AlllDO TTDbE'l I ms

I PUBLICATIONS

NBSIR 80-2130

A Survey of Field Experience With

Smoke Detectors in Health Care

Facilities

Richard W. Bukowski and Sharon M. Istvan

Center for Fire Research

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

U.S. Department of Commerce

Washington, DC 20234

October 1 980

! 100

I .056

I 80-2130

! 1980

c. 2 <or: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Washington, DC 20201

0

Ubrmy, C41

A SURVEY OF FIELD EXPERIENCE WITH

NBSIR 80-2130 FEB 1 6 1981

M ace. C{tSMOKE DETECTORS IN HEALTH CARE

Richard W. Bukowski and Sharon M. Istvan

Center for Fire Research

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

U.S. Department of Commerce

Washington, DC 20234

October 1980

Final Report

Prepared for: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Washington, DC 20201

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Philip M. Klutznick, Secretary

Luther H. Hodges, Jr., Deputy Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Productivity. Technology, and Innovation

FACILITIES

J fc?

no, %’

'I U ‘ <7

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director
’ ^1

,‘if vv*

f fucaiH - ^ •-•’-

' i\

'V ,

• ?..\J

I '* :»ll|^aJ

>i ,..£ '. trot'H. jAiAorrA^
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF FIGURES iv

LIST OF TABLES iv

Abstract 1

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Purpose 1

2 . BACKGROUND 2

2.1 Previous Studies 2 2.2 Review of Code Requirements for Smoke Detectors in Health

Care Facilities 3

3. SURVEY METHOD - 4

3.1 Sampling and" Data Collection 4

3 . 2 Survey Form 5 3.3 Data Analysis Technique 5

4 . RESULTS 6

4 . 1 Data Received 6

4.2 Limitation of Results 6

5. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 7

5.1 Distribution of Alarms by Manufacturer and Model 7 5.2 Distribution of Alarms by Type of Detector 8 5.3 Distribution of Data by Detector Location 8

5.4 Maintenance 9 5.4.1 Cleaning 9

5.4.2 Testing 9

6. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 10

7. NEED FOR FURTHER DATA 11

8. REFERENCES 11

FIGURES 12-13

TABLES 3 4-2 2 APPENDIX A - A COMPLETE TABULATION OF THE RESULTS FROM THE SURVEY

QUESTIONS A1

iii
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Smoke detector survey form 12

Figure 2. Breakdown of forms received 13

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1.

Table 2

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9

Table 10.

Regional breakdown of fifty states . Coded responses to the survey questions

Number of forms and total number of detectors by

manufacturer . Summary of false and real alarm frequency by manufacturer

Summary of false and real alarm frequency by type of

detector

Distribution of detectors by location

Summary of false and real alarm frequency by location . . Percent of total detectors cleaned by various methods . . Summary of false and real alarm frequency by cleaning

method and cleaning frequency . . . Summary of false and real alarm frequency by testing

method and testing frequency

14

15

16

17

18

18

19

20

21

22

IV
A SURVEY OF FIELD EXPERIENCE WITH SMOKE DETECTORS

IN HEALTH CARE FACILITIES

Richard W. Bukowski and Sharon M. Istvan

Abstract

A survey of health care facilities in eight states was

conducted to gather data on experience with smoke detection

systems. Requested information included detector manufacturer

and model number, number of detectors and time in service,

detector locations, numbers of false and real alarms and the

methods and frequency of cleaning and testing the detectors.

The results of the survey indicate that about 70 percent of

the detectors were ionization type, and 30 percent were of the

photoelectric type. Fourteen percent of the total number of

detectors were single-station, battery-operated, residential-type

detectors, m.ost of which were installed in health care facilities

in only one of the eight states surveyed. Almost 80 percent of

the detectors were installed in corridors and the average age of

the detector installation was about five years. The detection

systems were found to experience approximately 14 false alarms

for each real fire detected with the highest false alarm rate

occurring in detectors installed in laundry areas, storage areas,

and kitchens. While over 88 percent of the systems were tested

at least annually (55 percent tested monthly), almost half (45.7

percent) were never cleaned. Almost 11 percent of the installed

systems were maintained under an outside service contract.

Key words: Detector location; false alarms; health care

facilities; hospitals; ionization detectors; maintenance; NFPA

101; nursing homes; photoelectric detectors; smoke detectors;

surveys

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

The National Bureau of Standards (NBS) , Center for Fire Research (CFR)

is currently engaged in a five-year experimental program sponsored by the

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to study fire protection

techniques for health care facilities. One of the major segments of this

program includes the conduct of full-scale experiments to obtain data on the

response of automatic detection and suppression systems to fires in a patient

room. While such experiments can provide important data on smoke detection

system performance in specific fire scenarios, they provide no data on how

detection systems perform under non-fire conditions. The best way to obtain

this type of data is by studying detection systems in actual installations.

As with all alarm systems, an effective fire detection system would

detect the outbreak of all hostile fires, but might be impractical because

of a high false alarm rate. It is therefore important to identify the

factors which affect false alarm rate so that proper steps can be taken to

minimize false alarms. This survey was conducted to provide information in

this area.

1
2 . BACKGROUND

2.1 Previous Studies

Very little quantitative information on the false alarm history of

installed smoke detection systems exists in the literature. In the U.S.,

most systems are "local systems", without connection to fire departments.

