ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fire Safety Journal 41 (2006) 301–310

www.elsevier.com/locate/firesaf

Volume sensor for damage assessment and situational awareness

Susan L. Rose-Pehrssona,, Christian P. Minorb, Daniel A. Steinhurstb, Jeffrey C. Owrutskya,
James A. Lynchc, Daniel T. Gottukc, Stephen C. Walesd, John P. Farleya,
Frederick W. Williamsa
a
Chemistry Division, US Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC 20375,USA
b
Nova Research, Inc., Alexandria, VA 22308, USA
c
Hughes Associates, Inc., Baltimore, MD 21227, USA
d
Acoustics Division, US Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC 20375, USA
Received 14 March 2005; received in revised form 26 October 2005; accepted 12 December 2005
Available online 27 March 2006

Abstract

A multi-sensory approach is being used to develop new detection capabilities for improved damage assessment and real-time
situational awareness. As part of the Advanced Damage Countermeasures (ADC) program, the US Navy seeks to develop and
demonstrate improved damage control capabilities that will be incorporated into new ship designs. This work represents the progress in
the fourth year of a multi-year program to identify, evaluate, and adapt video image detection technologies for shipboard damage
control. Various spectral and acoustic signatures, new video imaging techniques, and image recognition methods have been investigated
and integrated into a multi-sensory prototype system that is able to detect event signatures within the volume of a space (i.e., a ‘‘volume
sensor’’) rather than relying on spot-type fire detectors. The prototype systems were shown to outperform the commercial systems for
flaming and smoldering fires with a high immunity to nuisance sources. In addition, the prototypes accurately identified pipe ruptures
and flooding events.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Video image fire detection; Fire detection; Smoke detection; Flame detection; Pipe rupture detection; Data fusion; Multi-sensory detection;
Spectral and acoustic signature

1. Introduction provide an alarm for events such as flaming and smoldering

The US Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) is develop-
ing a real-time, remote detection system for shipboard
situational awareness. The Advanced Volume Sensor Task
is an important element of the US Office of Naval
Research, Future Naval Capabilities program, Advanced
Damage Countermeasures (ADC). The ADC program
seeks to develop and demonstrate improved damage
control capabilities for reduced manning aboard future
naval vessels. The objective of the Advanced Volume
Sensor Task is to develop an affordable detection system
that will identify shipboard damage control conditions and
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: susan.rosepehrsson@nrl.navy.mil
(S.L. Rose-Pehrsson).
fires, explosions, pipe ruptures, and flooding. The project
uses an inexpensive, multi-sensory approach that takes
advantage of existing and emerging technology in the
rapidly growing fields of optics, acoustics, image analysis
and computer processing. In addition, this technology
utilizes conventional surveillance cameras, which are
currently being incorporated into new ship designs, and
therefore will provide multiple system functions with
minimal new hardware. The goal is to develop a robust,
low cost system that eliminates false alarms.
The Advanced Volume Sensor Task is a five-year, five-
phase program. The first phase consisted of a literature
review and an industry review of current and emerging
technologies for video, optical, and acoustic methods for
the detection of smoke and fire [1]. Based on the study,
several technologies were identified as having potential for

0379-7112/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2005.12.005
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
302 S.L. Rose-Pehrsson et al. / Fire Safety Journal 41 (2006) 301–310

