph 35 should be stated as follows:
Object of protection | ||
Standard indicator |
||
35 Accommodation premises: | ||
35.1 Electronic computers (computers), automated process control equipment, operating in control systems for complex technological processes, the violation of which affects the safety of people5) | Regardless of area | |
35.2 Communication processors (server), archives of magnetic media, plotters, printing information on paper (printer)5) | 24 m2 or more | Less than 24 m2 |
35.3 To place personal computers on user desktops | Regardless of area |
add footnote “5)” with the following content:
“5) In the cases provided for in paragraph 8.15.1 of this set of rules, for premises requiring equipment with automatic installations gas fire extinguishing it is allowed not to use such installations, provided that all electronic and electrical equipment is protected by autonomous fire extinguishing installations, and an automatic fire alarm is installed in the premises.”; in table A.4:
add paragraph 8 with the following content:
add footnote “1)” with the following content:
“The listed equipment is subject to protection by autonomous fire extinguishing installations.”;
add the following note:
“Note: Electrical installations located on stationary above-ground and underground metro facilities should be protected by autonomous fire extinguishing installations.”;
Appendix D should be supplemented with paragraphs D11-D15 with the following content, respectively:
GOST, TU, OST | ||
D. 12 Standard volumetric fire extinguishing concentration of freon CF3CF2C(0)CF(CF3)2.
The vapor density at P = 101.3 kPa and T = 20 °C is 13.6 kg/m3.
UDC 614.841.3:006.354 OKS 13.220.01
Key words: fire spread, protection objects, buildings public purpose, industrial and warehouse buildings, high-rise buildings
|
Head of the Federal State Institution VNIIPO EMERCOM of Russia | |
Head of the Research Center for PP and PChSP FGU VNIIPO EMERCOM of Russia | |
Head of Development | |
Performers Leading researcher at the Federal State Institution VNIIPO EMERCOM of Russia |
Name of combustible material | GOST, TU, OST | Standard volumetric fire extinguishing concentration, % (vol.) |
D. 13 Standard volumetric fire extinguishing concentration of freon 217J1 (C3F7J).
The vapor density at P = 101.3 kPa and T-20 °C is 12.3 kg/m3.
Name of combustible material | GOST, TU, OST | Standard volumetric fire extinguishing concentration, % (vol.) |
D. 14 Standard volumetric fire extinguishing concentration of freon CF3J. The vapor density at P = 101.3 kPa and T = 20 °C is 8.16 kg/m3.
Name of combustible material | GOST, TU, OST | Standard volumetric fire extinguishing concentration, % (vol.) |
D. 15 Standard volumetric fire extinguishing concentration of the Argonite gas composition (nitrogen (N2) - 50% (vol.); argon (Ar) - 50% (vol.).
The vapor density at P - 101.3 kPa and T - 20 °C is 1.4 kg/m3.
Name of combustible material | GOST, TU, OST | Standard volumetric fire extinguishing concentration, % (vol.) |
Note - The standard volumetric fire extinguishing concentration of the above listed gas extinguishing agents for extinguishing a class A2 fire should be taken equal to the standard volumetric fire extinguishing concentration for extinguishing n-heptane.”;
OKS 13.220.10 UDC614.844.4:006.354
Key words: autonomous fire extinguishing installation, automatic fire alarm, fire extinguishing agent, protected object
Head of the development organization FGU VNIIPO EMERCOM of Russia Boss FGU VNIIPO EMERCOM of Russia | |
Head of Development Head of Research Center PST FGU VNIIPO EMERCOM of Russia | |
Performers | |
Head of Department 2.4 FGU VNIIPO EMERCOM of Russia | |
Head of Department 3.4 FGU VNIIPO EMERCOM of Russia | |
Deputy Head of Department 2.3 FGU VNIIPO EMERCOM of Russia |
© "EMERCOM of Russia" 2011
The number of point fire detectors installed in a room is determined by the need to solve two main problems: ensuring high reliability of the fire alarm system and high reliability of the fire signal (low probability of generating a false alarm signal).
First of all, it is necessary to identify the functions performed by the fire alarm system, namely, whether fire protection systems (fire extinguishing, warning, smoke removal, etc.) are triggered by a signal from fire detectors, or whether the system only provides fire alarm in the premises of duty personnel .
If the function of the system is only fire alarm, then it can be assumed that Negative consequences when generating a false alarm signal are insignificant. Based on this premise, in rooms whose area does not exceed the area protected by one detector (according to Tables 13.3, 13.5), in order to increase the reliability of the system, two detectors are installed, connected according to the logical “OR” circuit (a fire signal is generated when any one of them is triggered). two installed detectors). In this case, if one of the detectors fails uncontrollably, the second one will perform the fire detection function. If the detector is capable of testing itself and transmitting information about its malfunction to control panel(meets the requirements of clause 13.3.3 b), c)), then one detector can be installed in the room. B large rooms detectors are installed at a standard distance.
