ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 1–28

www.elsevier.com/locate/firesaf

Advanced fire detection algorithms using data

from the home smoke detector project
Luis A. Cestari, Clarence Worrell, James A. Milke
Department of Fire Protection Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA
Received 4 October 2003; received in revised form 1 June 2004; accepted 22 July 2004

Abstract

The primary goal of this study is to develop fire detection algorithms for use in residential
occupancies that reduce the nuisance sensitivity and detect fires at least as fast as conventional
ionization and photoelectric detectors. An analysis is conducted using the output from
ionization, photoelectric and carbon monoxide (CO) detectors, and a thermocouple
measurement from 32 fire tests and 11 nuisance tests. Eight parameters are identified from
the data collected from the four sensors by considering the magnitude and rate of rise of the
output from each sensor. Algorithms are developed from these eight parameters using three
approaches: analyzing the value of a single parameter relative to the response of commercial
detectors given fire and nuisance sources, conducting the same analysis with two or three
parameters and conducting the same analysis with a principal component analysis (PCA) of all
eight parameters. The best fire sensitivity and nuisance immunity was observed for three
algorithms: temperature rise and CO; CO and ionization detector; and temperature rise, CO
and ionization detector.
r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Fire detection; Multi sensor; Nuisance sources; PCA

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 301 405 3995.

E-mail address: milke@eng.umd.edu (J.A. Milke).

0379-7112/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2004.07.004
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 L.A. Cestari et al. / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 1–28

1. Introduction

An advanced fire detection algorithm is desired to provide both nuisance

immunity and an acceptable level of fire sensitivity. An estimated 95% of all alarms
reported by smoke detectors during the 1980s in the US were unnecessary [1].
Numerous studies have been conducted recently to pursue improved detection
algorithms [2–5]. Simply increasing the alarm threshold of a conventional single-
sensor detector in order to reduce nuisance sensitivity has the consequence of
reducing fire sensitivity. Likewise, decreasing the alarm threshold of a conventional
detector to increase fire sensitivity has the consequence of increasing nuisance
sensitivity.
This study reviews the response of existing detection components to assess whether
algorithms can be formulated to develop an improved residential detector with
existing detection technologies. Such a development has the advantage of being
able to implement readily the results of this research. This means that
prototype development could follow immediately after development of a successful
algorithm.

2. Overview of experiments

In this study, data from a series of 32 fire tests and 11 nuisance tests is referenced
from the Home Smoke Fire Detector Project [6]. The fire and nuisance test matrix is
shown in Table 1. The fire tests include six smoldering items of furniture, six flaming
items of furniture, six smoldering mattresses, ten flaming mattresses, and four
flaming grease fires. The fire sources are chosen to represent typical fatal residential
fire scenarios. The mattress fires are conducted in the main bedroom. The
upholstered furniture fires are conducted in the living room, and the grease fires
are conducted in the kitchen.
The nuisance test series includes nine cooking sources, one smoking source, and
one tea candle test. Some of these nuisance sources are ‘‘aggressive’’ in the sense that
significant smoke obscuration is generated and a homeowner would benefit from
being informed of such conditions as some could develop into threatening situations.
However, as included in this experimental program, no reduction in tenability was
experienced as a result of these nuisance sources.
Measurements common to both series of tests include ionization detector analog
output, photoelectric detector analog output, residential CO detector analog output,
and a temperature measurement. Calibration correlations are available for the
measurements to convert the analog output to physical properties. Ionization and
photoelectric sensor outputs are converted to extinction coefficients. CO detector
output is converted to CO concentration and the thermal sensor output is converted
to temperature.
After the raw data are converted to physical units, a data smoothing routine is
applied to the photoelectric and carbon monoxide sensor measurements. Sensor
noise is more noteworthy for the nuisance tests. To reduce these noise-induced
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
L.A. Cestari et al. / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 1–28 3

Table 1
Fire and nuisance tests

Fire tests

# Test ID Fuel package Fire condition Location

Test series 4016

1 SDC01 Upholstered chair Smoldering Living room
2 SDC02 Upholstered chair Flaming Living room
3 SDC03 Mattress Smoldering Main bedroom
4 SDC04 Mattress Smoldering Main bedroom
5 SDC05 Mattress Flaming Main bedroom
6 SDC06 Mattress Flaming Main bedroom
7 SDC07 Mattress Flaming Main bedroom
8 SDC08 Mattress Smoldering Main bedroom
9 SDC09 Mattress Flaming Main bedroom (door closed)
10 SDC10 Upholstered chair Flaming Living room
11 SDC11 Upholstered chair Smoldering Living room
12 SDC12 Grease Flaming Kitchen
13 SDC13 Grease Flaming Kitchen
14 SDC14 Mattress Flaming Main bedroom (door closed)
31 SDC31 Upholstered chair Smoldering Living room
33 SDC33 Upholstered chair Flaming Living room
34 SDC34 Upholstered chair Smoldering Living room
35 SDC35 Upholstered chair Flaming Living room
36 SDC36 Mattress Flaming Main bedroom (door closed)
37 SDC37 Mattress Smoldering Main bedroom
38 SDC38 Mattress Flaming Main bedroom
39 SDC39 Mattress Flaming Main bedroom
40 SDC40 Mattress Smoldering Main bedroom
41 SDC41 Grease Flaming Kitchen
Test series 4017
20 SDC20 Mattress Flaming Main bedroom (door closed)
21 SDC21 Mattress Smoldering Main bedroom
22 SDC22 Mattress Flaming Main bedroom
23 SDC23 Upholstered chair Smoldering Living room
24 SDC24 Grease Flaming Kitchen
25 SDC25 Upholstered chair Flaming Living room
26 SDC26 Upholstered chair Flaming Living room
27 SDC27 Upholstered chair Smoldering Living room (with HVAC on)

Nuisance tests

Test ID Description

MHN06 Toasting two slices of white bread until black

MHN09 Frying 12 lb bacon on LP gas burner
MHN12 Boiling spaghetti on electric range
MHN14 Frying one tablespoon of butter in a no-stick fry pan on electric range until smoking heavy
MHN15 Two cigarette smokers smoking one cigarette in kitchen
MHN16 Broiling four 14 lb frozen hamburgers until well done
MHN19 Frying three hamburgers in cast iron skillet until well done
MHN20 Toasting one bagel (two halves) until burned
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 L.A. Cestari et al. / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 1–28

Table 1 (continued )

Nuisance tests

Test ID Description

MHN32 Baking one frozen pizza for 15 min then broiling for 5 min
MHN35 Four tea candles on the range top
MHN36 Frying bacon until crisp, but eatable

alarms, the following noise reduction algorithm is developed and applied

If½ðQi  Qi5 Þ40 And ½ðQiþ5  Qi Þo0 Then ½Qi ¼ Qi5  Else ½Qi ¼ Qi ;
where Qi is any measured parameter at the ith timestep. This filter is designed to
smooth data spikes. At least two passes of the filter are applied to the CO and
photoelectric sensors for every fire and nuisance test. The second filter pass using a
reduced window of time steps is:
If½ðQi  Qi3 Þ40 And ½ðQiþ3  Qi Þo0 Then ½Qi ¼ Qi3  Else ½Qi ¼ Qi :
The effects of the filtering are provided in [7]. While the general filtering method is
broadly applicable, this method applies only for the specific purposes of this study.
The rate of rise calculation for each sensor is particularly sensitive to noise. Prior to
calculating the rate of rise, a filter removes non-positive sensor output. Then, a seven
point running average is calculated. Finally, the rate of rise is calculated as


dQ Q  Qi5
¼ i ;
dt i ti  ti5
h i
where dQ dt is the rate of rise of any measured parameter, Qi is any measured
i
parameter Q at the ith timestep, and ti is the time at the ith timestep.

2.1. Performance of single-sensor criteria algorithms

For this analysis, the alarm threshold for nuisance sources is developed simply by
creating an obscuration criterion that divides the aggressive from the non-aggressive
nuisance sources. The resulting design level of nuisance immunity is thus established
as:
1. The algorithm should alarm to nuisance tests MHN 06, 14, and 20 after they
exceed the obscuration thresholds of k=0.15 and 0.50 m1 as measured by
ionization and photoelectric detector output, respectively. Conventional detectors
would alarm to all three of these tests.
2. The algorithm should not alarm to nuisance tests MHN 09, 12, 15, 16, 19, 32, 35,
and 36. Conventional detectors would alarm to MHN 06, 09, 16, 19, and 36.

The eight parameters measured during each of the tests are the four measured
variables of ionization, photoelectric, CO and temperature analog outputs and the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
L.A. Cestari et al. / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 1–28 5

rate of rise of each of these variables. The maximum responses of the eight
parameters are presented in Table 2. The following insights are gained from the
analysis of individual sensor performance during the nuisance and fire tests. These
insights assist in developing optimal sensor combinations for multi-criteria alarm
algorithms.1
 Based on conventional alarm thresholds, the ionization detector is more beneficial
for detecting flaming fires, while the photoelectric detector is more beneficial for
detecting smoldering fires.
 The conventional ionization and photoelectric detectors are prone to nuisance
alarms.
 The rate of rise of a measurement is more beneficial for detecting flaming fires and
less beneficial for detecting smoldering fires.
 The CO and rate of temperature rise measurements provide a high degree of
nuisance immunity.
 CO detector output provides faster detection and fewer responses to nuisance
alarms than photoelectric detector output for smoldering fires included in this
study.
 Rate of temperature rise outperforms ionization detectors for flaming fires
provided that there is no closed door between the fire and detector.

2.2. Performance of multi-criteria algorithms

The goal of a multi-sensor algorithm is to improve the nuisance immunity and fire
sensitivity as compared to that of the single-sensor thresholds. The procedure
utilized to develop a multi-sensor algorithm begins with selecting a sensor
combination based on the performance of the individual sensors. Once a sensor
combination is chosen, the sensor data are plotted for every test to assess the
performance of hypothesized algorithms relative to the following three objectives:
 provides nuisance immunity,
 is at least as fire-sensitive as a conventional ionization detector, and
 is at least as fire-sensitive as a conventional photoelectric detector.

The fire sensitivity performance of each algorithm using the combination of

sensors is judged by comparing the alarm times for the fire tests of the algorithm to
that for conventional detectors. The comparison, i.e. ‘‘relative performance’’, is
defined as the difference in alarm time between the algorithm and conventional
detector normalized by the conventional detector alarm time. Negative values
indicate that the algorithm is faster than the conventional detector, and positive
values represent that the algorithm is slower than the conventional detector.
Thresholds to provide high fire sensitivity of conventional detectors generally
result in high sensitivity to nuisance sources. Conversely, the single sensor thresholds
1
These observations are related to the response of the detectors to the particular test scenarios included
in this study.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 L.A. Cestari et al. / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 1–28

Table 2
Maximum observed values for the eight parameters

Ion Ion rate Photo Photo rate CO CO rate Temperature Temp rate
(m1) of rise (m1) of rise (ppm) of rise change of rise
(ms)1 (ms)1 (ppm/s) (1C) (1C/s)

Smoldering
MHN06* 0.14 0.003 1.5 0.0511 5 0.18 11 0.11
MHN09 0.14 0.0034 0.18 0.0065 15 0.23 9 0.11
MHN12 0.02 0.0006 0 0.0000 0 0 14 0.17
MHN14* 0.14 0.0022 1.91 0.045 17 0.36 14 0.17
MHN15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MHN16 0.06 0.0008 0.08 0.0039 4 0.18 17 0.11
MHN19 0.14 0.0032 0.47 0.0109 1 0.14 8 0.11
MHN20* 0.14 0.0031 0.04 0.0029 1 0.1 13 0.11
MHN32 0.04 0.0007 0.02 0.0015 1 0.1 20 0.17
MHN35 0 0.0002 0 0 0 8 0.11
MHN36 0.11 0.0034 0.3 0.0058 0 0 12 0.17
Smoldering
SDC01 0.08 0.0006 0.7 0.003 253 0.3 2 0.03
SDC03 0.04 0.0003 0.067 0.0005 7 0.03 1 0.02
SDC04 0.17 0.0048 0.52 0.0078 104 0.74 27 1.15
SDC06 0.19 0.005 0.88 0.008 208 1.97 64 3.1
SDC08 0.18 0.0125 0.91 0.0272 417 5.76 90 2.43
SDC11 0.21 0.0088 0.86 0.0165 438 5.31 128 4.49
SDC31 0.25 0.007 1.16 0.0236 422 0.69 157 5.13
SDC34 0.24 0.012 0.07 0.0009 33 7.07 49 1.01
SDC37 0.25 0.006 0.4 0.0084 48 2.24 59 0.94
SDC21 0.19 0.0087 0.58 0.0149 31 0.49 31 0.16
SDC23 0.36 0.0095 0.71 0.013 178 0.6 45.75 1.6
SDC27 0.06 0.0026 0.31 0.0059 50.15 2.2 120 0.2
Flaming
SDC02 0.19 0.0042 0.42 0.006 97 0.85 48 1.14
SDC05 0.13 0.0029 0.79 0.0072 303 3.47 123 2.13
SDC07 0.18 0.0048 No data No data 418 12.79 108 2.46
SDC09 0.16 0.0104 0.93 0.0429 200 6.18 8 0.48
SDC10 0.23 0.0049 0.62 0.0155 438 7.82 156 5.63
SDC14 0.18 0.0113 1.27 0.026 414 1.75 39 3.84
SDC33 0.28 0.014 0.31 0.006 44 3.55 64 0.6
SDC35 0.25 0.015 0.26 0.0044 37 3.07 61 0.5
SDC36 0.27 0.012 0.14 0.0036 87 1.61 27 0.01
SDC38 0.28 0.011 0.13 0.0023 270 0 110 2.01
SDC39 0.25 0.001 0.1 0.0031 288 0.15 102 2.17
SDC40 No data No data 0.08 0.0034 64 0.002 27 0
SDC20 0.17 0.0058 0.57 0.0076 67 1.22 31 0.09
SDC22 0.21 0.0036 0.72 0.0209 33 1.47 45.75 0.48
SDC25 0.07 0.0026 0.43 0.0116 125 3.53 120 2.33
SDC26 0.14 0.0044 0.41 0.0135 8.24 0.04 90 1.72
Grease
SDC12 0.21 0.0033 0.77 0.009 111 1.27 43 1.28
SDC13 0.21 0.0033 0.71 0.0124 182 1.21 43 1.37
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
L.A. Cestari et al. / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 1–28 7

