Sponsored in part by 

Department of Homeland Security

Residential Kitchen Fire Suppression 

Research Needs: Workshop Proceedings

Daniel Madrzykowski

Anthony Hamins

 Shivani Mehta 

Anthony Hamins

NIST Special Publication 1066

Department of Homeland Security 

Michael Chertoff, Secretary 

Preparedness Directorate 

George W. Foresman, Under Secretary 

United States Fire Administration 

Charlie Dickinson, Acting Administrator 

Residential Kitchen Fire Suppression 

Research Needs: Workshop 

Proceedings

Daniel Madrzykowski 

Anthony Hamins 

Fire Research Division 

Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

Shivani Mehta 

Directorate for Engineering Sciences 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

NIST Special Publication 1066

February 2007 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary 

Technology Administration 

Robert C. Cresanti, Under Secretary

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

William A. Jeffrey, Director 
Disclaimer 

This document was reviewed by the Consumer Product Safety Commission staff. 

It has not been reviewed or approved by, and may not necessarily reflect the views of the 

Commission. 

Disclaimer

The policy of the National Institute of Standards and Technology is to use metric units in 

all of its published materials. The Appendix includes presentations as they were 

received, using customary units. 

Disclaimer

Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this document 

in order to describe an experimental procedure or concept adequately. Such identification 

is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the entities, materials, or 

equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON: 2007

_________________________________________ 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov — Phone: (202) 512-1800 — Fax: (202) 512-2250 

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
 i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

ABSTRACT iii 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv 

IN

TRODUCTION 1 

Previous Research 1 

UL 300A 2 

Workshop Focus 2 

WORKSHOP ORGANIZATION AND OBJECTIVES 3

PRESENTATIONS 4 

BREAKOUT GROUP RESULTS 7 

Prioritization 8 

SUMMARY 13 

FUTURE WORK 13 

REFERENCES 14 

APPENDIX 1- WORKSHOP AGENDA 16 

APPENDIX 2 - LIST OF ATTENDEES 17 

APPENDIX 3 - Presentation by Marty Ahrens, NFPA 18 

APPENDIX 4 – Presentation by Michael Love, IAFC 29 

APPENDIX 5 – Presentation by Kerry M. Bell, UL 31 

APPENDIX 6 – Presentation by Daniel Madrzykowski, NIST 46 

APPENDIX 7 - Notes from breakout groups 59 
 ii 
 iii 

ABSTRACT 

The Workshop on Residential Kitchen Fire Suppression Research Needs was held on 

April 11, 2006, at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in 

Gaithersburg, MD. The Workshop provided a forum to discuss test methods, 

technologies, and research and development that can significantly improve residential fire 

protection, with emphasis on residential kitchen applications. The Workshop program 

included representatives from standards, codes, testing, and research organizations, the 

fire protection industry, the fire service, and federal government agencies. In total, 30 

people attended. 

The goal of the conference was to identify barriers that impede advances in the 

application of localized suppression systems in residences. In this regard, the Workshop 

explored: recent developments in suppression system technologies, characterization of 

the performance of residential kitchen fire suppression systems, the role of federal 

agencies and standards groups, and opportunities for collaboration. 

 

The workshop attendees were divided into two breakout groups to discuss the following 

questions: 

• What is needed to reduce losses from kitchen fires? 

o Focus on prevention? 

o Focus on suppression? 

• What are the prioritized research needs for kitchen fires? 

• What needs to be done in order to place effective retrofit systems into a significant number of homes? 

The results of each group’s deliberations were discussed when the full Workshop 

reconvened. The responses from each group were considered and listed so that attendees 

could vote on the issues that they felt were most important. Attendees were grouped by 

their affiliation with the standards, codes, testing and research organizations, or the fire 

protection industry, or the fire service for purposes of voting. 

The issues that relate to prevention and suppression were voted to be the most important 

topics. The development of methods to ensure mass acceptance of fire suppression use 

was the second-most important subject overall. The fire service votes indicate that they 

are equally interested in prevention and research. The standards, codes, testing and 

research organizations attached equal importance on suppression as on mass acceptance 

of the technology for their first choice. The industry attendee votes revealed that 

prevention and suppression issues were most important. The results of the workshop 

were divided into short and long-term goals. In the short-term, education was viewed as 

the most important approach to address the problem of kitchen fires. In the long-term, the 

development of a low cost, low maintenance, retrofit system and the supporting research 

and standards was the priority. 

 

Keywords: fire prevention, fire suppression, kitchen fires, localized suppression, performance metrics, 

residential fires, research needs, sprinklers 
 iv 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The success of any workshop is dependent on the hard work of the individual speakers, 

facilitators, and participants. These proceedings are an assimilation of the contributions 

from everyone involved in the workshop; copies of the presentations are included in the 

Appendices. Thanks to all who made presentations and to those who participated in the 

workshop. 

Special thanks go to Woodrow Stratton of the U.S. Fire Administration, who served as a 

chair of a breakout session and helped bring focus to the discussions. In addition, we 

wish to acknowledge the assistance of Jay McElroy of NIST, who helped with logistics 

and Nelson Bryner, also of NIST, who assisted with facilitating a breakout group. 
 1 

WORKSHOP ON RESIDENTIAL KITCHEN FIRE SUPPRESSION RESEARCH 

NEEDS 

INTRODUCTION 

Cooking is the leading cause of home fires according to the National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA). In 2003, there were 118 700 reported home structure fires, in the 

United States, that involved cooking equipment. These cooking equipment fires resulted 

in 250 fatalities, 3 880 injuries and $512 million in direct property damage [1]. 

Two out of three of these reported home cooking fires involved the range or stovetop. 

The major cause of home cooking fires was cooking equipment left unattended [1]. 

Forty-one percent of the fatalities from cooking equipment fires occurred while the 

victims were asleep [2]. 

Previous Research 

There are many potential approaches to reducing the problem of cooking fires including: 

consumer education, improved detection, thermostatic safety controls on cooking 

equipment, and suppression systems. There have been a number of federal research 

efforts to address the feasibility of some of these solutions. 

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) working with the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology (NIST) has previously studied various parameters of the 

cooking environment prior to ignition in order to identify a technology that may be used 

to detect these unique conditions and control the heat output to prevent fires [3 -7]. 

These studies demonstrated that the pan temperature is a reliable indicator of pre-ignition 

conditions. The CPSC continues to consider technologies that improve on the 

experimental temperature detection and control systems. 

There are currently more than 124 million housing units in the United States, including 

single and multiple family homes [8]. The average life expectancy of a range (stove) is 

16 to 18 years [9]. Based on these numbers, it is important to examine retrofit systems 

that are currently available for consumer use. One possible type of retrofit system is an 

automatic range-top fire suppression system. This workshop focuses on this type of 

system application. 

The Air Force conducted a study in 1987 to evaluate the performance of range-top fire 

extinguishing systems [10]. The study examined eight systems in order to outline a draft 

performance specification for use in Air Force housing and to assess available 

technologies. The study was not intended to replicate Underwriter’s Laboratories (UL) 

testing but to recreate actual reported, unattended range-top fires in a realistic manner. 

The study resulted in recommendations regarding the specifications of the systems that 

should be used in Air Force housing. 

Part of the work sponsored by the CPSC addressed fire suppression systems for ranges 

[11]. This study identified four types of fire suppression technologies that can detect and 
 2 

extinguish fires on range-tops. No evaluations of the feasibility of specific systems were 

performed. 