meeting some of the objectives of the volume sensor
development effort. Work performed during the second
year provided a basis for moving forward with the use of
video image detection (VID) for shipboard applications [2].
A full-scale laboratory evaluation of three VID systems
using a variety of fire and nuisance sources indicated that
the smoke alarm algorithms of these systems could provide
fire detection capabilities equivalent to spot-type smoke
detectors for most of the conditions evaluated. The third
phase assessed potential technologies that could be used in
developing a volume sensor system, which was prototyped
in the fourth phase of the program. The tasks included the
evaluation of VID [3–5], spectral sensors [6,7], acoustic
signatures [8], and long wavelength imaging [9], with the
development of advanced algorithms [10,11]. Each of the
sensing technologies was evaluated using damage control
events including fire, flooding and pipe ruptures, and
against a variety of typical shipboard nuisance sources. The
results indicated that each sensing technology provides
unique information for use in the volume sensor prototype.
This paper describes the integrated volume sensor
prototype [12,13]. The initial prototype was evaluated in
two shipboard test series on the ex-USS Shadwell. The first
test series successfully demonstrated the integration of the
detection systems of the prototype system [14]. The second
test series demonstrated improved fire detection with very
high nuisance source immunity and the ability to detect
pipe ruptures and flooding events [15].
2. Volume sensor concept
The volume sensor concept intended to achieve a remote,
optical-based detection system that uses cameras already
planned for new ships. Additional sensor technologies were
investigated to augment the cameras for enhanced situa-
tional awareness. The goal was to make an inexpensive,
remote detection system with faster response times for
smoldering fires than can be achieved with diffusion-
limited point or spot-type smoke detectors. Several
technologies have been evaluated for the development of
the volume sensor. VID is the main detection method with
the other sensing technologies being used to enhance and
expand on the video detection capabilities. Full-scale
laboratory and shipboard tests were conducted to develop
a database of events. These tests assisted in the selection of
the subsystems that were incorporated in the volume
sensor. The volume sensor prototype consists of commer-
cial VID systems in the visible spectrum, long wavelength
VID in the 700–1000 nm range, spectral sensors in the
ultraviolet (UV), visible, near infrared (NIR), and mid
infrared (IR) ranges, and microphones in the human-
audible frequency range. Fig. 1 illustrates the main
components of development for the basic volume sensor
concept.
Video-based fire detection systems built around typical
surveillance cameras are a recent technological advance-
ment [16,17]. For volume sensor development, three
commercial video-based fire detection systems were eval-
uated in a shipboard environment on the ex-USS Shadwell
and in a laboratory setting. The VID systems operate by
analyzing video images produced by typical surveillance
cameras (up to eight per unit) in order to detect smoke or
fire in large spaces such as warehouses and transportation
tunnels. The systems differed mostly in their image analysis
algorithms, which are all proprietary, and less so in their
sensitivity to image quality. In testing, two systems
performed well with approximately 80% correct detection
(i.e., 20% false negative rate) of small incipient fires and
nuisance events, and a 20% rate of false positive detections.
Further details of the test procedure and evaluation have
been described in previous reports [18]. The alarm times for
the VID systems were comparable to those from ionization
detection systems for flaming fires, but were much faster
than either ionization or photoelectric smoke detection
systems for smoldering fires. Two of the manufacturers
have been working with NRL to improve their detection
systems for Navy applications. Recent versions of these
VID systems include detection algorithms for both flaming
fires and smoke. While there was considerable progress in
improving the detection sensitivity, the false alarm rate
needed to be reduced. One of the most significant
challenges to shipboard early warning fire detection with
video-based systems is the discrimination of the flaming
fires from typical shipboard bright nuisance sources such as
welding, torch cutting, and grinding. This objective is
achieved by combining the VID systems with other types of
sensors, such as other optical and acoustic detection
methods.
Two distinct approaches to optical detection outside the
visible are being pursued [6,7,19]. These are long wave-
length (NIR) video detection (LWVD), which provides
some degree of both spatial and spectral resolution or
discrimination, and single or multiple element narrow
spectral band detectors, which are spectrally but not

Shipboard Events Sensors & Global Event External

Local Analysis Recognition Interface
Flaming fires
Imaging methods
Smoldering fires Machine Vision Supervisory
Multivariate Control
Flood / Pipe ruptures Spectral/Acoustic- Data Fusion System
based Detection
Nuisance Sources

