Frunple
Active Member
I'm not using that relay for the alarm, it was an example of 120v being controlled by the panel.
Automating "normal" smoke detectors
- Thread starter Frunple
- Start date
I'm not using that relay for the alarm, it was an example of 120v being controlled by the panel.
Depends on it's application. If you were attaching it to a ventilation fan for smoke control purposes or shutdown, then at that point, the AHJ would definately be the one making the call whether he'd allow it or not. Controlling 120V from a panel comes down to the same circumstances, including isolation from voltages, etc. and whether or not your AHJ will allow it. Generally, they don't care, but when it is used for a life safety application, you bet they'll have an opinion.
NFPA does not cite any restrictions, or prohibitions of what sort of smoke detector technology to use in any application, other than suitable for purpose. The AHJ/fire marshal would probably have a strong say in what was allowed, such as PE detectors in a theater/nightclub situation, etc.
Irregardless, it means that the products, such as the relay and 120V smokes. are not listed for the application, which is being attached to a FACP. UL 268 is the one I can think of being the most appropriate. I see nowhere on Firex or Kidde where they carry that listing, without trying to get a CSR to answer that question. Compare that to any LV detector with the listings cited specifically.
120V being controlled by the panel is not the question or issue, nor is 120V controlling or being "seen" by the panel. The big thing here is life safety and using items that were not designed, tested, or listed for a specific purpose, which is the connection of a local fire alarm circuit to a FACP for monitoring purposes. It really makes no difference what the smoke detector's voltage is, even a 9V battery unit, the detectors themselves are built and tested to different standards. including the RF ones made specifically for these purposes. One will only annoy you when it chirps or falses, the other will generally get the big red trucks rolling.
It's not a question of can it be done, but in my case (as a pro) should it be done, combined with the liability involved, because I know of the difference between the different detectors being brought into question. You can do as you like as a DIY in your own house, but I will cite a specific example I know of in my state where an insurer refused levels of coverage based on a DIY fire alarm "solution" and how it contradicted what was signed off and issued for the C of O by the building inspector(s) after a loss occurred. Your AHJ's and insurers may be different.
You are correct UL268 is the standard the smoke detectors should be listed to. That standard does permit detectors to be interconnected to a FACP. UL217 the standard for Smoke Alarms does cover accessories for supplemental devices to smoke alarms where a relay to trip a FACP can be Listed. You have to verify the product you are buying/using has such supplemental coverage. If it does and it does not conflict with a local requirement it can be used.
I think that the confusion here is the difference between a Smoke Detector (UL268) and a Smoke Alarm (UL217). Two somewhat different devices. This thread is about smoke detectors not smoke alarms from the title. Smoke detectors can be connected to a FACP PE or Ion.
A lot of misinformation comes from well intentioned people and also from conflicting local requirements where an AHJ can tell someone that something does not meet NFPA only because they dont want it in their locality not that it doesn't meet the code. AHJ's can require anything they want.
Many will agree to disagree on these points.
The only thing I can add/say is what is essentially being people wanting to use devices in items they were never intended or designed to do. Sure it may work, however the units were not and are not designed to the same standard to be connected to a panel. What they do in their own house is their own deal, however they should also be aware of the very grey line of what is allowed/not allowed. The fact of the matter is that saying that it will work is one thing. Saying that it is right to do, is an entirely different thing, which I simply can't say as a pro knowing the facts involved.
The ideal situation would be, if allowed by the AHJ, would be to convert HV smokes out to LV units for what really amounts to, in most cases, houses, and installs, for about $400 worth of parts and at worst, some trivial wiring. Most people spend more than that for their panel in comparison to what truly amounts to life safety. I honestly see it, with the exception of where an AHJ will not allow system connected smokes for compliance for a C of O, as the cheap and easy way vs. the correct way. If it's not done right, the end result is basically, someone's going to end up dying from the false sense of security that bashing something like this together is going to do.
Smoke detector vs. smoke alarm in the title is somewhat akin to a person asking for a Sawzall vs. a recipricating saw vs. Bandaid/adhesive bandage. Inherent differences in all, but people refer to them universally as the same things compared to those in the industry would.
The only thing I can add/say is what is essentially being people wanting to use devices in items they were never intended or designed to do. Sure it may work, however the units were not and are not designed to the same standard to be connected to a panel. What they do in their own house is their own deal, however they should also be aware of the very grey line of what is allowed/not allowed. The fact of the matter is that saying that it will work is one thing. Saying that it is right to do, is an entirely different thing, which I simply can't say as a pro knowing the facts involved.