The United States Fire Administration (USFA) in conjunction with CPSC has examined 

“smart stove” technology [12]. In addition, USFA has recently collaborated with the 

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) to research the types of behaviors and 

sequences of events that lead to cooking fires and developed recommendations for 

behavioral mitigation strategies that will reduce such fires and their resultant injuries and 

deaths [13]. 

UL 300A 

Currently, there is no voluntary standard that lists all types of residential range-top 

suppression systems. However, Underwriters’ Laboratory (UL) has published UL 300A,

Outline of Investigation for Extinguishing System Units for Residential Range Top 

Cooking Surfaces [14]. This outline examines the performance of self-contained, 

residential range top suppression systems in reaction to a variety of fire tests, which 

include both gas and electric range-tops, and multiple size fires. The test set-up does not 

include any common kitchen combustibles such as cabinetry, counters or food stuffs. 

There are four self-contained, residential range top extinguisher units that have been 

tested and listed under UL 300A [15]. 

Workshop Focus 

Given the large number of kitchen fires and the relatively narrow definition of the 

majority of cooking equipment fires in kitchens, CPSC, NIST and the USFA decided to 

combine and focus resources on that specific problem with the goal of reducing loss of 

life and property. A decision was made to hold a workshop with representatives from a 

wide range of stakeholder groups including suppression system manufacturers, standards, 

codes and testing organizations, and fire safety organizations. The goal of the workshop 

was to identify barriers that impede advances in the application of localized suppression 

systems in residences and make recommendations to overcome the barriers. 
 3 

WORKSHOP ORGANIZATION AND OBJECTIVES 

The Workshop provided a forum to discuss test methods, technologies, and research and 

development that can significantly improve residential fire protection, with emphasis on 

residential kitchen applications. The Workshop program included representatives from 

standards, codes, testing and research organizations, the fire protection industry, the fire 

service and the government. In total, 30 people attended. The workshop agenda and a list 

of attendees are provided in Appendices 1 and 2, respectively. The presentation slides or 

abstract for each presentation are provided in Appendices 3 through 6. 

The goals of the workshop were to identify barriers that impede advances in (1) fire 

safety in residences, in general, and in particular, (2) the application of localized 

suppression systems in residences. In this regard, the workshop explored: 

• Analysis of kitchen fire data 

• Characterization of the performance of suppression systems 

• Recent developments in suppression system technologies 

• The role of standards 

• Federal agency activity 

• Opportunities for collaboration 

After introductions, the Workshop goals were reviewed. The first two presentations 

described the magnitude of the residential kitchen fire problem through consideration of 

recent statistics, and through hands-on experience. The next two presentations described 

the UL 300A and NIST kitchen testing to date. 

After the presentations, the Workshop participants were divided into two groups. Each 

group was composed of representatives from standards, codes, testing and research 

organizations, the fire protection industry, the fire service and government organizations. 

The groups were asked to respond to these questions: 

• What is needed to reduce losses from kitchen fires? 

o Is it prevention? 

o Is it suppression? 

• What are the prioritized research needs for kitchen fires? 

• What is needed to get effective retrofit systems into a significant number of homes? 

A chairperson (Shivani Mehta, CPSC and Woodrow Stratton, USFA) moderated each 

group. The results of each group’s discussions were presented and discussed when the 

workshop reconvened. The responses by the groups to the discussion questions were 

combined and listed, and a vote was taken to prioritize the responses. Attendees were 

grouped by their affiliation. An analysis of the results is presented in a following section. 
 4 

PRESENTATIONS 

Presentations were given to the group to address the kitchen fire problem, testing 

methods and results on the evaluation of suppression systems. The presentations are 

included in the Appendices 3 through 6. 

The Residential Fire Problem: A Statistical look at Kitchen Fires 

Marty Ahrens, NFPA 

Ms. Ahrens a statistician at the NFPA, reviewed the current trends in kitchen fires. Trend 

data were presented by location of fire within the kitchen, alarm time, extent of flame 

damage, methods of extinguishment, age of fire victims and possible human factors 

contributing to the fire. The data overwhelmingly indicate that the majority of fires in 

kitchens occur on the range-top. The data also show that the majority of reported fires 

“self-extinguish” or are “extinguished by occupants with fire extinguishers” or “makeshift aids.” There was no further information available on the types of “make-shift aids.” 

A large portion of the injuries, 58 %, occurred while the injured were attempting to fight 

the fire. Only 9 % of the fires extended beyond the kitchen, however this small 

percentage of fires was responsible for 70 % of the fatalities. The data also address 

residential fire protection systems. There were no operating smoke alarms in 36 % of the 

kitchen fires. In the limited number of fires where sprinklers were present (< 1 %), 70 % 

of the time the sprinklers did not operate, typically because the fires were too small to 

activate the sprinklers. 

The Residential Fire Problem: A Fire Chief’s Perspective 

Michael Love, International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) 

Chief Love, Division Chief and Fire Marshal with the Montgomery County (MD) Fire 

and Rescue Service, represented the IAFC. He spoke briefly about the statistics of 

kitchen fires. He focused on a single sprinkler in the kitchen as an alternative for 

effective fire suppression. Data from NFPA were discussed that indicated that a large 

portion of kitchen fires were effectively controlled by a single sprinkler, in cases when a 

sprinkler was present and operated. 

The IAFC supports the use of a NFPA 13D [16] compliant, residential sprinkler system 

in new residences. However, the IAFC supports the retrofit of a single sprinkler in the 

kitchen as an effective fire suppression method in existing residential occupancies. 

UL listing of Self Contained Residential Range Top Fire Protection Systems 

Kerry Bell, UL 

Mr. Bell spoke briefly of the process by which a UL standard comes into existence. UL 

seeks input from interested parties and considers existing standards, then follows a UL 

process to develop a new standard. Prior to the development of a new UL standard, UL 

may publish an Outline of Investigation based on a few product tests. Some products 

may be subject to multiple UL standards, such as range-top fire extinguishing systems. 
 5 

Residential range-top fire suppression systems are tested to an Outline of Investigation, 

UL 300A, in which the entire system is subjected to fire tests. Additionally, the 

components of the system such as the cylinders that house the agent, the heat responsive 

links, audible signals, detectors and control units are tested separately per individual UL 

standards. The fire tests evaluate the system’s ability to suppress fires of varying sizes, 

and over both gas and electric stoves. Thirteen different fire/range scenarios are tested. 

UL feels that these tests demonstrate that the systems are very effective in extinguishing 

fires, but that they may not be suitable for protecting all cooking surface/range top 

arrangements. In general, a successful system must meet 3 criteria: 1) flame in the 

cooking vessel must be completely extinguished, 2) no re-ignition within 5 minutes, and 

3) the oil temperature must decrease below its auto-ignition temperature. Systems listed 

in accordance with UL 300A are in the “Residential Range Top Extinguisher Units 

(GMCH)” category. Mr. Bell provided an overview of a typical system and its 

components. In closing, it was indicated that UL is open to suggestions for enhancing 

existing requirements to UL 300A. 

Overview of NIST/USFA Localized Residential Suppression System Project 

Daniel Madrzykowski, NIST 

 

The objective of this study is to mitigate the hazard from a typical kitchen fire, such as a 

cooking oil fire on a stove, by using “passive” or “active” fire protection systems that are 

inexpensive and easy to retrofit into existing homes. 

This project is co-sponsored by NIST, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD), Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing (PATH) and the 

United States Fire Administration (USFA). 

Progress -The project has three major components: 1) kitchen fire hazard 

characterization, 2) investigation of “passive” and “active” fire protection systems and 

appropriate test protocols, and 3) limited full-scale evaluation. 

