C-TEC fire alarm compatibility

[oscar21]

Hi, I need to extend a fire alarm, the panel is a CTEC CFP 2 zone one and currently it has a couple of apollo alarm sense sounder bases/heads on it. I fitted 2 extra normal (non-sounder) alarm sense bases and alarm sense heads but the panel is showing a fault on that zone, the fault clears if I bypass the two conventional base's. All the heads work on the sounder bases.

Are the alarm sense conventional bases compatible with the CFP panels because the instructions just show a diode base in the wiring diagrams, if they aren't then why do the alarm sense sounder bases/heads work ok.

Edit - I've just checked the CTEC site and it does say the panels are compatible with the alarm sense stuff. Why would it show a fault then if it clears when you bypass either base, they are definitely wired the correct way round. The bizzare thing is the panel still shows a fault if you put the end of line capacitor in the panel along with the fire alarm circuit if either base is in he circuit it that makes sense.

Edit 2 - I didn't get any instructions with the bases as they were just loose in the package but apparently you don't wire the alarm sense bases across L1 and L2, both browns go in L1. Fancy having an L2 connection then, its just inviting trouble, luckily they are only £3 each.

 

[timhoward]

You are not the first, those bases are horribly confusing.
A normal base:
+ zone to L1 IN , both in and out
- zone to L2, both in and out
DO NOT USE "L1 OUT" FOR ANYTHING, however tempting and logical it seems

A sounder base has two sets of L1 and L2 terminals, and an L1 IN and L1 OUT.
+IN L1 and -IN L2 to one pair
+OUT L1 and - OUT L2 to the other pair.

I used to hate these systems so much....!

The bizzare thing is the panel still shows a fault if you put the end of line capacitor in the panel along with the fire alarm circuit if either base is in he circuit it that makes sense.

That strongly suggests a wiring fault.
To avoid going mad, I'd rig up two short bits of wire with both bases, heads and an EOL and try connecting that directly to the panel zone. If it's happy there, it will be happy when integrated with the existing zone, but obviously remove the EOL.

last one:

 

[Vortigern]

Yeh agree with above. It was fortunate I read the manufacturers instructions and realised this was not the usual or expected type of wiring. Could have been a real pain had I not carefully observed the instructions. Which I had to get on-line.

 

[oscar21]

You are not the first, those bases are horribly confusing.
A normal base:
+ zone to L1 IN , both in and out
- zone to L2, both in and out
DO NOT USE "L1 OUT" FOR ANYTHING, however tempting and logical it seems

A sounder base has two sets of L1 and L2 terminals, and an L1 IN and L1 OUT.
+IN L1 and -IN L2 to one pair
+OUT L1 and - OUT L2 to the other pair.

I used to hate these systems so much....!


That strongly suggests a wiring fault.
To avoid going mad, I'd rig up two short bits of wire with both bases, heads and an EOL and try connecting that directly to the panel zone. If it's happy there, it will be happy when integrated with the existing zone, but obviously remove the EOL.

View attachment 107792

last one:
View attachment 107793

Yea, it crazy, I'm no expert on fire alarm panels by any means but I know sounder bases and beacons are sometimes wired differently on various make panels but I thought a base was a base, you either split the -ve or the +ve wires depending on the make across the diode. They have obviously just used the older conventional base and updated it by screwing newr stuff to it leaving the older terminal identifiers in place, I did read the instructions for the sounder base so understood not to connect anything to the L1, L2 etc but unfortunately I didnt have any instructions for the normal bases but I thought how hard can it be.

Also the sounder and beacon bases are pain in the arse to fit, the screws are hidden way too deep in the mechanism to even see what you are doing.

 

[peteronowak]

I have question about CTEK 2 zone fire alarm panel, hope its ok to jump in on this thread....

I have a situation where all my cables (2core fire resistant) all run individually from each detector (7 of them) and from each call point (2 of them) all the way to a central point where a panel will be installed. So the cable monkey, did not connect the detectors and call points in series, instead wasted quite a lot of cable and ran it all the way from each detector/call point to one central point.

This means that I can no longer achieve a serial connection, instead I can connect it all in parallell and possibly put EOL at the end of each device.

My question is now if a CTEK 2 zone panel (CFP702-2) can still be used for connecting this up?

The premises is quite small, 5 rooms and a staircase, as such I was planning on using a CTEK 2 zone panel (CFP702-2) and make the staircase 1 zone (2 detectors and a call point) and the 5 rooms into the other zone (5 detectors and a call point)

Each zone also has cabling for a sounder

As the cable monkey pulled all the cables through (point to point) I suppose I could effectively create 7 seperate zones and put EOL at each end point but as mentioned, ideally I would like to simply get a CTEK 2 zone panel (CFP702-2) as the premesis is less than 50m2 but would a CTEK 2 zone panel accept this? Looking at the manual, the CTEK 2 zone panel (CFP702-2) want it all to be connected in a series and not in parallell.

Many thanks in advance for any help.

 

[Flanders]

You have to wire them in series. With the set up you have with 7 detectors and 2 call points so would need 9 zones . The sounders also go on separate circuits

 

[peteronowak]

You have to wire them in series. With the set up you have with 7 detectors and 2 call points so would need 9 zones . The sounders also go on separate circuits

Thanks for replying Flanders, so there is no way I can get the CTEK 2 zone panel to accept my setup... I will need a 9 zone panel?

 

[MJPD29]

Thanks for replying Flanders, so there is no way I can get the CTEK 2 zone panel to accept my setup... I will need a 9 zone panel?

Yes

 

[Flanders]

Yes unless you can rewire any of it. Not even sure you can get a 9 zone I think the biggest they go I'me 8 zone . With 4 sounder circuits . You will have to rewire some of it the detector in series

 

[peteronowak]

Yes unless you can rewire any of it. Not even sure you can get a 9 zone I think the biggest they go I'me 8 zone . With 4 sounder circuits . You will have to rewire some of it the detector in series

Huh... rewire does not sound like a option... any idea if there are any other panels (not CTEK) that would accept paralell wireing or have 9 zone panels?

 

[timhoward]

This means that I can no longer achieve a serial connection, instead I can connect it all in parallell and possibly put EOL at the end of each device.

NO!
An EOL on any one of the spurs will tell the panel that all of them of fault-free, so you could remove any of the heads and it wouldn't know about it.
Can you possibly pull 4-core through on one of the cable runes using the existing 2 core, and use an 8 zone panel?

 

[peteronowak]

NO!
An EOL on any one of the spurs will tell the panel that all of them of fault-free, so you could remove any of the heads and it wouldn't know about it.
Can you possibly pull 4-core through on one of the cable runes using the existing 2 core, and use an 8 zone panel?

yeah... I do know that this is messed up... making each wire connection one individual zone would be the obvious choice avoiding having to re-wire...

Any recommendation of a panel that would take this?

 

[MJPD29]

yeah... I do know that this is messed up... making each wire connection one individual zone would be the obvious choice avoiding having to re-wire...

Any recommendation of a panel that would take this?

I don’t think avoiding the rewire or at the least some additional cables is going to work

 

[peteronowak]

I don’t think avoiding the rewire or at the least some additional cables is going to work

so there are no panels out there that would accept a "parallel connection" of devices or be able to offer 9 zones? Every one of my detectors and call points are wired individially to the central point, enabling every one to become "a zone"

 

[timhoward]

so there are no panels out there that would accept a "parallel connection" of devices or be able to offer 9 zones? Every one of my detectors and call points are wired individially to the central point, enabling every one to become "a zone"

Normal conventional is out for reasons above.
Normal addressable is out as you haven't got a loop and manufactures have quite strict rules about spurs that I'm fairly sure you couldn't meet in this case.
So that leave's the special cases....
Twinflex Pro is out as it also has end-of-line.
The only panel I can think of that MAY work is the Infinity ID2 range. I say that because it doesn't use EOL devices, it learns the devices and polls them. I believe it would still work with two radials in one zone. Before taking my word for this please check this is supported by the manufacture. After all this is a critical life saving system.

I'd still highly recommend finding a solution that kept it 'normal' and compatible with the majority of panels.
Is there no way to run a cable between any two devices and discard one of the radials to the panel so you are down to 8 zones?

