Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Thermally-Induced Failure of Smoke Alarms


Smoke alarms are relied upon to notify building occupants of a fire, and the performance of these devices in the fire environment is critical for the safe evacuation of the building occupants. Development of smoke detection technology has focused primarily on the activation time of the smoke alarm and the amount of escape time they will provide. The growth rate of fires in industrial and residential settings has increased significantly in the past four decades, often attributed to the construction and materials of modern-day furnishings and contents compared to that in the 1970s. This changes the thermal environment smoke alarms are exposed to and raises the question whether they are able to alert the occupants before failing due to heat exposure. Research by Ashley et al. in 2005 showed that approximately 30 s of sounding time is necessary to reliably awaken a sleeping occupant and initiate egress. As research has primarily focused on the activation of smoke alarms, there is a gap in the industry knowledge of the thermally induced failure in these devices. Experiments using two different smoke alarm designs were performed in a heated tunnel with induced airflow. The alarms were heated until they reached a code-mandated audibility failure criterion of less than 5 dB above ambient levels, as well as complete cessation of the audible alarm sound during experimental testing. For these samples, reduction in sound signal started to occur at a component temperature of 56°C, and all alarms had stopped sounding when heated to 144°C. The results of a plunge heating test were used to compute a generalized two-stage Response Time Index for the thermal response of each type of smoke alarm. The output data from the NIST Home Smoke Alarm Tests performed in 2008 were used to calculate the estimated time when the smoke alarm would have thermally failed during those tests. The calculations showed that in the scenarios analyzed, both smoke alarm designs tested would provide more than the 30 s required, before reduced audibility or failure occurs. The failure of both alarm designs in just over 3 min shows that more research is needed applying this methodology to a wider range of alarm models and fire scenarios to ensure that smoke alarms are able to provide adequate protection in modern fires.

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

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11

Change history

  • 10 October 2019

    The original version of this article unfortunately contained an error in the Acknowledgement section.


  1. 1.

    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. NIST Technical Note 1455-1, February 2008 revision

  2. 2.

    Ashley E, DuBois J, Klassen M, Roby R (2005) Waking effectiveness of audible, visual, and vibratory emergency alarms across all hearing levels. In: Proceedings of the NFPA research foundation fire suppression and detection symposium, 2005

  3. 3.

    Bukowski RW, Waterman TE, Christian WJ (1975) Detector sensitivity and siting requirements for dwellings. NIST GCR 75-51, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 1975

  4. 4.

    Harpe SW, Waterman TE, Christian WJ (1977) Detector sensitivity and siting requirements—phase 2, NBS GCR 77-82, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 1977

  5. 5.

    Ahrens M (2014) Smoke alarms in US home fires. NFPA Report, March, 2014

  6. 6.

    Milarcik EL, Olenick SM, Roby RJ (2008) A relative time analysis of the performance of residential smoke detection technologies. Fire Technol 44:337–349

  7. 7.

    Cleary T (2014) Performance of dual photoelectric/ionization smoke alarms in full-scale fire tests. Fire Technol 50:753–773

  8. 8.

    Cleary T (2014) Results from a full-scale smoke alarm sensitivity study. Fire Technol 50:775–790

  9. 9.

    Gwynne SMV, Rosenbaum ER (2016) Employing the hydraulic model in assessing emergency movement. In: The SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering, 5th edn, chap 59. Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Bethesda, MD

  10. 10.

    Bruck, D (2001) The who, what, where, and why of waking to smoke alarms: a review. Fire Saf J 36:623–639

  11. 11.

    Bruck, D. and Horasan, M. (1995) Non-arousal and non-action of normal sleepers in response to a smoke detector alarm. Fire Saf J 25:125–139.

  12. 12.

    Underwriters Laboratories Standard 217 (2015) Standard for safety for smoke alarms, 7th edn

  13. 13.

    Olenick SM, Roby RJ, Klassen MS, Zhang W, Sutula JA, Worrell C, Wu D, D’Souza V, Ashley E, DuBois J, Torero JL, Streit LA (2006) The role of smoke detectors in forensic fire investigation and reconstruction. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on fire investigation (ISFI), 2006

  14. 14.

    Alpert RL (2016) Ceiling jet flows. In: LSFPE handbook of fire protection engineering, 5th edn

  15. 15.

    National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 72, the National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, National Fire Protection Association, 2016 edition

  16. 16.

    United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control (1974) Information on levels of environmental noise requisite to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. Washington, DC

  17. 17.

    Heskestad G, Smith HF (1976) Investigation of a new sprinkler sensitivity approval test: the plunge test. IN: FMRC 22485, Factory Mutual Research Corporation, Norwood, MA, December 1976

  18. 18.

    Alpert RL (2016) Ceiling jet flows. In: The SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering, 5th edn, chap 14. Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Bethesda, MD

  19. 19.

    Khan MM, Tewarson A, Chaos M (2016) Combustion characteristics of materials and generation of fire products. In: The SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering, 5th edn, Chap. 36. Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Bethesda, MD

Download references


This work was funded internally by BLIND. The authors thank BLIND for his assistance with the sound measurement equipment and Brent Turner for his assistance with design and construction of the heating tunnel apparatus. The authors also thank BLIND for his constructive comments on the experiments, analysis, and paper.

Author information

Correspondence to Stephen M. Olenick.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Martin, G., Boehmer, H. & Olenick, S.M. Thermally-Induced Failure of Smoke Alarms. Fire Technol 56, 673–692 (2020).

Download citation


  • Smoke alarm
  • Smoke alarm thermal failure
  • Smoke alarm sounding time
  • Compartment fires