Local fire marshall says both the Ansul systems used in restuarant have to simultaneously shut down when either of the mechanical pulls are pulled. There exists 2 separate Ansul systems one for the fryer hood and one for the grill hood. Both are completely separated from each other. Owners dont want to discharge both systems if only one has a fire. Any help and advice would be appreciated.
Ansul system activation.
- Thread starter Breaker
- Start date
- Status
LarryFine
Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
- Location
- Henrico County, VA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
Welcome to the forum.
If there is no other activation interconnection, it doesn't make sense to me.
If neither system's automatic tripping activates the other, there's no reason manual tripping should.
Thre should be a way to find out what the actual written rules say, with or without his cooperation.
If there is no other activation interconnection, it doesn't make sense to me.
If neither system's automatic tripping activates the other, there's no reason manual tripping should.
Thre should be a way to find out what the actual written rules say, with or without his cooperation.
tank728
Senior Member
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Electrician
Just went through this on a project that has 3 Ansul systems. They all had to fire at once. There were not mechanically connected, I had to do it electrically.
Same as you, the owners didn’t want that operation as after the chemicals fire the kitchen equipment is useless. But the GC/design team decided this not to the letter of the code.
I heard insurance companies only want to reimburse the equipment of where the fire started.
Same as you, the owners didn’t want that operation as after the chemicals fire the kitchen equipment is useless. But the GC/design team decided this not to the letter of the code.
I heard insurance companies only want to reimburse the equipment of where the fire started.
gadfly56
Senior Member
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Professional Engineer, Fire & Life Safety
NFPA 96 at 10.3.1
10.3.1
Fixed pipe extinguishing systems in a single hazard area (see 3.3.44 for the definition of single hazard area) shall be arranged for simultaneous automatic operation upon actuation of any one of the systems.
Further:
10.3.1.1
Hoods installed end to end, back to back, or both, or sharing a common ductwork, not exceeding 75 ft (22.9 m) in distance from the farthest hood, and having a grease-producing appliance(s) located under one or more of the hoods, shall be considered a single hazard area requiring simultaneous automatic fire protection in all hoods and ducts.
The catch all for the AHJ is the definition in 3.3.44:
3.3.44 Single Hazard Area.
Where two or more hazards can be simultaneously involved in fire by reason of their proximity, as determined by the authority having jurisdiction.
That's the out for the AHJ. His opinion is the only one that counts, although you could try and make an argument based on the arrangement of the hoods and the fact that they have independent exhausts.
10.3.1
Fixed pipe extinguishing systems in a single hazard area (see 3.3.44 for the definition of single hazard area) shall be arranged for simultaneous automatic operation upon actuation of any one of the systems.
Further:
10.3.1.1
Hoods installed end to end, back to back, or both, or sharing a common ductwork, not exceeding 75 ft (22.9 m) in distance from the farthest hood, and having a grease-producing appliance(s) located under one or more of the hoods, shall be considered a single hazard area requiring simultaneous automatic fire protection in all hoods and ducts.
The catch all for the AHJ is the definition in 3.3.44:
3.3.44 Single Hazard Area.
Where two or more hazards can be simultaneously involved in fire by reason of their proximity, as determined by the authority having jurisdiction.
That's the out for the AHJ. His opinion is the only one that counts, although you could try and make an argument based on the arrangement of the hoods and the fact that they have independent exhausts.
LarryFine
Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
- Location
- Henrico County, VA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
Both of those specify "simultaneous automatic" operation or protection.
Would that also apply to manual operation with pull stations?
gadfly56
Senior Member
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Professional Engineer, Fire & Life Safety
You know, that's an excellent question. I'm inclined to say yes, but the letter of the code might not support that.
If that's the bulk of the rule, the rule seems to require you to arrange the system for simultaneous automatic operation upon actuation of any one of the systems.
My question would be, Is the pull station simply bypassing the remote sensors and going to some relay device that makes the system discharge automatically ?
Or,
Is there a cable going directly from the pull station to a mechanical discharge valve on the Ansul Bottle making it a completely mechanical release?
If the latter of the 2, the Ansul system is not arranged for a fully simultaneous automatic operation to begin with.
So, where's the rule for the mechanical pull station if the pull station is actually completely mechanical?
Jap>
My question would be, Is the pull station simply bypassing the remote sensors and going to some relay device that makes the system discharge automatically ?
Or,
Is there a cable going directly from the pull station to a mechanical discharge valve on the Ansul Bottle making it a completely mechanical release?
If the latter of the 2, the Ansul system is not arranged for a fully simultaneous automatic operation to begin with.
So, where's the rule for the mechanical pull station if the pull station is actually completely mechanical?
Jap>
LarryFine
Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
- Location
- Henrico County, VA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
- Status