While excessive false alarms are considered a nuisance, building owners

rarely keep accurate records and rarely extend an effort to investigate and

determine the cause of the false alarms. Even in Europe, where a much

higher proportion of systems are connected to fire departments, those depart

ments often do not keep detailed records on numbers of and reasons for false

alarms.

In 1968, at the request of the^Home Office, the U.K. Fire Research

Station (FRS) undertook a study [l]"^ to provide detection system false alarm

information based on reporting forms completed by local fire departments.

The reporting form was developed by FRS and sent to fire departments in

England, Wales, and Scotland with instructions that all alarms (false and

real) received from premises protected by automatic fire detection systems

be investigated and the forms completed. Data were taken for the entire

calendar year 1968 and a report of the study was published by Fry [1] in

March 1970.

That study broke the data down into type of occupancy (where

unfortunately, health care was not listed as a separate category) and type

of system (e.g., heat, smoke, sprinkler, manual, etc.) and also attempted to

categorize the reasons for the reported false alarms. For example, for

smoke detection systems there were 1567 alarms reported to the fire departments. Of these, 1429 were false alarms, 101 were alarms to real fires by

the alarm system and 37 were alarms to real fires reported by other means

(e.g., telephone call). From this. Fry computed an aggregate f alse-to-real

alarm ratio for the smoke detection systems of 14 to 1. It should be noted

that these data included only alarms received during the 12-month study

period and made no allowances for the numbers of detectors installed in each

system nor for the age of the system.

In analyzing the reported reasons for the 1429 false alarms, it was

found that 37 percent were caused by excessive heat and smoke in the protected area from a non-fire source, such as from a manufacturing process.

In addition, 30 percent were caused by defective detectors or control panels

and 11 percent by system testing, maintenance, or other activities where the

local fire department was not informed of the activity.

Another study on field performance of ionization-type smoke detector

systems was initiated by Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) in the fall of

1968 [ 2 ]. At that time, UL was developing a testing and approval standard

for system type ionization smoke detectors. In order to gather data on the

reasons for false alarms in these detectors, a questionnaire was prepared

and distributed through central station operating companies and the UL Fire

Council. The intent was that, if certain predominant causes for false

alarms could be identified, then test requirements could be incorporated

into the standard to minimize the chances of false alarms from these sources

^Numbers in brackets refer to the literature references listed at the end

of this paper.

2
The data returned in response to the questionnaire covered a total of

337 systems employing 7940 smoke detectors. Of the 337 systems, approximately

59 percent were installed in U.S. Federal Government facilities. A total of

1070 false alarms were reported, 67 percent reported from known causes and

33 percent from unknown causes.

An analysis of the reported reasons for the false alarms indicated

that, similar to Fry's results, the majority of false alarms occurred due to

variations in an±)ient conditions (excessive heat or smoke) within the protected area. Other important causes of false alarms v/ere also identified,

including improper application or installation, and improper sensitivity

setting. As a result of these findings, requirements were added to the UL

standard (UL 167) to attempt to minimize these problem areas. Specifically,

these additions included 1) a stability test (detector operation under

varying temperature, humidity, air velocity, and barometric pressure) , 2)

requirements for the capability for measuring or monitoring the sensitivity

of detectors while installed, and 3) requirements for the inclusion of a technical bulletin containing specific guidelines for detector installation.

As in the study by Fry, the UL study did not take into account the

numbers of detectors in the system nor the age of the detectors. The UL

study also did not report the niimbers of alarms to real fires reported by

the systems studied. Thus, false- to-real alarm ratios could not be computed

for the UL survey.

2.2 Review of Code Requirements for Smoke Detectors

in Health Care Facilities

The primary U.S. standard which establishes the fire detection system

requirements for health care facilities is the National Fire Protection

Association (NFPA) Standard No. 101, known as the Life Safety Code [3]

Chapter 10 of this code specifically deals with health care facilities and,

although this is a voluntary standard, the majority of state and local

building codes pattern their requirements for health care facilities after

the requirements contained there.

The Life Safety Code was first printed by the NFPA in 1927 as the

Building Exits Code. The 1963 edition did not mention the use of smoke

detectors in health care facilities specifically, but allowed stairway,

smoke stop and horizontal exit doors to stand open if arranged to close on

actuation of an automatic fire detection or sprinkler system,. The code was

revised and retitled the Life Safety Code in 1966, with this and all subsequent editions containing some requirements for smoke detectors in health

care facilities. The 1966 edition requirement was similar to the 1963

requirement except that stairway doors were no longer permitted to stand

open and the smoke stop and horizontal exit doors were to be controlled by a smoke detection system, with smoke detectors installed at the door or a total sprinkler system. The 1970 and 1973 codes contained similar requirements for door closer applications, adding an allowance for door closing on

actuation of a manual fire alarm system. In addition, the 1973 code specified

that an approved smoke detection system be installed in all corridors of new

hospitals, nursing homes, and residential-custodial care facilities. The

only exception was that, if smoke detectors were installed in patient rooms

and local detectors were also provided at smoke partitions, then the detectors in the corridors were not required. The 1976 (current) edition of NFPA

101 contains the same smoke detector requirements as the 1973 edition except

that the requirement for detectors in corridors of new hospitals was dropped.