Fig. 1. Main components for volume sensor development.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.L. Rose-Pehrsson et al. / Fire Safety Journal 41 (2006) 301–310
spatially resolved and operate with a wide field of view at
specific wavelengths ranging from the IR to the UV. Image
detection in the NIR has been utilized in background free
environments, such as forest fire monitoring from ground
installations [20] and satellites [21], in tunnels [22], and for
cargo surveillance in aircraft [23]. Image analysis in
conjunction with narrow band filtered (1140 nm) NIR
images has been patented as a method for enhancing fire
and hot object detection [24].
The primary advantages of long wavelength imaging are
higher contrast for hot objects and more effective detection
of reflected flame emission compared to images obtained
from cameras operating only in the visible region. This
allows for improved detection of flaming fires that are not
in the field of view of the camera. This approach to LWVD
is a compromise between expensive, spectrally discriminat-
ing cameras operating in the mid IR and inexpensive,
thermally insensitive visible cameras. The LWVD system
exploits the long wavelength response of standard CCD
arrays used in many cameras (e.g., camcorders and
surveillance cameras). This region is slightly to the red
(700–1000 nm) of the ocular response (400–650 nm). A long
pass filter transmits light with wavelengths longer than a
cutoff, typically in the range 700–900 nm. This increases the
contrast for fire, flame, and hot objects by suppressing the
normal video images of the space, thereby effectively
providing some degree of thermal imaging. There is more
emission from hot objects in this spectral region than in the
visible (o600 nm). Testing has demonstrated detection of
objects heated to 400 1C or higher. A luminosity-based
algorithm was developed to analyze video images for the
detection of NIR emission and used to evaluate camera/
filter combinations for fire, smoke and nuisance event
detection [9]. For each incoming video image, the
algorithm applied a simple non-linear threshold to the
summed, normalized intensity difference of the current
video image and a background image established at the
start of each test. This approach is similar to one suggested
by Wittkopp et al. [25] for fire and smoke event
classification with visible spectrum cameras in aircraft
cargo holds.
The second optical detection method investigated was a
collection of narrow band, single element, spectral sensors.
Approaches to detect reflected near infrared emission from
fire sources using narrow band detectors have been
previously reported and patented by Lloyd et al. [26–28].
Atomic emission of potassium at 766 nm has been reported
in Vdacek et al. [29] for satellite based fire detection. In
addition, a number of commercial companies produce UV
and IR based flame detectors [30,31]. Narrow band sensors
investigated for volume sensor development included
commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) UV/IR flame detectors
modified so that the individual outputs can be monitored
independently, and other sensors operating in narrow
bands (10 nm) at visible (590 nm), NIR wavelengths (766
and 1050 nm), and mid IR wavelengths (2.7 and 4.3 mm).
The spectral bands were chosen to match flame emission
303
features identified in spectra measured for fires with
different fuels. In a stand-alone configuration, combina-
tions of the single channels were found to yield comparable
results as the COTS flame detectors for identifying fires,
both in and out of the field of view, and better performance
for detecting some smoke events and several nuisance
sources. The inclusion of one or more of the single element
sensors was expected to reduce the false alarms of the
integrated system without degrading the sensitivity, and for
this purpose, principle components analysis (PCA) was
used to develop a set of algorithms for the spectral sensors
to discriminate flaming fires in and out of sensor field of
view, smoldering sources, and welding sources. Together,
the spectral sensors and discrimination algorithms are
referred to as the spectral based volume sensor (SBVS)
system [6].
Another key aspect of the Advanced Volume Sensor
Task is the evaluation of acoustic signatures in the human-
audible range for enhanced discrimination of damage
control events, particularly flooding and pipe ruptures.
Earlier efforts in acoustical leak detection emphasized
using ultrasonic technologies for application in nuclear
reactor environments [32,33]. For volume sensor develop-
ment, a representative set of fire and water acoustic event
signatures and common shipboard background noises was
collected and measured. Measurements were made aboard
the ex-USS Shadwell, in a full-scale laboratory test for fire,
in a wet trainer for flooding and pipe ruptures, and on two
in-service vessels, naval and research, for shipboard
ambient noise. The event signatures and noise signals were
compared in the time and time-frequency domains. Results
have indicated that clear differences in the signatures were
present and first generation algorithms have been devel-
oped to distinguish the various events. Flooding and pipe
ruptures are loud events, and a simple broadband energy
detector, in the high frequency band 7–17 kHz with an
exponential average, has been effective even in a noisy
environment like an engine room [8]. The algorithms being
developed for volume sensor use the variance of the level
with time for discrimination of events. Some nuisance
events, like grinding, cutting torches, and arc welding, are
also loud, but have level variations with time that
distinguish them from flooding and pipe rupture events.
Fire events are the quietest, though even here, some
distinctive features have been observed.
The integration of multimodal, complementary sensor
systems for fire detection and the performance enhance-
ment using data fusion technology are well established
[34,35]. Previous efforts at NRL have demonstrated
significant improvements in accuracy, sensitivity and
response time in fire and smoke detection by combining a
multimodal sensor approach with neural network-based
data fusion [36]. For the volume sensor program, pattern
recognition and data fusion algorithms have been devel-
oped to intelligently combine the individual sensor
technologies with the goal of expanding detection capabil-
ities (flame, smoke, flood, pipe ruptures, hot objects) and
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
304 S.L. Rose-Pehrsson et al. / Fire Safety Journal 41 (2006) 301–310
reducing false positives. Enhanced sensitivity, improved
event discrimination, and shorter response times are the
milestones for success. The algorithms being developed
capture the strengths of specific sensor types and systems
while minimizing their weaknesses. Optimization of the
detection methods and further development and enhance-
ment of the machine vision and multivariate data analysis
methods are a major emphasis of ongoing work.
3. Volume sensor integration
The successful components have been integrated into a
prototype volume sensor system. Visual images and
machine vision are used for motion and shape recognition
to detect flaming and smoldering fires. Future develop-
ments will focus on pipe and hull ruptures, and flooding.
Spectral and acoustic signatures are being used to detect
selected events, like arc welding and pipe ruptures, and to
enhance event discrimination. Long wavelength image
analysis provides early detection of hot surfaces, high
sensitivity for ignition sources, and the capability of
detecting reflected fire emission, thereby reducing the
reliance on line of sight in VID systems (i.e., it provides
better coverage of a space with fewer cameras). Fig. 2
shows a schematic diagram of the system being developed.
The volume sensor prototype uses an innovative
architecture that has been designed to collect and combine
video with other input from a heterogeneous network of
distributed sensors and systems. The system can monitor
events in real time, provide pre-alarm and alarm conditions
for unusual events, log and archive the data from each
subsystem, and archive and index alarms for easy recall.
The modular architectural design allows this system to be
adapted and expanded to incorporate the latest sensor
technologies for new and different missions. A commu-
nication system built on Extensible Markup Language
(XML) packet structures for easy implementation on a
wide variety of networks is used to transfer sensor data and
algorithm output from sensor subsystems to a central data
fusion node for processing by a fusion algorithm. There, all
sensor information is integrated and analyzed in a tiered
Spectral Sensor Sensor Analysis
Suite And
Data Packaging
Acoustics Microphone Acquisition
& Analysis
NIR Client
LWVD Camera(s) Data XML
Converter Library
Video Image Visible
Spectrum
Analyses Camera(s)
Field monitoring Sensor Systems
Computers
Fig. 2. Volume sensor prototype schematic.
approach: first, algorithms process the raw data at the
sensor subsystem level, then combine and analyze the data
across the sensor subsystems in a decision tree incorporat-
ing expert knowledge and pattern recognition for event
pre-alarm conditions. A pre-alarm triggers a second level
of more sophisticated algorithms incorporating decision
rules, further pattern recognition, and Bayesian evaluation
specific to the event condition, the output of which is then
passed to an information network for accurate, real-time,
situational awareness. Techniques being investigated in-
clude feature selection, data clustering, Bayesian classifica-
tion, Fisher discriminant analysis, and neural networks.
Two volume sensor prototypes have been built. For
deployment, the sensor components have been grouped
into sensor suites, each of which contains a video camera, a
long wavelength filtered video camera, spectral sensors,
and a microphone. Data from multiple sensor suites is
analyzed by the appropriate sensor systems, a VID system,
a long wavelength (NIR filtered) VID system (LWVD), a
spectral sensor system (SBVS), and an acoustic sensor
system (ACST). Each prototype employs a single fusion
machine to gather and analyze data from the four sensor
systems for global event recognition. The maximum
number of sensor suites that can be processed with a single
fusion machine has not yet been determined. The two
prototypes differ only in how video images are analyzed.
The first prototype uses VID input generated by the Smoke
and Fire Alert (SFA) fire detection software, version
1.1.0.600, from the company Fastcom Technology SA [37].
The second prototype uses VID input generated by the
Signifire fire detection software, version 2.2.0.1493, from
the company axonX LLC [38]. Both VID manufacturers
were contracted to provide middleware to allow their
systems to communicate over a network to the volume
sensor fusion machine. The other sensor modalities, video
from the LWVD as well as spectral and acoustic signatures,
are incorporated via sensor systems developed at the NRL
as part of the Advance Volume Sensor Task.
Fig. 3 shows the graphical user interface (GUI)
component of a prototype. The GUI displays all the infor-
mation being combined in the volume sensor prototype
Fusion Machine
Prototype
Fusion
Server Human
Command Supervisory
XML Interface
And Control
Library (GUI)
Control System
Pattern
Recognition
Algorithms
TCP/IP Fusion System
Network Computers
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.L. Rose-Pehrsson et al. / Fire Safety Journal 41 (2006) 301–310
Fig. 3. Volume sensor prototype graphical user interface.
and gives the alarm condition based on analysis by the
volume sensor fusion machine. Three camera images are
shown, two visible and one NIR. Each sensor technology is
displayed, as is the overall volume sensor result and alarm.
In the example shown in Fig. 3, the system indicates an
alarm for a flaming fire based on the input from all
available sensors.
4. Experimental
The performance of the volume sensor prototypes was
evaluated at the end of the fourth year in full-scale tests
during the Volume Sensor 4 Test Series aboard the ex-USS
Shadwell [39]. These tests included a variety of typical
shipboard fire, nuisance, and pipe rupture events designed
to assess the developmental progress of the prototype
system and to expand the database for future improve-
ments. In addition, the prototype detection capabilities and
false alarm rates were compared to stand alone COTS fire
detection systems that included two video-based and
several spot-type detection systems.
The compartment on the ex-USS Shadwell employed as a
test space for the Volume Sensor 4 Test Series had a
volume of 143.4 m3, from a length, width, and height of
5.9 m  8.1 m  3.0 m, respectively. Fig. 4 is a diagram of
the compartment and shows the dimensions and locations
of obstructions within the compartment. Three sensor
suites were used to instrument the compartment and
supplied data to both of the two volume sensor prototypes.
The locations of the sensor suites are shown by the circled
VS1, VS2, and VS3 in Fig. 4. Sensor suite 1 was located
2.44 m above the floor, sensor suite 2 at 1.84 m, and sensor
suite 3 at 2.03 m. Each of the three sensor suites consisted
of a CCTV video camera (Sony SSC-DC393), a long
305
wavelength camera (CSi-SPECO CVC-130R (0.02 Lux)
B&W camera with a LP720 filter), a microphone (Shure
MX-393 in suites 1 and 2 or Shure MX-202 in suite 3), and
a suite of spectral sensors consisting of three Si photo-
diodes with interference filters at 590, 766, and 10 50 Å, two
mid IR detectors at 2.7 and 4.3 mm, and a UV unit, all
designed by Vibro-meter, Inc [31]. The compartment was
also instrumented with ionization (EST SIGA-IS), multi-
criteria (EST SIGA-IPHS), and photoelectric (EST SIGA-
PS) spot-type detectors from Edwards Systems Technolo-
gies [40]. The EST detectors were mounted in the overhead
at the locations shown in Fig. 5.
The volume sensor prototypes were evaluated using
flaming and smoldering fires, water and gas releases, and
nuisance alarm sources. Any source that causes a detector
to generate an undesired alarm was considered a nuisance
alarm source. Incipient size sources were generally used to
challenge the detection capabilities of all the sensors.
A standard test procedure was adhered to: approximately
4 min of ambient background data collection, followed by
exposure to a target test or nuisance source, and then
ventilation of the space to remove all smoke. Source
exposure was terminated when a source was fully con-
sumed, or when all sensor systems were either in alarm or
showed no change in detection due to quasi-steady state
source conditions. The compartment was sealed off during
tests and ventilation was maintained at a typical shipboard
level of 4–5 air changes per hour.
Common shipboard combustibles were used as fuels for
fire sources. Open pipes, gashed pipes, and pipes with
various sprinkler nozzle heads were used as water release
sources. Air bottles, nitrogen bottles, and a self-contained
breathing apparatus (SCBA) mask were used as gas release
sources. Nuisance sources represented common fire-like
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
306 S.L. Rose-Pehrsson et al. / Fire Safety Journal 41 (2006) 301–310

Fig. 4. Locations of obstructions, sources (circled numbers) and sensor suites (circled VS1, VS2, VS3).

shipboard activities like welding, grinding, and torch
cutting steel plates, as well as several other sources known
to cause nuisance alarms in the volume sensor components.
The number of tests conducted and the descriptions of fire
scenarios, water and gas releases, and nuisance sources are
shown in Table 1. Replicate tests were not generally
performed sequentially. Further details for all sources are
available in Lynch et al. [15].
Three principal measures of performance were used to
evaluate the volume sensor prototypes and commercial
detection systems: (1) the general functionality of the multi-
component prototype system, in the sense of meeting
design objectives and successful integration of the compo-
nents; (2) the percent correct classification of fire, water
and gas release, and nuisance sources; and (3) the speed of
response to fire sources. In addition, the performance of
the volume sensor systems was compared with the
commercial VID systems and spot-type ionization and
photoelectric smoke detectors.
5. Results and discussion
As early warning units, each of the volume sensor
prototypes and their component sensor subsystems per-
formed very well. Sensor data and local sensor analysis
were accurately and consistently transmitted to the fusion
machines at 1 s intervals with virtually no footprint on a
100 Mbps Ethernet network. Testing revealed that proces-
sing on the PC-based fusion machines (Pentium IV class)
remained smooth in real-time.
One of the most significant challenges to shipboard early
warning fire detection with video-based systems is the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.L. Rose-Pehrsson et al. / Fire Safety Journal 41 (2006) 301–310
Fig. 5. Locations of the spot-type detectors in overhead.
discrimination of flaming fires from typical shipboard
bright nuisance sources like welding, torch cutting, and
grinding. The LWVD sensor system was consistently the
most sensitive system to flaming fires, but exhibited a
similar sensitivity to bright nuisances. Both commercial
VID systems displayed similar behavior with flaming fires
and bright nuisances, though at a lesser sensitivity than
LWVD. Thus, neither the VID nor the LWVD systems
could be relied on for accurate discrimination of flaming
fires and nuisance sources. For this task, the suite of
spectral sensors was incorporated in two ways. First, the
local detection algorithms, developed for the spectral-based
sensor system to detect emission signatures typical of
welding events and flaming fires in and out of the field of
view of the sensor suite, were used. Second, the data fusion
flame detection algorithm intelligently combined the out-
puts from the light sensitive video systems with the
emission signatures from the spectral systems to success-
fully discriminate flaming fires from bright nuisances.
The commercial VID systems were 100% effective in the
detection of smoldering source events. Approximately half
307
of the smoldering sources were also seen by the spectral
sensor system, or detected by smoke blooming on
compartment lights with the LWVD system, though in
nearly every case at a time later than that of the VID
systems. As a consequence, the volume sensor prototypes
relied almost entirely on the VID systems for smoldering
detection, and most of the false positives (nuisance alarms)
generated by the prototypes were due to false positives in
the VID systems.
The acoustic sensor system performed very well in the
detection of pipe rupture-induced flooding events and gas
leak events, and reasonably well in the detection of
nuisance sources. (Note that the acoustic nuisance detec-
tion algorithms were immature during these tests.) The
data fusion flooding algorithm of the volume sensor
prototypes combined the output of the acoustic sensor
system with those of the spectral and LWVD systems to
successfully discriminate against noisy shipboard nuisances
like welding and grinding.
Table 2 presents a summary of the results of the tested
systems for correctly classified flaming and smoldering
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
308 S.L. Rose-Pehrsson et al. / Fire Safety Journal 41 (2006) 301–310

