#OPS
OPS: main development directions.
Mikhail LEVCHUK, Head of Marketing and Sales Department, Argus-Spectr JSC
Vladimir VOLKHONSKY, Director of Representative Office, ADI International
Mikhail SHAKAROV, Expert of Technical Support Department, Building Automation and Safety Department, Siemens
Sergey SHCHIPITSYN, General Director of System Sensor Fire Detectors
Question for discussions
In your opinion, the most striking achievements in the development of the OPS over the past decade
Mikhail LEVCHUK:
Achievements and bright achievements in the fire-fighting equipment market, of course, cannot happen independently of the environment, for example, the telecommunications market that has been developing at a galloping pace in recent decades.
The super-bright star of the latter is mobile telephony.
It is amazing how much our attitude to wireless communications has changed over the past 10 years: from an elite exotic service in the 90s to an everyday necessity today.
It seems to me that the mass introduction of wireless technologies into security and especially fire-fighting equipment should be considered one of the main achievements of the decade in our market.
It is especially worth noting the fundamentally new quality that wireless technologies have added to fire alarm and notification systems, namely: the ability to promptly manage evacuation even after a fire has started.
The connection between the detectors is «non-burning», therefore, it became possible to track the dynamics of smoke spread as long as at least one detector is alive.
The connection between the speakers of the voice notification system is also «non-burning», which allows changing the evacuation routes in accordance with the situation at the facility.
Mikhail SHAKAROV:
The main achievement of recent times is the increase in the reliability of automatic fire safety systems.
Leading companies have developed new intelligent fire alarms that, on the one hand, provide high protection against false alarms in the fire system, and on the other hand, are completely safe to use.
The use of specialized algorithms in «smart» addressable alarms allows them to adjust to the environmental situation, taking into account the background state and adapt to its changes.
Thanks to such solutions, it is possible to fully ensure fire safety at the entire facility, leaving no gaps due to the presence of serious factors of false alarms of the system and any side effects.
Sergey SHCHIPITSYN:
I will note the following main points.
The first is the transition from the use of contact thermal PI to smoke PI.
The second is a noticeable increase in the share of high-quality smoke PI in their total mass.
The third is the development of innovative PI on the world market.
The emergence of Russian manufacturers developing advanced detectors.
And finally, we cannot fail to mention such an event as the emergence of domestic addressable analog systems on the market.
A question for discussion
What, in your opinion, is the market share occupied by addressable analog systems today?
Mikhail LEVCHUK:
Unfortunately, we have to admit that the share of intelligent addressable analog fire systems in Russia does not exceed 10–15%.
It is hoped that in the near future the undeniable advantages (high reliability of fire detection, lower maintenance costs compared to traditional non-addressable systems) will allow these systems to become more widespread.
Mikhail SHAKAROV:
It can be noted that in Russia the market share of addressable and addressable-analogue systems still lags behind collective solutions, but the market movement towards using predominantly these systems is obvious, especially in large cities.
We are lagging behind Western European countries, where the use of addressable systems at new facilities has become comprehensive, and modern intelligent detectors are used more often, allowing for the highest reliability of the system during its long-term operation. This trend is primarily caused by the requirements of insurance companies, when the installation of a modern and reliable system allows for lower costs when insuring facilities, receiving significant discounts. Non-addressable (collective) systems can only be used at small facilities with low fire hazard of the premises.
In Russia, the field of private property insurance is only at the initial stage of development. Various methods for simplified and accelerated determination of fire hazard of buildings and structures and, accordingly, the tariff policy of insurance companies are being developed. The choice in favor of non-addressable systems is based on the cheapness of this equipment due to differences in product quality. Unfortunately, the reliability of the system and operating costs are not always taken into account and taken into account when purchasing equipment.
Nevertheless, it is obvious that addressable systems will occupy an increasing share of the market due to their main advantages: transmission of personalized messages about alarms, malfunctions, etc., easy and quick detection and localization of malfunctions, free configuration and distribution by fire detection zones.
Sergey SHCHIPITSYN:
About 10%.
Question for discussion
The future of wireless systems — will they take a dominant position? If so, how soon will this happen?