The Life Safety Code is structured as an occupancy code. That is, each

chapter of the code, covering a different type of occupancy, includes general

requirements for the types of fire protection measures to be taken in that

occupancy. Specific system installation and maintenance requirements are

included in other NFPA standards and referenced in NFPA 101. Thus, NFPA

3
101, Chapter 10 references NFPA Standard 72E (Automatic Fire Detectors) [4],

which contains the specific installation guidelines for the smoke detectors

required by that chapter. Standard 72E then contains more specific information, such as maximum and minimum ambient temperatures in spaces where

detectors are to be installed, and spacing considerations as a function of

such parameters as type of ceiling construction (e.g., smooth, beamed,

sloped, etc.). However, with regard to maintenance and testing of detectors.

Standard 72E suggests only that the manufacturers' instructions be followed.

Most smoke detector manufacturers suggest annual cleaning as a minimum in

normal environments and semiannual to annual testing.

The recommended cleaning procedures for many of the early smoke

detector designs were complex. They often involved partial disassembly of

the detector head and cleaning of internal parts with soap and water, or

alcohol. In more recent years, these procedures are recommended only for

detectors installed in extremely dusty environments. In more normal environments, most manufacturers suggest that an annual vacuuming is sufficient.

There is much more variation among different manufacturers in the

recommended procedures for testing detectors than there is for periodic

cleaning. Some detectors include built-in test features which mechanically

or electrically simulate smoke within the detector. If the test feature is

operated and the detector alarms, it is assumed that the detector circuitry

is functional and that the sensitivity setting is correct. Other manufacturers provide sensitivity test meters, or terminals for connection of

ordinary electrical meters, along with some type of correlation between the

meter reading and the detector sensitivity. As part of their testing and

approval procedures, UL determines that these various sensitivity measurement

techniques operate as intended.

3 . SURVEY METHOD

3.1 Sampling and Data Collection

The Health Care Financial Administration (HCFA) , as part of the

administration of federal Medicaid and Medicare funds, conducts an annual

life safety survey of health care facilities receiving Medicaid and Medicare

funding. This survey is conducted on a state-by-state basis on contract

with the state health agency in each of the 50 states. In some states, the

actual survey is conducted by the state fire marshal's office, and in other

states by special inspection groups in health departments. The HCFA pays

the contracting state agency for the time and travel cost associated with

conducting the surveys. Contact was made with HCFA to determine if they

would be amenable to modifying their normal survey form or including an

addendum to the form to gather the desired data on smoke detectors. They

responded favorably to including an addendum to their form in selected

states. Since HHS divides the United States into 10 geographical regions

for administrative purposes, it was then decided to prepare a one page

survey form and to survey 10 states, hopefully one from each region. Due to

administrative problems, only eight states were actually surveyed, with one

of these eight returning the forms too late for inclusion in this report.

It was considered desirable to survey only states in each region in

which the life safety survey is conducted by the state fire marshal's

office since state fire marshal personnel should be more familiar with fire

detectors and alarm systems than personnel in other state agencies. A list

was received from HCFA showing the breakdown of the 50 states by region and

those states where the HCFA survey is conducted by the state fire marshal's

offices (table 1) . In at least two states in each region except I and II

the state fire marshal's office conducts the survey. Regions I and II which

have none, were not surveyed.

4
The data collection phase of the program was implemented in the spring

of 1977 when copies of the form were submitted to HCFA. Forms were then

distributed to the HCFA regional offices in regions III through X and then to

the state fire marshal's offices in the selected states along with the

normal HCFA survey form. The state fire marshal's office then completed both

forms on the annual visit to each health care facility receiving Medicare or

Medicaid funds within their respective states. Upon completion, the forms

were returned to HCFA where they were separated and the addendum form forwarded to NBS. Since each health care facility is visited once per calendar

year, the NBS detector survey forms were included as an addendum to the

inspection forms for the 12 months during which all facilities within a given

state should have been visited. The last of the survey forms were received

at NBS in the summer of 1978.

3 . 2 Survey Form

Two principal considerations influenced the design of the survey form.

First, it was necessary to restrict the survey form to one page (including

directions) , and with a limited nximber of questions that could be completed

quickly. Speed of completion dictated that narrative-type answers be minimized. Second, the questions required structuring in a manner which was

compatible with the computer program which was to be used in analyzing the

responses (OMNITAB [5,6]). Based on these considerations, the final form

(figure 1) was developed. The data requested were limited to 10 questions

plus space for an optional narrative. Check-off boxes were used wherever

possible to limit responses to a reasonable number of categories which could

be coded for analysis.

From the responses on the manufacturer and detector model number (survey

form questions 1 and 2) the type of the detector (ionization, photoelectric,

single—station residential, etc.) could be determined. The type of facility

(question 3) was requested because the operating environment of the detectors

may be significantly different between hospitals and nursing homes.

Questions 4 and 5 requested the total number of detectors and the

approximate time in service. This information provided a means to normalize

the false alarm data by the size of the system and its age. Question 6 requested the distribution of the total number of detectors by location and

the numbers of actual and false alarms over the last five years or less,

again by location.

Questions 7 and 8 dealt with the frequency and method of cleaning the

smoke detectors, while questions 9 and 10 addressed the frequency and method

of testing. It was hoped that this information, when compared with the false

alarm information requested in question 6 , might indicate whether certain

methods of cleaning or testing, or certain frequencies of cleaning or testing

influence the rate of false alarms received.

