Fire curtain commissioning checks whether the installed system follows the approved operating sequence. It brings together curtain movement, alarm signals, controls and records before handover. At FIROBLOCK, we recommend planning these checks before the final site visit. That way, each trade knows what to prepare and who will witness the results.
A curtain that moves during a local test still needs an interface check. For example, the alarm signal must trigger the response that the project requires. The team also needs clear records of the test conditions and any open issues.
First, identify what should happen at each protected opening. Use the current fire strategy, approved drawings and system instructions as the starting point. Then agree the test plan with the relevant project specialists.
Record the expected position, reset procedure and relevant control functions. Also identify any project-specific power-failure checks. Leave the method and acceptance limits to the approved instructions and competent test team.
A useful test needs a ready site. Before booking witnesses, confirm that the installation team has completed its checks. Meanwhile, ask the main contractor to confirm access and the status of surrounding works.
We recommend a short readiness review covering these points:
During the test, compare actual behaviour with the agreed sequence. Record the input, expected response and observed result for each relevant check. This makes the findings easier to review than a simple tick beside “works”.
For example, a local control check and an alarm activation check answer different questions. The first checks one route of operation. The second checks the connection between systems. Therefore, distinguish them in the record.
Where the approved plan includes emergency-power or fail-safe checks, use the defined method. The competent team should control those tests. Do not improvise a power-isolation procedure from a general blog.
Finally, record the return to normal operation. Any fault, unexpected movement or incomplete response needs a clear action and owner.
A site movement test does not establish a fire-resistance rating. Instead, it checks operation under the recorded conditions. Review the relevant test evidence separately when confirming the suitability of the selected assembly.
For an overview of our solution, see our automatic fire curtain system. Our curtains use automatic deployment and motorised retraction, with alarm interfaces suited to the selected configuration.
Organise the handover pack around each curtain’s location and reference. Then connect that reference to the relevant drawings, test results and operating information. A facility team should not need to guess which record belongs to which opening.
We recommend including current drawings, completed test sheets, system identification and operating instructions. Also include the agreed inspection and maintenance information, relevant contact details and outstanding actions.
Keep open items visible. For instance, record a pending interface retest as an action with an owner and target date. Do not bury it in an email chain. Also record who authorised closure of each action and the supporting reference.
Start the commissioning record with a reference that the whole team recognises. It should connect the curtain to its opening, floor and drawing location. Then use that reference on test sheets, photographs and action lists.
For example, a description such as “lobby curtain” may identify several systems across a building. A unique asset reference removes that uncertainty. Include the location in plain language too, so facility staff can find it without reading a drawing.
Check the reference against the current schedule before testing starts. If the site team has changed a label, reconcile the records first. Otherwise, a valid result may end up against the wrong opening.
We also recommend recording the relevant drawing and sequence revisions on the test sheet. This creates a clear link between the design and the observed result. Later reviewers can then establish what the team actually checked, rather than assuming the latest revision applied.
A commissioning visit brings several packages together. Therefore, give each participant a clear role before the team reaches the opening. Agree who manages the area, initiates the input, observes movement and records the result.
The alarm specialist and curtain specialist may need to coordinate their actions. Meanwhile, the main contractor can manage access and nearby work. The project’s approval process should identify who reviews the results and who accepts closure.
Avoid assigning duties only by company name. Instead, name the responsible person or role and provide a contact route. This helps when a planned attendee changes at short notice.
Also agree who can stop the test if conditions become unsuitable. A controlled process needs a clear route for reporting concerns. If the test cannot proceed, record the reason and the preparation needed for another visit. That record is more useful than an unexplained “not tested” entry.
A pass or fail needs a defined reference. Before testing, ask the responsible specialists to agree the expected response and acceptance criteria. Use the applicable project documents and system instructions to establish those details.
For example, “curtain lowered” may describe movement without confirming the intended final position. Similarly, “alarm received” may leave the relevant input unclear. A precise test description links the stimulus, response and acceptance decision.
Keep criteria separate from observations on the form. The expected response belongs in one field; the actual response belongs in another. As a result, a reviewer can see whether the finding supports the decision.
Do not introduce a generic descent time or tolerance from another project. The selected system and approved sequence must guide those values. If the documents conflict, resolve the conflict before the test. An unresolved design question should remain visible rather than becoming an informal site assumption.
A test result becomes more useful when it explains the conditions around it. Record the date, location, participants and relevant system references. Also identify any temporary condition that limits the result.
For instance, the team may complete a local check while another interface remains unavailable. In that case, describe the completed check and the missing interface separately. Do not let one successful observation imply that the whole sequence has passed. Check the curtain and relevant interfaces against their own approved criteria, and record each result. If a failure occurs, investigate the curtain and affected systems together before assigning the cause.