Mikhail LEVCHUK:
The rapid development of wireless technologies at the end of the last century led to the creation of a number of wireless fire alarm systems. The euphoria of the first years, when there were frequent predictions that radio systems would completely replace traditional wired systems, gave way to more sober assessments.
Having become widespread in Europe and America by the end of the 80s, radio systems, however, gained a bad reputation among professionals. This happened primarily due to the low quality of the components included in the radio systems of that time, and, consequently, the high level of false alarms.
It is not surprising that for many years, radio fire alarm systems were considered nothing more than amateur systems, suitable only for use in facilities with a low risk of technically prepared burglary (country houses, apartments, etc.). The use of radio systems for the protection of truly important facilities was episodic. Over the past decade, the situation has begun to change dramatically. The emergence of a new element base and modern protocols for accessing the environment have qualitatively changed the characteristics of radio systems. And today, manufacturers and installers of fire alarm equipment are coming to the general opinion that the latest generation of radio systems are opening up areas of application that were previously considered the domain of wired fire alarm systems.
A careful analysis of the capabilities of the latest generation systems shows:
— their greater survivability, especially in the event of a fire, compared to wired systems;
— economic efficiency (the principle of «more objects with less effort»);
— practical feasibility of use, especially at facilities with a 24 x 365 operating mode (hospitals, hotels, shopping centers).
Based on the above, we can conclude not so much about the dominance of any systems, but about the real possibility that has appeared in recent years of combining the advantages of wired and wireless systems at one facility. Moreover, we are talking about professional facilities: hospitals, schools, residential complexes, etc.
Vladimir VOLKHONSKY:
In my opinion, both wired and wireless options will coexist and each occupy its own niche in the security systems market.
The development of technology has significantly expanded the scope of application of wireless systems, partially displacing wired ones.
However, the significant dependence of radio systems on interference (both natural and artificially created to suppress the fire alarm system) and the conditions of radio wave propagation at specific sites in many cases limits the scope of their application.
That is, we are talking about monitoring communication channels between system elements and their protection from information retrieval and simulated interference.
This is especially true for the use of a radio channel to control the system. Its use should be limited if possible.
Or, at least, strictly controlled, primarily disarming and programming.
The explanation may be numerous cases of removing information about signal parameters in car alarm systems with subsequent unauthorized removal from security and theft.
Mikhail SHAKAROV:
We are currently seeing active development of the wireless devices market, which has also affected security systems.
There are many devices on the market that operate via radio channels. Manufacturers provide various specifications and maximum capabilities of such systems. However, in my opinion, in the field of security, it is necessary to approach the use of radio channel systems with great caution.
On the one hand, this is due to natural limiting factors, such as the propagation of a radio signal and the reliability of this type of communication channel.
On the other hand, all issues concerning the use of certain frequencies for such data transmission have not been clarified by law.
For now, these systems are more widespread for small, mainly private, objects or in combination with wired systems in case of difficulties with laying and fastening the cable loop.
Sergey SHCHIPITSYN:
This is unlikely to happen in the coming years.
The mobility requirement, important, for example, for telephones, is hardly applicable to fire alarm systems and security systems in general. Wireless systems are still a niche product that allows you to expand the capabilities of wired systems and solve very specific problems — install PI in places where cable laying is difficult or impossible due to design requirements, etc. At the same time, do not forget that some objects may have problems with electromagnetic compatibility (mutual interference from wireless fire alarm systems and other sources/receivers of radio signals) plus the emergence of new sources of interference over time, which will affect the operation of the system.
Question for discussion
What are the main directions of development of fire alarm systems?
Mikhail LEVCHUK:
If we talk about the market as a whole, then, as has already been noted earlier, this is the development of wireless technologies. Also interesting, in my opinion, is the creation of fire alarms that are endowed with sufficient intelligence to not only register the presence of smoke, but also determine whether this smoke is related to a real fire. In other words, to separate out interference in the form of, for example, water vapor, smoke from burnt toast, etc.
Vladimir VOLKHONSKY:
There are several trends, and they are related not only to the development of the industry, but also to a large extent to the development of microelectronics technology, which allows for the implementation of ever greater capabilities at an affordable price. Of course, first of all, this is the improvement of functional capabilities: tasks are becoming more complex, and accordingly, new functions are required from the equipment. Plus, competition forces developers to constantly add something to the list of offered capabilities.
The OPS system, like any security system, generally includes, firstly, detection devices (security and fire alarms, humidity and temperature sensors, etc.), secondly, communication channels (data loops or buses) with the control panel — i.e. with devices for collecting and processing information, thirdly, the control panel itself and, finally, channels for transmitting information to the security point, the owner, etc. Accordingly, development is taking place in these directions.
In the field of detectors, in addition to the usual requirement for increased reliability of detection of the relevant threats (intrusion, fire, etc.), an increasing degree of preliminary signal processing in the detector itself is added. That is, there is a redistribution of intelligence between the control panel and the sensor. Fortunately, modern microcontrollers allow this to be implemented at a reasonable price. Next is the improvement of the protection of the detectors themselves from unauthorized interference (masking, damage). Because the methods of detecting and disabling detectors are also being improved. Usually, the goal of intruders is to ensure that the detector does not perform its functions. Therefore, the detection of any actions (accidental or intentional) associated with attempts to make the detector inoperative is becoming increasingly important. Even despite the fact that, naturally, the price of the device also increases.
In terms of communication channels, this is the widespread use of virtually all modern communication channels, both wired and wireless. In particular, the increasing use of communication channels of computer networks and wireless telephony. But here we must be careful — the communication channel must be well protected from unauthorized access: the OPS system must protect itself.
In the 90s, control panels with wide programming capabilities replaced the control panels with rigid hardware implementation. And this trend continues to develop. In addition, another trend is that the software flexibility of the panels, which allows you to create a software configuration of the fire alarm system, maximally adapted to the object, is supplemented by modularity of the design. And it, in turn, makes it possible to assemble a hardware composition maximally adapted to the required task, and at the same time without unnecessary functions, and, consequently, costs.
Mikhail SHAKAROV:
The main direction of development determines the nature of objects that are currently being designed and built all over the world. Increasingly complex and original forms of buildings and structures require the use of special and comprehensive solutions to ensure fire safety of buildings. Therefore, reliable systems are required, easily adaptable to various tasks, but with centralized event processing. A person cannot cope with a large volume of information coming from automation systems of modern knowledge. He needs specialized computer software, convenient and reliable, with functions of prompts and assistance in decision-making, especially in emergency situations, based on well-known computer standards. In my opinion, the use of such computer software will expand with the integration of various security and building automation systems into a single environment.
Sergey SHCHIPITSYN:
Today, there are three main areas for Russian OPS (in order of importance): 1. Technological efficiency and simplicity — due to high competition in the market, cost reduction is becoming a fairly important competitive advantage. It is worth noting the fact that, despite the high level of inflation in the country, prices for PI are not increasing, and in some cases there is even a kind of price dumping. And in this case, the possibility of reducing the cost price even at the expense of reducing the quality and reliability of the equipment takes place.
2. Ready-made solutions and integration – designed to solve both individual problems (fire extinguishing, smoke removal) and a set of security problems by expanding functionality and integrating various subsystems into a single whole.
3. Development of new high-tech devices based on microprocessors.
Question for discussion
Some experts believe that the current regulatory framework in many cases allows a formal approach to the choice of OPS, based on the principle of the cheaper, the better. What, in your opinion, should change in this matter?
Mikhail LEVCHUK:
Based on world experience, formalism in this situation can be eradicated if at least two conditions are met:
firstly, the owner of the building must bear real responsibility (including criminal liability) for the life and health of people living, working or relaxing in this building;
Secondly, it is necessary to think about responsibility not only during the design or acceptance of the building, but also during subsequent operation. A formal approach to routine maintenance can ruin the most advanced security system.
In July 2008, a significant event took place in Russia: after many years of preparatory work, the federal law «Technical Regulations on Fire Safety Requirements» was adopted. I really want to believe that the ideas laid down during its creation will prove to be workable.
Vladimir VOLKHONSKY:
It seems to me that the issue is not in the regulatory framework. Financial restrictions have always been and will always be. Another question is how reasonable they are. The issue is, perhaps, to a certain extent, related to the lack of literacy of both users and developers.