3.3 Data Analysis Technique

As the survey forms were received at NBS, they were manually sorted to

remove those forms that were incorrectly completed. In some cases (for

example, where all answers were completed except for the manufacturer's name

but which could be inferred from the model number provided) a few of the

incomplete forms were salvaged. The responses to each question on the form

were then manually recorded so that each response could be categorized. For

example, all responses to question 3 (detector location) were tabulated and

the eight most frequently given answers were each assigned a code number.

All other responses to this question were assigned to a category identified

as "other". In this way, a coding scheme was developed for the entire form.

Table 2 shows the response codes for all of the survey questions except for

manufacturer and model number. The manufacturer and model number coding are

not identified in this report for privacy reasons.

5
since the exact number of facilities surveyed was considered much less

important than having the responses separated by detector manufacturer and

model number, it was decided that separate forms should be completed for each

model detector within a specific facility. Therefore, the precise number of

facilities surveyed cannot be determined.

4 . RESULTS

4.1 Data Received

A total of 2371 survey forms were received, of which 1282 (54 percent)

were unusable for various reasons. The remaining 1089 forms (46 percent)

formed the basis for the analysis. Figure 2 shows the breakdown of forms

received and the various reasons for a form being considered unusable.

Incorrect model numbers (serial numbers, date codes, or model numbers which

correspond to alarm bells, control panels, manual boxes, etc.) or no model

number given accounted for over half (54 percent) of the unusable forms.

The 1089 valid forms were then manually sorted by manufacturer. This

first sort gave a fairly large number of apparently different manufacturers,

principally because a basic detector model may be sold not only by its

manufacturer, but also by other companies, bearing their own name and model

number. These private labelers are generally control panel manufacturers,

distributors, or alarm installing companies.

Each of the companies which actually manufactures detectors was then

contacted to request information concerning the correlation between the

private label model numbers and their own model numbers. With this information, the data set was reduced to 13 basic detector manufacturers and their

basic model numbers. Once this was done, the forms were again manually

sorted by manufacturer. This process also revealed the existence of 80

duplicate forms which were deleted from the data base. As a result of this

process, the final data base consisted of 1009 survey forms including

responses on a total of 7323 detectors.

4.2 Limitation of Results

The 13 basic manufacturers of smoke detectors presently installed in the

health care facilities surveyed accounted for more than 50 different smoke

detector models. Table 3 shows the 13 manufacturers by letter code, the

number of forms and percent of total number of forms (frequency) for each

manufacturer, and the number of detectors and percent of total detectors for

each manufacturer. One manufacturer (code M) had only 38 detectors in a total of 6 systems: this is such a small percentage of the entire population

that no conclusions can be based on the data obtained for this manufacturer's

smoke detectors.

The validity of the data on several other manufacturers' models may

also be marginal because of the small numbers of detectors involved and the

relatively low numbers of false and real alarms reported. A major portion

of the received forms reported no false nor real alarms. Even where a large

number of detectors was encountered, the false and real alarm numbers

reported came from only a small portion of the installed systems. As a result, numbers of false and real alarms may be based on only one person's

memory, or the records of only one facility.

There are a number of possible explanations for this, such as (1) the

detectors were properly designed and installed and are not subject to

variations in ambient conditions which could cause false alarms, (2) detailed

records on system operation were not kept and alarms occurred so infrequently

that they were not remembered, or (3) there may have been a reluctance on

6
the part of the health care facility administration to report false or real

alarms to the state fire marshal's office for fear that changes in equipment

or procedures would be required, costing the facility excessive time or

money. Finally, rates of alarms to real fires are primarily a function of

the low probability of a fire occurring, and as such can be used for little

more than an indicator of the ratio of false alarms to real alarms.

Since there was no valid mechanism for taking these limitations into

account, it was necessary to analyze the data as presented, keeping the

limitations in mind as a source of uncertainty.

5. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The performance of a smoke detector can be affected by many variables,

many of which could not be addressed from the limited data gathered in this

survey. The variables which were considered were type of detector, location,

and maintenance factors. Some of the factors which were not considered

include unusual ambient conditions in which the detector must operate,

possible exposure of the detector to physical damage, and the reliability of

interconnection systems, wiring, or individual detector components.

Since the probability of a false alarm in a fire alarm system containing

many smoke detectors would be expected to increase with increasing numbers

of connected detectors and increasing time in service, the numbers of false

and real alarms reported were normalized by these two values to provide

false and real alarm frequency figures for comparing systems of different

age and size. False alarm frequency is therefore defined here as the number

of reported false alarms divided by the product of the number of devices in

the system and the number of years in service. This is comparable to the

calculation of failure rate in electronic components expressed in terms of

failures per device hours in service. Thus, if a detector model exhibited a false alarm rate of 0.1 false alarms per device year in service, an installed

system consisting of 10 detectors of this model would give an average of one

false alarm per year. Similarly, a system of 100 detectors of this model

would average 10 false alarms per year.

5.1 Distribution of Alarms by Manufacturer and Model

In the entire population of surveyed data, 1088 false alarms and 78

actual alarms were reported. This results in a ratio of false to real

alarms for smoke detectors installed in health care facilities of approximately 14 to 1, which is the same false to real alarm ratio found by Fry [1]

for smoke detection systems in general.

The false alarm frequency for the entire population of detectors was

found to be 4.4 x 10“^ false alarms per device year in service. That is,

any smoke detection system of 100 detectors would be mathematically expected

to give an average of 4.4 false alarms per year. The alarm frequency for

real fires was found to be approximately one order of magnitude lower, or

about 3.1 X 10“^ real alarms per device year in service.

Detector performance for each of the 13 manufacturers, based on alarm

frequency, is presented in table 4. Many of the frequencies appearing in

this table may be unrepresentative (excessively high or low) as a result of

a small sample of detectors and few reported alarms for certain manufacturers (as previously discussed for manufacturer M) . It should also be

noted that a few manufacturers stand out due to unusually low frequencies.

In particular, manufacturer E seems to have an exceptionally low false alarm

rate but firm conclusions about manufacturer E's performance are not possible.

On the one hand, there are few alarms reported (3 false and 1 real), the

7
number of real alarms depending primarily on the very low probability of a fire occurring. On the other hand, due to the large number of detectors

reported for this manufacturer (9.6 of total detectors) these alarm rates

may have some statistical validity. The low false alarm rate may indeed

indicate outstanding performance, or the low false and real alarm rates may

merely reflect a lower average detector sensitivity.

Appendix table A2 summarizes the survey results by model number. Here,

somewhat more variation is seen. The highest value by model is 47 x 10“

for manufacturer H, model 1. The lowest false alarm frequency is 0.13 x 10 ^ for manufacturer E, model 0.

5.2 Distribution of Alarms by Type of Detector

Almost 71 percent of the total niimber of detectors in the survey were

ionization-type detectors. Detectors from manufacturers A, D, and K are

photoelectric detectors and the rest are ionization type. Table 5 compares

false and real alarm frequencies between the two types of detectors. This

table indicates that the false alarm frequencies for ionization detectors

are slightly less than those for photoelectric detectors and the real alarm

frequency is slightly more. However, with the degree of uncertainty in the

data, these slight differences are probably not significant. There is no

evidence to suggest that there is any real difference in false or real alarm

frequency between types of detector.

Analysis of the data by model mamber also revealed that 14 percent of

the total number of detectors in the survey were of the single -station,

battery-operated, residential type. It was discovered that almost all of

these were installed in facilities located in one of the surveyed states

under a state-sanctioned, temporary program to provide protection until fire

detection systems can be installed. The yearly false alarm frequency for

single-station detectors was 4.8 x 10“^ with an average real alarm frequency

of 3.7 X 10“3. These figures are very similar to those reported for the

entire population of detectors. The small variation in the alarm figures in

table 5 and those for residential detectors given above seems to indicate

that the probability of a smoke detection system false alarm is independent

of whether the detector is ionization or photoelectric or whether it is a commercial or residential-type detector. Of course, commercial detection

systems are preferred for their central supervision and alarm signaling

features

5.3 Distribution of Data by Detector Location

The largest percentage of the detectors in the sample (71.4 percent)

were installed in corridors (table 6) . These detectors consisted of both

the open area and door closer types. Those installed in patient rooms

accounted for almost 7 percent of the sample, second in rank order. Dining

rooms were third, 2 percent of the sample.

It is interesting to note that the location of most detectors and the

fact that the majority of the installations were made in 1973 and 1974

corresponds to the adoption of the detector requirements in the 1973 Life

Safety Code. This seems to indicate that the impact of NFPA 101 is

substantial in health care facilities.

Table 7 shows the distribution of reported alarms by detector location.

While corridor and patient room mounted detectors represented the vast

majority of all detectors in the sample, their false alarm rates were among

the lowest. Smoke detectors installed in laundry facilities, storage rooms,

kitchens, and dining rooms had the highest false alarm rates by location.

This might be expected since these are areas which would have greater

extremes of ambient conditions and non-fire background sources. This would

8
also indicate that smoke detectors are probably inappropriate for the protection of storage rooms, laundry facilities, and areas around kitchens.

The important considerations with regard to the application of fire detectors in health care facilities will be covered in detail in a subsequent

paper currently in preparation at NBS

5.4 Maintenance

It is reasonable to assume that a fire detection system which is

properly maintained will exhibit fewer false alarms than one which is not.

To test the validity of this assumption, the false alarm rate was compared

against the normal maintenance practices of cleaning and regular testing.

Both the fequency and method employed for cleaning and testing were evaluated.

5.4.1 Cleaning

Table 8 shows the percent of total detectors cleaned by various methods.

Table 9 gives the distribution of reported alarms as a function of cleaning

method and frequency. Those detectors which were cleaned and maintained

through a contracted service agreement resulted in a low false alarm frequency.

The survey indicates that a little more than 45 percent of the detector

systems were never cleaned and that this same group of detectors exhibited

the second lowest false alarm rate. While this might suggest that cleaning

is not critical, it might also indicate that detectors which are not cleaned

do not alarm because they have lost sensitivity. Unfortunately, the limited

data obtained in this survey do not provide any basis for testing this

hypothesis

With regard to frequency of cleaning, the data seem to indicate that

lower false alarm rates (neglecting detectors not cleaned for the reasons

stated above) are obtained from the detectors which are cleaned more often.

The rate of false alarms from detectors cleaned yearly was almost twice that

for detectors cleaned monthly. While the rate of false alarms for detectors

reported as cleaned only when they give trouble was the lowest, this category

represented only 3-1/2 percent of the detectors sampled, a number too small

to draw valid conclusions.