Similarly, for flame detectors, each point of the protected premises must be controlled by two detectors connected according to the logical “OR” circuit (in paragraph 13.8.3, a technical error was made during publication, therefore, instead of “according to the logical circuit “AND”” one should read “by logical circuit "OR""), or one detector that meets the requirements of clause 13.3.3 b), c).
If it is necessary to generate a control signal for a fire protection system, then when designing project organization must determine whether this signal be generated from one detector, which is acceptable for the systems listed in clause 14.2, or the signal will be generated according to clause 14.1, i.e. when two detectors are triggered (logical “AND” circuit).
The use of a logical “AND” circuit makes it possible to increase the reliability of the formation of a fire signal, since a false alarm of one detector will not cause the formation of a control signal. This algorithm is required to control type 5 fire extinguishing and warning systems. To control other systems you can get by alarm signal from one detector, but only if false activation of these systems does not lead to a decrease in the level of human safety and/or unacceptable material losses. The rationale for such a decision should be reflected in the explanatory note to the project. In this case it is necessary to apply technical solutions, allowing to increase the reliability of the formation of a fire signal. Such solutions may include the use of so-called “smart” detectors that provide analysis physical characteristics fire factors and (or) the dynamics of their change, providing information about their critical state (dustiness, contamination), using the function of re-querying the status of detectors, taking measures to eliminate (reduce) the impact on the detector of factors similar to fire factors and that can cause a false alarm.
If during the design it was decided to generate control signals for fire protection systems from one detector, then the requirements for the number and placement of detectors coincide with the above requirements for systems that perform only the alarm function. The requirements of clause 14.3 do not apply.
If the fire protection system control signal is generated from two detectors, switched on in accordance with clause 14.1, according to the “AND” logic circuit, then the requirements of clause 14.3 come into force. The need to increase the number of detectors to three, or even four, in rooms with a smaller area controlled by one detector follows from ensuring high reliability of the system in order to maintain its functionality in case of uncontrolled failure of one detector. When using detectors with a self-testing function and transmitting information about their malfunction to the control panel (meets the requirements of clause 13.3.3 b), c)), two detectors can be installed in the room, necessary to implement the “I” function, but on the condition that the operability of the system is maintained by timely replacement of a failed detector.
In large rooms, in order to save the time of formation of a fire signal from two detectors, connected according to the logical “AND” circuit, the detectors are installed at a distance of no more than half the standard one, so that the fire factors reach and trigger the two detectors in a timely manner. This requirement applies to detectors located along the walls, and to detectors along one of the axes of the ceiling (at the choice of the designer). The distance between the detectors and the wall remains standard.
Application of GOTV freon 114B2In accordance with International documents on the protection of the Earth's ozone layer (Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the Earth's ozone layer and a number of amendments to it) and Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1000 of December 19, 2000 “On clarifying the deadline for the implementation of measures of state regulation of the production of ozone-depleting substances in the Russian Federation” issue freon 114B2 has been discontinued.
In pursuance of International Agreements and Decrees of the Government of the Russian Federation, the use of freon 114B2 in newly designed installations and installations whose service life has expired is considered inappropriate.
As an exception, the use of freon 114B2 in AUGP is intended for fire protection of particularly important (unique) facilities, with the permission of the Ministry natural resources Russian Federation.
For fire protection of objects with electronic equipment (telephone exchanges, server rooms, etc.), ozone-non-depleting refrigerants 125 (C2 F5H) and 227 ea (C3F7H) are used.
1 area of useIn this case, when determining the number of detectors, a combined detector is taken into account as one detector.
13.3.16. Ceiling-mounted detectors can be used to protect the space below a perforated false ceiling if the following conditions are simultaneously met:
Perforation has periodic structure and its area exceeds 40% of the surface;
The minimum size of each perforation in any section is not less than 10 mm;
The thickness of the false ceiling is no more than three times the minimum size of the perforation cell.
If at least one of these requirements is not met, the detectors must be installed on a false ceiling in the main room, and if necessary, protect the space behind suspended ceiling additional detectors must be installed on the main ceiling.
13.3.17. Detectors should be oriented so that the indicators are directed, if possible, towards the door leading to the exit from the room.
13.3.18. The placement and use of fire detectors, the procedure for use of which is not defined in this set of rules, must be carried out in accordance with the recommendations agreed upon in the prescribed manner.