Table 2 (continued )

Ion Ion rate Photo Photo rate CO CO rate Temperature Temp rate
(m1) of rise (m1) of rise (ppm) of rise change of rise
(ms)1 (ms)1 (ppm/s) (1C) (1C/s)

SDC41 0.26 0.003 0.49 0.008 130 7.01 56 0.36

SDC24 0.16 0.0036 0.73 0.0143 2.91 0.04 209 5.06
Avg–nuisanc 0.12 0.0027 0.74 0.0205 6 0.17 12 0.13
Avg–fires 0.19 0.0064 0.55 0.0112 125 2.64 71.39 1.69
Avg–smold. 0.18 0.0065 0.6 0.0108 133 2.28 64.48 1.69
Avg–flaming 0.2 0.0072 0.48 0.0116 124 2.97 72.48 1.6

Note: the nuisance source tests identified with a ‘‘*’’ involve situations where notification to the building
occupant is preferrable to remedy the situation and prevent an ignition.

providing high nuisance immunity have significant reductions in fire sensitivity.

This trend is evident for all of the combinations of single components, except for
the [rate of temperature rise/CO detector/ionization detector] combination which
provides a high level of nuisance immunity and an earlier alarm to most of the
fire sources compared to the conventional detectors. Consequently, the optimal
multi-component algorithm is [rate of temperature rise/CO detector/ionization
detector].
A summary of all of the algorithms evaluated in this study is presented in Table 3.

2.2.1. [Rate of temperature rise/CO detector] algorithm

Analysis of individual sensor performance showed that rate of temperature rise
and CO detector output each, individually, provide superior nuisance immunity.
Compared to conventional detectors, the rate of temperature rise provides increased
flaming fire sensitivity, and the CO detector output provides increased smoldering
fire sensitivity.
The algorithm required for nuisance immunity is presented in Fig. 1 along with the
algorithms using the CO concentration and rate of temperature rise required that
most closely matches the fire sensitivity of standard ionization and photoelectric
detectors (similar figures were developed by Cestari [7] for each of the other sensor
combinations). The three algorithms are plotted with data from the fire tests that the
nuisance algorithm is slow to detect. The three algorithms are:2
(1) Nuisance immunity: If[(dT/dt40.20 1C/s) Or (CO416 ppm)], then alarm
(2) Fire sensitivity—ionization detector: If[(dT/dt40.07 1C/s) Or (CO42 ppm)], then
alarm
(3) Fire sensitivity—photoelectric detector: If[(dT/dt40.16 1C/s) Or (CO47 ppm)],
then alarm.

2
These algorithms provide fire sensitivity and nuisance immunity for the data provided from the
experimental program conducted for the Home Smoke Fire Detector Project. While these data are from a
broad range of scenarios, the scenarios are not inclusive of all possible fire or nuisance source scenarios.
 8
Table 3
Time to alarm in minutes for multi-sensor algorithms

L.A. Cestari et al. / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 1–28

Test ID Ion Photo Algorithm 1 Algorithm 2 Algorithm 3 Algorithm 4 Algorithm 5 Algorithm 6 Algorithm 7 Algorithm 8 Algorithm 9
(std.) (std.) Nuisance Ion Photo Nuisance Nuisance Ion Nuisance Photo Nuisance

Nuisance

ARTICLE IN PRESS
MHN06* 4.3 5.5 NA 2 NA Likely NA 4.3 6 5.5 Likely
MHN09 10.2 13 NA 2.6 3.5 Possibly NA 6.1 0 13 Possibly
MHN12 NA NA NA 1.9 18.4 NA NA NA 0 0 NA
MHN14* 5.7 5.5 8.9 1.1 6.3 Likely 8 5.7 6.8 5.5 Likely
MHN15 NA NA NA 8.9 NA NA NA NA 0 0 NA
MHN16 18 17.3 NA 0.4 NA NA NA 18 0 17.3 NA
MHN19 10.1 9.2 NA 4.5 NA Possibly NA 10.1 0 9.2 Possibly
MHN20* 5 NA NA 0.3 NA Likely NA 5 0 0 Likely
MHN32 NA NA NA 2.4 2.5 NA NA NA 0 0 NA
MHN35 NA NA NA 2.6 NA NA NA NA 0 0 NA
MHN36 5.9 5.5 NA 3.9 6.3 Unlikely NA 5.9 0 5.5 Unlikely

Smoldering
SDC01 103.8 87.8 30.3 15.3 22 30.3 30.3 30.3 92.5 87.8 100.7
SDC03 NA NA NA 23.9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SDC04 55.8 19.7 17.3 11.4 14.6 17.3 17.3 17.3 55.8 19.7 55.9
SDC06 100.1 57.4 55.2 47.2 52.7 55.2 55.2 55.2 100.1 57.4 100.1
SDC08 62.2 62.5 62.3 29.5 37.3 62.2 62.1 62.1 62.3 62.3 62.2
SDC11 71 70.9 54.6 27.4 40.5 54.6 54.6 54.6 70.8 70.8 71.8
SDC31 101.82 97.2 45.2 10.6 33.1 45.2 44 44 134 84 117
SDC34 65.6 NA 58.6 39.26 50.6 58.6 21.8 21.8 64 64 65.63
SDC37 26.2 23.8 29.2 21.5 26 29.2 26.5 26.46 31.56 23.53 29.56
SDC21 33.5 33.42 34.56 18.73 21.06 33.6 33.43 33.43 34.3 33.36 33.6
SDC23 74.2 25.92 28.63 24.63 26.4 28.63 28.53 28.53 81.2 25.3 79.66
SDC27 70.9 40.26 70.16 70.16 70.16 70.16 70.16 70.26 70.8 40.06 NA
Flaming
SDC02 1.4 2.1 1 1 1 1 2.1 1.4 1 1 2.3
SDC05 0.7 1.1 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 1.2 0.7 0.7 0.7 3.6
SDC07 1.3 No curve 2.4 1.6 2.3 1.9 1.9 1.3 2.4 2.4 1.9
SDC09 3.1 3.6 5 2.9 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.1 18 3.6 3.5
SDC10 2.1 2.5 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.3 2.5 2.1 1.3 1.3 2.5

L.A. Cestari et al. / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 1–28

SDC14 57.5 57.4 57.1 57.1 57.1 57.1 57.5 57.5 57.1 57.1 58.1
SDC33 2.6 2.06 1.26 1.16 1.23 1.26 1.83 1.26 1.3 2.16 1.33
SDC35 1.08 2.03 2.06 1.46 1.8 2.06 3.13 3.13 2.06 2.06 8
SDC36 6.2 5.66 NA NA NA 3.45 0.7 0.7 NA 5.62 3.16

ARTICLE IN PRESS
SDC38 11.12 4.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.16 1.16 0.76 1.36 5.56
SDC39 3.8 NA 0.83 0.66 0.73 0.83 1.93 1.93 0.83 0.22 1.93
SDC40 No curve 0.86 2.23 NA NA 2.23 NA NA NA 1.6 NA
SDC20 4.44 4.52 10.59 4.53 10.59 11.53 4.66 4.36 NA 4.4 4.66
SDC22 1 1.6 1.56 1.26 1.46 1.56 1.5 0.93 1.56 1.36 1.6
SDC25 2 2.76 2.73 0.91 2 2.73 2.8 2.33 2.73 2.53 NA
SDC26 2.36 3.82 3.6 2.16 3.53 3.6 2.13 2.1 3.6 3.6 4.2

Grease
SDC12 15.9 14.5 23.7 19.6 22.4 23.7 22.3 15.9 21.8 14.5 21.9
SDC13 15.3 14.6 22.9 19.2 21.6 22.9 21.4 15.3 21.2 14.6 21.2
SDC41 5.16 13.8 19.93 2.3 2.3 19.93 11.63 4.86 20 12.7 11.63
SDC24 14.06 16.66 28.96 1 28.96 28.96 30.16 14 28.96 16.43 28.46

Note: the nuisance source tests identified with a ‘‘*’’ involve situations where notification to the building occupant is preferrable to remedy the situation and
prevent an ignition.

9
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
10 L.A. Cestari et al. / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 1–28

CO Detector Response vs. Rate of

Temperature Rise - Nuisance Sources
200
Mhn06

CO Detector Response (ppm)

180
Mhn09
160 Mhn12
140 Mhn14
120 Mhn15
Nuisance Criteria
100 If (dT/dt > 0.20) or (CO > 16) Then Alarm Mhn16
Mhn19
80
Mhn20
60 Mhn32
40 Mhn35
20 Mhn36
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Rate of Temperature Rise, dT/dt (˚C/s)

CO Detector Response vs. Rate of

Temperature Rise - Flaming Sources
200
SDC02 SDC05
180
CO Detector Response (ppm)

SDC07 SDC09
160 SDC10 SDC12
140 SDC13 SDC14
SDC33 SDC35
120 Nuisance Criteria SDC36 SDC38
100 If (dT/dt > 0.20) or (CO > 16) Then SDC39 SDC40
80 Al SDC20 SDC22
SDC25 SDC26
60
40
20
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Rate of Temperature Rise, dT/dt (˚C/s)

CO Detector Response vs. Rate of

Temperature Rise - Smoldering Sources
200
SDCO1
CO Detector Response (ppm)

180
SDC03
160 SDC04
140 SDC06
120 SDC08
Nuisance Criteria
SDC11
100 If (dT/dt > 0.20) or (CO > 16) Then Alarm
SDC31
80 SDC34
60 SDC37
40 SDC21
SDC23
20
SDC27
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Rate of Temperature Rise, dT/dt (˚C/s)

Fig. 1. CO detector response versus rate of temperature rise for all tests. The algorithm that most closely
meets the design level of nuisance immunity is also shown.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
L.A. Cestari et al. / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 1–28 11

The alarm times for Algorithms 1–3 are presented in Table 3 and Fig. 2.
Algorithm is at least as fire-sensitive as photoelectric detectors and is between
Algorithms 1 and 2. With the exception of one flaming fire (SDC 09), no significant
improvement in alarm time reduction is made from Algorithm 1. The cost of
reducing the detection time of SDC 09 is increasing the number of unwanted
nuisance alarms from zero-to-four.
Despite the delayed detection of 10 flaming fires (including all the four grease
fires), the nuisance immunity, sensitivity to smoldering fires, and fast detection of the
remaining flaming fires makes Algorithm 1 very promising. The addition of an
obscuration criterion to improve sensitivity to flaming fires is investigated in the next
section. The disadvantage of reducing detection times for the flaming fires using
Algorithms 2 and 3 is an increased level of nuisance sensitivity.

2.2.2. [Rate of temperature rise/CO detector/ionization detector] algorithm

The addition of an obscuration-related criterion (i.e. ionization detector to the
previously discussed [rate of temperature rise/CO detector] algorithm is applied to
improve response times to flaming fires and grease fires. Because improvements are
desired for flaming fires, ionization detector output is chosen for this evaluation
instead of the output from a photoelectric detector.
(4) Nuisance immunity: If(dT/dt40.2 1C/s) Or (CO417 ppm) Or (Ion40.15 m1)],
then alarm.

The response of the three sensors to each of the sources is provided in Fig. 3.
The nuisance algorithm is indicated by the rectangular solid and encloses virtually
all of the nuisance sources. The relative performance of this algorithm is presented
in Fig. 4.

2.2.3. [Ionization detector/CO detector] algorithm

This sensor combination is qualitatively attractive because its two components
complement each other, i.e. the ionization component is sensitive to flaming fires and
the CO component is sensitive to smoldering fires. The CO component is also
insensitive to nuisance sources included in this experimental program. Previous
researchers [5] had considerable success with this sensor combination using a data set
of over 600 fire tests. Their algorithm has the basic form:
If½ðIon COÞ4Constant Then Alarm:
The algorithm for nuisance immunity is:
(5) Nuisance immunity: If[(Ion) (CO5)40.15] Or (CO416) Or (Ion40.15), then
alarm.

This algorithm does not maintain the asymptotic nature of Gottuk et al. [8]. The
ionization threshold of k=0.15 m1 is based on the design criteria for nuisance
sensitivity. The CO threshold is inserted to maximize sensitivity to the smoldering
sources while still maintaining the design level of nuisance immunity. Also, it is
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
12 L.A. Cestari et al. / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 1–28

Fig. 2. Relative performance of each [CO—dT/dt] algorithm.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
L.A. Cestari et al. / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 1–28 13

Fig. 3. Rate of temperature rise, CO detector response, and ionization detector output for all nuisance,
smoldering, and flaming tests.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
14 L.A. Cestari et al. / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 1–28

Nuisance Criteria
(dT/dt> 0.20) or(CO>16) or (Ion >0.15)
Algorithm causes zero
Algorithm #4 Performance unwanted alarms
1.50

Smoldering Flaming Grease

1.00
Realative Performance

0.50

0.00
SDC01
SDC03
SDC04
SDC06
SDC08
SDC11
SDC31
SDC34
SDC37
SDC21
SDC23
SDC27
SDC02
SDC05
SDC07
SDC09
SDC10
SDC14
SDC33
SDC35
SDC36
SDC38
SDC39
SDC40
SDC20
SDC22
SDC25
SDC26
SDC12
SDC13
SDC41
SDC24
-0.50

-1.00
Ion Photo

Fig. 4. Relative performance of Algorithm 4.

desirable for the algorithm to be sensitive to conditions with significant light

obscuration, even if there is no CO present and vice versa.
(6) Fire sensitivity—ionization detector: If[(Ion) (CO5)40.15] Or (CO416) Or
(Ion40.05), then alarm

The [ion/CO] sensor combination provides nuisance immunity and improved

sensitivity to smoldering fires; however, it is slow to detect incipient flaming fires.
Detection of flaming fires is significantly improved with the addition of a rate of
temperature rise criterion (as noted previously). The relative performance of the
[Ion/CO] algorithm is presented in Fig. 5.

2.2.4. [Photoelectric detector/rate of temperature rise] algorithm

The photoelectric component is sensitive to smoldering fires and the rate of
temperature rise component is sensitive to flaming fires. The rate of temperature rise
component is also insensitive to nuisance sources. The algorithm for these two
parameters is:
(7) Nuisance immunity: If(dT/dt40.20) Or (Photo40.50), then alarm

The [photoelectric/rate of temperature rise] algorithm matches the conventional

photoelectric detector performance if the obscuration threshold is lowered to that of
a conventional photoelectric detector, 0.07 m1. A revised algorithm with these two
parameters to improve the fire sensitivity is:
(8) Fire sensitivity—photoelectric detector: If(dT/dt40.20) Or (Photo40.07), then alarm

The performance of this algorithm is presented in Table 3.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
L.A. Cestari et al. / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 1–28 15

[Ion x (CO-5)>0.15] or (CO>16)or (Ion>0.15) Nuisance Criteria

Algorithm causes zero
Algorithm #5 Performance
unwanted alarms
1.50

Smoldering Flaming Grease

1.00
Realative Performance

0.50

0.00
SDC01
SDC03
SDC04
SDC06
SDC08
SDC11
SDC31
SDC34
SDC37
SDC21
SDC23
SDC27
SDC02
SDC05
SDC07
SDC09
SDC10
SDC14
SDC33
SDC35
SDC36
SDC38
SDC39
SDC40
SDC20
SDC22
SDC25
SDC26
SDC12
SDC13
SDC41
SDC24
-0.50

-1.00
Ion Photo

Fire Sensitivity Criteria - Ion

[Ion x(CO-5)>0.15] or (CO>16)
Algorithm causes four
or (Ion >0.05) Algorithm #6 Performance unwanted alarms
1.50

Smoldering Flaming Grease

1.00
Realative Performance

0.50

0.00
SDC01
SDC03
SDC04
SDC06
SDC08
SDC11
SDC31
SDC34
SDC37
SDC21
SDC23
SDC27
SDC02
SDC05
SDC07
SDC09
SDC10
SDC14
SDC33
SDC35
SDC36
SDC38
SDC39
SDC40
SDC20
SDC22
SDC25
SDC26
SDC12
SDC13
SDC41
SDC24

-0.50

-1.00
Ion Photo

Fig. 5. Performance of Algorithms 5 and 6.

2.2.5. [Ionization detector/photoelectric detector] algorithm

It has been well documented since the 1970s [9] that given conventional alarm
thresholds, ionization detectors are more sensitive to flaming fires and photoelectric
detectors to smoldering fires. If these two sensors are combined into one detector,
then logically such a detector would be expected to provide ‘‘early’’ detection of both
fire types.

(9) Nuisance immunity: If (Ion40.15) Or (Photo40.50), then alarm

The performance of this algorithm is presented in Table 3.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
16 L.A. Cestari et al. / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 1–28

2.2.6. Summary of multi-criteria algorithm performance

The following is summary of the observations from the current multi-criteria
algorithm investigation:
 The [rate of temperature rise/CO detector/ionization detector] combination
provides the highest level of nuisance immunity and fire sensitivity. The CO
portion of the algorithm assists in detecting smoldering fires, while the rate of
temperature rise and ionization criteria serve to reduce the detection times to
flaming fires.
 The [ion/CO] sensor combination provides nuisance immunity and improved
smoldering fire sensitivity; however, it is slow to detect incipient flaming fires.
 The [photo/rate of temperature rise] combination cannot meet the design levels of
nuisance immunity and fire sensitivity because the photoelectric threshold must be
increased so much to achieve nuisance immunity that smoldering fire sensitivity is
severely reduced.
 Although the [ion/photo] combination can provide ‘‘early’’ detection of flaming
and smoldering sources, its nuisance sensitivity is high.
 Grease fire tests are consistently difficult to detect as early as conventional
detectors due to the low CO production and low energy release rate of the source
prior to ignition. Most of the multi-criteria algorithms detect these sources shortly
after flaming ignition occurs.
 The addition of a CO2 measurement to any of these algorithms would appear
to have the capability to improve flaming fires sensitivity, while main-
taining nuisance immunity. Unfortunately, CO2 data were not collected for both
nuisance and fire test series in the experimental program. As such, an analysis
of the recently acquired data cannot be conducted to assess the performance
of a multi-sensor detector with CO2 for both fire sensitivity and nuisance
immunity.