5.4.2 Testing

Frequency of testing more clearly affects false alarm rate than does

frequency of cleaning. That is, the lowest false alarm rate was observed in

detectors tested monthly, with the false alarm rate increasing with decreasing frequency of testing (see table 10) . The highest false alarm rate was

observed in detectors which were never tested. The false alarm rate for

those reported as occasionally tested was not com.puted as this represented

only 0.3 percent of the detectors sampled. While testing should have no

direct affect on rate of false alarms, it may be assumed that regular testing would identify detectors which appear to be inordinately sensitive or

insensitive, permitting corrective action.

The data on method of testing indicates that the majority of all smoke

detectors are tested using smoke from some source. A small number of respondents indicated that the detectors were tested by observing an operational

light on the detector. This indicates a lack of understanding of the detector operation since the light on most detectors only indicates alarm or the

fact that power is available. While one particular manufacturer states that

the pulsing frequency of the light is a general indication of his detector's

sensitivity, there is some doubt as to whether this is a valid indication.

9
6 . SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The following summarizes the key points of the data analysis and

presents general indications drawn from the survey data. It is important to

keep in mind the limitations of the survey, particularly the relatively

small sample size and the small number of detectors from which alarms were

reported

1. There were 13 major manufacturers of smoke detectors identified in the

survey. From the data obtained in the survey it was not possible to

demonstrate any meaningful difference in alarm frequency among these

manufacturers

2. An overall false alarm frequency of 4.4 x 10“^ (alarms per device per

year in service) and an overall real alarm frequency of 3.1 x 10“^

(alarms per device per year in service) was found for smoke detectors

installed in the health care facilities surveyed.

3. The false alarm to real alarm ratio was 14:1 for smoke detectors

installed in the health care facilities surveyed.

4. There appeared to be no meaningful difference between ionization-type

and photoelectric -type smoke detectors with regard to real alarm and

false alarm frequencies reported in this survey.

5. Approximately 14 percent of the detectors presently installed in the

health care facilities surveyed were of the single-station, batteryoperated, residential type. Almost all of these were installed in

facilities located in only one of the states surveyed as a temporary

method of protection until systems could be installed.

6. It appeared that the Life Safety Code (NFPA Standard No. 101) had a significant effect on the location and installation of smoke detectors

in the health care facilities surveyed. Most detectors were located in

the areas required by NFPA Standard No. 101, namely corridors and

patient rooms, and the majority of installations were made shortly

after requirements were adopted in NFPA 101.

7. Basements, kitchens, laundry facilities, and storage rooms may expose

detectors to environmental conditions that can induce performance

problems, as suggested by the higher false alarm rates for detectors in

these locations.

8. It was found that many facilities were not complying with recommended

maintenance procedures. However, it was also found that when detectors

were maintained, they were maintained according to manufacturers'

instructions and recommended practices.

9. For the detectors in the facilities surveyed, 46 percent of the forms

reported detectors were never cleaned and only 30 percent reported

detectors cleaned once a year or more frequently.

10. The predominant cleaning methods reported were by compressed air,

alcohol wash, or vacuuming.

11. Over 88 percent of the forms reported detectors were tested once a year

or more frequently, with 55 percent of the forms reporting detectors

tested monthly.

12. The predominant testing method was by the use of some type of smoke.

13. Detectors tested more frequently had lower false alarm rates than those

tested less frequently or never tested.

10
7. NEED FOR FURTHER DATA

The data obtained by this survey provide valuable information on the

current performance of smoke detectors in health care facilities and the

effects of regular maintenance procedures on this performance. But due to

the rather small number of responses, and especially the very small number

of reported alarms, the conclusions drawn from the data must only be

considered as indications and not as definitive facts.

If a systematic program of keeping and collecting detailed records on

alarms, testing and maintenance of detectors and other fire alarm system

components is instituted, a more accurate picture of system performance

under field conditions could be obtained. In this way problem areas can be

identified and changes to approval procedures and application practices can

be initiated which will improve the performance and reliability of these

systems.

8 . REFERENCES

[1] Fry, J. F., The Problems of False Alarms from Fire Detection Systems.

In Problems in Automatic Fire Detection, Aachen Inst., (October 4-6,

1971) .

[2] Underwriters Laboratories Inc., Ionization Type Smoke Detector Field

Study-False Alarm History Prior to April 1969, presented at the meeting

of Underwriters Laboratories Inc., Northbrook, IL (April 10, 1969).

[3] Life Safety Code, NFPA 101, National Fire Protection Association, 470

Atlantic Ave. , Boston, MA (1963, 1966, 1967, 1970, 1973, 1976).

[4] Automatic Fire Detectors, NFPA 72E, National Fire Protection

Association, 470 Atlantic Ave., Boston, MA (1978).

[5] Hogben, D. , Peavy S. T. and Varner, R. N. , OMNITAB II User's Reference

Manual, Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Tech. Note 552, (October 1971).

[6] Hogben, D. and Peavy, S. T., OMNITAB II User's Reference Manual 1977

Supplement, Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), NBSIR 77-1276 (July 1977).

11
SMOKE DETECTOR USER SURVEY

INSTRUCTIONS: This form should be completed on each detector model installed

in a health care facility. This would include open area detectors, door

closer detectors, and detectors in HVAC duct work. The information gathered

will be used to form a data base by which the past performance of smoke

detectors in health care facilities can be evaluated.

