Fire Alarm in a multi-building complex

[joeserov]

I understand that is is acceptable to install a main FACP to host and control slave panels in a multi-occupancy building or in a multi-building complex, but it is my understanding that these systems, though they report to one main FACP, must be autonomous in nature so that they are NOT dependent on a single panel to get their signals out. As a rule of thumb, my general practice is to assess the buildings in such a way that if the building has its own fire riser, then it should have an autonomous FACP. I have worked on networked systems before, but am getting some resistance from a valued customer who thinks it is acceptable to have ONE FACP control FOUR separate buildings that are not connected to each other. Each building currently has expansion modules hooked up on the main FACP bus line and the system is partitioned so that if one building goes into alarm, the others stay in whatever state they are in. I think this is a code violation, but because I don't have my copy of the NFPA 72 sitting right in front of me, I can not definitively tell them this is the case. Is this a code violation?

thanks

Josh Kopczynski
DPI Security Solutions

 

[nhfire77]

Sounds like a reliability issue. I wouldn't do it that way either.

Technically, if its installed correctly its compliant, but, what about the AHJ? I bet if you described the layout of one fire panel, three UL "fire alarm sub assemblies" not a UL "FACP" he would balk at it. After all, he is going to require a FACP in each building, not a sub assembly.

Actually, does BOCA codes state a PANEL for each building? I don't know how that would play out.

I would tell them, I will submit plans for that, but doubt it will get approval, thus wasting TIME and MONEY, because I am charging for the resubmittal.

I've done 50 building systems, but as you said each panel needs to be independent, IMO, but, its not a strict code issue.

Can you imagine the property insurance company ...."You did what? That doesn't meet our standards, we can't pay out a claim for that...."


EDIT:
Oh I reread it, its existing, well I'd put in any test/service reports that its design is not safe/reliable and you recommend upgrading, but until if it was approved that way, nothing can force their hand. It has potential to be a good service upgrade. I'd play the insurance company angle, I bet if they audited the property after an incident they would require the change anyway. This gives them the chance to cost it out over a couple of years.

 

[Stallzer]

First question I'd propose is do these buildings have different addresses ?
If so then it would probably not fly with the AHJ due to emergency calls, all the monitoring information wouild be linked to the building with the FACP.
More details please.

 

[bfletcher]

Similar installation...

Similar installation...

I just finished the design for a 15 building dorm apartment complex. Originally the buildings had standalone fire alarm detection, each apartment had smokes and heats and it was up to the tenants to call the fire department/campus police. I designed each building to have it's own fire alarm system (FAP) with a communication tie-in to a main fire alarm panel at a recreation building where all buildings could be checked on. Sounds like a similar design to what you have.

 

[ryant35]

I have designed fire alarm systems for hundreds of apartment buildings, with each with a local conventional FACP in each building, unless the buildings have an elevator, then we install an addressable FACP.
Each of these systems are monitored by type of device via relay boards and addressable monitor modules through underground conduit.

We usually install the communicating FACP at the leasing office or recreation building. If there are no ancillary buildings we decide on a central accessible location with the AHJ.

We also designed a dorm complex with 1 addressable FACP looping through each building with multiple loops. This isn't the best way to protect this complex, as all the buildings relay on only one system.

With a local FACP if the communicator panel fails, each building's evacuation system will still work independently even if it doesn't report to central station.

 

[DM2-Inc]

While there may be some debate as to whether each building requires a "Systems", I would agree with others that this isn't a code violation, however...

NFPA 72, 2002 and later editions, 6.9.4.3, would require the cable between the FACP and the audibles in the other buildings to be a 2 hour cable, or installed in a 2 hour enclosure.