 

[timhoward]

Another (better) possibility, look at ESP Magfire - I think they make a 12 zone conventional panel. Very basic but it might be your only option.

 

[peteronowak]

Normal conventional is out for reasons above.
Normal addressable is out as you haven't got a loop and manufactures have quite strict rules about spurs that I'm fairly sure you couldn't meet in this case.
So that leave's the special cases....
Twinflex Pro is out as it also has end-of-line.
The only panel I can think of that MAY work is the Infinity ID2 range. I say that because it doesn't use EOL devices, it learns the devices and polls them. I believe it would still work with two radials in one zone. Before taking my word for this please check this is supported by the manufacture. After all this is a critical life saving system.

I'd still highly recommend finding a solution that kept it 'normal' and compatible with the majority of panels.
Is there no way to run a cable between any two devices and discard one of the radials to the panel so you are down to 8 zones?

thanls for the suggestion, well, if I cant find something that will accept my current set up then I will simply have to either re-wire or loose one detector to make it 8 zones

 

[timhoward]

thanls for the suggestion, well, if I cant find something that will accept my current set up then I will simply have to either re-wire or loose one detector to make it 8 zones

Did you see my later thought - ESP Magfire 12 zone

 

[peteronowak]

Did you see my later thought - ESP Magfire 12 zone

Hi Tim, I must have missed that one... thanks, that should sort me out I guess....

 

[timhoward]

Hi Tim, I must have missed that one... thanks, that should sort me out I guess....

Out of interest, how did this cable monkey do the sounder circuits?

 

[peteronowak]

Out of interest, how did this cable monkey do the sounder circuits?

the exact same way as all the detectors and call points... a 2 core cable (at least he used the shielded and fireproof one) from point to point...

So he did one cable for zone 1 sounder (point to point) and another for zone 2 (point to point)

I haven't even checked if this (for the sounders) is ok... I just immediately got upset about the circuit cabling

 

[timhoward]

so he did one cable for zone 1 sounder (point to point) and another for zone 2 (point to point)

I haven't even checked if this (for the sounders) is ok... I just immediately got upset about the circuit cabling

If you are saying you have 2 sounder circuit cables back at the panel it's ok. If you are saying that you have 8 sounder cables back at the panel then this all falls flat as they have EOL devices too.
If the latter the only solution I can see is use a bi-wire system (e.g. Fike Twin flex pro) and combined detector/sounders, and fine a way to either lose a detector or find the simplest cable run between two devices (loft space?) as I'm not aware of an >8 zone bi-wire system.

 

[peteronowak]

If you are saying you have 2 sounder circuit cables back at the panel it's ok. If you are saying that you have 8 sounder cables back at the panel then this all falls flat as they have EOL devices too.
If the latter the only solution I can see is use a bi-wire system (e.g. Fike Twin flex pro) and combined detector/sounders, and fine a way to either lose a detector or find the simplest cable run between two devices (loft space?) as I'm not aware of an >8 zone bi-wire system.

thanks Tim, yes, I have 2 sounder cables back to the central point (where the panel will sit)

one cable is for one sounder, the other cable is for the other sounder

I then have another 9 cables coming to the central point (where the panel will sit) each of these cables are going directly to the devices, 7 of them to detectors, 2 of them to call points.

The cable monkey simply thought that each device will be connected directly to the panel and not in a series.

So now I am trying to find a fire alarm panel that would accept this setup...

Perhaps, if I can't find a panel, then maybe 2 panels can be installed and the devices would be split between them into zones... one would have 5 zones, and a sounder and the other 4 zones and a spunder...

re-wire it into a series would be a pig of a job.... :-(

Many thanks again for all the replies

 

[MReynish6]

Personally just rewire it so it’s done correctly, you’re asking for problems in my opinion. It’s not ideal to have so many zones in such a small system. Have you considered how it and if it meets fire regs etc? Is the commissioning engineer happy for it to be possibly done the way you’re looking at now?

 

[peteronowak]

Personally just rewire it so it’s done correctly, you’re asking for problems in my opinion. It’s not ideal to have so many zones in such a small system. Have you considered how it and if it meets fire regs etc? Is the commissioning engineer happy for it to be possibly done the way you’re looking at now?

yeah I understand it is not ideal having that many zones, I'm just trying to see what would be the best option. re-wire would at the moment be the last thing I would like to do

 

[westward10]

I know what I would be doing. Start van and wave good bye.