A SEPARATE FORM SHOULD BE COMPLETED FOR EACH DETECTOR MODEL USED IN THE

BUILDING.

Block 1 - Smoke detectors to be surveyed include ionization chamber and

photoelectric types used for open area, duct, and door closer

applications

2 - The manufacturer and model no. is usually on the back of the

detector if not available from the building management.

4 - Enter total number of detectors of indicated manufacturer and model

no. used in this facility.

6 - This data should include detectors of the model indicated in block

2 which are installed in each area. If false and real alarm data

is not available by area of occurrence, estimates should be made

or totals included and indicated as such. (A false alarm is any

alarm where no fire is present.)

7,8,9 - Frequency and method of cleaning and testing should be those

& 10 figures actually done, not what is planned or recommended.

1. Detector Manufacturer 2. Detector Model No,

3. Type of Facility

Hospital Nursing Homes

Other (specify)

4. Total No. Detectors

in Service

5. Approx. Time

in Service

Years

6 . Detector Location

Patient Room

Number

of

Detectors

No. of Alarms

From Actual Fires

(Last 5 Yrs if Avail)

No. of False Alarms

(Last 5 Yrs if Avail)

Corridor

Other (specify)

Monthly Yearly Never

Other (specify)

9. Frequency of Testing Detectors

Monthly Yearly Never

other (specify):

8. Method of Cleaning Detectors

10. Method of Testing Detectors

11. Additional Comments on the Operation of the Detectors (May include

comments by facility personnel concerning effectiveness of the system or

general problems encountered)

Comments continued on reverse

Signature of Person Completing Form Organization Date

Figure 1. Smoke detector survey form

12
(

2371 )

Forir.j

Received

13

Note -

The

numbers

in

parentheses

indicate

number

of

forms

or

installations
Table 1. Regional breakdown of fifty states

Region

II

III

IV

V

State

Connecticut

Maine

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

Rhode Island

Vermont

New Jersey

New York

Puerto Rico

Virgin Islands

(Delaware)

(District of Columbia)

(Maryland) * Pennsylvania

(Virginia)

(West Virginia)

Alabama

Florida

(Georgia)

(Kentucky)

Mississippi

North Carolina

South Carolina

Tennessee

(Indiana)

(Illinois)

(Minnesota) ** (Michigan)

Ohio

Wisconsin

Region

VI

VII

VIII

IX

state

Arkansas

(Louisiana)

New Mexico

(Oklahoma)

Texas

( Iowa)

(Kansas)

(Nebraska)

Missouri

Colorado

(Montana)

(North Dakota)

South Dakota

(Utah)

(Wyoming)

Arizona

(California)

(Hawaii)

(Nevada)

(Alaska)

Idaho

(Oregon)

(Washington)

Note: Parenthesis indicate states where inspection is conducted by

state fire marshal's office.

Star indicates states surveyed.

**State was surveyed but the data was received too late for inclusion in

this report.

14
Table 2. Coded responses to the survey questions

Question Response Code

1. Type of Facility Hospital 1

Nursing Hom.e 2

2. Time in Service (years) - 1,2,3...

3. Location of Detector Patient Room 1

Corridor 2

Storage Room 3 Basement 4 Laundry Facilities 5

Duct Work 6

Kitchen 7 Dining Room 8

Other 9

4. Number of Detectors in

Location “ 1,2,3. .

5. Number of Actual Alarms - 0,1,2,3. .

6. Number of False Alarms - 0,1, 2, 3. . .

7

Cleaning Frequency Monthly 1

Yearly 2

When Trouble 3

Never 8

Other 9

8. Cleaning Method Vacuuming 1

Dusting 2 Water 3

Air 4 Alcohol 5 Service Contracted 6

Not Cleaned 8

Other 9

Combination of Dusting

and Air 7

9. Testing Frequency Monthly 1

Quarterly 2 Semiannually 3

Yearly 4 Occasionally 5

Never 8 Other 9

10. Testing Method Smoke 1

Cigarettes 2 Burning Materials 3

Magnetic Device 4 Method Unknown 5

Operational Light 7

Not Tested 8 Other 9

15
Table 3. Number of forms and total number of detectors

by manufacturer

Manufacturer Forms Detectors

Code Number Percent Number Percent

A 243 24.1 1376 18.8

B 125 12.4 796 10.9

C 108 10.7 894 12.2

D 105 10.4 631 8.6

E 89 8.8 704 9.6

F 76 7.5 551 7.5

G 67 6.6 966 13.2

H 64 6.3 223 3.0

I 53 5.3 407 5.6

J 31 3.1 464 6.3

K 26 2.6 125 1.7

L 16 1.6 148 2.0

M 6 0.6 38 0.5

Totals 1009 100.0 7323 100.0

16
Table 4. Summary of false and real alarm frequency by manufacturer

Manufacturer

Code

Alarms

False Real

Device

Yrs

In Service

False Alarms Per

Device Yr in

Service x (10-^)

Real Alarms Per

Device Yr in

Service x (10“^)

A 115 15 5052.0 2.3 3.0

B 50 4 2827.0 1.8 1.4*

C 243 14 3277.0 7.4 4.3

D 164 10 1787.0 9.2 5.6

E 3 1 2311.5 0.1* 0.4*

F 55 4 1927.5 2.9 2.1*

G 151 13 3507.0 4.3 3.7

H 67 4 851. 0 7.9 4.7*

I 109 1 1278.0 8.5 0.8*

J 69 5 1009.0 6.8 5.0*

K 26 2 527.5 4.9 3.8*

L 32 2 374.5 8.6 5.3*

M 4 3 178.0 2.3* 16.9*

Totals 1088 78 24,907.0 4.4 3.1

*These figures, which provide some additional information, are not a good estimate of the true performance because of the low number of

alarms.