The ideal situation would be, if allowed by the AHJ, would be to convert HV smokes out to LV units for what really amounts to, in most cases, houses, and installs, for about $400 worth of parts and at worst, some trivial wiring. Most people spend more than that for their panel in comparison to what truly amounts to life safety. I honestly see it, with the exception of where an AHJ will not allow system connected smokes for compliance for a C of O, as the cheap and easy way vs. the correct way. If it's not done right, the end result is basically, someone's going to end up dying from the false sense of security that bashing something like this together is going to do.
Smoke detector vs. smoke alarm in the title is somewhat akin to a person asking for a Sawzall vs. a recipricating saw vs. Bandaid/adhesive bandage. Inherent differences in all, but people refer to them universally as the same things compared to those in the industry would.
DELL your last paragraph just shows how unfamiliar you are with the actual requirements for the devices. Smoke alarms and smoke detectors are not Sawzall vs Reciprocating saw etc. There are very different requirements and applications for the two. Obviously you are not familiar with the differences. Sawzall and Bandaids are tradenames like Romex etc. Some Alarms are not a trade name for smoke detectors (read up on UL268 vs UL217 and also the NFPA).
You are probably a fantastic installer and very well intentioned but please dont misinform people by stating non factual information. That may mislead someone to use a product inappropiately which is what I thought you were trying to prevent. You throw out there UL standards etc but I can tell that you have never actually evaluated any product to them nor do you seem to know the differences in what standard should be applied to a product. I have over 17 years experience evaluating products to UL Standards and the NFPA (among many other domestic and international standards). Even with all those years of experience I have to constantly go back and verify specific requirements because of the differences in similar products and standards.
I am not trying to bash you at all since I believe you are well intentioned and probably a much more experienced installer then I am (I really have only a few years experience installing back in the 80's). But when it comes to evaluating devices and system design please be careful with what you throw out there as some people may run with it. Its easy to dazzle someone with naming standards etc but it can also give someone a false confidence to your actual experience.
Please dont take any offense as non is intended.
As far as connecting existing HV devices to a FACP there are many localities that follow the International Residency Code and require the HV Interconnected devices, however, the premise owner may additionally want a FACP that exceeds the min requirements of the locality. Done correctly it is permitted by some AHJ's. Its not about ripping our existing detectors and spending more money it is about actually complying with the local requirements (you have to do what the AHJ wants like it or not). You are familiar with your local requirements but other states etc have very different (sometimes unusual) requirements.
None truly taken, which is why I stated many times, AHJ AHJ AHJ. I know about the IRC, IBC, and BOCA as well as the municipalities that inspect for different standards. Even municipalities that have accepted different versions of NFPA 72.
My main point was that even though people can do "as they will" with their property, it's not something that I would recommend, and in most areas that I have seen, would cause a red-ticketed violation for non-compliance with both UL and code.
Trust me, I know the NFPA 72 and 70, I can't cite exact things without grabbing them out of my truck or office, which is where both are at the moment, but I do know the differences between devices, the example I provided was based off what people generically term things, not a brand name war.
As you stated, some municipalities may be funny, but I have never run across an AHJ or Marshal in any of the neighboring states that would not allow a FACP and interconnected system smokes be installed in lieu of or replace HV local smokes only when the LV ones meet and exceed the HV smoke design criteria, but maybe I'm looking at larger installs with larger panels and capabilities than most, I can't say. It has truly been my experience with most times, the reason why LV smokes are not put in or swapped out to be a matter of economics and/or lack of wiring or meeting the ability for annunciation. If you could please let me know about these states and AHJ requirements as I'll put them on my list so I can find out more for my reference.
I may not have the background of a UL standards and evaluation engineer, like yourself, I just work with and install engineered systems and system design, including life safety, but also UL compliant and certificated installs, burglar and fire alarm. Couple more elements until I end up with my NICET level 4 fire alarm certification anyhow, already have the install portions done. ^_^
My main point was that even though people can do "as they will" with their property, it's not something that I would recommend, and in most areas that I have seen, would cause a red-ticketed violation for non-compliance with both UL and code.
