Below are answers to questions often raised by those trying to understand the requirements affecting their fire alarm system installations.

In a public school, some students are bothered by audible signal appliances in the classroom and corridor and often do not respond appropriately. Any suggestions?

Institutions with individuals that have intellectual or physical differences should consider using “private mode” notification. In addition to permitting a lower decibel level for notification appliances, this method is designed to notify staff members only, rather than all building occupants. 

As such, audible devices need be deployed only in areas where staff is located. Section 3.3.193.1 defines private operating mode as “audible or visible signaling only to those persons directly concerned with the implementation and direction of emergency action initiation and procedure in the area protected by the fire alarm system.” 

Another option would be the use of a chime tone for the alarm signal that has less effect on those sensitive to loud sounds. Alternatively, the audible devices could be eliminated entirely in accordance with Section 18.4.5.2, which states, “Where approved by the authority having jurisdiction or other governing codes or standards, the requirements for audible signaling shall be permitted to be reduced or eliminated when visible signaling is provided in accordance with Section 18.5.” 

For example, in critical-care patient areas, it is often desirable to not have an audible fire alarm even at reduced private-mode levels. Each case requires consideration by the governing authority. Another example would be high-noise work areas where an audible signal needed to overcome background noise at one time of day would be excessively loud and potentially dangerous at another time of lower ambient noise. A sudden increase of more than 30 dB over 0.5 seconds is considered to cause sudden and potentially dangerous fright.

Who has the final say on a fire alarm check out?

By “final say,” I assume you mean who has the authority to accept the system as operational or allow the certificate of occupancy to be issued. NFPA 72-2022 describes these entities as the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ). The annex material for A.3.2.2, Authority Having Jurisdiction, provides further guidance. AHJ is used in NFPA documents in a broad manner, since jurisdictions, approval agencies and responsibilities vary. 

Where public safety is primary, the AHJ may be a federal, state, local or other regional department or individual such as a fire chief, health department, building official or one with statutory authority. 

For insurance purposes, an insurance inspection department, rating bureau or other insurance company representative may be the AHJ. In many circumstances, the property owner or their designated agent assumes the role. At government installations, the commanding officer or departmental official may serve as the AHJ. 

Of course, the “final say” might not end with this entity. The owner might also have contractual or insurance requirements that must be met. These requirements might exceed the code minimum and AHJ expectations, but would not necessarily impede the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.

Are multisensing initiating devices in one detector widely accepted?

Multisensing technology in the form of combination heat and smoke detectors has been around for some time. In recent years, several manufacturers have introduced multisensors that incorporate a range of technologies, including combinations of photoelectric, ionization, thermal, laser and video into a single detector. 

Using sophisticated software algorithms that analyze multiple fire signatures, these devices are good at discriminating between genuine fire particles and dust, steam, etc., that might otherwise result in spurious alarms. Because they recognize a range of fire signatures, their response time, on average, is faster than detectors that employ only a single technology. Of course, this level of sophistication comes at increased cost that might preclude their use for ordinary applications.

Is it permissible to reopen an existing fire sealed (former) penetration for a new one? Provided the new penetration is properly sealed with an appropriate UL system for wall or floor, is this allowed? I couldn’t find anything in the International Building Code otherwise.

Yes, you can remove the existing firestop material during the new wiring installation if you replace the firestopping (of the same value) when the wiring is complete in the affected area.

Why doesn’t the city of Chicago use a battery backup system in a Class 1 application?

I am unfamiliar with the Chicago code and cannot speak to what a “Class 1” application is. In today’s environment, there are fewer power outages than years ago, but they do happen. In my opinion, there is no reason to eliminate battery standby from any fire alarm system. Often, these local laws are developed by city councils with no fire alarm system or fire protection knowledge, and the only goal is to make the law palatable to all concerned. This goal generally revolves around cost and not good fire protection.

stock.adobe.com / adam121