2.3. Performance of principal components analysis (PCA) algorithms

A PCA is applied to the nuisance and fire test data. The previous analyses are
limited to developing algorithms utilizing a maximum of three or possibly four
sensors because visualizing the graphical representations of the raw data is difficult if
more than three dimensions are involved.
PCA is a technique that is applied to compress a large number of correlated
variables into a smaller number of uncorrelated variables while retaining most of the
‘‘important’’ information from the original set. So, PCA has the advantage of being
able to incorporate all eight available measurements into an algorithm by means of
data compression [10].
X ¼ t1 pT1 þ t2 pT2 þ . . . þ tk pTk þ E;
where, cov(X)pi=lipi
The process of conducting a PCA begins with calculating the loads from
an eigenvector decomposition of the covariance matrix calculated from ambient,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
L.A. Cestari et al. / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 1–28 17

non-fire data.
2 3
pi;ion
6 7
6 pi;pho 7
6 7
6 7
6 pi;CO 7
6 7
6 7
6 pi;T 7
6 7
½ti  ¼ ½X ion X pho X CO X T X d ion=dt X d pho=dt X dCO=dt X dT=dt  6 7:
6 pi;d ion=dt 7
6 7
6 7
6 pi;d pho=dt 7
6 7
6 7
6 pi;dCO=dt 7
4 5
pi;dT=dt
Mathematically, PCA decomposes the original data set X into the sum of products
of ti and pi plus a residual matrix. The ti’s, or ‘‘scores’’ are evaluated at each time
step, given the X’s representing the raw measurements, and pi’s, or ‘‘loads’’, for that
respective time step. The loads relate the measured variables to each other and the
scores relate the variables to the outcomes. This residual matrix contains any
remaining information from the original matrix that is not accounted for by the sum
of tipi products.
The ‘‘size’’ of the residual matrix E is a measure of how well the PCA model
predicts a given data matrix X. After the scores vectors are calculated at each time
step of the nuisance and fire test data, two different approaches are investigated for
fire detection algorithm development.
Application of the PCA results begins by monitoring the residual matrix E to
determine the point at which an atmosphere deviates from ambient conditions. An
abnormal situation is declared when the sum of the squares of each row, referred to
as the Q statistic of the residual matrix [11], exceeds a certain threshold (a Q value is
determined for each time step). Once an abnormal situation is declared the score
values tj at that time step are used to classify the deviation as being caused by a
nuisance or fire source. This approach is similar to that used by McAvoy, et al. [10]
who also investigated the efficacy of PCA for fire detection. Three consecutive data
points are required to declare an abnormal situation.

2.3.1. Algorithms accounting for scores throughout each test scores [t3/t4] algorithm
A detection algorithm using the t3 and t4 scores is strongly influenced by the
thermal and CO measurements as a result of the p3 and p4 loadings vectors [7]. The
algorithm for nuisance immunity is:

(10) Nuisance immunity: If 2.3  [t3 cos(1.32)—t4 sin(1.32)–1]2+0.15[t3 sin(1.32)+t4 -

cos(1.32)+34]24300, then alarm

The algorithm that most closely matches conventional detector performance is

mathematically represented as
 18
L.A. Cestari et al. / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 1–28
Table 4
Time to alarm in minutes. PCA algorithm performance

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Ion (std.) Photo (std.) PCA det Algorithm Algorithm Algorithm Algorithm Algorithm Algorithm Algorithm
time 10 nuisance 11 Ion— 12 nuisance 13 ion— 14 nuisance 15 ion 16 photo
(Q411.1) photo photo

Smoldering
SDC01 103.8 87.8 19.3 35.5 35.8 57.3 57.2 35.3 38 38.3
SDC03 NA NA 3.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SDC04 55.8 19.7 11.6 18.6 18.6 56 56 18.4 18.7 18.8
SDC06 100.1 57.4 28 56.7 56.7 100.2 100.2 56 56.9 57
SDC08 62.2 62.5 35.9 62.2 62.2 62.2 62.2 62.2 62.2 62.2
SDC11 71 70.9 22.9 62.7 62.7 70.9 70.9 59.9 64.8 65.5
SDC31 101.8 97.2 8.11 51.2 55.8 8.47 8.5 42.3 47.6 50.8
SDC34 65.6 NA 65 27.9 18.0 65.3 65.4 47.2 14.7 47.2
SDC37 26.2 23.8 28.4 25.9 26.9 3.17 28.4 24.4 26.4 25.9
SDC21 33.5 33.4 8.73 33.7 34.3 33.5 33.5 33.5 33.5 33.5
SDC23 74.2 25.9 26.8 28.2 29.5 35.1 34.2 28.2 28.5 28.5
SDC27 70.9 40.3 18.9 54.5 NA NA NA 68.8 67.7 67.7
Flaming
SDC02 1.4 2.1 1.1 2.7 1.4 2.2 1.5 2.2 1.5 1.4
SDC05 0.7 1.1 0.6 1.8 1 1.7 0.9 1.8 0.9 0.9
SDC07 1.3 No data 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.8 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3
SDC09 3.1 3.6 2.9 3.1 3.1 3.5 3.1 3.2 3.1 3
SDC10 2.1 2.5 1.3 2.6 1.9 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.3 1.8
SDC14 57.5 57.4 57.1 57.9 57.2 57.8 57.5 57.9 57.5 57.5
SDC33 2.6 2.06 5.46 17.9 58.7 0.77 0.8 0.8 18.0 18.0
SDC35 1.08 2.03 1.56 0.13 1.57 1.5 0.57 0.57 0.53 0.17
SDC36 6.2 5.66 2.2 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
SDC38 11.12 4.9 2.08 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
SDC39 3.8 NA 1.96 1.5 1.53 1.7 1.57 1.6 1.6 0.07
SDC40 No data 0.86 4 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
SDC20 4.44 4.52 3.5 4.47 4.47 4.5 4.5 4.47 4.47 4.47
SDC22 1 1.6 0.6 1.13 1.9 1.37 1.13 1.27 1.1 1.03

L.A. Cestari et al. / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 1–28

SDC25 2 2.76 2.01 3.17 2.97 3.23 2.97 3.13 3.03 2.5
SDC26 2.36 3.82 1.4 3.9 3.87 3.83 2.17 3.9 2.17 2.13
Grease

ARTICLE IN PRESS
SDC12 15.9 14.5 3 21.8 21.8 23.4 19.6 21.7 16.7 15.4
SDC13 15.3 14.6 2.7 21.2 21.2 22.2 19.4 21.2 17.6 15.7
SDC41 5.16 13.8 4.6 2.97 11.6 11.6 4.9 2.93 4.9 4.77
SDC24 14.06 16.66 0.5 19.9 20.0 21.7 21.7 19.9 19.7 12.4

19
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
20 L.A. Cestari et al. / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 1–28

(11) Fire sensitivity—ionization and photoelectric detectors: If 3:5½t3 cosð1:32Þ 

t4 sinð1:32Þ  12 þ 0:55½t3 sinð1:32Þ þ t4 cosð1:32Þ þ 132 4300 ,
then, alarm

The performance of these two algorithms is indicated in Table 4 and Figs. 6 and 7.
The ellipse in Fig. 6 indicates the Algorithm 10 for nuisance immunity. Any point
outside of the ellipse relates to an alarm condition. As indicated in the top graph in
that figure, only those aggressive nuisance sources, where warning is deemed
important given the excessive obscuration, are outside of the ellipse.