 

[peteronowak]

Another (better) possibility, look at ESP Magfire - I think they make a 12 zone conventional panel. Very basic but it might be your only option.

Hi again Tim,

what about this panel (also from CTEK)

FF392-2 FP 12 Zone Conventional Fire Alarm Panel

C-TEC's BS5989-4 compliant FP 12 Zone conventional fire panel c/w 2 sounder circuits. Not suitable for new installations in the EU.

c-tec.com

This would look to me as though it can take 12 zones, so connecting each device up individually and create a zone for each and every device... would that not work?

Obviously also close each device with a EOL...

 

[timhoward]

Hi again Tim,

what about this panel (also from CTEK)

It would work.
The thing it is does say "this panel in not compliant with EN54-2/4 and should NOT be used in new UK or European installations"....
You could do with some advice from a current fire alarm engineer as I got out of this game a long while ago, and can't give you any info about whether the lack of compliance of EN54 on that panel is an issue or not.

 

[peteronowak]

It would work.
The thing it is does say "this panel in not compliant with EN54-2/4 and should NOT be used in new UK or European installations"....
You could do with some advice from a current fire alarm engineer as I got out of this game a long while ago, and can't give you any info about whether the lack of compliance of EN54 on that panel is an issue or not.

aha... indeed well spotted Tim, I did not catch that... well, I will try to get in touch with someone to hear about this non compliant issue... and to hear if there is perhaps a panel that would support 12 individual zones and be compliant

 

[westward10]

What is the story behind this. Was it your job to design and install the system or are you trying to patch up someone else's mess.

 

[peteronowak]

What is the story behind this. Was it your job to design and install the system or are you trying to patch up someone else's mess.

I am the owner of the property, cabling was done by someone who obviously did not know whst they were doing

 

[westward10]

So you employed someone to install a fire alarm system but you are trying to sort the mess and the control panel, why?

 

[peteronowak]

So you employed someone to install a fire alarm system but you are trying to sort the mess and the control panel, why?

because I want/need a functioning fire alarm system.

 

[westward10]

But you employed them to do this have they left you high and dry.

 

[Yozza19]

The best way (not the cheapest )
Is to install a small single loop addressable pannel eg advanced or c tec xfp and 9 no sun rail zone monitors
This would be a compliant system

 

[DPG]

Agree with Westward here - you need to get the guy back to put things right, rather than fanny* about trying to bodge a solution. Have you paid him?

*can I say fanny on here?

 

[oscar21]

Did you badger the spark to install the system because he was cheaper than a fire alarm company? People ask me to do all the donkey work pulling in data cables and stuff for other people all the time, ok I'll graft my arse off pulling in all your cables and you turn up in a suit and tie, program it all and make 10 times as much as me, I don't think so.

This sounds like a typical installation that ends up with holes everywhere, chancers wired the fire alarm in a star configuration but probably daisy chained the network cables, don't you just love em.

Reminds me of a job we did last year, a 7 bed HMO, we priced for the electrics, emergency lights and fire alarm, we only got the electrics part as he had a mate "that could do fire alarms". I was there whilst he was installing it and I thought it was all a bit strange, he looped a piece of 4 core FP cable in and out of every point but it just ended up as a radial at the furthest away point ,no loop, no separate circuits, just one big radial. When it was finished he had just put a load of Aico smoke detectors at every point, no fire panel just domestic smokes. Not sure how that has gone down with the council/licencing body, I thought a HMO had to have a proper fire alarm system, I priced for an addressable system at about £5k. Also I still don't think he ever connected the emergency lights or the smoke detectors to the mains, he must have assumed I was going to do it for some odd reason.

 

[MJPD29]

Or have you wired it yourself…

 

[Kenny212]

If the wiring can't be corrected , the best solution is to get a cheap 1 loop addressable fire alarm panel and create a loop and install isolators at the fire alarm panel and connect each zone cable to a different isolator and change all the non addressable devices to addressable devices and then you can put each device in the correct zone and put in location text of each device