Kitchen Fire Hazard Characterization – An understanding of the fire hazard in terms of 

engineering units is required to determine how effective a standardized test may be in 

evaluating a potential solution for mitigating the adverse effects of kitchen fires. The 

fires were measured in terms of heat release rate (kW) and heat flux (kW/m2

). Several 

different types of cooking oil were heated to auto-ignition and were compared to heptane. 

Corn oil was chosen for the full scale experiments. The heat release rates of the UL 300A 

test scenarios are also being measured. 

Toaster fires and coffeemaker fires were also initiated and measured. A burning 

coffeemaker provides a higher heat release rate and burns for a longer duration than a 

toaster with burning toaster pastries. Therefore, the coffeemaker was chosen as the 

design hazard for the counter top appliance. 

 

Passive Fire Protection Systems - Passive systems have no moving parts. They are 

intended to contain the fire and limit and delay the growth of the fire. Several potential 
 6 

“passive” fire protection solutions were considered including: spacing, coverings, choice 

of materials, and coatings. Of these possible solutions, intumescent paint appeared to 

have the best cost benefit and best potential for easy retro-fit. 

Intumescent Paint Experiments and Results – Cone calorimeter tests comparing painted 

gypsum board and varnished wood with and without applications (coats) of two 

commercially available intumescent paints yielded positive results. However, in a 

limited number of full-scale kitchen tests, the intumescent paint did not significantly 

reduce the growth and spread of the fire. 

Active Fire Protection Systems – Active fire protection systems have moving parts and 

are intended to control, suppress, or extinguish the fire. Three types of active systems 

were considered: 1) a dry chemical system installed under the exhaust hood above the 

range, 2) a wet chemical system installed under the exhaust hood above the range, and 3) 

a single automatic fire sprinkler installed in the kitchen. Although the best situation is a 

fully sprinklered residence in accordance with NFPA 13D, 13R, or 13 [16-18], systems of 

this type are out of the scope of this study due to the relatively high cost of retrofitting. 

Localized Suppression System Experiments and Results – Full-scale kitchen experiments 

were conducted in several kitchens in a vacant apartment building. The experiments 

were conducted to investigate the effectiveness of dry chemical and wet chemical kitchen 

hood fire extinguishing systems and single residential sprinklers. Under laboratory 

conditions, these technologies have demonstrated the ability to control or extinguish a 

range-top fire. In the series of experiments, both self-contained systems, one wet 

chemical and one dry chemical, were effective in extinguishing the cooking oil fire in a 

skillet. 

The concept of a single low flow residential sprinkler was tested, with both a pendant and 

sidewall configuration, and was found to control both the cooking oil fire and the 

appliance fire, despite shielding by the cabinets, while extinguishing the fire spread to the 

cabinets and walls. 

None of these solutions was perfect. The inexpensive (< $200) self-contained systems as 

well as the single sprinkler did not de-energize the range. There are UL listed 

suppression systems that also de-energize the appliance, but the installed cost is on the 

order of $1000. For the single sprinkler, the challenge for the homeowner/installer will 

be to assure that sufficient water pressure and flow are available to provide an adequate 

supply to the retro-fit sprinkler. 

Finally, the testing to date has only addressed a skillet fire. Recent experiments by 

Hamins at NIST, have shown that a 254 mm (10 in) pot with 102 mm (4 in) of corn oil 

has a significantly higher heat release rate than the 254 mm (10 in) skillet fire used to 

date. 
 7 

BREAKOUT GROUP RESULTS 

The unanalyzed results (poster board notes) of the breakout group discussions are located 

in Appendix 7. The results reflect more than just simple answers to the discussion 

questions. In some cases, the items listed are important points or questions raised through 

discussion within the breakout groups and, as such, may not be a direct answer to the 

original question at hand. As the discussions proceeded, it became clear that some items 

were relevant to multiple categories. 

Commonalities among the results of the two groups were apparent when the breakout 

groups reconvened. However, sometimes the same response was not always listed in 

exactly the same manner among both groups; e.g., education of consumers was 

considered in discussions surrounding three of the four categories. Therefore, the 

common ideas among groups are presented in general categories in Tables 1 through 4. 

The themes of the discussion revolved around four topic areas: prevention, suppression, 

research, and mass acceptance. 

Table 1. “What is needed to reduce losses from kitchen fires? Is it prevention?” 

Category Scope 

Education Provide education on hazards of kitchen fires generally and 

targeted to vulnerable groups specifically. 

Smoke Alarms Development of reliable alarms (lower false alarm rate) and 

placement in suitable locations. 

Insurance Industry Involvement of insurance industry to educate, and encourage 

residential prevention. 

Pre-ignition Detection and control of pre-ignition sources. 

Table 2. “What is needed to reduce losses from kitchen fires? Is it suppression?” 

Category Scope 

Commercialization Inexpensive, low or no maintenance suppression system that 

can be retrofitted at little installation cost. 

System characteristics Fast response time and automatic activation. 

Control of fire Reduce heat release rate until suppression is possible. 

De-Energization Stopping range top heat source enables suppression and 

reduces chance of re-ignition. 

Extinguishment Extinguishment, rather than control is needed to assure 

safety. 

Life safety Mitigate problem with little risk to life safety. 

Minimization of property 

damage Mitigate problem with little clean-up or damage. 
 8 

Table 3. “What are the prioritized research needs for kitchen fires?” 

Category Scope 

Incident data Focus more on appropriate incidents in a more timely 

manner. 

Human behavior Research international successes in educating consumers on 

safe practices. 

Characterization of various cooking and kitchen 

configurations to represent realistic scenarios. (In addition to 

current UL standards). 

Performance test 

development 

Evaluate currently available technologies. 

Examine new methods that may be more economical or 

easier to implement, or employ different mechanisms by 

Alternative technologies which they suppress fires. 

Specifically, research the applicability of low flow/low 

volume systems. 

Table 4. “What is needed to place effective retrofit systems into a significant number of 

homes? 

Category Scope 

Low Cost 

Low maintenance 

If systems are inexpensive, and low or no maintenance, 

consumers will be more encouraged to install them. 

Education Provide information to consumers on the effectiveness of 

retrofit systems. 

Legislative rulings Enact mandatory requirements to ensure use by consumers. 

Insurance/tax credits Encourage use by providing incentives similar to other 

safety improvements, e.g., security systems. 

Case study Install systems in a small community, e.g. elderly housing, 

to demonstrate effectiveness. 

Verify and correlate data Review incident data to validate findings and provide 

confidence in data. 

 

Prioritization 

After the group reports, the attendees were asked to prioritize the topics listed in Tables 1 

though 4, that the attendees felt were most critical to address. The responses from each 

group were considered and listed, so that the attendees could vote on the issues they felt 

were most important. Attendees were grouped by their closest affiliation, either with 1) 

the fire service, or 2) standards, codes, testing and research organizations, or 3) the fire 

protection industry.*

 Each organization received 10 votes. It should be noted that some 

organizational representatives chose not to participate in the voting or did not use all of 

their votes. 

In Figures 1 through 4, the votes by each representative group are presented. Figure 1 

 

*

 Representatives from CPSC, NIST, and USFA did not vote. 
 9 

displays the four prevention topics that were voted on. As a whole, the group found the 

development of methods and equipment to detect a potentially hazardous condition on the 

range and then control it, to be just as important as focusing educational efforts on highrisk populations for a specific fire hazard. The next item addresses the use of improved 

methods of smoke detection and alarm, as well as improved knowledge of appropriate 

locations either within the kitchen or adjacent to the kitchen. The last topic showed 

support for the involvement of the insurance industry in the prevention/education process. 

