Question regarding FA connected to CORE System

Fire Alarm General Discussion
1

Recently, CaptiveAire, a kitchen hood manufacturer, has been pushing out these new Kitchen Suppression systems called CORE. They are all electronic, so they do not use any fusible links like Ansul and other systems use. They use Heat stats for actuating the systems. They also do not use chemical bottles like Ansul systems. They are directly hooked up to the building sprinkler system (Kind of like Ansul Piranah systems if you’ve seen them).

Heres a link to the manual

Page 15 and 54 have the fire alarm information

I am curious as to what you guys think about the possible code an licensing around these systems. Though it may depend on your state, jurisdiction and how they interpret the code. I am in Texas though if it helps.

• The first thing I saw in the code was that is seems like it may be required to monitor these systems for trouble/supervisory codes through the Building fire alarm panel. Which makes sense because if a heat detector on the system were to fail, only the suppression system would throw a code. I see it constantly though where the FA company only ties into it for general alarm. My guess is that most alarm techs have no idea about this though.

These are from NFPA 72

23.8.5.7 Alarm Signal Initiation — Fire Suppression Systems
Other Than Sprinklers.

23.8.5.7.1 Where required by other governing laws, codes, or
standards to be monitored and a building fire alarm system is
installed, the actuation of a fire suppression system shall annunciate
an alarm or supervisory condition at the building fire
alarm control unit.

23.8.5.7.2 The integrity of each fire suppression system actuating
device and its circuit shall comply with 12.6.1.1, 12.6.1.2,
and other applicable NFPA standards

I bolded that part that I interpret as, it is up to the AHJ basically. So there may be no violations, but I’m still not sure if there would be some liability here on the FA company anyway.

• Next, say that it IS required that this system be monitored for trouble and supervisory, would that mean that it is somewhat an extention of the building fire alarm system? And to be able to service this system, one would be required to have a FA license as well? as of now these systems are being tagged by simple K license guys. But even the fire marshals that see these things have no idea how they work or what they are even looking at.

Let me know what you guys think

2

It’s not an extension of the FA system in any form, it’s a separate system and someone else’s problem to service and maintain, just like a sprinkler system is. you’re monitoring it for a trouble condition (if it has contacts to do so), and if it’s hooked up the sprinkler system you’ll get an alarm off of the water flow, outside of that it’s going to be driven by nfpa 13 or 96 or something else besides 72 so you don’t have anything to worry about.

providing a relay to monitor some contacts is the most you should have to do with any of these systems, you shouldn’t be activating it or anything else with the fire alarm system since it’s not apart of the alarm system, it’s a part of the suppression system. your responsible ends at the relay you provide, if the contacts on your end work then you’re good to go.

if you’re a sprinkler contractor as well it might fall into your bucket if you guys want it too, coming purely from the building fire alarm though you should never have to touch it.

3

Separate system and not the responsibility of the fire alarm contractor. Think of it this way, a traditional Ansul system with the micro switches, my responsibility ends at those micro switches. I’ll remove the cover and manually test the switches but as far as checking anything else, up to the suppression company.

I’ve seen a water mist kitchen hood system (can’t remember the manufacturer) twice, and both have since been removed and replaced with a standard kitchen hood system with tanks per fire marshal. But they both were monitored for trouble, supervisory, and alarm conditions. Control valves and waterflow devices were only manually tested. Again, where our responsibility ended.