fires, nuisance sources, and water release events. Results for
the two volume sensor prototypes are listed in the columns
labeled ‘‘VSP1’’ and ‘‘VSP2’’ (for Volume Sensor Proto-
type 1 and 2), the Fastcom SFA commercial VID system in
column ‘‘VID1’’, the axonX Signifire commercial VID
system in column ‘‘VID2’’, and the commercial spot-type
smoke detectors in columns ‘‘EST Ion’’, ‘‘EST Photo’’, and
‘‘EST Multi’’. As mentioned earlier, the commercial VID
systems were also part of the volume sensor prototypes,
with VID1 a component of VSP1, and VID2 a component
of VSP2. The VID system results presented in Table 2 were
Table 1
Descriptions test scenarios
Tests Fire scenario descriptions
6 Flaming cardboard boxes with polystyrene pellets
5 Flaming IPA spill fire and trash bag
4 Flaming shipping supplies
4 Flaming trash can
1 Hot metal surface, IPA spill under slanted cab door
3 Painted bulkhead heating
6 Smoldering cable bundle
6 Smoldering laundry
3 Smoldering mattress and bedding
4 Smoldering oily rags
Water and gas release scenario descriptions
2 Unrestricted flow from open pipe
9 Pipe rupture from gash 10"  0.125", 40 psi
3 Water from sprinkler nozzle
1 Water from Bete P24 nozzle
1 Mist from water mist nozzle
1 Air release from SCBA discharge
3 N2 release from air line nozzle
Nuisance scenario descriptions
1 Aerosol
4 AM/FM radio, cassette player, TV
2 Engine exhaust
2 Flash photography
5 Grinding, painted steel
1 Heat gun
2 Toaster, normal toasting
3 Space heater
1 Spilling metal bolts
3 Torch cutting, steel
2 People working
1 Waving materials
5 Welding
those recorded by the VID systems themselves, indepen-
dent of transmittal to the volume sensor prototypes. The
ionization and photoelectric spot-type detectors, which
bracket the performance of the multicriteria detectors, were
used as the primary benchmark for assessing the perfor-
mance of the prototypes.
The volume sensor prototypes detected all the flaming
and smoldering fires, achieving 100% correct classification
rates (equivalent to a false negative rate of 0%). Correct
classification rates by VSP1 and VSP2 for nuisances
sources were 72% and 78%, respectively (corresponding
to false positive rates of 28% and 22%). This is better
overall performance than the five commercial systems. In
addition, the prototypes had higher nuisance source
immunity than the commercial VID systems and the
ionization smoke detector (VID1, VID2, and Ion). The
photoelectric smoke detector had better nuisance rejection
(88%) than both prototypes; however, this was achieved at
a marked performance cost. The detection rate for the EST
photoelectric smoke detection system for flaming fires was
much worse, detecting only 65% of these fires. Similarly,
the EST multicriteria detectors achieved a nuisance
rejection rate of 88%, but at the cost of a lower detection
rate for flaming (85%) and smoldering (86%) fires.
The volume sensor prototypes also demonstrated detec-
tion capabilities that the standard, COTS fire detection
systems lack. The volume sensor prototype correctly
classified 94% of the pipe rupture events, missing only
one test with a weak flow rate. The commercial VID
systems did not recognize pipe rupture sources as pipe
rupture events, however their smoke algorithms showed
some sensitivity to water plumes with VID1 identifying
75%, and VID2 19%, of the pipe rupture sources as
smoldering events.
The volume sensor prototypes provided equivalent or
faster responses to flaming fires than the spot-type
detection and commercial VID systems, where ‘‘equiva-
lent’’ was defined as a time difference of not more than 30 s.
VSP1 generated fire alarms at equal or earlier times than
the EST ionization detectors in 11 of 20 flaming fires (6 of
the 11 were earlier), and equal or earlier times than the EST
photoelectric detectors in 17 of 20 flaming fires (13 of the
17 were earlier). Similar results were obtained for VSP2
versus EST ion and EST photo detectors: equal or earlier
alarm times in 10 of 20 (5 of the 10 were earlier) and 17 of
20 (13 of the 17 were earlier) flaming fires, respectively.

Table 2
Summary of events correctly classified by volume sensor prototypes (VSP1, VSP2) and the commercial fire detection systems (VID1, VID2, EST Ion, EST
Photo, EST Multi)

Source type (] of tests) VSP1 (%) VID1 (%) VSP2 (%) VID2 (%) EST Ion (%) EST Photo (%) EST Multi (%)

Flaming (20) 100 95 100 95 90 65 85

Smoldering (22) 100 100 100 100 90 95 86
Nuisance (32) 72 41 78 63 56 88 88
Water release (16) 94 0 94 0 0 0 0
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.L. Rose-Pehrsson et al. / Fire Safety Journal 41 (2006) 301–310
Compared to the VID systems, VSP1 alarmed at equal or
earlier times than VID1 for 18 of 20 flaming fires (7 of the
18 were earlier), and 15 of 20 flaming fires (8 of the 15 were
earlier) for VID2. VSP2 alarmed at equal or earlier times
than VID1 for 16 of 20 flaming fires (8 of the 16 were
earlier), and 15 of 20 flaming fires (5 of the 15 were earlier)
for VID2.
For smoldering fires, VID1 alarmed earlier than any
other system for 17 of 22 smoldering fires, VID2 alarmed
earliest for 1 of the 22, the EST ion was fastest for 2 of the
22, and the EST photo was fastest for 2 of the 22. The
volume sensor prototypes rely on the VID systems for the
smoke alarm and by design alarm 10 s after the VID
systems. Therefore, both volume sensor prototypes demon-
strated equivalent performance to the VID systems and
generally faster response times compared to the EST smoke
detectors. In addition, the volume sensor prototypes did
not alarm first for any of the nuisance sources.
6. Conclusions
Two prototype systems based on the modular and
extensible volume sensor concept were built and tested in
a shipboard environment simultaneously with commercial
VID detection systems and spot-type fire detection systems.
The integration of multimodal sensors into a functioning
prototype system using data fusion and networking
components for damage control and situational awareness
was a success. The volume sensor prototypes demonstrated
significantly better performance in detection of damage
control events, reduction of false alarm rates, and
comparable or faster response times when compared to
commercial detection systems. The use of multiple,
complementary sensing modalities and data fusion tech-
nology provides additional situational awareness and
enhances detection rates for damage control events while
reducing the incidence of false positives and negatives.
Current work efforts are directed towards the optimiza-
tion of the detection methods and development of multi-
variate data analysis and fusion methods for improving
detection and reducing false positives. The volume sensor
prototypes are currently installed on the ex-USS Shadwell
and are being tested side-by-side with other detection
systems being considered for the Navy’s DD(X) (21st
century destroyer) program. The volume sensor system is
being enhanced and will be demonstrated during this final
phase of the ADC program. The demonstration will
integrate a volume sensor prototype into a supervisory
control system and will demonstrate the system with a
newly developed hybrid gaseous/water mist suppression
system on the ex-USS Shadwell.
Acknowledgements
The Office of Naval Research Under the US Future
Naval Capabilities Program supported this work for
Advance Damage Countermeasures, PE-602123N.
309
References
[1] Rose-Pehrsson SL, Owrutsky JC, Gottuk DT, Geiman JA, Williams
FW, Farley JP. Phase I: FY01 investigative study for the advanced
volume sensor. NRL/MR/6110–03-8688, US Naval Research Labo-
ratory, ohttp://stinet.dtic.mil4; June 30, 2003.
[2] Gottuk DT, Harrison MA, Scheffey JL, Rose-Pehrsson SL, Williams
FW, Farley JP. An initial evaluation of video-based fire detection
technologies. NRL/MR/6180–04-8737, US Naval Research Labora-
tory, ohttp://stinet.dtic.mil4; January 9, 2004.
[3] Harrison MA, Gottuk DT, Rose-Pehrsson SL, Owrutsky JC,
Williams FW, Farley JP. Video image detection (VID) systems and
fire detection technologies: preliminary results from the magazine
detection system response tests. NRL Letter Report 6180/0262,
Chemistry Division, Code 6180, US Naval Research Laboratory,
Washington, DC, 20375; July 21, 2003.
[4] Gottuk DT, Harrison MA, Rose-Pehrsson SL, Owrutsky JC, Farley
JP, Williams FW. Shipboard evaluation of fire detection techno-
logies for volume sensor development: preliminary results. NRL
Letter Report 6180/0282, Chemistry Division, Code 6180, US
Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, 20375; August 28,
2003.
[5] Lynch JA, Gottuk DT, Rose-Pehrsson SL, Owrutsky JC, Steinhurst
DA, Minor CP, et al. Volume sensor development test series 2 —
lighting conditions, camera settings, and spectral and acoustic
signatures. NRL/MR-MM/6180–04-8843, US Naval Research La-
boratory, ohttp://stinet.dtic.mil4; November 11, 2004.
[6] Owrutsky JC, Steinhurst DA, Nelson HH, Williams FW. Spectral
based volume sensor component. NRL/MR/6110–03-8694, US Naval
Research Laboratory, ohttp://stinet.dtic.mil4; July 30, 2003.
[7] Steinhurst DA, Owrutsky JC, Rose-Pehrsson SL, Gottuk DT,
Williams FW, Farley JP. Spectral-based volume sensor testbed VS1
test series results ex-USS SHADWELL, April 20–25, 2003. NRL
Letter Report 6110/075, Chemistry Division, Code 6180, US Naval
Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, 20375; June 27, 2003.
[8] Wales SC, McCord MT, Lynch JA, Rose-Pehrsson SL, Williams FW.
Acoustic event signatures for damage control: water events and
shipboard ambient noise. NRL/MR/7120–04-8845, US Naval Re-
search Laboratory, ohttp://stinet.dtic.mil4; October 12, 2004.
[9] Steinhurst DA, Minor CP, Owrutsky JC, Rose-Pehrsson SL, Gottuk
DT, Williams FW, et al. Long wavelength video-based event
detection, preliminary results from the CVNX and VS1 test series,
ex-USS SHADWELL, April 7–25, 2003. NRL/MR/6110–03-8733,
US Naval Research Laboratory, ohttp://stinet.dtic.mil4; December
31, 2003.
[10] Rose-Pehrsson SL, Owrutsky JC, Williams FW, Steinhurst DA,
Minor CP. Volume sensor algorithm development: feasibility study
for the improvement of video-based smoke and fire detection using