Figure 2 addresses the seven suppression topics that were voted on. Again, there was a 

tie for the most votes. Mass acceptance or commercialization was found to be equally 

important as controlling the fire. The votes support the need for an effective low cost, 

low flow, low maintenance, easy to install system as the key to having a large number of 

units installed in residences. There was not a significant distinction between controlling 

the fire and life safety within the work group. Fire control was considered as the ability of 

the system to mitigate the hazard from the fire as opposed to life safety which was 

considered as enabling additional time to escape. De-energizing the range at the time of a 

suppression system activation and complete extinguishment of the fire had an equal 

number of votes. It was mentioned that all of the systems listed in accordance to UL 

300A include a mechanism to de-energize the range, in order to prevent re-ignition. 

In the area of research, Figure 3 shows that the votes were split over 7 topics. The desire 

to have a better understanding of the circumstances of kitchen fires to enable targeted 

education and enable identification of cost effective solutions were the most popular. 

The next three topics involved developing and or assessing the performance of 

technologies that are or could be used in residential kitchen fire suppression systems. 

The 5th and 6th topics involve analyzing incident data, cooking technologies and 

arrangements, protection options, and people’s interaction with them to find solutions to 

the kitchen fire problem. The last topic identifies a need to further examine UL 300A. 

The last figure shows a vote split among 7 topics. Mass acceptance is another way of 

describing consumer appeal. Two of the top three topics address low cost and low 

maintenance. These were supported by comments of ease of installation and the fact that 

the systems should be reliable. Educating the public on the causes of cooking fires was 

the 2nd most popular topic and tied into two other topics of verifying and analyzing the 

data via a case study. The data piece not only extends to preventing the cause of the 

cooking fire but also developing data on the performance of range-top fire protection 

systems, perhaps with a case study or demonstration project in an environment with a 

higher risk of cooking fires. The 4th and 5th topics address mandating range top 

suppression systems and providing incentives to encourage the purchase and installation 

of such systems, respectively. Two votes were cast supporting the idea that a legislative 

requirement would be needed to compel the installation of fire protection systems in 

residences. 
 10 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Detect & control preignition Target education –

population and hazard

Combination smoke alarms Insurance industry

involvement

NUMBER OF VOTES

Industry

Standards

Fire

Figure 1. Prevention topic vote distribution. 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Mass

Acceptance

Control of fire Life safety DeenergizationExtinguishment System

characteristics

Property

damage

minimization

NUMBER of VOTES

Industry

Standards

Fire

Figure 2. Suppression topic vote distribution. 
 11 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Improved

incident data

Low Flow/Low

volume

Performance

of current

technologies

Alternative

technologies

(mist, single

nozzle)

Characterize

hazard

scenarios

Human

Behavior

Test

development

(in addition to

UL 300A)

Number of Votes

Industry

Standards

Fire

Figure 3. Research topic vote distribution. 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Low Cost Education Low

maintenance

Legislative

rulings

Insurance/tax

credits

Case study Verify and

correlate data

Number of Votes

Industry

Standards

Fire

Figure 4. Mass acceptance vote distribution. 
 12 

Table 5. Priorities by affiliation 

Topic Area 

Fire 

Service 

Standards Industry Total 

Prevention 11 7 11 29

Suppression 8 9 11 28

Research 11 4 8 23

Mass Acceptance 8 9 7 24

Total 38 29 37 104

Table 5 summarizes the voting in terms of general topic and organization/group 

affiliation. The votes cast for topics related to prevention and suppression indicate that 

the importance is split between how to address the problem of kitchen cooking fires. 

Research and mass acceptance of the systems were closely behind and earned almost 

equal importance. 

The fire service community placed a high priority on both prevention and research, while 

determining that suppression and mass acceptance of retrofit systems had a lower priority 

level. Within the prevention topics, they were more interested in consumers using smoke 

detectors than reacting to pre-ignition conditions. Among the research topics, their 

priorities were evenly spread. Understandably, within the suppression topic, the first 

responder votes indicated that the systems should be able to control the fire. 

The standards, codes, testing and research entities attached equal importance to 

suppression as on mass acceptance of the technology for their first choice. Prevention 

topics held the second level of priority by only two votes. 

The fire protection industry representatives revealed that prevention and suppression 

issues were most important. Research topics and mass acceptance shared a similar 

priority. Education as a form of prevention ranked high in their priorities. For the 

suppression and mass acceptance topics, industry prioritized economically feasible 

systems. 

Examining the votes across the categories indicated that low cost systems are important 

to all groups. The economic benefits of systems may drive the final decision of a 

consumer to purchase the product. 

Education of the public on the general hazard of kitchen fires and methods of suppression 

emerged as an important topic to the attendees. 
 13 

SUMMARY 

The wrap up discussions delineated a two-phase approach: short-term and long-term 

efforts. Each group’s strategic focus contained some piece of the four areas: prevention, 

suppression, research and mass acceptance. 

In the short term, education was viewed as the most important approach to immediately 

attack this problem. The education should be focused on prevention and a near term 

study should be conducted to identify the capabilities and limitations of existing, 

commercially available suppression technologies. The results of this study could be used 

as part of the education/prevention effort, as well as potentially serving to aid in mass 

acceptance by the consumer. Incorporating incident data was also considered critical to 

the success of the education effort. 

In the long term, the need for a low cost, low maintenance, low pressure, low volume, 

retrofit system was the priority. A follow on was the need for appropriate standards to 

address those systems, one of the groups referred to it as “15K”. It was re-iterated that 

the cost of an effective suppression system was of high importance with regard to 

technological advancements, because low cost will enable mass acceptance. 

FUTURE WORK 

This Workshop was a first attempt to gather representatives from many sectors interested 

in the kitchen fire problem with the goal of identifying barriers that impede advances in 

the reduction of residential losses in kitchen fires. Participants included representatives 

from the fire service, codes and standards organizations, testing and research laboratories, 

the fire protection industry, and government agencies. The Workshop provided an 

opportunity for participants to learn from each other and to work together to guide future 

developments. 

This Workshop provided a strong foundation for follow-on efforts among government 

agencies, the fire service, and the private sector groups to: 

• Examine and refine methods by which incident data is received. 

• Further identify and refine research needs to reduce fire losses. 

• Evaluate existing performance standards. 

• Enhance current public education materials. 

Work is ongoing to evaluate existing range top fire suppression systems through research 

at NIST, USFA, and CPSC. 
 14 

REFERENCES 

[1] Hall, John. R.. “Home Cooking Fire Patterns and Trends”, National Fire Protection 

Association, Quincy, MA, July 2006. 

[2] Nicholson, John, “Watch what you heat”, NFPA Journal, Vol. 100, No. 5, National 

Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, September/October 2006. 

[3] Johnsson, E.L., “Study of Technology for Detecting Pre-Ignition Conditions of 

Cooking –Related Fires Associated with Electric and Gas Ranges and Cooktops, 

Phase I Report”, National Institute of Standards and Technology, NISTIR 5729, 

October 1995. 

[4] Johnsson, E.L., “Study of Technology for Detecting Pre-Ignition Conditions of 

Cooking –Related Fires Associated with Electric and Gas Ranges and Cooktops, 

Final Report”, National Institute of Standards and Technology, NISTIR 5950, 

January 1998. 

[5] Lim, Han, “Study of Technology for Detecting Pre-Ignition Conditions of Cooking 

Related Fires Associated with Electric Ranges: Phase IV – Experimental Control 

System Feasibility Demonstration”, Consumer Product Safety Commission, February 

2000. 

[6] Energy International Inc. “Development of a Control System for Preventing Food 

Ignition on Gas Ranges”, April 2000. 

[7] Arthur D. Little, Inc. “An Evaluation of Sensor and Control Technologies to Address 

Cooking Fires on Glass Ceramic Cooktops”, February, 2002. 

[8] American Housing Survey for the United States: 2005. U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Washington DC, Current Housing Reports Series H 

150/05, August 2006. 

[9] 29th Annual Portrait of the U.S. Appliance Industry, Appliance Magazine, September 

2006. 

[10] McGill, B.D., Centrone, J.A., Stepetic, T.J., Walker, J.L., Sartan, J. V. “Stove-top 

Automatic Fire-Extinguishing Device: Performance Evaluations”, Final Report. 

March 1987-August 1987. 

[11] Arthur D. Little, Inc. “Technical, Practical and Manufacturing Feasibility of 

 Technologies to Address Surface Cooking Fires”, May 2001. 

[12] Advanced Mechanical Technology Inc., “Final Report on Identification and 

Evaluation of Temperature Sensors for Preventing Fire on Smooth Top Electric 

Ranges”, Watertown, MA., July 28, 2003. 

[13] USFA Research Projects. U.S. Fire Administration, 30 September 2006. 

 <http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/research/other/cooking-mitigation.shtm> 

[14] Subject 300A, Outline of Investigation for Extinguishing System Units for 

 Residential Range Top Cooking Surfaces, Issue 2. Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 

 Northbrook, IL., June 1991. 

[15] UL Online Certifications Directory. Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 13 March 

 2006. <http://database.ul.com/cgibin/XYZ/cgifind/LISEXT/1FRAME/srches.html> 

[16] NFPA 13D, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One- and Two- 

 Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes. National Fire Protection Association, 

 Quincy, MA. 2007 ed. 
 15 

[17] NFPA 13R, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Residential 

 Occupancies up to and Including Four Stories in Height. National Fire Protection 

 Association, Quincy, MA. 2007 ed. 

[18] NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems. National Fire 

 Protection Association, Quincy, MA. 2007 ed. 
 16 

APPENDIX 1- WORKSHOP AGENDA 

Workshop on Residential Kitchen Fire Suppression; April 11, 2006 

8:00 - 8:30 - Registration (Building 224, Room B245, NIST) 

 

8:30 Welcome - William Grosshandler, Chief, Fire Research Division, BFRL, NIST

8:45 Opening Remarks – Workshop Goals and Logistics, Anthony Hamins, NIST 

8:55 Self Introductions 

9:00 The Residential Fire Problem: A Statistical Look at Kitchen Fires - Marty 

Ahrens, NFPA 

9:30 The Residential Fire Problem: A Fire Chief’s Perspective - Michael Love, 

IAFC 

9:45 Break 

10:00 Residential Self Contained Fire Suppression Systems Tests at UL - Kerry 

Bell, UL 

10:30 Overview of NIST/USFA Residential Suppression Project - Dan 

Madrzykowski, NIST

11:00 Charge Work Groups - Dan Madrzykowski 

Purpose and Guidelines for the Working Sessions ( NIST) 

What is needed to reduce losses from kitchen fires? 

• Prevention 

• Suppression 

• What are the prioritized research needs for kitchen fires? 

• What is needed to get effective retrofit systems into a significant number of homes? 

Noon– Working Lunch, Pick-up lunch, Bldg 224/Room B245, return to break-out room.

3:00 -3:15 Break - Reconvene in B245 for Group Reports 

3:15-4:30 Group Reports 

4:30 Summary 

5:00 Adjourn for the Day 
 17 

APPENDIX 2 - LIST OF ATTENDEES 

Name Organization 

Ahrens, John P. Fairfax City FD 

Ahrens, Marty NFPA 

Andres, John Kidde 

Bell, Kerry Underwriters Laboratories 

Bender, John F. International Fire Marshals Association 

Brown, Larry National Association Home Builders 

Bryner, Nelson NIST 

Chamblin, William Life Mist Technologies 

Dalton, James, F. National Fire Sprinkler Association 

Goss, Kay, C. Fail Safe Safety Systems 

Gulbinas, Ed Ontario OFM 

Hamins, Anthony NIST 

Kelly, Robert Manufactured Housing Institute 

Khanna, Rohit CPSC 

Kuchnicki, Dick ICC 

Lawler, Meredith USFA/DHS 

Love, Michael MCFRS 

Madrzykowski, Daniel NIST 

Maruskin, M. Larry, USFA/DHS 

Mehta, Shivani CPSC 

Merck, Richard E. MCFRS 

Morris, Wayne Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers 

Neily, Margaret CPSC 

Peterson, Patrick Williams-Pyro 

Pitts, Bill NIST 

Rouse, Paul Twenty-First Century Fire 

Stell, Andy Williams-Pyro 

Stratton, Woodrow USFA/DHS 

Trotta, Andrew CPSC 

Weintraub, Preston Williams-Pyro 
 18 

 

APPENDIX 3 - Presentation by Marty Ahrens, NFPA 

 

1

Home Kitchen Fires

Reported to US Fire Departments

Marty Ahrens

Residential Fire Suppression Research Needs Workshop

NIST

April 11, 2006

2

To Be Covered

♦ Data sources

♦ Context

♦ Kitchen fire trends

♦ Causes of kitchen fires

♦ Time of day

♦ Extent of flame damage

♦ Method of extinguishment

♦ Victim information

♦ Age

♦ Activity when injured

♦ Contributing factors

♦ CPSC Data
 19 

3

Data Sources

♦ National estimates derived from 

♦ USFA’s National Fire Incident Reporting System 

(NFIRS)

♦ NFPA’s annual fire department experience survey

♦ Changes in Version 5.0 of NFIRS pose 

challenges

♦ 64% of 5.0 kitchen fires were confined cooking fires

♦ Homes include one-and two-family dwellings, 

manufactured housing and apartments

4

Area of Origin

Leading Areas of Origin in Home Fires

1999-2002 Annual Averages

11%

17%

14%

12%

25%

33%

29%

26%

16%

6%

12%

34%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Living room, family

room or den

Bedroom

Kitchen, incl. confined

cooking fire

Fires

Civilian deaths

Civilian injuries

Property damage
 20 

5

Size of the Kitchen Fire Problem

♦ Annual averages for reported US home fires 

starting in the kitchen in 1999-2002, including 

confined cooking fires

♦ 125,500 fires

♦ 460 civilian deaths

♦ 5,090 civilian injuries

♦ $771 million in direct property damage

6

Home Kitchen Fires by Year

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

808284

86

8890

929496

98

'00'02

Confined cooking fires

Kitchen fires
 21 

7

Home Kitchen Fire Deaths by Year

680

730

600

710

580

700

630

740

670

560

520

580

500520

650

530560

520

410

550

360

660

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

'00

'02

8

Home Kitchen 

Civilian Fire Injuries by Year

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 '00 '02

Kitchen fire injuries Confined cooking fire injuries
 22 

9

Percent Reduction 1980-2002

48% 51%

32%

10%

29%

47%

12%

25%

Fires Civilian

deaths

Civilian

injuries

Adjusted

property

damage

All home fires

Home kitchen fires

10

Causes of Home Kitchen Fires

1999-2002 Annual Averages

2%

2%

1%

2%

10%

67%

4%

8%

2%

8%

0%

60%

1%

2%

2%

2%

25%

54%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Heating equipment

Smoking materials

Electrical distribution equipment or

lighting

Intentional

Confined cooking fire

Identified cooking equipment

Fires

Civilian deaths

Civilian injuries
 23 

11

Identified Cooking Equipment: 

1999-2002 (5.0 only)

Microwave 

oven

3%

Toaster or 

toaster 

oven

4% Oven or 

rotisserie

10%

Other 

cooking 

equipment

6%

Range or 

cooktop

77%

12

Home Kitchen Fires by Alarm Time

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

12:00 a.m.

