Abstract
Audibility of fire alarm systems at mandated levels is critical to ensure a warning is heard by building occupants. To accomplish this, designers and installers utilize on-scene measurements as well as design calculations to ensure that the audibility of the fire alarm system is as designed as required. Despite this, there is a dearth of information on the error and variability rates associated with these experiments and calculations. To fill in this gap, a three-room and connected corridor test setup was utilized and multiple repeat audibility tests were conducted across 12 configurations of different receiving rooms and door positions. Calculations were then conducted utilizing two oft-used and referenced methods. Ultimately, the experimental measurements had a coefficient of variation of 3.0% to 10.9% depending on the configuration. The calculation methods had differences from the experimental average of − 6.8% to 8.0% combined. It is shown that designers and installers should consider making multiple measurements to capture the experimental variability or at least assume it is 10% and if the measurement errors are randomized, could be as high as 20% or more. Meanwhile, a 10% factor of safety should be considered with the calculation methods to ensure the design implementation exceeds the intended audibility. Some additional observations from the experiments and calculations are also discussed including that the tests and calculations provide justification for the code requirements that a notification appliance be present in each bedroom or room that may have a door closed and, if it is a smoke alarm, that it be interconnected to other alarms to ensure audibility.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bukowski RW, Waterman TE, Christian WJ (1975) Detector sensitivity and siting requirements for dwellings. NIST GCR 75-51, National Institute of Standards and Technology
Harpe SW, Waterman TE, Christian WJ (1977) Detector sensitivity and siting requirements—phase 2. NBS GCR 77-82, National Institute of Standards and Technology
Ahrens M (2014) Smoke alarms in US home fires. NFPA Report, March
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
Milarcik EL, Olenick SM, Roby RJ (2008) A relative time analysis of the performance of residential smoke detection technologies. Fire Technol 44:337–349
Cleary T (2014) Performance of dual photoelectric/ionization smoke alarms in full-scale fire tests. Fire Technol 50:753–773
Cleary T (2014) Results from a full-scale smoke alarm sensitivity study. Fire Technol 50:775–790
Lee A (2005) The audibility of smoke alarms in residential homes. CPSC-ES-0503
Bruck D, Thomas I (2010) Smoke alarms in dwellings: timely activation and effective notification. Center for Environmental Safety and Risk Engineering, Victoria University. Melbourne
National Fire Protection Association (2016) National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 72: the national fire alarm and signaling code. National Fire Protection Association, Quincy
Halliwell RE, Sultan MA (1986) Attenuation of smoke detector alarm signals in residential buildings. Division of Building Research, National Research Council Canada, Ottawa
Bowyer A, Butler H, Kew J (1981) Locating fire alarm sounders for audibility. BSRIA application guide, vol 81. Building Services Research and Information Association, Guildford
Schifiliti RP, Custer RLP, Meacham BJ (2016) Design of detection systems. In: Hurley MJ et al (eds) SFPE handbook, 5th edn. Springer, Berlin
Underwriters Laboratories Standard 217 (2015) Single and multiple station smoke alarms, 7th edn. Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL), Northbrook, IL
Bruck D, Thomas I (2007) Waking effectiveness of alarms (auditory, visual, and tactile) for adults who are hard of hearing. NFPA Research Foundation Report
Housing and Urban Development (2009) Chapter 4: Sound transmission class guidance. In: Supplement from the Noise Notebook
Bruck D, Ball M (2005) Sleep and fire: who is at risk and can the risk be reduced? In: Fire safety science—proceedings of the eighth international symposium
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 SUPDET symposium
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by Combustion Science & Engineering, Inc.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Havey, P., Munoz, M., Klassen, M.S. et al. Variability and Error Rates in Fire Alarm Audibility Measurements and Calculations. Fire Technol 54, 1725–1744 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-018-0755-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-018-0755-6