Add fire alarm, do not connect sprinkler system?

Status
Not open for further replies.

nhfire77

Senior Member
Location
NH
I cannot find a reason to not add a flow switch in this situation:

Existing mercantile single story type II construction. Appears to be built late 60's early 70's. More than 50% is being Renovated. Existing, complete sprinkler system. It had a water motor gong and line voltage bell tripped off the retard chamber via pressure switch. Both have been disabled. Shotgun riser, yard PIV is the only shut off. AHJ requies a fire alarm for renovation. Sprinkler company submits and gets approval to raise 25% of the heads to make the ceiling height uniform, nothing else. No flows or tampers. AHJ has very specific sprinker requirements, those were adopted in 2001. They do not separate new/existing work, flows etc are required to be connected to a FA.

I point out this is a problem. Customer's construction team said, submit drawings with required alarm components, no sprinkler. Strenuous objections are documented. I submit those plans, with a call out showing the riser room, indicating no existing or planned connection.


We get the to ahead on those plans....the AHJ is not illiterate, quite savvy actually. Other small items were required in their 'approval' letter. They do not stamp plans approved, they only approve completed installations. We are used to this and know exact what they want here, it's not unreasonable.

No final inspections have been made, 2 cursory walk throughs had been made by the AHJ's office. Nothing has been said yet.

We're operating on the premise this is going to cause some heartache when we get inspected. I'm not concerned for me, we're not going to hide anything.


Taking into account IBC NFPA 1 and life safety code 2009 editions are adopted and te FA is required, how can you not require an interconnection?
 
Last edited:

GoldDigger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Placerville, CA, USA
Occupation
Retired PV System Designer
Taking into account IBC NFPA 1 and life safety code 2009 editions are adopted and te FA is required, how can you not require an interconnection?

Just out of curiosity, does your area have a separate Fire Marshall inspection? Or is that just a rubber stamp?

flows etc are required to be connected to a FA.
But are the flow switches required to be there in the first place? Or just to be connected if they exist?
Is the PIV normally required to be supervised, or is the visual indicator enough?
 
Last edited:

nhfire77

Senior Member
Location
NH
Just out of curiosity, does your area have a separate Fire Marshall inspection? Or is that just a rubber stamp?


But are the flow switches required to be there in the first place? Or just to be connected if they exist?
Is the PIV normally required to be supervised, or is the visual indicator enough?


Separate, and ignored by most. Building dept has instructions to contact all applicable departments (health, fire etc), most don't bother then get caught with their pants down. "Fire alarm plans? We have stamped plans from the building department, it has the FA on it (boiler plate no consideration for local amendments)."

Many of the architects and engineers for this type of occupancy typically have no idea what to do. Unless its a FPE. They send a lackey to the fire dept, they get the info wrong or become confused. Then, we get plans or submit shop drawings for approval and the ensuing dumb off ends with change orders from me, lots of change orders. And I have a head ache defending 50% increase in total contract price. To avoid this, we try being proactive, but that appears to cost too much money, initially.

The AHj required a fire alarm system. Let's accept the principal the sprinkler system alterations were only minimal, as only 2 heads were added, the other affected ones were just raised up. So you could argue the existing system doesn't need to be brought up to current code. A fire barrier was removed creating an aggregate fire area over 12000 sq ft. Now the new space requires a sprinkler. This area does not have a new occupancy classification, but it didn't exist until now. So, if the sprinkler is now required, and the fire alarm is required, therefore the sprinkler must be monitored. Does this logic make sense?



903.2.7 Group M. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout buildings containing a Group M occupancy where one of the following conditions exists: [F]

1. A Group M fire area exceeds 12,000 square feet (1115 m2).


903.4.2 Alarms. Approved audible devices shall be connected to every automatic sprinkler system. Such sprinkler waterflow alarm devices shall be activated by waterflow equivalent to the flow of a single sprinkler of the smallest orifice size installed in the system. Alarm devices shall be provided on the exterior of the building in an approved location. Where a fire alarm system is installed, actuation of the automatic sprinkler system shall actuate the building fire alarm system. [F]
IBC 2009:

903.4 Sprinkler system supervision and alarms. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems, pumps, tanks, water levels and temperatures, critical air pressures and waterflow switches on all sprinkler systems shall be electrically supervised by a listed fire alarm control unit. [F]
 
Last edited:

gadfly56

Senior Member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Professional Engineer, Fire & Life Safety
Based on the info you've provided, I don't see how they can get away without putting in at least one flow and one tamper. Consider me boggled :?.
 

Simplex

Member
Location
nowhere
Here's the best part...

Here's the best part...

Are you ready?

You will win...

The AHJ (read Fire Dept.) won't give you(them) a CO until they're happy.

Which includes a flow/tamper and any other sprinkler supervision.

So, provide what the GC agrees with, with the disclaimer that if the AHJ mandates anything else it's a change billed to the GC. He'll either agree or agree to let you demand that a flow/tamper be installed upfront, regardelss what the sprinkler goons say.

If the GC wants his CO, he'll do it your way.

that CO is your leverage; use it.
 

Stallzer

Member
Location
MN
My First question is how did the plans get approved ? Second if the AHJ approved the drawings then there should be no issue. Here in MN it is code that all Sprinkler systems in Commercial buildings must be monitored. See NFPA (2013) 23.8.5.5.1, but take it with a grain of salt as many AHJ's don't follow NFPA to the letter.
 

nhfire77

Senior Member
Location
NH
My First question is how did the plans get approved ? Second if the AHJ approved the drawings then there should be no issue. Here in MN it is code that all Sprinkler systems in Commercial buildings must be monitored. See NFPA (2013) 23.8.5.5.1, but take it with a grain of salt as many AHJ's don't follow NFPA to the letter.


Yea and its in IBC as I referred to. Approved, such a ethereal word...AHJ here 'review' plans and approves final installations. Turns out the FA wasn't required by the AHJ, requested and the tenant obliged. Interconnection is required by the state and local codes, but somehow the justification to not connect it is that, it wasnt a required FA so it doesn't have to be. Despite the IBC/state/local codes. Oh well.... It was clearly noted on the record of completion/test and inspection and accepted by the AHJ without it. They'll "work with the landlord" on eventually connecting it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top