Smokes per Code by Electrician

[RLSinOP]

Hi Everyone. I've spent a lot of time on these forums getting up to speed on HA/Security systems. I'm about 5 months away from taking possession of a new home that's currently under construction. I've settled on an Elk M1G with all the goodies. I'm also going to be using the latest Insteon products for lighting only, everything else will be managed by the Elk. I've purchased an ISY as well which I'll figure out how to integrate in later.

Wednesday of this week, we did a walk-thru with the low-voltage contractor for all the sensor, speaker, CAT5e, etc. wiring. Today (Friday) we did the walk-thru with the electrical contractor for outlets, switches, lighting locations, etc.

Fortunately, both knew about HA/Security and understood what I was trying to do which was great. Discussions around deeper gang boxes, door chimes through the Elk, etc. went great.

The issue that came up was Smokes. The electrician said that per code, he was required to run the smokes and connect them to the homes power grid. He said if I wanted to run my own smokes and serial them to the Elk that was fine, but he couldn't not put his in due to code and his contract with our builder. So, the question is this, how do I let him do his thing then get the Elk to see the powered smokes he'll be installing?

Thanks in advance for your comments/thoughts.

RLSinOP

 

[wuench]

There are lots of threads on this here, and it typically leads to a lively debate. It is a code interpretation issue, the spirit of which is that you need to have a powered system with battery backup. In a lot of areas it is interpreted to mean that it has to be a 120V system, it's stupid but thats the way some jurisdictions are. Some jurisdictions/inspectors understand that a battery backed up LV solution meets the spirit of the code.

You can run both, or you could do something like a GE350CX type of solution where you have LV relays on a HV system. If it were me, I would do the 350CX's, have them both run wire to the boxes makeing sure you have the LV to every box and then disconnect the HV and swap out the system for LV once the house is done. The 350CX is a shortcut, it is not as good a a fully supervised LV solution.

Or you might see if Uncle Ben would help the inspector see your point of view....

 

[gatchel]

It definitely comes dow to the AHJ. Get him or her to bless it in writing and you are good to go.

Also, if you are going to build your lighting and then add the ISY, especially if you currently have it, use the ISY to do the lighting setup and configuration. You'll kick yourself in the butt if you do the tap-tap method and then add the isy later. It makes it easier. Set up a few devices on a bench and practice with it if you are concerned about learning curve. It's not too bad and the universal devices forum can be a big help...if needed.

 

[tmbrown97]

I'd call the inspector and ask what they'll allow - it goes a long way towards disarming them if you discuss the issues ahead of time and they can't find a good code-related reason to block something than if you try to pass it and they just get stubborn. That said, the conclusion I've come to is that it's best just to do both; in my area, there has to be a smoke in every room and outside the bedrooms which leads to about 14 interconnected smokes in my house, in addition to sprinklers; the main point of the system-connected smokes are to alert the CS faster if I'm not home, but since they're not a matter of life safety, it doesn't much matter to me if they take an extra minute to trigger. Either way, by that point, insurance is involved.

 

[wuench]

Yeah, that's a really good point. If you do decide to replace anything that was done after, make sure you get your insurance to agree to the end result....

 

[RLSinOP]

Very good points and I appreciate the feedback. I'll call the inspectors office on Monday and see if I can find somebody that will discuss this with me. I'll reply back.

Thanks again.

 

[apostolakisl]

I've seen where literally 2 smokes were installed side by side at all the usual spots, one for the security system and one for the 120vac "code" inspection. Fortunately, my local actually has a clue and realizes that low voltage smokes qualify as appropriate fire protection.

 

[Del91574]

The best course is to get all the parties to discuss the matter, between the EC, the GC, and your LV integrator as to what is allowable and not. If you're going to have to go the retrofit route after closing, the insurer should be consulted as well. I'm not going to start the argument as to what is or is not allowable and what should or should not be done as it gets into too many grey areas for hardware and compliance within code.

The ability to run LV wiring, though not connected, to the boxes isn't going to be allowed by code unless the box is divided and that's going to introduce more issues for compliance.

IMHO, if you can't get the EC to OK such, if the AHJ and insurer allow, I would ask the EC to wire in the "low voltage" method with a continous 14/3 home run to the panel (or JB at the panel) and then once their contractual obligation is met, move over to a suitable and comprable LV solution and use the HV wiring for your LV circuit, once it's disconnected from the 120VAC.