Page 1 of 1

wiring of addressable horns

PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2016 8:23
by pat
We are installing a Simplex fire alarm system at one of our hospitals. Simplex makes a special isolator for these notification devices. My questions are as follows:
(1)Are these addressable horns considered to be an "Active Field Devices" in CAN/ULC-S524-06?
(2)Should these addressable horns be wired with isolators in the same manner as addressable initiating devices such that if that the wiring run (either A loop or B run) serves more than one National Building Code of Canada required fire alarm zone, a fault within one fire alarm zone shall not prevent the normal operation of other addressable horns in another fire alarm zone?
(3)Where in CAN/ULC-S524-06 does it refer to the issue brought up in my question (2)?
(4)We were considering wiring the addressable horns with isolation like Figure 2.6 (JANUARY 2016 CAN/ULC-S524:2014-AMD1 AMENDMENT 1). We would have an A loop of NAC isolators located in a cabinet next to the FAP in a fire separated room. The number of isolators would equal the number of National Building Code of Canada required fire alarm zones that had horns.
Then we would have B T-taps off these isolators to horns in each respective fire alarm zone. Does that seem reasonable?

Thanks
Pat

Re: wiring of addressable horns

PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2016 9:42
by FIRETEK
1. The Simplex isolators I've seen have individual addresses, so, yes, they are considered active field devices. This will have little impact on either the installation or the physical testing. You'll pretty much follow the same procedures for a data communications link isolator but will be recording the individual module address as well as the addresses of the devices it protects on the comments line. Follow the manufacturer's suggested testing methods and installation requirements.
2. Yes. They must be wired in compliance with the requirements of the Standard. Unfortunately, the Standard you refer to does NOT address these particular types of isolators. CAN/ULC-S524-14 Amendment 1 does (as would Amendment 2, which was in the middle of being discussed before we elected to proceed with development on an entirely new edition of the Standard scheduled for publication in 2018).
3. See #2.
4. That particular connection method has actually been superseded in what was going to be Amendment 2 of the Installation Standard, however, since the Simplex isolators are bi-directional, you can follow either of the first two methods illustrated on this sheet (http://www.firetechs.net/library/Specia ... lation.PDF ). Method 2 will appear in the new version of the Standard in 2018. We can also safely suggest that whatever method you choose, you must also comply with the manufacturer's printed instructions.

Some additional provisos. You are using a Standard that the Provincial Building Code does not reference. You will also be required to Verify this installation to a Standard that has no testing parameters for the active field devices you are employing. You will have to come up with an installation and testing plan that will satisfy the Authority Having Jurisdiction. I would suggest you follow the basic test methods for isolators that are already published, but also pay close attention to any methodologies recommended by the manufacturer. Document what you're doing so people engaged in the testing of this equipment on an annual basis understand what it is you've done.

I'm also going to suggest that any insuite signalling devices be properly isolated regardless of whether you're employing a Class "A" loop. The Building Code's "minimum criteria" is to protect against a single "open" on an insuite device. It doesn't allow for a possible short. Vancouver's Building Code introduced this concept before 2007.

Good luck!