Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Protec – Addressing Safety Systems with Intelligence
For many years unwanted (or false) alarms have been experienced by building fire detection
systems where members of the public are allowed to sleep. For example, in hotels, hostels
and on student accommodation sites.
Most notably the bedrooms within these types of premises are the prime cause of unwanted
or false alarms.
It is often thought that fire detection systems in these types of applications are too sensitive
as ‘false’ alarm conditions can often result in residents or guests having to evacuate
the building. However this perception that the smoke detectors within the bedrooms are
‘too sensitive’ is misguided.
Smoke from a fire condition creates obscuration within the optical sensing chamber of the
detector and therefore initiates a genuine alarm condition. Unfortunately other phenomenon
can cause the very same effect as smoke and this is where false alarms become a serious
concern as they can cause nuisance, disruption and worst of all apathy as to the true validation
of the alarm condition.
Nuisance alarms from aerosols including de-odorants, hairsprays and air fresheners, dust and steam
from bathrooms and showers can all create the effects required to make the smoke detector
alarm.
Protec Fire Detection plc solved the problem of these unwanted alarm conditions using multi-technology
sensors, where signals from different sensing elements interact together to validate if
the alarm is genuine or unwanted. Protec have many years of experience and thousands of
reference sites throughout the world, where our detectors ensure minimum false alarms
and enhanced fire detection within these challenging environments.
This video is intended to clearly show how various and often quite normal events and
actions can affect different sensors and their ability to react to genuine and unwanted alarm
activations.
For the following tests a standard Protec 6000PLUS digital addressable ‘Optical’
smoke sensor, interactive dual technology ‘Optical/Heat’ sensor and interactive
multi-channel ‘Optical/Heat/CO’ sensor have been utilised.
Test 1 – Deodorant Aerosol Spray
This test is to show the effect of a standard de-odorant aerosol being sprayed on the three
different types of detectors. A typical amount of de-odorant used by a person is sprayed
directly across the three detectors. After approximately 15 seconds the ‘optical smoke
detector’ produces an alarm condition as the optics of this device have sensed a similar
phenomenon as would be produced by smoke.
The test was allowed to run for approximately 2 minutes and during this time the optical/heat
and optical/heat/CO detectors did not produce any alarm conditions.
Test 2 – Hairspray Aerosol
This test is to show the effect of a standard hairspray aerosol being sprayed on the three
different types of detectors. A typical amount of hairspray is sprayed directly across the
three detectors.
After approximately 30 seconds the ‘optical smoke detector’ produces an alarm condition
as again the optics of this device have sensed a similar phenomenon as would be produced
by smoke. The test was allowed to run for approximately 2 minutes and during this time
the optical/heat and optical/heat/CO detectors did not produce any alarm conditions.
Test 3 – Air Freshener Aerosol
This test is to show the effect of a standard air freshener aerosol being sprayed on the
three different types of detectors. A typical amount of air freshener is sprayed directly
across the three detectors.
After approximately 15 seconds the ‘optical smoke detector’ produces an alarm condition
as again the optics of this device have sensed a similar phenomenon as would be produced
by smoke. The test was allowed to run for approximately 2 minutes and during this time
the optical/heat and optical/heat/CO detectors did not produce any alarm conditions.
Test 4 – Small Fabric Fire
This test is to show the effect of a small ‘genuine fire’ condition on the three
different types of detectors where the ignited fabric is a small piece of toweling material,
as may well be found in a typical hotel bedroom. The toweling is ignited outside the test environment
and placed directly under the three sensors
After approximately 50 seconds the ‘optical/heat/CO’ sensor produces an alarm condition. This is
because a ‘true’ fire condition has created a combination of smoke which is seen by the
optical channel, a small amount of heat which is seen by the heat sensor channel, and most
importantly a relatively high amount of Carbon Monoxide which is monitored by the CO sensing
element. It is the combination of the amount of each phenomenon created over the specific
time period that has allowed the algorithms controlling the alarm making decision to produce
the genuine alarm condition.
After approximately 1 minute 35 seconds the ‘optical’ sensor produces an alarm condition
from the smoke created.
After approximately 1 minute 45 seconds the ‘optical/heat’ sensor produces an alarm
condition from a combination of smoke which is seen by the optical channel and a small
amount of heat which is seen by the heat sensor channel.
Test 5 – Steam Only
This test is to show the effect of steam created by a hotel room shower on the three different
types of detectors. For the test steam is sprayed into the test chamber and allowed
to pass across the detectors. This would be typical of steam from a shower when the ensuite
bathroom door is opened allowing the steam to contaminate the detector.
After approximately 35 seconds the ‘optical smoke detector’ produces an alarm condition
as again the optics of this device have sensed a similar phenomenon to that produced by smoke.
The test was allowed to run for approximately 5 minutes and during this time the optical/heat
and optical/heat/CO detectors did not produce any alarm conditions.
Test 6 – Steam & Small Fabric Fire
This test is to show the effect of steam created by a hotel room shower on the three different
types of detectors and the ability for some detectors to still respond to a genuine fire
condition without false alarming. For the test steam is again sprayed into the test
chamber and allowed to pass across the detectors.
After approximately 40 seconds the ‘optical smoke detector’ produces an alarm condition
as again the optics of this device have sensed a similar phenomenon to that produced by smoke.
After 1 minute a small piece of toweling is ignited outside the test environment and placed
directly under the three sensors.
After approximately 2 minutes 28 seconds the ‘optical/heat/CO’ sensor produces an alarm
condition. This is because a ‘true’ fire condition has created a combination of smoke
which is seen by the optical channel, a small amount of heat which is seen by the heat sensor
channel, and most importantly a relatively high amount of Carbon Monoxide which is monitored
by the Carbon Monoxide sensing element. It is the combination of the amount of each phenomenon
created over the specific time period that has allowed the algorithms controlling the
alarm making decision to produce the genuine alarm condition.
After approximately 3 minute 45 seconds the ‘optical/heat’ sensor produces an alarm
condition from the smoke created. This is because a both smoke and heat are produced
by the fabric fire.
It is the combination of the amount of these phenomenon created over the specific time
period that has allowed the algorithms controlling the alarm making decision to produce the genuine
alarm condition.
Protec Fire Detection is the UK’s largest ‘independent’ fire alarm systems company.
Through Protec owned businesses in the UK, Holland and Spain and together with our partner
distributors around the world Protec have provided complex and reliable fire alarm systems
to some of the most prestigious hotel groups and accommodation building around the world.
The Protec 6000PLUS range of multi-technology sensors utilise sophisticated algorithms to
ensure the best possible fire detection and false alarm discrimination.