near infrared cameras. NRL Letter Report 6110/051, Chemistry
Division, Code 6180, US Naval Research Laboratory, Washington,
DC, 20375; April 14, 2004.
[11] Rose-Pehrsson SL., Williams FW. Volume sensor algorithm devel-
opment: application of a machine learning approach to on-board fire
detection using video cameras. NRL Letter Report 6110/052,
Chemistry Division, Code 6180, US Naval Research Laboratory,
Washington, DC, 20375; April 14, 2004.
[12] Minor CP, Steinhurst DA, Rose-Pehrsson SL, Owrutsky JC,
Williams FW. Volume sensor communication specification (VSCS).
NRL Letter Report 6110/054, Chemistry Division, Code 6180, US
Naval Research Laboratory, Washington DC, 20375; April 21, 2004.
[13] Minor CP, Steinhurst DA, Rose-Pehrsson SL, Owrutsky JC,
Williams FW. Volume sensor GUI/CnC communication specifica-
tion: XML packet specification. NRL Letter Report 6110/111,
Chemistry Division, Code 6180, US Naval Research Laboratory,
Washington DC, 20375; September 1, 2004.
[14] Lynch JA, Gottuk DT, Rose-Pehrsson SL, Owrutsky JC, Steinhurst
DA, Minor CP, et al. Test report volume sensor development test
series 3 results—multi-component prototype evaluation. NRL Letter
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
310 S.L. Rose-Pehrsson et al. / Fire Safety Journal 41 (2006) 301–310
Report 6180/0353, Chemistry Division, Code 6180, US Naval
Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, 20375; January 13, 2005.
[15] Lynch JA, Gottuk DT, Rose-Pehrsson SL, Owrutsky JC, Steinhurst
DA, Minor CP, et al. Volume sensor development test series 4
results—multi-component prototype evaluation. NRL Letter Report
6180/0008, Chemistry Division, Code 6180, US Naval Research
Laboratory, Washington, DC, 20375; January 13, 2005.
[16] Privalov G, Privalov D. Early fire detection method and apparatus.
United States Patent 6,184,792; February 6, 2001.
[17] Rizzotti D, Schibli N, Straumann W. Process and device for detecting
fires based on image analysis. United States Patent 6,937,742; August
30, 2005.
[18] Gottuk DT, Lynch JA, Rose-Pehrsson SL, Owrutsky JC, Williams
FW. Video image fire detection for shipboard use. Fire Saf J, 2005, in
press, doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2005.12.007.
[19] Owrutsky JC, Steinhurst DA, Minor CP, Rose-Pehrsson SL, Gottuk DT,
Williams FW. Long wavelength video detection of fire in ship
compartments. Fire Saf J, 2005, in press, doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2005.11.011.
[20] Thomas PJ. Near-infrared forest-fire detection concept. Appl Opt
1993;32:5348.
[21] Lasaponara R, Cuomo V, Macchiato MF, Simoniello T. A self-
adaptive algorithm based on AVHRR multitemporal data analysis
for small active fire detection. Int J Remote Sens 2003;24:1723.
[22] Wieser D, Brupbacher T. Smoke detection in tunnels using video
images. NIST SP 2001;965.
[23] Sentenac T, Le Maolt Y, Orteu J-J. Evaluation of a charge-coupled-
device-based video sensor for aircraft cargo surveillance. Opt Eng
2002;41:796–810.
[24] Chan WS, Burge JW. Imaging flame detection system. United States
Patent 5,937,077; August 10, 1999.
[25] Wittkopp T, Hecker C, Opitz D. The cargo fire monitoring system
(CFMS) for the visualization of fire events in aircraft cargo holds. In:
Beall K, Grosshandler W, Luck H, editors. Proceedings of AUBE
‘01: 12th international conference on automatic fire detection; March
25–28, 2001.
[26] Zhu Y-J, Lloyd A, Sivathanu Y, Gore J. Experimental and numerical
evaluation of a near infrared fire detector. In: Slaughter KC, editor.
Fire research and engineering, second (2nd) international conference,
ICFRE2; 1998. p. 512.
[27] Lloyd AC, Zhu YJ, Tseng LK, Gore JP, Sivanthanu YR. Fire
detection using reflected near infrared radiation and source tempera-
ture discrimination. NIST GCR 1998;98:747.
[28] Sivathanu Y, Joseph RK, Tseng L, Gore JP, Lloyd A. Flame and
smoke detector. United States Patent 6,111,511; August 29, 2000.
[29] Vdacek A, Kremens RL, Fordham AL, Vangorden SC, Luisi D,
Schott JR, et al. Remote optical detection of biomass burning using a
potassium emission signature. Int J Remote Sens 2002;23:2721.
[30] See, for example,ohttp://www.reliablefire.com/firealarm/flame_de-
tectors.html4, Reliable Fire Equipment Company, 12845 South
Cicero Ave, Alsip, IL 60803-3083.
[31] See, for example, ohttp://www.vibro-meter.com/industrial/detec-
tor.html4, Vibro-Meter, Inc., 10 Ammon Drive, Manchester, NH
03103.
[32] Kupperman DS, Claytor TN, Groenwald R. Acoustic leak detection
for reactor cooling systems. Nucl Eng Des 1985;86(1):13–20.
[33] Fischer K, Preusser G. Methods for leak detection for KWU
pressurized and boiling water-reactors. Nucl Eng Des 1991;128(1):
43–9.
[34] Nichols M. A survey of multisensor data fusion systems. In: Hall DL,
Llinas J, editors. Handbook of multisensor data fusion. New York:
CRC Press; 2001. p. 22-1–7.
[35] Pfister G. Multisensor / multicriteria fire detection: a new trend
rapidly becomes state of the art. Fire Technol Second Quarter
1997;33(2):115.
[36] Rose-Pehrsson SL, Hart SJ, Street TT, Williams FW, Hammond
MH, Gottuk DT, et al. Early warning fire detection system using a
probabilistic neural network. Fire Technol 2003;39(2):147–71.
[37] Fastcom Technology SA, Boulevard de Grancy 19A, CH-1006
Lausanne, Switzerland. ohttp://www.fastcom.ch/4.
[38] axonX LLC, 2400 Boston Street, suite 326, Baltimore, MD 21224.
ohttp://www.axonx.com/4.
[39] Geiman JA, Lynch JA, Gottuk DT, Rose-Pehrsson SL, Owrutsky JC,
Steinhurst DA, et al. Volume sensor development test series 4 plan—
multi-component prototype evaluation. NRL Letter Report 6180/
326, Chemistry Division, Code 6180, US Naval Research Laboratory,
Washington, DC, 20375; September 3, 2004.
[40] Edwards Systems Technology Inc., 90 Fieldstone Court, Cheshire,
CT 06410. ohttp://www.est.net/4.