Trust me, I know the NFPA 72 and 70, I can't cite exact things without grabbing them out of my truck or office, which is where both are at the moment, but I do know the differences between devices, the example I provided was based off what people generically term things, not a brand name war.
As you stated, some municipalities may be funny, but I have never run across an AHJ or Marshal in any of the neighboring states that would not allow a FACP and interconnected system smokes be installed in lieu of or replace HV local smokes only when the LV ones meet and exceed the HV smoke design criteria, but maybe I'm looking at larger installs with larger panels and capabilities than most, I can't say. It has truly been my experience with most times, the reason why LV smokes are not put in or swapped out to be a matter of economics and/or lack of wiring or meeting the ability for annunciation. If you could please let me know about these states and AHJ requirements as I'll put them on my list so I can find out more for my reference.
I may not have the background of a UL standards and evaluation engineer, like yourself, I just work with and install engineered systems and system design, including life safety, but also UL compliant and certificated installs, burglar and fire alarm. Couple more elements until I end up with my NICET level 4 fire alarm certification anyhow, already have the install portions done. ^_^
I think it best that you stick to questions about installing (how to wire something etc) and not the code requirements or UL etc. You are clearly very knowledgeable in installation techniques.
You clearly did not realize the difference between a smoke alarm and a smoke detector in the earlier post which can lead people to think they are interchangeable and they are not. Each has its application.
Please just be careful in what you state as a fact. People see you as a professional installer and that I believe you are. But some of your statements are very misleading as to what is code and what is urban myth so to speak. I can understand a DIY saying ionization detectors are not permitted to be connected to a FACP etc because they heard it from someone who heard it from a friend etc. and as far as they know it is a fact. But when a Pro installer says something like smoke alarm is the same as smoke detector or something is not permitted it is taken with more credibility. When you quote UL requirements that in fact are not correct you can mislead someone.
As for locations many parts of PA and NJ are using the IRC the past few years. Many installers can no longer use LV detectors (or ungrounded plug in transformers) in any install that will be inspected (depends on the specific jurisdiction). They are forced to use HV alarms and interface them to the FACP by the AHJ. They no longer buy the same detectors they used to and interface to the alarms the electricians install. Lost business for many alarm mfgs and installers not in the business of making/installing Smoke Alarms/Detectors using non power limited supplies.
Currently about every mfg of wireless smoke detectors only use transmitters. That may change some day as at least two mfgs I know of are working on transceivers in the detectors and will apply for an exception to the IRC. That will allow installers who are not lic to install HV alarms to get back in the game so to speak. If the IRC does not permit the exception there is a fallback plan being worked on to meet the letter of the code using a mix of technologies. I am not sure it will work personally but there are some very smart people working the problem and hopefully they will overcome it.
tmbrown97
Senior Member
Digger - Are you hinting towards a product that may install and act like a traditional HV interconnected smoke detector, but be able to also communicate via wireless back to the panel? If/when such a device exists, I think that's when I'll integrate smoke into my security panel. In the mean time I'll likely add a redundant LV smoke in the main area more to call the fire department if I'm not home; not for life safety - that's what I did in my last place.
Not to hijack the OP's thread - but are there any concerns with tying an alarm into a residential fire sprinkler system? I know mine has a flow switch that's used to trigger an outdoor strobe/siren, but nothing more; I'd love for that to trigger the Elk.
Not to hijack the OP's thread - but are there any concerns with tying an alarm into a residential fire sprinkler system? I know mine has a flow switch that's used to trigger an outdoor strobe/siren, but nothing more; I'd love for that to trigger the Elk.
If the AHJ allows it for a supervisory condition. Tamper conditions are generally a non-issue in a residential sprinkler system. The wiring needs to be installed in a manner that allows the switch/flow/valve/etc. to be serviced in addition to protected, so that usually means seal-tite or greenfield back to a fixed wiring point. EOLR installed in the switch to suit the ZT and switch configuration.
Fire 24 hr supervisory ZT in the case of the Elk. How the CS sets up the template, and acts upon that CID event code however....
Fire 24 hr supervisory ZT in the case of the Elk. How the CS sets up the template, and acts upon that CID event code however....
Yes something along that line. Unfortunately I can not elaborate much at this time. Its sort of the best of both worlds approach. From what I have heard it will require an exception to the IRC though. Sometimes these concepts never make it to market (just like some concept cars etc) but I think that a variation of it will.
