Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: One Structure, Two Fire Alarm Panels

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado
    Posts
    2,404
    Quote Originally Posted by gadfly56 View Post
    We have a customer (airport) that is planning an expansion in their building. Somewhere up the food chain the decision was made to install a separate fire alarm panel to provide coverage for the new area. The rub is that they specifically don't want the two panels interconnected in any way. This might be doable if there was a fire barrier between the old an new areas, but it's apparently an extension of the existing space. You could have notification appliances on the east wall (for example) on one panel and on the west wall on the new panel. Other than invoking common sense it's hard to find a code-driven reason to shoot this down NFPA 72 goes into a great deal of detail on spacing, etc but doesn't speak to this issue directly. Likewise I don't see much in the 2012 IBC to hang our hat on in this case. About the only thing we can point to is that if a fire occurs in the structure you won't get notification throughout depending on which side, new or old, the fire event occurs. About the only thing I can find is 24.4.1.9 which doesn't allow you to put undivided fire or smoke areas into multiple evacuation signaling zones. Thoughts?
    A few years ago we were involved with the same situation on a rather large school that had sizable addition. The FA contractor put in a separate system for the addition. AHJ refused it and in my view was absolutely correct. They had a number of NICET 4 guys and FP engineers look at it to see if the 2 systems could be made to act as one in order to make it code compliant. In the end all agreed it could not be done and they ended up removing the new system and extending the original system. They tried all kinds of interconnection schemes to make the 2 systems work as 1 but there were multiple operational issues that would not meet code.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    4,278
    Quote Originally Posted by texie View Post
    A few years ago we were involved with the same situation on a rather large school that had sizable addition. The FA contractor put in a separate system for the addition. AHJ refused it and in my view was absolutely correct. They had a number of NICET 4 guys and FP engineers look at it to see if the 2 systems could be made to act as one in order to make it code compliant. In the end all agreed it could not be done and they ended up removing the new system and extending the original system. They tried all kinds of interconnection schemes to make the 2 systems work as 1 but there were multiple operational issues that would not meet code.
    I'm surprised they couldn't make it work. Even if you have two voice systems all the big boys have a means to pump in audio from an external source like, say, another voice panel. There must have been some true funkiness going on.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    4,278
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelGP3 View Post
    Deep breath. Okay.

    Besides the strobe synchronization issue already mentioned, I thought that there is a requirement that the audible signals within a space sound the same. I'll look this up tomorrow. Does the issue have anything to do with:

    A. The manufacturer of the existing system is no longer in business?

    B. The existing system's software is password protected, and that password is MIA?

    C. Some sort of relationship gone bad between the owner and the FPE/AHJ/vendor?

    D. Has the existing system already reached it's capacity in terms of how many nodes, panels, power supplies, amplifiers, or devices it can support? This isn't a good reason to install a separate system. Just wondering....
    A. Not the issue AFAIK.

    B. I don't believe so, but if this is one of the major players they all have ways of cracking their own systems.

    C. Don't know, but it's hard to see how that would materially affect a decision to have no interconnection.

    D. The impression I was given was that the current system could be expanded, they just don't want to do it. Purely guessing, but possibly someone wants zero chance of system impairment outside the work area and thinks this is a good way to get it done.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    4,278

    Update

    Well, it looks like the owner has seen the light. The bizarre aspect of this is that they were going with the same brand for the expansion as the original install. Apparently the customer now understands that while you can get a new panel, it still has to talk with what was there.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •