# New fire alarm panel in existing building question



## rth (Jun 5, 2014)

Adopted city fire code is 2006 IFC

College owned building, 2 stories from ground level with basement that has ground level exit discharge in the back. The building has a large assembly area 800 capacity, the rest is office space. No classrooms, no residential in the structure. Building is over 30 years old, not protected, last remodel was in 1998 and no changes were made to the fire alarm that we know of. They are wanting now to replace existing alarm system completely.

Community Development director says he can't see where it would be required to bring the new fire alarm system up to current code standards. What I can't find is where it says in the code that the new alarm in the existing occupancy has to be to current code. It just seems like common sense to me that a total replacement would constitute a new system and therefore fall under the criteria for a new install.

Other question is; are smoke detectors required in the large assembly area (800 capacity)? They were wanting to know if duct detectors would suffice in place of open air detectors. I have the answer to that (NFPA 72 5.14.2a) - no. I just can't find where it is required for open air smoke detectors in the large assembly area. For that matter where are they required in this occupancy?


----------



## cda (Jun 5, 2014)

1. Remodeling going on? If so in the A or B??

2. Just changing out some of the fire alarm components??

3. Just general question?

4. Other??


----------



## rth (Jun 5, 2014)

Complete replacement of current fire alarm system for entire building, no remodel or other work taking place. Question is being asked occupant for the two companies bidding on the job.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 5, 2014)

907.10.1 Visible alarms.

Visible alarm notification appliances shall be provided in accordance with Sections 907.10.1.1 through 907.10.1.4.

Exceptions:

1.	Visible alarm notification appliances are not required in alterations, except where an existing fire alarm system is upgraded or replaced, or a new fire alarm system is installed.

You need to add the horn strobes at minimum.

Did you adopt the Existing Building Codes?


----------



## cda (Jun 5, 2014)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> 907.10.1 Visible alarms.Visible alarm notification appliances shall be provided in accordance with Sections 907.10.1.1 through 907.10.1.4.
> 
> Exceptions:
> 
> ...


Agree

Normally we do replace device for existing device. But some times case by case

No smoke detectors are not required in the assembly area

Does the building have a fire sprinkler system ??


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 5, 2014)

2006 IEBC

308.6 Alterations.

A building, facility or element that is altered shall comply with the applicable provisions in Chapter 11 of the International Building Code and ICC A117.1, unless technically infeasible. Where compliance with this section is technically infeasible, the alteration shall provide access to the maximum extent that is technically feasible.

ICC A117.1

702 Alarms

702.1 General.

Accessible audible and visual alarms and notification appliances shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 72 listed in Section 105.2.2, be powered by a commercial light and power source, be permanently connected to the wiring of the premises electric system, and be permanently installed.


----------



## danzare083 (Jun 5, 2014)

My question is a very similar one, so I'll shamelessly jump in:

My building is owned and operated by a private college in California, and is a high-rise (7 levels above ground). The Ground floor has a single main corridor with concrete walls that is a egress pathway to the main exit discharge. The fire panel is also located in same corridor, as well as an elevator lobby.

I am being asked to install soundproofing panels on top of the concrete walls along the full length of corridor, all the way up against the fire control panel. The soundproofing panels are Class A fire rated but I am concerned that covering up the concrete will reduce the 1 hour fire rating the corridor has as of today.

Is placing soundproofing panels even permitted in corridors leading to the discharge exits and themselves are part of the evacuation route?


----------



## cda (Jun 5, 2014)

danzare083 said:
			
		

> My question is a very similar one, so I'll shamelessly jump in:My building is owned and operated by a private college in California, and is a high-rise (7 levels above ground). The Ground floor has a single main corridor with concrete walls that is a egress pathway to the main exit discharge. The fire panel is also located in same corridor, as well as an elevator lobby.
> 
> I am being asked to install soundproofing panels on top of the concrete walls along the full length of corridor, all the way up against the fire control panel. The soundproofing panels are Class A fire rated but I am concerned that covering up the concrete will reduce the 1 hour fire rating the corridor has as of today.
> 
> Is placing soundproofing panels even permitted in corridors leading to the discharge exits and themselves are part of the evacuation route?


May degrade the one hour corridor

Suggest you post the question under commercial building code.

Do you have a link to the soundproof spec??

Guess why they need the soundproof?? What is on the first floor making all the noise


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 5, 2014)

rth said:
			
		

> Complete replacement of current fire alarm system for entire building, no remodel or other work taking place. Question is being asked occupant for the two companies bidding on the job.


