Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

FIRE JOURNAL January

1984

Smoke and Heat Detector Performance:


Field Demonstration Test Results

Distributed compliments of

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 Table 1 provides additional information on test num-
resentatives witnessed a series of 11 demonstration test bers, room numbers, dimensions, room use, fire
fires conducted September 8-10, 1982 in an old hotel scenarios, fire test methods, furnishings, and ventilation
scheduled for demolition in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. conditions.
The purpose of the fire tests was to observe the operation Nine of the eleven fires were flaming-started and two
of a retrofit automatic sprinkler system installed with were smouldering-started. In the smouldering fires,
quick-response sprinklers and polybutylene pipe and to neither test fire progressed from the smouldering stage
also observe the perlbrmance of smoke and heat detec- to the flaming stage. Test 9 was terminated after two
tors installed in various locations in the five test rooms. hours with no visible smoke and no detectors operated.
A previous article described sprinkler performance.’
This article will discuss the performance of smoke and
heat detectors during those 11 tests. Detector System Design
The fire tests were designed to simulate common hotel
fire scenarios. The following scenarios were chosen for Each test room was equipped witha series of detector
the test series: clusters consisting of a 135°F rate-of-rise/fixed-tem-
Series A: Arson (flammable liquid) fire in a hotel perature heat detector, a photoelectric smoke detector,
guest room; and an ionization smoke detector in each cluster. A typ-
Series B: Flaming-started fire in a wastepaper basket ical cluster is shown in Figure 1.
in a hotel guest room; A total of 42 detectors in 14 clusters was installed as
Series C: Arson fire involving luggage in a hotel guest shown in Figure 2. The smoke detectors used in these
room; tests were “off-the-shelf,” selected at random, and not
Series D: Hotel corridor fire tests (maid’s cart and ar- prescreened to be extra sensitive. The average sensitiv-
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. Figure 1. Typical detector cluster

340 FIRE JOURNAL -JANUARY 1984


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” mom carpeting; drapes; gallon mineral closed in both center of
8’5 2 vinyl-covered spirits poured tests. mom
ceiling chairs; end table; on edge of bed l Ceiling -
height lamp; double bed and on floor to entryway
with box spring, the drapes. l Wall -
polyurethane foam 6” below
mattress (with Test 5: Yz gallon ceiling
cotton fabric gasoline poured on
covering), two floor at entrance
sheets, and two to room and on bed.
foam rubber pillows
with pillow cases. 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 l Ceiling -
13’10” 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 plastic wastepaper Door to guest room l Ceiling -
height d 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 ceiling
behind: draperies 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, Drfor to guest room Same as Test
13’10” room without chairs, (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, fingernail polish &OW.
ceiling end table. remover was spread
height on clothing and
Appmx. 10 suitcase. A cig-
Ibs. of clothing 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 Test 4: 1 gallon Doors & windows l Ceiling -
37’8 dor wall carpeting of flammable liquid clqsed in both left
8’5* (75% acetone tests. l Ceiling -
ceiling In Test 8, a and 25% mineral center
height typical hotel maid’s spirit) poured on In Test 8, l Ceiling -
cart was located carpet. Flaming the windows in right
in corridor, 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 a Ceiling -
14 room maids cart, cart fire 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. a Ceiling -
height In Test 2, entryway
Test 9: energized windows in l Wall-
1,506 watt iron Room 3 were 6 below
placed on bed open. ceiling
near pillow.

Figure 2.

Test Room Instrument Test Room ’


No. 1 Room No. 2 \
ROOM 205 EL I - I ROOM 206 I ROOM207 nl -

No. 4

\I WALKWAY / u
I \
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 Test Results
photoelectric. Detector activation times were recorded
on a Simplex 2120 Multiplex System. Table 2 presents time-to-response for the first ioniza-
tion detector, the first photoelectric detector, the first
Smoke Obscuration Measurements heat detector, and the first sprinkler head for 10 of the 11
tests. Test 9 was terminated and data collection did not
Visible smoke measurements were made using a hori- occur.
zontal light/photocell arrangement (l-meter light path) Table 2 also presents temperature measurements at
in each of the five test rooms. The photocell/light was the ceiling and five-foot level and smoke obscuration
placed in approximately the center of each room, 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. N/S = No sprinkler.


I = Ionization detector. N/A = No actuation.
P = Photoelectric detector.
H = Heat detector.