For some reason, many do not want to understand that security cannot be cheap. And there is also hope for the Russian «maybe»…
Therefore, the security system is often made formally. For example, to get the signature of the fire inspector.
But now there is a clear trend towards the desire to have a good security system, even despite the higher price.
Mikhail SHAKAROV:
The modern regulatory framework is quite broad in regulating the use and installation of fire safety systems. For example, specific requirements are given for the installation of fire alarms and their quantity. But, unfortunately, sometimes there are different points of view in interpreting regulatory documents. Certainly, these standards are formalized. First of all, they often do not take into account the parameters and characteristics of the equipment. For example, there is a single requirement to install three fire alarms in a room when using automation systems, fire extinguishing and high-level notification, which definitely comes from the assumptions of the possibility of false alarms from the alarm. It turns out that this is a kind of insurance in case of using low-quality equipment. And as a result, such a single requirement for highly reliable equipment significantly affects the cost of the project.I believe that the regulatory framework should be liberalized, allowing for the reliability of the system to be ensured not only by quantitative indicators, but also to stimulate the use of quality equipment in the quantity that can actually ensure the protection of the facility. On the other hand, it is necessary to develop simplified methods for assessing the fire hazard of facilities and to create a system of compulsory insurance of facilities against cases of damage caused by any emergency events.
Sergey SHCHIPITSYN:
It is worth noting that this is not just the opinion of some experts, but reality. And the main problem here is not only in the current regulatory framework, although there is an urgent need to at least update it, but also in the certification process itself. From the point of view of the regulatory framework for PI, a serious improvement could be the introduction of mandatory tests on test fire sources in accordance with GOST R 50898-96. From the point of view of the process, it makes sense to tighten the requirements for accreditation of testing laboratories, which often compete with each other by reducing testing requirements, and also to introduce mandatory purchase of PI for periodic testing through distributors.In the long term, the introduction of a quality control mechanism in the form of insurance that is independent of certification bodies may become a kind of market mechanism that has a serious impact on manufacturers and the regulatory framework – savings on the quality of OPS entails an increase in insurance costs, while high-quality OPS provides significant savings on insurance annually.
Question for discussion
How realistic is the partnership between leading manufacturers and distributors and insurance companies today?
Mikhail LEVCHUK:
Unfortunately, it is impossible to talk about the existence of a truly working model of interaction between manufacturers and insurance companies today. Moreover, analyzing the experience and history of creating such a mechanism in Europe, we can make the disappointing conclusion that we are still very far from a final solution. Briefly about the European experience. Most of the largest certification centers belong to insurance companies. Each certification center has working groups in various areas that prepare new regulatory documents and edit existing ones. The working groups must include representatives from three interested parties: from insurance companies, from the certification center and from manufacturers. Thus, the technical policy in the field of security is determined on the basis of truly balanced decisions that take into account the technical feasibility and expediency of equipment requirements, insurance claim statistics, capabilities of testing laboratories, etc.
Vladimir VOLKHONSKY:
It is real and, moreover, has existed for quite a long time. Perhaps, it is still insufficient volume. For example, we have partners who have been working together with the insurance company for more than 10 years.
Mikhail SHAKAROV:
In Russia, such partnerships are just beginning to form. Methods are being developed for a quick and generalized assessment of the fire hazard of objects without performing a large number of calculations and costly detailed elaboration. This is necessary for a simple classification of the object and should ultimately be reflected in the tariff policy of insurance companies. It seems to me that such cooperation should develop more actively. It is obvious that a comprehensive and realistic analysis of the fire hazard of an enterprise is beneficial both to suppliers of reliable and high-quality products and to owners of buildings and structures. By installing highly reliable systems at their facilities, the latter should receive a significant discount on insurance payments.
Sergey SHCHIPITSYN:
Partnership is always possible, the main thing is to determine what its purpose is. In any case, two aspects should be noted:
today there is no platform for a serious partnership. Such a platform could be the law on compulsory real estate insurance;
a partnership between insurance companies and testing laboratories could be more effective. In this case, the partnership can make it possible to influence the regulatory and legislative framework, technical means in order to form a dependence of real estate insurance rates on the quality of the OPS used at the facility.