2:00 a.m.

4:00 a.m.

6:00 a.m.

8:00 a.m.

10:00 a.m.

Noon

2:00 p.m

4:00 p.m

6:00 p.m

8:00 p.m

10:00 p.m

Fires

Civilian deaths

Civilian injuries

Property damage
 24 

13

Extent of Flame Damage

Home Kitchen Fires by Extent of Flame Damage 

1999-2002 Annual Averages

2%

11%

7%

48%

23%

12%

47%

11%

21%

9%

1%

6%

3%

29%

37%

25%

10%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Extended beyond structure

Confined to building

Confined to floor

Confined to room

Confined to object

Confined or contained fire

Fires

Civilian deaths

Civilian injuries

14

Extent of Flame Damage

Home Kitchen Fires

29% 62%

9%

"Confined

fire" or

confined

to object 

Beyond

object but

confined

to room

Extended

beyond

room of

origin

Home Kitchen Fire 

Deaths

70%

21%

9%
 25 

15

Method of Extinguishment

1994-1998 Annual Averages

Home Kitchen Fires

3%

33%

1%

17%

31%

15%

1%

84%

0%

2%

5%

8%

4%

22%

0%

16%

31%

26%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unclassified

Fire department hose

Sprinkler

Portable extinguisher

Make-shift aids

Self-extinguished Fires

Civilian deaths

Civilian injuries

16

Automatic Suppression Systems

Sprinkler Operation (When Present) 

in Home Kitchen Fires

1994-1998 Annual Averages

Fire too 

small to 

operate

66%

Operated

30%

Should 

have 

operated 

but didn't

4%
 26 

17

Smoke Alarm Status (5.0 only)

Smoke Alarm Status in Home Cooking Fires

1999-2002 Annual Averages

3%

46%

52%

0%

73%

27%

2%

36%

62%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Fire too small to operate

No operating smoke alarm

Operating smoke alarm

Fires

Civilian deaths

Civilian injuries

18

Home Kitchen Fire Victims 

by Age: 99-02 Annual Averages

9%

6%

8%

14%

11%

30%

18%

21%

18%

10%

7%

4% 4%

2%

12% 13%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

<5 5-9 10-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

Civilian deaths Civilian injuries
 27 

19

Activity at Time of Injury

Victim's Activity in Home Kitchen Fires: 

1999-2002 Annual Averages

4%

4%

58%

11%

5%

14%

13%

1%

5%

10%

10%

14%

23%

43%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Rescue attempt

Irrational action

Fire control

Unclassified activity

Unable to act

Escaping

Sleeping

Civilian deaths

Civilian injuries

20

Human Factors Contributing 

(NFIRS 5.0 data only) 

1%

2%

5%

3%

8%

18%

8%

4%

11%

4%

14%

3%

0%

1%

2%

2%

4%

16%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

Physically disabled

Possibly mentally disabled

Possibly impaired by alcohol or

drugs

Age was a factor

Asleep

Unattended or unsupervised person

Fires

Civilian deaths

Civilian injuries
 28 

21

CPSC Data

♦ Ranges or ovens were involved in an estimated 

11,700 (24%) of the 48,200 residential fire injuries 

seen at hospital emergency rooms

♦ Fire service attended in 56% of injuries

♦ NEISS data for 7/1/02-6/30/03

♦ http://www.cpsc.gov/library/neissfire.pdf

♦ Range fire investigations10/94-7/95

♦ 75% began with food

♦ 63% of food ignitions occurred when someone was frying

♦ http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/Foia99/os/range.pdf

22

Summary

♦ Kitchens are the leading area of origin for fires 

and injuries

♦ Ranges or cook tops were leading equipment 

involved

♦ Flame damage extended beyond room of origin 

in only 10% of fires

♦ 58% of those injured were trying to fight the fire 

themselves

♦ Unclear on their techniques
 29 

APPENDIX 4 – Presentation by Michael Love, IAFC 

International Association of Fire Chiefs 

Fire and Life Safety Section 

April 11, 2006 - Workshop on Residential Kitchen Fire Suppression 

Representing International Association of Fire Chiefs – Fire and Life Safety Section. 

Mike Love, Division Chief and Fire Marshal with Montgomery County (MD) Fire and 

Rescue Service. 

I have been a member of IAFC for 11 years and present our position statement in regard 

to the problem of kitchen fires in un-sprinklered residences. 

Kitchen fires are a significant piece of the overall residential fire problem as reported by 

data presented here today by NFPA. 

The United States Fire Administration in the document Structure Cooking Fires: 

Topical Fire Research Series, Volume 5: Issue 6 August 2005 reported that in 2002 just 

under 40% of all structure fires were caused by cooking; with cooking the highest fire 

cause. The same report listed cooking as the leading cause of fire related injuries in 

structures at 25%. Approximately 75% of firefighter injuries occur in residential 

structures. 

Fire sprinklers are effective at controlling residential kitchen fires with NFPA reporting 

from data collected between 1999 and 2002 that a single sprinkler operating effectively in 

88% of all kitchen fires. 

Data supports a high effectiveness of a single sprinkler activating in residential kitchen 

fires. 

With this high rate of effectiveness experienced on the leading cause of residential 

structure fires we assert that successful kitchen sprinkler activations would further 

promote the use of NFPA 13D sprinkler systems which is a reoccurring and highly 

supported goal in the fire and life safety industry. 

Another assertion would offer that there needs to be an effective, low cost retrofit 

solution that would directly reduce the number of kitchen fires. Without such an approach 

the occurrence of residential kitchen fires is unlikely to reduce much. 

There is sprinkler industry interest in promoting 13D retrofit programs. Perhaps the 

sprinkler industry would also offer a kitchen only system? Compared to the NFPA 13D 

system, a kitchen retrofit should be a very simple installation. 
 30 

Despite the increase in communities adopting NFPA 13D residential sprinkler 

requirements in new residences these installations will not have an appreciable affect on 

the number of kitchen fires. There needs to be a way to achieve critical increases in the 

number of sprinkler retrofits. 

There is evidence that fire sprinkler technology can address the kitchen fire problem and 

every effort should be made to assure a nationwide kitchen retrofit program with full 

support of the sprinkler industry. 

My challenge to you/us today is to keep an open mind and creatively come up with ideas 

that we can employ to reduce the impact of the highly preventable kitchen fire. If that 

means coming up with ideas for new or unproven non-conventional means of 

extinguishing fires before they can either spread, progress to flashover or directly injure 

people this would satisfy our mission. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address you with the International Association of Fire 

Chiefs – Fire and Life Safety Section’s point of view.
 31 

APPENDIX 5 – Presentation by Kerry M. Bell, UL 

Residential Cooking 

Surface Fire Protection

Presentation on UL Listing of SelfContained Residential Range Top Fire 

Protection Systems

April 11, 2006 NIST Workshop

Kerry M. Bell, P. E. 

Outline of Presentation

3⁄4Brief Overview of UL

3⁄4Requirement development and publication

3⁄4Hardware Tests

3⁄4Fire Tests

3⁄4Product Listings

3⁄4Summary
 32 

Key Elements of UL Listing

• Qualification -- UL investigates product to 

determine that the product complies with the 

applicable requirements which are generally 

described in a UL Standard.

• Surveillance -- UL field representatives regularly 

visit the manufacturing facilities to inspect 

product, production procedures/records and select 

samples for additional performance at UL. 

UL by the Numbers in 2004

• 5722 employees

• 58 laboratory testing locations

• 125 inspection centers 

• 97 countries with UL customers

• 102,305 product evaluations

• 552,377 surveillance visits

• 19 billion UL marks appearing on products

• 125--average number of UL certified products in a 

home
 33 

Development of Product Listings 

and Requirements

3⁄4Draw requirements from existing 

standards

3⁄4Develop new requirements

General Approach to 

Investigating New Products

Levels of Published 

UL Requirements

3⁄4ANSI/UL Standards (>50% of total UL 

standards) – Standard subject to voting by a 

balanced Standards Technical Panel (STP). UL has 

one vote in STP.

3⁄4UL Standards - Standard developed by process 

whereby input is sought from broad spectrum of 

constituents. Final requirements determined by UL.

3⁄4UL Outlines of Investigation – Requirements 

based upon a single or a few product investigations. 
 34 

Applicable Standards

3⁄4Fire Tests – Subject 300A, Outline of 

Investigation for Extinguishing System 

Units for Residential Range Top Cooking 

Surfaces

3⁄4Cylinder Assembly – ANSI/UL 1254, PreEngineered Dry Chemical Extinguishing 

System Units and ANSI/UL 8, Water Based 

Agent Fire Extinguishers

Requirements for Residential Range Top

Fire Extinguishing System Units

Applicable Standards

3⁄4Heat Responsive Links – ANSI/UL 33, 

Heat Responsive Links for Fire Protection 

Service. 

3⁄4Detectors (if provided) – ANSI/UL521, 

Heat Detectors for Fire Protective Signaling 

Systems

Requirements of Residential Range Top

Fire Extinguishing Systems
 35 

Applicable Standards

3⁄4Audible Signal Appliances (if provided) –

ANSI/UL 464, Audible Signal Appliances

3⁄4Control Units (if provided) – ANSI/UL 

864 – Control Units and Accessories for 

Fire Alarm Systems. 

Requirements of Residential Range Top

Fire Extinguishing Systems

Hardware Tests 

3⁄4Exposure to cooking oils

3⁄410 day corrosion

3⁄4Extinguishing agent compatibility tests with 

system components

3⁄4Elevated temperature exposures

3⁄4Aging tests of polymeric materials

3⁄4Aging tests of elastomeric materials

3⁄4Stress corrosion cracking tests

Exposures
 36 

Hardware Tests 

3⁄4One year leakage 

3⁄4Hydrostatic strength at least 4 times working 

pressure

3⁄4Pressure gauge functional and strength tests

3⁄4Mounting device strength

3⁄4Operation and extinguishing agent distribution 

tests

Leakage, Operation and Strength

Fire Tests 

Fire Testing Conducted in Accordance with 

Subject 300A, Outline of Investigation for 

Extinguishing System Units for Residential 

Range Top Cooking Surfaces
 37 

Fire Tests (Cont.)

Fire Tests Consider System End Use 

Limitations Including:

3⁄4Range of nozzle locations

3⁄4Range of heat responsive link locations

3⁄4Minimum and maximum nozzle discharge rates 

(established by using minimum and maximum 

operating pressures)

Fire Tests (Cont.)

Fire Tests Consider Both Gas and Electric 

Ranges:

3⁄4Manufacturer can request to be limited to only gas 

or electric range top.

3⁄4Maximum area of cooking surface is tested and 

specified in manufacturer’s instructions.

3⁄4Exhaust hood is installed above cooking surface. 
 38 

Fire Tests (Cont.)

Fire Tests Consider Two Different Cooking 

Oils:

3⁄4Vegetable Oil 

3⁄4Peanut Oil

Fire Tests (Cont.)

Fire Tests Consider Four Different 

Cooking Vessels:

3⁄413-14 inch diameter by 2 in. high skillet with 1 inch 

of oil

3⁄410 inch diameter and 7 inch high steel pan with 4 

inches of oil 

3⁄44-5 inch diameter by 2 inch high sauce type pan 

with 1 inch of oil

3⁄4A 3 inch high steel pan having length and width 

dimensions equal to dimensions of cooking range 

surface with 1⁄4 inch of oil
 39 

Fire Tests (Cont.)

Fire Tests (Cont.)

General Test Method:

3⁄4Extinguishment tests -- Unit pressurized to its lowest 

operating pressure and nozzles are installed at the 

maximum distance above cooking surface (all pan sizes 

are used for these tests)

3⁄4Splash/Extinguishment tests -- Unit is pressurized to 

its highest operating pressure and nozzles are at the 

minimum distance above cooking surface in an 

orientation considered to create splashing of hot oil 

(Both 14 and 5-inch diameter pans are used for these 

tests)
 40 

Fire Tests (Cont.)

General Test Method:

3⁄4Each range, test vessel and oil type is tested (13 fire 

tests referenced in Subject 300A)

3⁄4Test vessel positioned in a location considered to be 

most challenging to achieve extinguishment

3⁄4Test vessel with specified oil depth is heated with 

stove adjusted to its maximum heat output unit autoignition occurs

3⁄4Tests conducted with units operated automatically 

and after a minimum of a 1 minute free burn

Fire Tests (Cont.)

General Test Criteria:

1) Flame in cooking vessel must be completely 

extinguished

2) Re-ignition of oil in test vessel must not occur 

within 5 minutes

3) Oil temperature must decrease below its autoignition temperature
 41 

UL Listing Information

3⁄4 Four companies are currently authorized to apply UL to 

mark:

o Badger Fire Protection

o Pem-All Fire Extinguisher Corp.

o Smartx Inc.

o Twenty First Century International Fire Equipment Co.

3⁄4 List of UL Listed equipment is available on our on-line 

certifications directory at UL’s web site www.ul.com

Listing Category: “Residential Range

Top Extinguisher Units (GMCH)

Typical Features of UL Listed 

Extinguisher Units

3⁄4Wet chemical solution commonly used as extinguishing

agent

3⁄4Provisions for shutdown of fuel or energy to the range

3⁄4Heat responsive links typically used to detect fire

3⁄4Temperature rating of heat responsive links is typically

212 to 280 °F

3⁄4Provisions are provided for local alarm
 42 

Typical Extinguisher Unit 

Typical Extinguisher Unit 
 43 

Typical Extinguisher Unit 

Typical Extinguisher Unit 
 44 

Typical Extinguisher Unit 

Typical Extinguisher Unit 
 45 

Limitations on End Use 

Application

3⁄4Large variety of kitchen range top 

configurationssuch as island range tops 

with overhead hoods and island range tops 

with downdraft ventilation.