Complete replacement should trigger current code requirements. As far as occupant for the building since it is an older building I would assume the A and B uses where separated during construction since that was the requirements so you will have  both occupancies to deal with. The system will need to meet ADA, reach ranges for pull stations and clear space in front of device


----------



## danzare083 (Jun 5, 2014)

@ cda

Thank you, and here are the specs for the soundproofing material http://www.acousticalsurfaces.com/sound_silencer/pdf/Flam_Tests/bodycote/Bodycote_1_Inch.pdf

We are a fine art college, so the creative folks here want to make the cement corridor more aesthetically appealing, common sense be damned.


----------



## cda (Jun 5, 2014)

danzare083 said:
			
		

> @ cdaThank you, and here are the specs for the soundproofing material http://www.acousticalsurfaces.com/sound_silencer/pdf/Flam_Tests/bodycote/Bodycote_1_Inch.pdf
> 
> We are a fine art college, so the creative folks here want to make the cement corridor more aesthetically appealing, common sense be damned.


Read under. " observations of burning charteristics """

I would not want to walk through a molten dripping corridor.

Not even equal to Sheetrock , I would not approve it!!!!!

I should have asked, but I take it that it is going on the vertical surface also???

If so that changes how it burns


----------



## JPohling (Jun 5, 2014)

What is building use?  Fully sprinklered?  One hour corridor may no longer be required.


----------



## danzare083 (Jun 5, 2014)

@ cda and JPohling

Thank you both. There is no plan to place the soundproof panels on the ceiling, just on the both sides of the corridor. I fully agree that with the melting polymer on both sides, any evacuation would be hindered, not to mention endangering the firefighters within a couple of feet away trying to use the fire control panel.

The building is used for a 4 year private college and is fully sprinkled, but why even take the chance?


----------



## rth (Jun 5, 2014)

cda said:
			
		

> Agree Normally we do replace device for existing device. But some times case by case
> 
> No smoke detectors are not required in the assembly area
> 
> Does the building have a fire sprinkler system ??


Thanks guys, it has really boiled down to  smokes required in the assembly area question. Easier to prove if something is required, harder to prove that it isn't. Exclusionary process is slow and not easy to show.

Thanks again


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 5, 2014)

JPohling said:
			
		

> What is building use?  Fully sprinklered?  One hour corridor may no longer be required.


Disagree

Just because it has an older sprinkler system does not negate the one-hour code requirement. I believe the sprinkler would have to be evaluated and meet the current design and coverage requirements before assuming the corridor protection is no longer required.

A buildings use and fire loads will change over the years and should be evaluated before eliminating a passive fire protection which was a requirement from the original code it was constructed under.


----------



## Frank (Jun 5, 2014)

How much upgrade if any is a function of the adopted administrative code provisions that vary  considerably from state to state.

In Virginia you can replace the old with a new one of at least the same funtionality without having to upgrade or meet new code.


----------



## JPohling (Jun 6, 2014)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> DisagreeJust because it has an older sprinkler system does not negate the one-hour code requirement. I believe the sprinkler would have to be evaluated and meet the current design and coverage requirements before assuming the corridor protection is no longer required.
> 
> A buildings use and fire loads will change over the years and should be evaluated before eliminating a passive fire protection which was a requirement from the original code it was constructed under.


I agree as well.  Sprinkler system would need to be comply with current code.


----------



## TimNY (Jun 6, 2014)

Alteration level 1 under IEBC.  703.1 says it's ok as long as the level of fire protection isn't reduced.  Sometimes you have to replace everything even if you don't want to.  Manufacturers may or may not certify compatibility with older initiating devices.  Try finding a compatibility matrix for a current FACP with a 20 year old initiating device.

Tim


----------



## FM William Burns (Jun 6, 2014)

Liability, Proprietary Components, Circuit Survivability and Technological Compatibility will dictate the plug and play abilities of maintaining the protection level as is, provided the use has not changed. One does not have to provide an entirely new system beyond what was required originally unless the above cannot be achieved.  The key is if the building use has been maintained or if there were jurisdictional tradeoffs permitted in legacy codes or local ordinances applicable to this situation.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Jun 6, 2014)

danzare083 said:
			
		

> @ cdaThank you, and here are the specs for the soundproofing material http://www.acousticalsurfaces.com/sound_silencer/pdf/Flam_Tests/bodycote/Bodycote_1_Inch.pdf
> 
> We are a fine art college, so the creative folks here want to make the cement corridor more aesthetically appealing, common sense be damned.


It's fine, as long as they install a 1/2" gypsum board or equivalent thermal barrier over it.  (IBC 2603.4)


----------



## JPohling (Jun 6, 2014)

^^ there goes the sound absorbing qualities!


----------

