Fire for Elk M1G

[jskibo]

I had a chance to pre wire my house for a lot of sensors, however I couldn't get near the smoke detectors. Currently I have 11 FireX hardwired detectors all tied in together. I'm in the wiring phase of the basement bar / theater / bedroom and bath and plan on pulling wire to one of the basement smokes from the Elk panel.

I'm looking for a smoke detector that would tie in with the current Firex hardwired ones (don't want to spend a ton to replace the current ones)and provide a relay output to the Elk Panel. I see GE has some. Can I use one of them or do I need to find a FireX brand?

I realize I will lose the ability to tell what floor the fire is on. I'm happy with just having the panel tied in though.

 

[Del91574]

Lots of arguments about this one, tying 120V to a relay,etc. I couldn't recommend this by any stretch as a pro. What you do and consider is your own perogative.

First, would be to ask your AHJ what is acceptable, because you are modifying the system that they signed off on for a C of O.

The easiest and best solution, provided the wiring is correct, would be to remove the 120V from the smoke circuits and then use the romex as your feed through LV smokes, hopefully you have a continous 14/3 through all the smokes and no branch electrical tied in.

My position is this, provided it's acceptable by the AHJ, swapping out 11 smokes and adding a reversing relay is less than $500 in parts compared to a $25 (guess) relay that isn't truly designed or listed for the purpose. Given the present building codes for the # of smokes involved, which is more important, a properly functioning fire alarm on your biggest investment or slamming something together?

 

[Digger]

DEL there are UL Listed relays for 120v dedicated branch circuit smoke alarms intended to interface with FACP's in place of low voltage smoke detectors. As a "Pro" you may not like them for various reasons but that does not mean they do not exist and that they are not accepted by AHJ's.

Low voltage installers not licensed to install or interface branch circuit devices often try and convince customers that they need to replace smoke alarms but many localities do not require that. Sometimes its installers looking to make more money or just dont know what is available or permitted. Other cases its hearsay. There are probably some localities that may not permit it as well so as a blanket statement one can not say its acceptable eveywhere but to say UL Listed devices dont exist is not accurate. Many states Residency Codes actually describe such an installation method in their guidelines including saying the devices have to be Listed (UL or ETL etc). The local AHJ should be able to assist the installer in meeting the local codes.

Since the branch circuit is involved and proper installation is essential for operation and safety concerns the devices should be installed only with the approval of the local AHJ and by those with the necessary skills and experience. Isolation of the branch circuit wiring from the power limited wiring is essential to limit fire and shock hazards. Proper circuit wiring is key to the operation of the smoke alarms and FACP.

 

[tmbrown97]

This is like

- the old debate about interfacing your alarm system with your 120V smokes.

IMO, Digger is one of the best qualified people on the forum to speak to this - but there are installer pros with some very valid information.

The reality is, I've looked up the FireX models very specifically - they're 120V models with an interconnect - and they do sell devices specifically made to interface with other signaling devices. The more I looked into this, what I got out of it was that you're brushing up against code issues if you try to hook the FireX detectors into your alarm panel as monitored smoke detectors, essentially turning your alarm panel into a true FACP (so much here - like making sure they're the right detectors; you have to be licensed to install them; you must use firewire to interconnect; your alarm panel now has to use firewire for connection to at least one keypad, your battery requirements increase, and so on. The second you monitor Fire, the UL requirements change considerably.

All that code stuff said, if you're trying to fully monitor your smokes off the Elk as if it were a true FACP (which it is fully listed to be if installed in accordance), then no - don't do it with your current smokes - they're the wrong type and they won't pass. Do it over with the right low-voltage smokes and consult the AHJ and a professional. As DEL said, maybe you can reuse the romex as LV and wire 'em up that way.

BUT - if you want to use your Elk as an Auxiliary Signaling Device - there is NOTHING wrong with that! There are relays just for that - they're designed to provide contact closure or otherwise off the interconnect of the FireX. You can hook that interconnect relay to an input on your alarm panel and use it with some rules to provide signaling within the home - just not to alert authorities.

Two important things I know of off-hand to remember:

1. I *believe* FireX models are only good for 11 devices; those relays take the place of one device, so you're at capacity and don't have room for that last device.
2. The relay triggered off the interconnect does not work if the power is out - the smokes work off their internal batteries and can't trigger the relay.

With that - keep researching - and good luck!

 

[Digger]

I know some manufacturers trip the relay off the interconnect which s typicaly 9 vdc and thus work on the battery backup (when one smoke alarm trips they all do including the relay).

I have asked UL on more than one occasion about this subject and they state they have Listed devices for the application. For UL to list it then it has to meet NFPA.

 

[Del91574]

:horse:

I didn't say it can't be done, only thing I stated is it's opening up a big can of worms that is starting to really skirt a lot of grey areas and interpretation by AHJ's and others. Personally I wouldn't touch it because of these issues and what could truly come down the pike if something were to happen. I also stand firm in the belief that 120V smokes for 95% or better of those on the market and installed are not built as well as the corresponding LV units, inteligent or conventional.