3⁄4Current units are not designed for all types 

of cooking surface arrangements

Summary

3⁄4 UL Listed residential range top extinguisher 

units are subjected to a rather rigorous series of 

hardware as well as fire tests

3⁄4 These units are very effective in extinguishing 

fires occurring on range tops

3⁄4 These units may not be suitable for protecting 

all kitchen cooking surface arrangements

3⁄4 On an on-going basis, UL is receptive to 

receiving suggestions for enhancing existing 

requirements for these units 
 46 

APPENDIX 6 – Presentation by Daniel Madrzykowski, NIST 

Localized Residential 

Fire Suppression Systems

• Kitchen fire hazard 

characterization

• Investigate “passive” 

and “active” fire 

protection systems 

• Full-scale 

demonstrations/ 

evaluations

Sponsors: USFA, HUD & NIST

Kitchen Fire Hazard 

Characterization

• Cooking Oil Fires

– Canola

– Corn

– Olive

– Peanut

– Sunflower

– Vegetable

– Heptane
 47 

Kitchen Fire Hazard 

Characterization

• Appliance Fires

– Coffeemakers

– Toasters

• Measurements

– Heat release rate

– Heat flux

– Mass loss

Coffeemaker Heat Release Rate

210s 0 kW 300s 5 kW 360s 10 kW

460s 25 kW 560s 40 kW 610s 40 kW
 48 

Passive Fire Protection

• Spacing

• Coverings

• Materials

• Coatings

– Intumescent Paints

• Significantly reduced 

HRR in bench scale 

testing

Intumescent Paint Results

• Full-scale fire 

experiments

– Limited delay of fire 

spread

– Similar measured 

temperatures in 

kitchen with and 

without intumescent

paint

– Paint delaminated in 

some cases
 49 

Active Fire Protection

• Range Hood Systems

– Dry Chemical

– Wet Chemical

• Localized Suppression Systems

– Single low flow sprinkler in kitchen

• Pendent

• Sidewall

Dry Chemical Results

• Fire extinguished

• Flames need to 

impinge on device to 

activate

• Pilot out

• Area protected 

limited to stove top 
 50 

Splash

Wet Chemical Results

• Fire extinguished within 

seconds of auto-ignition 

prior to full pan fire 

development.

• Potential for re-ignition

• Protected area limited to 

stove top
 51 

Single Sprinkler Results

• Fire suppressed

• Larger fire required to 

activate sprinklers 

compared to range 

units

• Protects entire 

kitchen area

Single Sprinkler – Small Kitchen
 52 

Single Sprinkler – Large Kitchen
 53 
 54 

No Sprinkler in Kitchen

• A workshop of interested stakeholders –April 11, 2006

• Technical challenges:

- review and evaluate UL 300A

- compare method with a representative hazard. 

- examine repeatability

- examine suppression systems

II. Research Plan for FY2006
 55 

• Conduct research that will promote acceptance of retrofit fire 

suppression technologies for residential applications. 

• As the use of localized suppression systems increase in 

existing housing, the number of fatalities and injuries due to 

kitchen cooking fires would be expected to decrease.

III. Impact

UL 300A Fire Characterization

• 14 test scenarios including

- Pan A – 4” dia., 2” deep, SS, 1” of oil

- Pan B – 13” dia., 2” deep, cast iron, 1” of oil

- Pan C – 10” dia, 7” deep, SS, 4” of oil

- Pan D – 3” deep, size of range top, 1⁄4” of oil

• Oil: Vegetable; Peanut

• Stove: electric; gas

• Measurements:

– heat release rate 

– heat flux (vertical and horizontal)

– pan temperature (bottom, middle, top)

– ignition time

– flame height

– Stove mass flow
 56 

Test 1, March-7-2006

Pan C– 100 mm

187 g Corn Oil (25mm)

Time to Ign ~ 18 min

Peak HRR ~ 70 kW 

Ignition 9 s 60 s

75 s 180 s

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1600 1800 2000 2200

Time after Energization of Stove Top (s)

Heat Release Rate (kW)

25 mm of corn oil in 

10 cm pan

auto-ignition

at 1750 s

Pan Diam Time to HRR max Oil Stove

(in) Ignition (min) (kW) Type Type

4” pan 18 70 to 100 corn electric

4” pan 18 65 peanut gas

10” pot 78 400 corn electric

10” pot 145 peanut gas

13” skillet >93* - peanut gas

13” skillet 61 >100** peanut electric

13” skillet 57 >100** corn electric

18 x 21 pan 24 >100** corn gas

* Ignition not observed

** stopped before

maximum achieved

UL 300A Fire Characterization

Oil vapor from 18” x 21” pan

2 min after ignition

of oil in 10” pot
 57 

What’s Next

Your Task

• What is needed to reduce losses from 

kitchen fires?

– Prevention?

– Suppression?

– What research is needed?

– What is needed to enable mass marketing of 

retro-fit kitchen suppression systems?
 58 

Process

• Work in break-out groups 

• Develop priority items in small groups 

• Report out to whole group

• Consolidate Priority Items (10-12 Total)

Voting

• Each organization represented has 10 

votes (dots)

• Red dots – Fire Service

• Blue dots – Manufacturers

• Green dots - Organizations
 59 

APPENDIX 7 - Notes from breakout groups 

The unanalyzed transcription of notes from the two breakout group discussions (red 

group and yellow group) are given below. 

Notes from the Red Team

Prevention

 Education 

 TV advertisements 

 Fire blankets 

 Resource materials 

 Define objectives- Prevent ignition 

 Technology 

 Safety element of stove 

 Thermostatically controlled fryers 

 Motion detector shut-off 

 Auto-ignition temperature of oils 

 Smoke detector reliability/effectiveness 

 Detect and control pre-ignition conditions 

 Smart stoves 

 Audible alarms 

 Kitchen design 

Suppression

 Blankets 

 Fire retardant treated terry cloth 

 Automatic systems; avoid manual fire fighting 

 Manual suppression; effective systems needed 

 Auto-activation, time dependant 

 Localized sprinkler 

 Island, new kitchen designs, system research & development 

 Objectives 

 Property protection 

 Safety 

 Alarm with activation system 

 Localized systems 

 Fast response (90 seconds or less) 

 Cost 

 De-energization avoids re-ignition 

 Installation, self or professional 

 Maintenance 

 Commercialization (cost, aesthetics, ease of installation) 

 Minimize property damage 

 Local and general suppression (sprinkler) complement each other 

Research

 Behavior and human factor – what will it take to change behavior 

 International/cultural differences and successes. 

 School children (Japanese model) 
 60 

 Performance sprinkler/other devices 

 Location of detectors and activation devices 

 Longevity 

 Maintenance 

 Disable stove 

 Auto-test 

 Visual indicators ( Pressure gauge) 

 Cost 

 Technologies 

 Stove Top design (ceramic stoves) 

 Cost effective technologies 

 Water Mist (UL paper), high Pressure 

 Residential portable wet-chemical (potassium citrate) – shock hazard, post 

discharge? 

 Test Development 

 UL300A – is de-energization necessary? 

 Microwave hoods, no hood, down draft, cabinets 

 UL33, is 75 oF too large at 16 inches above stove? 

 Reliability testing developments: grease, cleaning, temperature exposure. 
 61 

Notes from Yellow team

Prevention 

 Targeted public education, specific for kitchen fires 

 Recommend type of smoke detector and location; ionization detectors 

 Re-new involvement of insurance industry 

Suppression 

 Retrofits that are low cost and low maintenance 

 Short term: use currently available systems 

 Long term: design low pressure/low volume systems. 

Research 

 Data – better and focused, an appropriate target group, more timely data 

 Residential “K” type extinguisher 

 Alternative technologies 

 Characterize different cooking configurations, trends, targeted group, 

protection, cost economic analysis. 

Mass Acceptance 

 Short term 

 Education on fires 

 Make fire service, consumers, etc, aware of the existence of systems. 

 Insurance/tax credits 

 Long term 

 Low cost/low maintenance systems 

 “15K” committee 

 Single nozzle 

 Specific hazard cook top 

 Retrofit only.