FIRE JOURNAL

Smoke and Heat Detector Performance: Field Demonstration Test Results

Distributed compliments of

January1984

Reprinted from the January 1982 Fire Journal ® (Vol. 78, No. 1). Copyright © National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA. Reprinted with permission.

Simplex Plaza Gardner, MA 01441-0001 USA PER-11-900

Reprinted from the January 1984 Fire Journal@ (Vol. 78, No. 1). Copywright@ National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA Reprinted with permission.

Smoke and Heat Detector Performance: Field Demonstration Test Results

J. A. DROUIN and

ARTHUR E. COTE, P.E.

Fire service, hotel, and fire protection industry rep resentatives witnessed a series of 11 demonstration test fires conducted September 8-10, 1982 in an old hotel scheduled for demolition in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. The purpose of the fire tests was to observe the operation of a retrofit automatic sprinkler system installed with quick-response sprinklers and polybutylene pipe and to also observe the perlbrmance of smoke and heat detec- tors installed in various locations in the five test rooms.

A previous article described sprinkler performance.’ This article will discuss the performance of smoke and heat detectors during those 11 tests.

The fire tests were designed to simulate common hotel fire scenarios. The following scenarios were chosen for the test series:

Series A: Arson (flammable liquid) fire in a hotel guest room;

Series B: Flaming-started fire in a wastepaper basket in a hotel guest room;

Series C: Arson fire involving luggage in a hotel guest room;

Series D: Hotel corridor fire tests (maid’s cart and ar- son);

Series E: Fire in maid’s cart in a hotel storage room; Series F: Smouldering-started fire in a hotel guest

room. The fire tests were conducted in five rooms on the

second floor of a vacant five-story, fire-resistive hotel. Weather conditions during the test series included tem- peratures ranging from 8P87”F and relative humidity between 75-89 percent. The hotel was not air- conditioned at the time of the test series.

Ceiling heights in the guest rooms and corridor were 8 feet, 5 inches and ceiling height in the storage room was 9 feet, 2 inches. Walls and ceiling were noncombustible plaster on concrete.

Mr. Drouin is Manager of Industry Affairs at Simplex Time Recorder Company, Gardner, Massachusetts. Mr. Cote is NFPA Assistant Vice- President for Engineering.

1 Arthur E. Cote, “Highlights of a Field Test of a Retrofit Sprinkler System.” FIRE JOURNAL, Vol. 77, No. 3 (May 1983). p. 93.

340 FIRE JOURNAL -JANUARY 1984

Table 1 provides additional information on test num- bers, room numbers, dimensions, room use, fire scenarios, fire test methods, furnishings, and ventilation conditions.

Nine of the eleven fires were flaming-started and two were smouldering-started. In the smouldering fires, neither test fire progressed from the smouldering stage to the flaming stage. Test 9 was terminated after two hours with no visible smoke and no detectors operated.

Detector System Design

Each test room was equipped witha series of detector clusters consisting of a 135°F rate-of-rise/fixed-tem- perature heat detector, a photoelectric smoke detector, and an ionization smoke detector in each cluster. A typ- ical cluster is shown in Figure 1.

A total of 42 detectors in 14 clusters was installed as shown in Figure 2. The smoke detectors used in these tests were “off-the-shelf,” selected at random, and not prescreened to be extra sensitive. The average sensitiv-

Figure 1. Typical detector cluster

Table 1.

Test Test Room Dimen- Test Fire Detector Series Nos. No. Si0Tl.S Area Furnishings Scenario Start Ventilation Clusters

A 1.5 1 17’6” x Guest Shag wall-to-wall Arson Test 1: % Doors & windows l Ceiling - 13’10” 8’5 ceiling height

mom carpeting; drapes; 2 vinyl-covered chairs; end table; lamp; double bed with box spring, polyurethane foam mattress (with cotton fabric covering), two sheets, and two foam rubber pillows with pillow cases.

gallon mineral closed in both center of spirits poured tests. mom on edge of bed l Ceiling - and on floor to entryway the drapes. l Wall -

6” below Test 5: Yz gallon ceiling gasoline poured on floor at entrance to room and on bed.

Flaming rolled news- paper provided igni- tion in both tests.