Where the approved procedure calls for measurements, use the specified method and suitable equipment. The competent team should record the information that the acceptance criteria require. This article does not set measurement methods or instrument requirements.
After the visit, review the sheets for gaps while the participants can still clarify them. An empty field may mean “not applicable”, “not checked” or “forgotten”. Those meanings differ. Therefore, use explicit entries and retain any agreed explanation with the record.
Keep commissioning defects in a shared action list with a clear link to each test sheet. Then assign an owner, target date and route for confirming closure. This prevents the same issue from appearing as several unrelated comments.
Distinguish physical defects from missing information. For example, an obstruction may need a contractor’s action, while an unclear sequence needs a designer’s decision. Different causes need different owners, even when they affect the same curtain.
Once the team completes an action, ask the relevant specialist to identify the retest scope. A change may affect more than the original failed check. Therefore, confirm the necessary follow-up before marking the item closed.
Retain the failed result alongside the corrective action and retest outcome. Do not replace the first sheet with a clean copy. The combined record shows what changed and how the team verified the response. It also helps future reviewers understand recurring issues.
Alarm-related checks can involve more than the curtain under review. Before the visit, coordinate the test with the people responsible for the building’s other affected systems. Agree the approved method for managing that activity.
For example, a shared alarm input may have consequences elsewhere in the building. The responsible specialists need to understand those links before initiating a test. However, do not assume that every curtain follows the same alarm zoning or control sequence.
In occupied buildings, arrange the work through the site’s agreed access and communication process. Keep the test area under the control of the competent team. Any temporary changes to system operation need the appropriate authorisation and restoration checks.
Finally, record the status at the end of the test. The team should know which systems have returned to their intended normal condition. If any item remains unresolved, identify it clearly and follow the project’s escalation process before leaving responsibility with the next team.
A handover demonstration should help the receiving team recognise normal status and report concerns. Start with the curtain’s location and reference. Then explain where staff can find the operating information and relevant contact details.
Use the actual approved system instructions during the session. For example, distinguish everyday observation from specialist testing or adjustment. Facility staff need clear boundaries around the actions that their role permits.
We recommend asking the receiving team to explain its reporting route back to the presenter. This can reveal a missing contact or unclear responsibility before handover closes. Also record who attended and which documents the team received.
If some facility staff cannot attend, agree how they will receive the same information. A record of one demonstration does not automatically show that every shift has access to the guidance. Therefore, make the information easy to retrieve and connect it to the building’s existing asset records.
Use a short index that connects each document to its purpose. For example, group drawings, operating information, completed checks and open actions under clear labels. Then identify the current revision of each item.
A large folder can still leave important information hard to find. Therefore, avoid relying on file size or document count as evidence of completeness. Check whether the receiving team can locate a curtain reference and follow it to the right records.
Where documents describe several curtains, state which references they cover. If one opening uses a different arrangement, make that difference visible. Otherwise, the team may apply the wrong instructions during a later review.
Before issuing the final pack, remove superseded working copies from the main issue set. Retain them through the project’s document-control process where appropriate. The handover index should point to current information, while the project history preserves the record of earlier decisions.
Commissioning can finish before every fit-out activity ends. Therefore, agree how the project will review later changes around the curtain and its controls. A finished test record should not disappear from view during the final weeks.
For instance, a new sign or revised control instruction may affect an assumption behind the original check. Refer the change to the relevant specialists. They should decide whether it needs drawing updates, further inspection or another test.
Keep the change reference with the affected asset record. Then record the review decision and any follow-up action. This connects the final building condition to the evidence that supports handover.
We recommend a short status review before the client takes responsibility. Confirm that the current layout, documents and unresolved items agree. This does not replace the commissioning process. Instead, it checks that later work has not left the receiving team with an outdated record.
Before issuing the handover pack, ask someone who did not prepare the test sheets to review a sample. Give that reviewer a curtain reference and the document index. Then check whether the person can follow the evidence without extra verbal guidance.
For example, the reviewer should be able to identify the test input and locate the related result. If a retest took place, the records should explain why and show its outcome. Missing links at this stage can reveal a document problem even when the site checks went well.
Also compare the open-action list with the final issue pack. An item should not disappear simply because the team has renamed a file. Confirm its status and retain the closure reference where the next reviewer can find it.
We recommend checking document permissions and file readability too. A correct index has limited value if the receiving team cannot open its linked records. Confirm the agreed delivery format before closing the issue.
Finally, record who reviewed the pack and which issue the team received. This creates a practical endpoint for document control. It also gives later updates a clear starting reference, rather than leaving several folders with equally plausible “final” labels.
Successful commissioning needs more than a moving curtain. It needs an agreed sequence, recorded results and a clear route for closing defects. Together, these give the next team a usable starting point.
Preparing for handover? Contact our FIROBLOCK team with your curtain schedule, drawings and planned test date to discuss the project requirements.