2.3.2. Scores [t2/t4] algorithm

In an effort to increase the flaming fire sensitivity of the previous algorithm, but
maintain its smoldering fire sensitivity, an algorithm with the t2 and t4 scores is
proposed. Score t2 is chosen to replace t3 because the ionization detector output
largely affects the second loadings vector, p2. The algorithm for nuisance immunity is
(12) Nuisance immunity: If 0:04½t2 sinð1:6Þ þ t4 cosð1:6Þ þ 552 þ 0:8½t2 cosð1:6Þ 
t4 sinð1:6Þ  72 4300 then alarm

The algorithm most closely matching conventional detector performance is

mathematically represented as:
(13) Fire sensitivity—ionization and photoelectric detectors: If 1:2½t2 cosð1:6Þ 
t4 sinð1:6Þ  72 þ 0:09½t2 sinð1:6Þ þ t4 cosð1:6Þ þ 262 4300; then alarm

The performance of these two algorithms is indicated in Table 4 and Figs. 8 and 9.
The [t2/t4] algorithm cannot meet the design criteria for both nuisance immunity and
fire sensitivity, perhaps due to the heavy weighting of the obscuration measurements
in the p2 loadings vector.

2.3.3. Scores [t3/t4/t2] algorithm

The t3, t4, and t2 scores are chosen because their corresponding loadings vectors
are particularly weighted by temperature, CO, and obscuration measurements,
respectively. The three graphs in Fig. 10 show the scores for all nuisance, smoldering,
and flaming tests. The algorithm, depicted as the ellipsoid surface, is:
(14) Nuisance immunity: If 33.0[t3 cos (1.32)t4 sin (1.32)]2+1.8[t3 sin (1.32)+t4 cos
(1.35)+32]2+0.45[t2+50]245000, then alarm

The [t3/t4/t2] scores algorithm required to satisfy the design criteria for nuisance
immunity and the algorithm required to most closely match the performance of a
conventional ionization and photoelectric detector are identified as Algorithms 15 and 16.
(15) Fire sensitivity—ionization detector: If 33.0[t3 cos(1.32)t4 sin (1.32)]2+1.8[t3
sin(1.32)+t4 cos (1.35)+32]2+0.9[t2+15]245000, then alarm
(16) Fire sensitivity—photoelectric detector: If 33.0[t3 cos(1.32)t4 sin (1.32)]2+1.8[t3
sin(1.32)+t4 cos (1.35)+32]2+1.3[t2]245000, then alarm.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
L.A. Cestari et al. / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 1–28 21

Fig. 6. Scores t3 versus t4 for all nuisance, smoldering, and flaming tests. Algorithm that most closely
meets the design level of nuisance immunity is also shown.

The performance of these two algorithms is indicated in Table 4 and Fig. 10.

2.3.4. Algorithms—average relative performance

The average relative performance of each algorithm is summarized in Fig. 11 for
smoldering, flaming, and grease fires to provide a rough comparison of each of the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
22 L.A. Cestari et al. / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 1–28

Nuisance Criteria
PCA Algorithm #10 Performance Algorithm causes zero
t3 - t4 unwanted alarms
1.50
Smoldering Flaming Grease
1.00
Relative Performance

0.50

0.00
SDCO4
SDC01
SDC03

SDC06
SDC08
SDC11
SDC31
SDC34
SDC37
SDC21
SDC23
SDC27
SDC02
SDC05
SDC07
SDC09
SDC10
SDC14
SDC33
SDC35
SDC36
SDC38
SDC39
SDC40
SDC20
SDC22
SDC25
SDC26
SDC12
SDC13
SDC41
SDC24
-0.50

-1.00
Ion Photo

Fire Sensitivity Criteria

Ion - Photo
PCA Algorithm #11 Performance Algorithm causes five
t3 - t4 unwanted alarms
1.50
Smoldering Flaming Grease
1.00
Relative Performance

0.50

0.00
SDCO4
SDC01
SDC03

SDC06
SDC08
SDC11
SDC31
SDC34
SDC37
SDC21
SDC23
SDC27
SDC02
SDC05
SDC07
SDC09
SDC10
SDC14
SDC33
SDC35
SDC36
SDC38
SDC39
SDC40
SDC20
SDC22
SDC25
SDC26
SDC12
SDC13
SDC41
SDC24
-0.50

-1.00
Ion Photo

Fig. 7. Relative performance of [t3/t4] algorithm.

algorithms. The averages are determined by calculating the average performance for
each set of sources (smoldering, flaming, and grease fires). In general, the algorithms
involving a CO threshold detected smoldering fires faster than conventional
detectors. The PCA algorithms that utilize t3, which is heavily weighted by CO,
also detect smoldering fires faster than conventional detectors. Also, the algorithms
involving the rate of temperature rise threshold provides detection times that are
similar or better relative performance than conventional detectors. Finally, all of the
algorithms investigated detected the grease fires slower than conventional detectors.
Most of the algorithms detected the grease fires shortly after flaming ignition.
Because frying food in oil is common in many residences, the transition of grease
sources from a nuisance source to a fire source is important. Algorithms for flaming
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
L.A. Cestari et al. / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 1–28 23

Fig. 8. Scores t2 versus t4 for all nuisance, smoldering, and flaming tests. Algorithm that most closely
meets the design level of nuisance immunity is also shown.

sources could be relied on or a very high obscuration threshold could be adopted.

