One Structure, Two Fire Alarm Panels

[gadfly56]

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?

 

[truck41trouble]

There needs to be a fire barrier between or its still considered the same building. Interconnection is the only way.
Of course you can always gut the other system and install one totally new system for both areas.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

[peter d]

There is no way in the world I would install it with two systems, and there's no way local authorities here would permit that installation.

 

[gadfly56]

There is no way in the world I would install it with two systems, and there's no way local authorities here would permit that installation.

I agree on both counts. Another office has been on this project and apparently they've consistently asked some pointed questions that have been just as consistently ignored. The AHJ may just be the airport itself so we may be swimming upstream on this. Really looking for a solid code reason to shoot this down.

 

[ryant35]

Synchronization might also be an issue in the area with common strobes from both systems.

 

[peter d]

I agree on both counts. Another office has been on this project and apparently they've consistently asked some pointed questions that have been just as consistently ignored. The AHJ may just be the airport itself so we may be swimming upstream on this. Really looking for a solid code reason to shoot this down.

As has just been mentioned, syncronization is one issue. Does your state have any formally adopted fire alarm codes other than 72? That's worth investigating.

Also, what is your process for installing fire alarms? Is there a plan review by any local AHJ at all? You said the airport is the AHJ, could you explain this one a bit more? Surely an airport would not be trying to cut corners like this, but I could be wrong.

 

[gadfly56]

As has just been mentioned, syncronization is one issue. Does your state have any formally adopted fire alarm codes other than 72? That's worth investigating.

Also, what is your process for installing fire alarms? Is there a plan review by any local AHJ at all? You said the airport is the AHJ, could you explain this one a bit more? Surely an airport would not be trying to cut corners like this, but I could be wrong.

We are the MEP design firm for this project. We won't actually be installing anything, so to a certain extent it's not our problem, except our name is on it.

I am not sure who the AHJ is as I don't know the political structure. For example, if I was doing work at Newark Liberty International, the Port Authority is the AHJ even though the airport is within the boundaries of the city of Newark. I was informally asked my opinion as an internal consultant.

It isn't clear to me if this is an airport project or a tenant expansion. Tenants would opt for no fire alarm at all if they could.

 

[MichaelGP3]

Words fail me......

Words fail me......

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....

 

[JFletcher]

I dont do FA systems, but I remember one of the first hotels we wired: a 44 room addition and brand name change. The v/d/v (us), EC, and FA crews were 3 completely separate companies. We started by gutting all the cat5e/coax the previous v/d/v contractor ran (all wrong, damaged, too short, etc). The FA guys ran all the strobes, horns, announciators, etc to a 2nd panel . I dont know how it passed rough in, but it most definitely failed final, and the FA company ate 6 weeks of the loan for the new building fixing all of their problems. Apparently, aside from 2 panels in one building, none of their new devices were compatible with the existing FA system. I didnt ask because when I saw the FA guys, they didnt look in the mood to answer questions...

 

[peter d]

I dont do FA systems, but I remember one of the first hotels we wired: a 44 room addition and brand name change. The v/d/v (us), EC, and FA crews were 3 completely separate companies. We started by gutting all the cat5e/coax the previous v/d/v contractor ran (all wrong, damaged, too short, etc). The FA guys ran all the strobes, horns, announciators, etc to a 2nd panel . I dont know how it passed rough in, but it most definitely failed final, and the FA company ate 6 weeks of the loan for the new building fixing all of their problems. Apparently, aside from 2 panels in one building, none of their new devices were compatible with the existing FA system. I didnt ask because when I saw the FA guys, they didnt look in the mood to answer questions...

:slaphead: Wow....just wow. Fire alarm isn't really that hard to do. Sounds like amateur hour at that company.

 

[texie]

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.

 

[gadfly56]

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.

 

[gadfly56]

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.

 

[gadfly56]

Update

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.