I've gotten the same affirmation from the state fire marshal for multiple installations within a certain ivy league school and hospitals that has many residential units with 120V hooked up to monitor modules on inteligent fire panels, he will not allow those units to "dump" the building and generate an evac, but will allow the system units or LV units wired to an appropriate module on the inteligent fire panels. The monitored HV smokes are only allowed for a supevisory alarm.

 

[Digger]

Commercial applications have a whole separate host of requirements and that was not what this thread was about.

Again what state are you in. I had asked you a few months ago and you did not answer.

 

[jskibo]

Just to add to this, this panel won't be hooked to outside monitoring.

 

[ddennerline]

Last year after I swapped out my really old electrical panel, the electrician told me that AHJ may require me to upgrade my fire alarms in house to be tandem ring. This could have been a major expense. Instead, I installed a number of battery only fire alarms. This was sufficient for AHJ.

I really want to install only one fire protection system. I just removed all the blown-in insulation in attic and replacing with Roxul. It’s now possible to easily wire the upstairs using LV fire alarms. Unfortunately, trying to get consensus on whether HV or LV fire protection system is allowed is haphazard. My electrician told me it varies from city-to-city and sometimes depends on inspector. He mentioned for his house he runs a parallel system.

I really wish the codes for NFPA, UL, etc… were much clearer when discussing non-commercial LV fire detection systems. I think what trips up the interpretation is the always-on/cannot-disable requirements.

 

[Del91574]

The code allows for either and is clear in the installation and application, the only hang up is the AHJ and how they interpret the code. I've had them argue about the color of cable being installed before, when it's rating and listing exceeded the code requirement (plenum cable vs standard riser). Also had to argue the listing on devices with one particular AHJ that was nit picking....and then it turned out HIS copy of the UL documents was out of date.

The big argument I have heard regarding LV units is if they're tied to an alarm panel that is damaged/powered down or if a monitoring service is used or similar, what happens when the unit is powered down/no longer used. The second one particular to my area of the country is the CO detector mandate and AHJ's wanting to see combo units.

Both are a moot point, because it's just as easy for a HO to pop a breaker or do as I've seen plenty of times....pull the head from a plug/pigtail on their offending HV smoke head. I feel that a properly installed LV system is superior to a HV install side by side. Circuit supervision and longer battery life are 2 major differences, and with appropriate units, they either self adjust sensitivity or can generate a trouble when they need to be serviced/cleaned.

The always on/cannot disable requirements is technically moot because if they factor in the code with an appropriate alarm panel, locked cabinet, etc. it makes it so the only access to power and similar is restricted to what is known as a "competent person". That said, I would like to see these panels/installs have a hardwired 120V connection to a transformer like a standard fire alarm or other equipment. In an ideal world, I'd also like all LV equipment like panels and power supplies also have a disconnect switch installed inside the enclosure that would disconnect the non-power limited batteries and AC.

 

[euphline]

The code allows for either and is clear in the installation and application, the only hang up is the AHJ and how they interpret the code.

Perhaps I'm just feeling like a contrarian tonight. h34r: But ... really? _The_ code?

I live in Chicago. _The_ code for us requires 110V to be in conduit (no Romex) and water to be in copper (no PVC on the pressure side).

My point? There's not just one code.

Would you like to clarify of which code you speak?

-jbn

 

[apostolakisl]

Perhaps I'm just feeling like a contrarian tonight. h34r: But ... really? _The_ code?

I live in Chicago. _The_ code for us requires 110V to be in conduit (no Romex) and water to be in copper (no PVC on the pressure side).

My point? There's not just one code.

Would you like to clarify of which code you speak?

-jbn

I also saw an article in the newspaper about a year ago that Chicago finally managed to break the unions insistance that a vendor who wanted to run an extension cord to a booth at the convention center must use a union electrician to do so. I would consider any Chicago code to be highly suspect on the true motivation! Pretty sure "safety" isn't it.

 

[Del91574]

I am and was referring to the NEC and NFPA specifically. The second part of my first sentence you quoted is the exact item, what the AHJ's interpret the code to be and if they want to specify more stringent, albeit sometimes contridicting and defying logic, requirements.

Chicago is it's own entity with it's requirements for conduit and the like, I've been aware of Chicago as I have friends who contract in that area. It was and is a means for the unions to keep outside contractors out of that municipality and make the trades closed to "competition" from non-union. Part of the electrical is in my belief, part of a holdover (not discounting the unions in this) from the Chicago fire and the desire for "ratproofing" the wiring and possible spark hazards. I've been asked for AC/MC cable and conduit before in locations that didn't require it for that specific reason by an AHJ, even though it wasn't required by the NEC or NFPA for the specific install.