Skip to main content
Log in

Performance of Dual Photoelectric/Ionization Smoke Alarms in Full-Scale Fire Tests

  • Published:
Fire Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Data from two full-scale residential smoke alarm fire test series were analyzed to estimate the performance of dual sensor photoelectric/ionization alarms as compared to co-located individual photoelectric and ionization alarms. Dual alarms and aggregated photoelectric and ionization alarm responses were used to estimate dual alarm performance. It was observed that dual alarms with equivalent or higher sensitivity settings performed better than individual photoelectric or ionization alarms over a range of flaming and smoldering fire scenarios. In one test series, dual alarms activated 539 s faster than ionization alarms and 79 s faster than photoelectric alarms on average. In another test series, individual alarm sensor outputs were calibrated against a reference smoke source in terms of light obscuration over a path length (percent smoke obscuration per unit length) so that alarm thresholds could be defined by the sensor outputs. In that test series, dual alarms, with individual sensor sensitivities equal to their counterpart alarm sensitivities, activated 261 s faster on average than ionization alarms (with sensitivity settings of 4.3%/m smoke obscuration for the ionization sensors) and 35 s faster on average than the photoelectric alarms (with sensitivity settings of 6.6%/m, for the photoelectric sensors.) In cases where an ionization sensor was the first to reach the alarm threshold, the dual alarm activated 67 s faster on average than the photoelectric alarm. While in cases were a photoelectric sensor was the first to reach the alarm threshold, the dual alarm activated 523 s faster on average than the ionization alarm. Over a range of ionization sensor settings examined, dual alarm response was insensitive to the ionization sensor setting for initially smoldering fires and fires with the bedroom door closed, while dual alarm response to the kitchen fires was very sensitive to the ionization sensor setting. Tests conducted in the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) fire emulator/detector evaluator showed that the ionization sensors in off-the-shelf ionization alarms and dual alarms span a range of sensitivity settings. While there appears to be no consensus on sensitivity setting for ionization sensors, it may be desirable to tailor sensor sensitivities in dual alarms for specific applications, such as near kitchens where reducing nuisance alarms may be a goal, or in bedrooms where higher smoke sensitivity may be a goal.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bukowski RW, Waterman TE, Christian WJ (1975) Detector sensitivity and siting requirements for dwellings: report of the NBS Indiana dunes tests. No. SPP-43 Nat Fire Prot Assn, Quincy, MA, USA

  2. Johnson PF, Brown SK (1986) Smoke detection of smoldering fires in a typical Melbourne dwelling. Fire Technol 22(4):295–340

    Google Scholar 

  3. Meland O, Lonvik LE (1991) Detection of smoke: full-scale fire tests with flaming and smoldering fires. In: Cox G, Langford B (eds) Fire safety science, proceeding of the third international symposium, Edinburg, Scotland, July 8–12, 1991. Elsevier Science Publications, pp 975–984

  4. Bukowski RW, Peacock RD, Averill JD, Cleary TG, Bryner NP, Walton WD, Reneke PA, Kuligowski ED (2008) Performance of home smoke alarms, analysis of the response of several available technologies in residential fire settings. Natl Inst Stand Technol, Tech note 1455-1

  5. Su JZ, Crampton GP, Carpenter DW, McCartney C, Leroux P (2003) Kemano fire studies––part 1: response of residential smoke alarms. National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Canada, April, Research report 108

  6. UL 217 (1996) Standard for safety single and multiple station smoke alarms, and UL 268: standard for smoke detectors for fire protective signaling systems, 4th edn. Underwriters Laboratories Inc., Northbrook, IL, USA

  7. CAN/ULC-S531-M87 (1995) Standard for smoke alarms, 1995 edn. Underwriter’s Laboratories of Canada, Toronto, ON, Canada, pp 1–86

  8. Cleary TG (2001) Fire emulator/detector evaluator: design, operation, and performance. In: Beall K, Grosshandler WL, Luck H (eds) Proceeding of the international conference on automatic fire detection “AUBE ‘01”, March 25–28, 2001, Gaithersburg, MD, USA. Natl Inst Stand Technol, NIST SP 965, February 2001, pp 312–323

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Cleary.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cleary, T. Performance of Dual Photoelectric/Ionization Smoke Alarms in Full-Scale Fire Tests. Fire Technol 50, 753–773 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-010-0147-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-010-0147-z

Keywords

Navigation