B 3.7 3 17’7” x Guest Same as Room 1, Flaming Cigarette lighter Doors & windows 13’10”

l Ceiling - room with vinyl wall- waste- placed through closed in Test 3. center of

8’5” paper attached basket hole at bottom of room ceiling to wall behind height d

plastic wastepaper Door to guest room l Ceiling - raperies. Dra- basket, igniting open. windows closed entryway

peries in Test 3 rolled and crum- in Test 7. 0 Wall - were fiberglass pled newspaper. 6” bekw with cloth sheer behind: draperies

ceiling l Wall -

in Test 7 were ‘h” h&w 60% rayon, ceiling 32% acetate, and 8% poly- ester.

C 11 3 17’1 x Guest Same as above, but Arson Same as Room 1, Same as Test 13’10” room without chairs,

Drfor to guest room (luggage) Test 10. but with open. windows closed 3 & 7

8’5 lamp. end table an additional u in Test 11. above ceiling gallon of acetone height Luggage and cloth- spread over cloth-

ing identical to ing and suitcase. that in Room 1. Test 10, were added

C 10 1 17’6” x Guest Same as Tests 1 Arson Test 10: 4 oz. Doors and windows Same as Test 13’10” room and 5, but with- b33se) of acetone-based closed in Test 10. l&5 8’5” out chairs, lamp, &OW. ceiling

fingernail polish end table.

height remover was spread on clothing and

Appmx. 10 Ibs. of clothing

suitcase. A cig- arette lighter

(generally 65% provided ignition. polyester and 35% cotton) were dumped on bed. A suit- case was placed on top of clothing.

D 4.8 5 3’10” x Corri- Shag wall-to- Arson Doors & windows 37’8 dor

Test 4: 1 gallon wall carpeting

l Ceiling - of flammable liquid clqsed in both left

8’5* (75% acetone tests. ceiling

l Ceiling - In Test 8, a and 25% mineral center

height typical hotel maid’s spirit) poured on In Test 8, cart was located

l Ceiling -

in corridor, carpet. Flaming the windows in right newspaper provided Rooms 1 and 3

same as Test 6. ignition. (on other side of closed

Test 8: same doors) were open. as Test 6.

(Table continued on next page)

FIRE JOURNAL -JANUARY 1984 l 35

Table 1. (continued)

Test Test Room Dimen- Test Fire Detector Series Nos. No. SiO7Z.S Area Furnishings Scenario Start Ventilation Clu.9tel-s

E 6 4 5’8%” x Storage Typical hotel Maids Cigarette Doors & windows maids cart, cart fire

a Ceiling - 14 room lighter placed closed. center of 9’2” with plastic (flaming through hole at mom. ceiling trashbag filled ignition) bottom of trash- height with newspaper, bag, igniting

cloth, and plas- newspaper. tic shower cur- tain. Linen towels were on top of the cart.

F 2.9 2 14’5%” x Guest Same as Room 1, Smouldering Test 2: energized Doors & windows a Ceiling - 12’2” room but without 1,~watt iron closed in both center of 8’5” chairs, lamp, placed on bed tests. room ceiling end table. near pillow. height

a Ceiling - In Test 2, entryway

Test 9: energized windows in l Wall- 1,506 watt iron Room 3 were 6 below placed on bed open. near pillow.

ceiling

Figure 2.

Test Room No. 1

ROOM 205 I I

Instrument Room

EL - ROOM 206 I

Test Room ’ No. 2 \

ROOM207 nl -

4

No. 4

\I WALKWAY / I \

u

ROOM 203 ROOM 210 TEST SITE

Legend

(J Photoelectric Smoke Detectors

0 Ionization Smoke Dectectors

0 Heat Detectors

360 FIRE JOURNAL - JANUARY 1984

ity for the ionization detectors was 1.30 percent per foot; roughly 60 inches above the floor. The outputs of the the average sensitivity for the photoelectric detectors photocells were collected and stored by a Wang com- was 1.75 percent per foot. puter system.

For the test series, individual detectors were iden- tified by number and by whether they were ionization or photoelectric. Detector activation times were recorded on a Simplex 2120 Multiplex System.

Test Results

Table 2 presents time-to-response for the first ioniza- tion detector, the first photoelectric detector, the first heat detector, and the first sprinkler head for 10 of the 11 tests. Test 9 was terminated and data collection did not occur.

Smoke Obscuration Measurements

Visible smoke measurements were made using a hori- zontal light/photocell arrangement (l-meter light path) in each of the five test rooms. The photocell/light was placed in approximately the center of each room,

Table 2 also presents temperature measurements at the ceiling and five-foot level and smoke obscuration measurements at the 5’-O level at the times of first detec-

Table 2.

Difference First First Between

First Photo- Heat First Second 1st c- 2nd lonixtiun Ekctric Detrctor First TYVV TYV~ TYV~ of Difference Response Response Response Sprinkler Detector Detector Detector Between 1st

Test Room (Time) (Time) (TimeJ Response to to to Respond Detector & Temperature (77 Smoke 5*-O ieoel Series No. No. (Locution) (Location) (Location) (Time) Respond Respond (Time) Sprinkler Time Ceiling (S’-0) % Trans. I ObslFt.

A I I 0:oi 0:ll 021 033 I P 094 0:31 0: 10 118.8 89.6 100 - wiling ceiling wiling 03s 246.0 138.0 16 42.8

045 234.3 166.9 2 70.1

A 3 1 036 0:ll cKJ6 entry entry entry 0% IIH WI 0:oo 0:oo cm5 131.8 121.5 100 -

OXlO 105.9 123.3 73 9.1 030 117.7 129.5 26 33.7

B 3 3 P:31 034 I:57 6:Ol I P 0:cN 5:30 130 97.3 90.6 100 - v all wiling wall 460 -i48.6 132.4 61 14.0

610 IWI 158.8 36 26.8

6 7 3 I:01 I:10 II:58 1435 I P 0:09 13:34 I:00 87.6 87.8 100 - WI1 wall wall 2:oo 87.8 87.9 89 3.5

14:OO 136.6 122.4 48 20.0

c 11 3 0:12 0:28 0:07 NIS H I 0:05 N/S 0:30 88.1 89.2 100 - entry wiling entry 5:Oo 88.0 9c.o 90 3.2

7:00 353.6 261.5 21 37.9

c 10 1 0:12 0:3H I:09 I:09 I P 0:26 0:57 0:lO 98.6 105.7 100 - ceiling entry entry 0:40 104.6 115.6 100 -

I:05 140.5 156.7 92 2.5

D 4 5 099 023 0:19 0:li I H o:lO 0~08 @IO 120.7 109.W 100 - wrridor wrridor corridor 0:15 153.2 115.5’ 100 - right lrfi right 0:20 149.3 111.7* 80 6.6

D x .5 0:e.i @5i NIA 153 1 P 033 1:29 050 89.8 90.8* 100 - wrridor wrridor I:40 113.9 91.P 42 23.2 right right 150 151.3 93.7’ 16 42.8

E 6 4 033 a-12 212 212 I P 009 I:39 I:00 90.3 91.1 97 0.9 wiling ceiling ceiling 2:00 131.0 94.7 4 62.5

2:lO 178.8 98.6 2 69.7

F 2 2 l&:41 0:36:12 N/A NIS P I I:0829 N/S 3B:oo -91.0 91.9 94 1.9 enhy ceiling 1:WMXJ 92.8 93.5 B4 5.2

2:mOO 99.0 101.1 41 23.8 3:oo:cxl 105.3 108.4 20 38.8

- F 9 2 Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test

aborted aborted aborted aborted aborted aborted aborted aborted

* Ceiling center of corridor. I = Ionization detector. P = Photoelectric detector. H = Heat detector.

N/S = No sprinkler. N/A = No actuation.

FIRE JOURNAL -JANUARY 1984 l 37

tor operation, second detector type operation, and sprinkler operation.

Detector Response

The ionization detector operated first in seven flaming-started tests, the heat detector operated first in one flaming-started test (Test ll), and both the heat de- tector and ionization detector operated first simultane- ously in one flaming-started test (Test 5).

The photoelectric detector operated first in the one completed smouldering test (Test 2).

Detector Performance Compared to Sprinkler Performance

There were eight flaming-started tests in which sprin- klers were provided.