FIRE JOURNAL -JANUARY 1984 l 37


tor operation, second detector type operation, and In this test, the room photoelectric detector operated 1
sprinkler operation. hour, 8 minutes, 29 seconds before the room ionization
detector. The photoelectric detector located in the cor-
Detector Response ridor operated 33 minutes, 22 seconds before the ioniza-
The ionization detector operated first in seven tion detector in the room.
flaming-started tests, the heat detector operated first in
one flaming-started test (Test ll), and both the heat de- Smoke Detector (Ionization and Photoelectric)
tector and ionization detector operated first simultane- Compared to Heat Detector Performance
ously in one flaming-started test (Test 5). The smoke detector operated before the heat detector
The photoelectric detector operated first in the one in seven of the flaming-started tests, the heat detector
completed smouldering test (Test 2). operated before the smoke detector in one flaming-
started test (Test ll), and the heat detector operated at
Detector Performance Compared to Sprinkler Performance the same time as the smoke detector in one test (Test 5).
There were eight flaming-started tests in which sprin- The heat detector did not operate in the smouldering
klers were provided. test (Test 2).
The ionization smoke detector operated at the same In the seven flaming-started tests in which the smoke
time as the fast-response sprinkler in one test (Test 5) detector operated before the heat detector, the average
and before the fast-response sprinkler in all other difference in activation time was approximately 2% min-
flaming-started tests (Tests 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10). utes (minimum 10 seconds, maximum 10 minutes, 57
The photoelectric detector operated be&e the fast- seconds).
response sprinkler in six of the eight flaming-started In the one flaming-started test in which the heat de-
tests. The two fires in which the sprinklers operated tector operated before the smoke detector, the differ-
befbre the photoelectric detector were Test 5 (started ence in activation time was five seconds.
with M gallon of gasoline) and Test 4 (started with one
gallon of liquid fuel consisting of 75 percent acetone and Gmclusions
25 percent mineral spirit). l The location of the detectors within each room did
The heat director operated at the same time as the not appear to be a significant factor in detector activation
fast-response sprinkler in three tests (Tests 10, 5, and 6) times.
and before the fast-response sprinkler in three flaming- l The ionization smoke detectors operated first in the
started tests (Tests 1, 3, and 7). Sprinklers operated be- majority of the flaming-started fires.
fore the heat detectors in two tests (Tests 4 and 8). l The photoelectric smoke detectors operated an av-
In the eight flaming-started fires in which sprinklers erage of 13.2 seconds after the ion&ion detectors in the
were provided, the first detector to respond activated an flaming-started fires.
average of approximately 3 minutes (minimum of 0 sec- l The smoke detectors operated before the heat de-
onds, maximum of I3 minutes, 34 seconds) before the tectors in the majority of the flaming-started fires.
sprinkler. l The smoke detectors operated an average of 2?4
In all the fire tests, at the time that the first smoke minutes faster than the heat detectors in the ilaming-
detector operated, the smoke obscuration at the five-foot started fires.
level was very low (94 to 100 percent transmission). l The photoelectric smoke detector operated first in
Smoke levels in the test rooms prior to sprinkler acti- the smouldering-started fires.
vation varied from light smoke (100 percent transmis- l The photoelectric smoke detector operated I hour,
sion) to heavy smoke (16 percent transmission/42.8 ob- 8 minutes, 29 seconds before the first ionization detector
scuration per foot or greater), depending upon the type of in the smouldering-started fire. In this test, all photo-
fuels used to initiate the fire. After sprinkler activation, electric detectors in the room, as well as photoelectric
there was an increase in the amount of visible smoke. detectors in the corridor beyond the closed door, re-
In the smouldering-started fire test (Test 2), the sprin- sponded before the first ionization detector.
kler and heat detector did not operate. l Detectors operated an average of three minutes
faster than quick-response sprinklers in the flaming-
Ionization Detector Performance Compared to started fires. The sprinkler and heat detector did not
Photoelectric Detector Performance operate in the smouldering-started fire.
The ionization detector operated before the photo- l At the time the first detector operated, the smoke
electric detector in all flaming fires. Ionization detectors obscuration at the five-foot level was very low.
responded an average of 13.2 seconds faster than photo- l In seven of the eight tests in which sprinklers oper-
electric detectors in these flaming-started fire tests (min- ated, the detectors provided an additional advance wam-
imum 3 seconds, maximum 33 seconds). The photoelec- ing, prior to sprinkler operation of between 8 seconds
tric detector operated well in advance of the ionization and 13% minutes. In one test, the sprinkler and first
detector in the one completed smouldering fire (Test 2). detector operated simultaneously. Ll
380 FIRE JOURNAL - JANUARY 1984

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen