Fire Technology

, Volume 50, Issue 6, pp 1413–1435 | Cite as

Correlations Among Signatures for Detection of Different Types of Fires

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

One way of overcoming the problem of false alarms encountered in a single parameter detection system due to non-fire stimulii is the simultaneous use of multiple signatures. Researchers have found significant benefits of multi-sensor detection in reducing false triggering. Appreciable interest has been expressed in using carbon monoxide (CO) or carbon dioxide (CO2) gas sensors in combination with smoke sensors. The present study has been carried out to determine the correlation and inter-dependence between two different fire signatures like CO–OD (optical density), CO–CO2, CO2–OD. The signatures have been investigated using experimental measurements of a fire inside a closed compartment measuring 7 x 7 x 4.2 m. A range of fuels are used, and both smouldering and flaming combustion are examined. Attempts have been made to examine whether correlation coefficients between two signatures can form a basis of detection and be exploited as one of the components in multi- criteria fire detection algorithm. The CO/CO2 ratio as a criterion for detector operation has also been examined and discussed in the light of existing literature and codal provisions.

Keywords

Detection Smoke detector Optical density Correlation coefficient Multi-signatures Multi-criteria 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Authors are thankful to the Director, CSIR-Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee for his support and encouragement for this work and permission for publication in Journal.

References

  1. 1.
    Proulx G (2008) Evacuation time. SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering. National Fire Protection Association, QuincyGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    SFPE (2007) Engineering guide to performance-based fire protection analysis and design of buildings, 2nd edn. Society of Fire Protection Engineers, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Liu Z, Kim AK (2003) Review of recent developments in fire detection technologies, NRCC-45699. J Fire Prot Eng 13(2): 129–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Milke JA, Hulcher ME, Worrell CL, Gottuk DT, Williams FW (2003) Investigation of multi-sensor algorithms for fire detection. Fire Technol 39(4):363–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bukowski RW (2001) A history of NBS/NIST Research on Fire Detectors. Proceedings of the 12th international conference on fire detection (AUBE). National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, pp 25–28Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Milke JA (1999) Monitoring multiple aspects of fire signatures for discriminating fire detection. Fire Technol 35(3):195–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thuillard M (1994) New methods for reducing the number of false alarms in fire detection systems. Fire Technol 30(2):250–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Conforti F (1999) Multi-sensor, multi-criteria detectors are better. AUBE ‘99-Proceedings of the 11th international conference on automatic fire detection, pp 247–50Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Meacham BJ (1994) The use of artificial intelligence techniques for signal discrimination in fire detection systems. J Fire Prot Eng 6(3):125–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fischer A, Luck H (1994) Vector autoregressive modeling of fire signals. Fire Safety Sci 4:727–738. doi: 10.3801/IAFSS.FSS.4-727 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hagen B, Milke JA (2000) The use of gaseous fire signatures as a mean: to detect fires. Fire Safety J 34:55–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pfister G (1997) Multisensor/multicriteria fire detection: a new trend rapidly becomes state of the art. Fire Technol 33(2):99–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    NFPA 72-2007 Fire alarm code, edn 2007. National fire protection association (NFPA). An International Codes and Standards Organization, QuincyGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Milke JA (2010) History of smoke detection: a profile of how the technology and role of smoke detection has changed. A report formulated for Siemens Industry, Inc, Building Technologies Division, Fire Life Safety Unit, By Department of Fire Protection Engineering, University of MarylandGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jones WW (2012) Implementing high reliability fire detection in the residential setting. Fire Technol 48(2):233–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gottuk DT, Peatross JM, Roby RJ and Beyler CL (1999) Advanced fire detection using multi-signature alarm algorithms. 11th international conference on automatic fire detection, DuisburgGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gottuk DT, Peatross MJ, Roby RJ and Beyler CL (2002) Advanced fire detection using multi-signature alarm algorithms. Fire Safety J 37:381–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rein G (2009) Smouldering combustion phenomena in science and technology. Int Rev Chem Eng 1(1):3–18MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    EN 54-7 (1994) Fire detection and fire alarm system—Part 7: smoke detectors: point detectors using scattered light, transmitted light or ionization. European Committee for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grosshandler W L (1995) A review of measurements and candidate signatures for early fire detection. NISTIR 5555Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    DIFT Report (2004) Optical smoke units and smoke potential of different products. Danish Institute of Fire and Security Technology, Denmark pp 1–15Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    IS 11360 (2000) Specifications for smoke detectors for use in automatic electrical fire alarm system. Bureau of Indian Standards, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zukoski EE, Toner SJ, Morehart JH, Kubota T (1989) Combustion process in two—layered configurations. Fire safety science—proceedings of the second international symposium, Hemisphere, Washington DC, pp 295–304Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gottuk DT, Roby RJ, and Beyler CL (1995) The role of temperature on carbon monoxide production in compartment fires. Fire Safety J 24:315–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pitts WM (1992) Reactivity of product gases generated in idealized enclosure fire environments. Proceedings of 24th symposium (international) on combustion. Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh, pp 1737–1746. doi: 10.1016/S0082-0784(06)80203-1
  26. 26.
    UL 2034 (2005) Single and multiple station carbon monoxide alarms. ISBN 0-7629-274-9, Underwriters Laboratories Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fire Research GroupCSIR-Central Building Research InstituteRoorkeeIndia

Personalised recommendations