The ionization smoke detector operated at the same time as the fast-response sprinkler in one test (Test 5) and before the fast-response sprinkler in all other flaming-started tests (Tests 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10).

The photoelectric detector operated be&e the fast- response sprinkler in six of the eight flaming-started tests. The two fires in which the sprinklers operated befbre the photoelectric detector were Test 5 (started with M gallon of gasoline) and Test 4 (started with one gallon of liquid fuel consisting of 75 percent acetone and 25 percent mineral spirit).

The heat director operated at the same time as the fast-response sprinkler in three tests (Tests 10, 5, and 6) and before the fast-response sprinkler in three flaming- started tests (Tests 1, 3, and 7). Sprinklers operated be- fore the heat detectors in two tests (Tests 4 and 8).

In the eight flaming-started fires in which sprinklers were provided, the first detector to respond activated an average of approximately 3 minutes (minimum of 0 sec- onds, maximum of I3 minutes, 34 seconds) before the sprinkler.

In all the fire tests, at the time that the first smoke detector operated, the smoke obscuration at the five-foot level was very low (94 to 100 percent transmission).

Smoke levels in the test rooms prior to sprinkler acti- vation varied from light smoke (100 percent transmis- sion) to heavy smoke (16 percent transmission/42.8 ob- scuration per foot or greater), depending upon the type of fuels used to initiate the fire. After sprinkler activation, there was an increase in the amount of visible smoke.

In the smouldering-started fire test (Test 2), the sprin- kler and heat detector did not operate.

Ionization Detector Performance Compared to Photoelectric Detector Performance

The ionization detector operated before the photo- electric detector in all flaming fires. Ionization detectors responded an average of 13.2 seconds faster than photo- electric detectors in these flaming-started fire tests (min- imum 3 seconds, maximum 33 seconds). The photoelec- tric detector operated well in advance of the ionization detector in the one completed smouldering fire (Test 2).

380 FIRE JOURNAL - JANUARY 1984

In this test, the room photoelectric detector operated 1 hour, 8 minutes, 29 seconds before the room ionization detector. The photoelectric detector located in the cor- ridor operated 33 minutes, 22 seconds before the ioniza- tion detector in the room.

Smoke Detector (Ionization and Photoelectric) Compared to Heat Detector Performance

The smoke detector operated before the heat detector in seven of the flaming-started tests, the heat detector operated before the smoke detector in one flaming- started test (Test ll), and the heat detector operated at the same time as the smoke detector in one test (Test 5).

The heat detector did not operate in the smouldering test (Test 2).

In the seven flaming-started tests in which the smoke detector operated before the heat detector, the average difference in activation time was approximately 2% min- utes (minimum 10 seconds, maximum 10 minutes, 57 seconds).

In the one flaming-started test in which the heat de- tector operated before the smoke detector, the differ- ence in activation time was five seconds.

Gmclusions

l The location of the detectors within each room did not appear to be a significant factor in detector activation times.

l The ionization smoke detectors operated first in the majority of the flaming-started fires.

l The photoelectric smoke detectors operated an av- erage of 13.2 seconds after the ion&ion detectors in the flaming-started fires.

l The smoke detectors operated before the heat de- tectors in the majority of the flaming-started fires.

l The smoke detectors operated an average of 2?4 minutes faster than the heat detectors in the ilaming- started fires.

l The photoelectric smoke detector operated first in the smouldering-started fires.

l The photoelectric smoke detector operated I hour, 8 minutes, 29 seconds before the first ionization detector in the smouldering-started fire. In this test, all photo- electric detectors in the room, as well as photoelectric detectors in the corridor beyond the closed door, re- sponded before the first ionization detector.

l Detectors operated an average of three minutes faster than quick-response sprinklers in the flaming- started fires. The sprinkler and heat detector did not operate in the smouldering-started fire.

l At the time the first detector operated, the smoke obscuration at the five-foot level was very low.

l In seven of the eight tests in which sprinklers oper- ated, the detectors provided an additional advance wam- ing, prior to sprinkler operation of between 8 seconds and 13% minutes. In one test, the sprinkler and first detector operated simultaneously. Ll