The high obscuration threshold is considered to be appropriate for nuisance sources
because most occupants should be interested in learning about a source if a
significant smoke density was produced in the home.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
24 L.A. Cestari et al. / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 1–28

Nuisance Criteria
PCA Algorithm #12 Performance Algorithm causes zero
t2 - t4 unwanted alarms
1.50

Smoldering Flaming Grease

1.00
Relative Performance

0.50

0.00
SDCO4
SDC01
SDC03

SDC06

SDC08
SDC11

SDC31
SDC34
SDC37

SDC21
SDC23
SDC27
SDC02
SDC05

SDC07
SDC09

SDC10
SDC14
SDC33
SDC35

SDC38
SDC39

SDC40
SDC20
SDC22

SDC25
SDC26

SDC12
SDC13
SDC41

SDC24
SDC36
-0.50

-1.00
Ion Photo

Fire Sensitivity Criteria

Ion - Photo
PCA Algorithm #13 Performance Algorithm causes three
t2 - t4 unwanted alarms
1.50

Smoldering Flaming Grease

1.00
Relative Performance

0.50

0.00
SDCO4
SDC01
SDC03

SDC06

SDC08
SDC11

SDC31
SDC34
SDC37

SDC21
SDC23
SDC27
SDC02
SDC05

SDC07
SDC09

SDC10
SDC14
SDC33
SDC35

SDC38
SDC39

SDC40
SDC20
SDC22

SDC25
SDC26

SDC12
SDC13
SDC41

SDC24
SDC36

-0.50

-1.00
Ion Photo

Fig. 9. Relative performance of [t2/t4] algorithms.

One of the weaknesses of the currently available data set is the inability to assess
the repeatability and statistical variance of many of the sources tested. In particular,
data were available for only one test of each nuisance source. Understanding the
statistical variance of the fire sources is important for outside validation of the
current research and is also relevant to understanding the range of conditions that
occur during actual unwanted fires and nuisance scenarios. Another drawback of the
current data set is that the nuisance tests are limited to cooking sources, with the
exception of the smoking and tea candle tests. Examples of additional non-cooking
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
L.A. Cestari et al. / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 1–28 25

Fig. 10. Scores t3 versus t4 versus t2 for all nuisance, smoldering, and flaming tests. Algorithm that most
closely meets the design level of nuisance immunity is also shown.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
26 L.A. Cestari et al. / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 1–28

Fig. 11. Average relative performance for each of the algorithms.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
L.A. Cestari et al. / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 1–28 27

nuisance sources could include shower steam, car exhaust, dust exposure (e.g. from
wood sanding), and cycling of an HVAC system.

3. Summary

The proposed algorithms are practical because they utilize relatively inexpensive
sensors that are commonly used in residential occupancies. Based on cost
considerations, a combined detector could be installed only in areas where nuisance
aerosols are expected, however, the advantages of early fire detection would then be
lost. The algorithm development procedures utilized here are general. Any of these
algorithms can be adjusted if the design criteria for nuisance immunity or fire
sensitivity are changed, i.e. a different balance is sought than applied in this paper.
 Multi-sensor detection algorithms can provide higher levels of nuisance immunity
and fire sensitivity as compared to conventional ionization and photoelectric
detectors.
 CO measurements detect smoldering fires earlier than conventional photoelectric
detectors. The CO detector also provides a much higher level of nuisance
immunity than either of the conventional smoke detectors.
 The rate of temperature rise provides detection of flaming fires at least as fast as
conventional ionization detectors. The rate of temperature rise also provides a
greater level of nuisance immunity than either of the conventional smoke
detectors.
 Both ionization and photoelectric detectors are found to be sensitive to nuisance
aerosols (i.e. prone to nuisance alarms). Increasing the ionization threshold
in a combined ionization/photoelectric detector is not effective in the current data
set.
 The [rate of temperature rise/CO detector/ionization detector] algorithm provides
a high level of nuisance immunity and generally similar or earlier fire detection
compared to conventional detectors.
 The current data set does not contain enough sensors to realize the advantages of
multivariate techniques, such as PCA.
 Some loss in physical understanding becomes apparent in [t2/t4] algorithm
development.

The present study and numerous others have demonstrated the advantages that
advanced fire detection algorithms provide over conventional ionization and
photoelectric detectors. The use of additional sensors should be investigated. CO2
has shown promise in early detection of flaming fires [3,12]. Microsensor technology
can provide a large number of measurements on a relatively small chip (e.g. one
square inch). Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy can measure gaseous
species unique to individual smoke sources. The availability of additional source-
unique measurements has the potential benefit of increasing the ability of a multi-
sensor detector to properly classify signatures from fire and nuisance sources.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
28 L.A. Cestari et al. / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 1–28

Acknowledgements

This work was a part of the Home Fire Smoke Detector Project and was funded
by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The technical monitor for
the project was Richard Bukowski.

References

[1] Hall JR. The latest statistics on US home smoke detectors. Fire J 1989;83(1):39–41.
[2] Roby RJ, Gottuk DT, Beyler CL, Multi-signature Fire J US Patent Number 5,691,703, 1997.
[3] Milke JA. Monitoring multiple aspects of fire signatures of discriminating fire detection. Fire Technol
1999;35:195–209.
[4] Rose-Pehrsson SL, Hart SJ, Street TT, Tatem PA, Williams WW, Hammond MH, Gottuk DT,
Wright MT, Wong JT, Real-time probabilistic neural network performance and optimization for fire
detection and nuisance alarm rejection. Proceedings from the 12th international conference on
automatic fire detection ‘‘AUBE ‘01’’, March 2001.
[5] Gottuk DT, Peatross MJ, Roby RJ, Beyler CL. Advanced fire detection using multi-signature alarm
algorithms. Fire Safety J 2002;37:381–94.
[6] Bukowski RW, Peacock RD, Averill JD, Cleary TG, Bryner NP, Walton WD, Reneke PA,
Kuligowski ED. Performance of home smoke alarms: analysis of the response of several available
technologies in residential fire settings. Gaithersburg, MD: NIST; 2004.
[7] Cestari LA, Assessments of multi-components fire detection algorithms derived from nuisance and
real fire data. MS Thesis, Department of Fire Protection Engineering, University of Maryland, 2003.
[8] Gottuk DT, Wright MT, Wong JT, Pham HV, Rose-Pehrson SL, Hart S, Hammond M, Williams
FW, Tatem PA, Street TT, Prototype early warning fire detection system: test series 4 results. NRL/
MR/6180—02-8602, February, 2002.
[9] Bukowski RW, Field investigation of residential smoke detectors. Fire J 1997; 18.
[10] McAvoy TJ, Milke J, Kunt TA, using multivariate statistical methods to detect fires. Fire Technol.
1996; pp. 6–24.
[11] Wise BM, Gallagher NB. PLS_Toolbox 2.0 for use with MATLAB. Manson, WA: Eigenvector
Research, Inc.; 1998.
[12] Milke JA, McAvoy TJ. Analysis of signature patterns for discriminating fire detection with multiple
sensors. Fire Technol 1995;31(3):120–36.