17
Table 5. Summary of false and real alarm frequency by

type of detector

Ionization Type

Manufacturers

Photoelectric Type

Manufacturers

MFR Real Alarm False Alarm MFR Real Alarm False Alarm

Code Frequencies Frequencies Code Frequencies Frequencies

xlO-3 xlO-2 xlO-3 xlO-2

B 1.4* 1.8 A 3.0 2.3*

C 4.3 7.4 D 5.6 9.2

E 0.4* 0.1* K 3.8* 4.9

F 2.1* 2.9

G 3.7 4.3

H 4.7* 7.9

I 0.8* 8.5

J 5.0* 6.8

L 5.3* 8.6

M 16.9* 2.3

AVG 4.46 X 10-3 5.06 X 10-2 AVG 4.1 X 10-3 5.47 X 10-2

*These figures, which provide some additional information, are not a good

estimate of the true performance because of the low number of alarms.

Table 6. Distribution of detectors by location

Location Nximber of Detectors Percent of Detectors

Patient Room 1581 6.6

Corridor 5228 79.2

Storage Room 11 0.5

Basement 9 0.4

Laundry Facilities 8 0.8

Ductwork 91 1.4

Kitchen 11 0.8

Dining Room 39 2.0

Other 345 8.3

18
Table

7.

Summary

of

false

and

real

alarm

frequency

by

location 0 CM eu c 1 •H 0

Ui rH g * IC <1>

»-i

m 0 CO

m CN 0 rH 0 rH 0 CN CN CO 0 rH m 53 • • • • • • • • • P < 0 0 in in in rH m 0 m 4J u 0 CN m rH 0) (U •rH tH

(0 > > Xi

rH 0) ^ 4-> fd Q (U W MM00) 4-) (dg

CO •rH 0) G 1 4-J •iH 0 CA rH 0) (A * * * E r- (Ti cn 0 'CS >1 X CT\ 0 CO m CD 0

(d t • 1 • • 1 1 1 • 0

pH 0) 0 CN

n CN CN CN CO < 0 0

•rH *H

in CD

(d rH > >

(d (UM

4-> (1 ) Q 0) 0

Pi CO c0) p

cd

m 0

5-1

U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 in

a ^ tH • 0 > rH <Ti 0 (» CN 0 0 CN •rH 0) 5^ CN CD 'I' n n rH '3' rH 4-J 0 Q) r- m rH rH (d •H to CO rH s > rH H 0 C 0 Q H mm • G CA

•iH ^

rH (0 n3 rH

W c cd g 0

S-i •H Mm

(d -P 0

rH •rH < 00 m 0 CN 0 CN rr 0 CT> T) P m CO i-H 1—

1—

rH

m 'CJ CD 0w

1—

«d

CN e

some a

low

numb

T3

M •H CD g > 43

5-4 0 -P

n5 P

rH CP mm < 0 CN CN 0 0 0 cn 0

rH

m 43

rH 0 CD

(d •P CA

(1) 43 35 Pi ^ cau - CD g g CA 43 0 0 g CD c 0 0 CA 0 P CD 0 Pi Pi 0 0 G 0

•rH P 4J •rH ,X Pi Co (3

4-1 +j 0 0 C >i-p P C •rH fO

(d c 'C tn 0) P -H 0 0) CO mm e 0 0 •rH (d g xi c 5m p 0 •rH p P (U C -H 4-1 0 •H (1) CD 0

iJ -p

p 0 (A 3 UU 4J c 4:: CA MM

(d 0 +J cd fd cdG •rH •H -P CD P

PM CJ CO P3

J Pm P Q 0 43 CD EM CP * 19
Table 8. Percent of total detectors cleaned by various methods

Cleaning Method Percent of Detectors

1. Vacuum 8.1

2. Dusting 5.3

3. Water (wash) 0.4

4. Compressed Air 10.6

5. Alcohol (wash) 13.3

6. Service Contracted 10.9

7. Combination of 2 and 4 0.4

8. Not Cleaned 45.7

9. Other 5.4

20
Table

9.

Siunmary

of

false

and

real

alarm

frequency

by

cleaning

method

and

cleaning

>1oc

Q)b

O’0) u

iw

21

Figures

not

computed

due

to

low

number

of

responses.
Table

10.

Summary

of

false

and

real

alarm

frequency

by

testing

method

and

testing

frequency

M ^

(U csl G I •H O W r-t

(a

X < (U (U o o

0) -H -H W > >

rH (U

M

Id

Q (U CO

CD CD CD r- ro in o iH (Ti 00 in OC to 00 in ro * CD • • • 1 1 • • • • • • • (N CN 00 CN in

H CO

QJ

C I C4 O

CO 1—

1

in o r- rH rH CD "a* <Ti CD o ro rH 00 00 in (T\ rH

n >-i

X • • • 1 1 • • • • • • • • Id H (1) O < u o

CO CN CD CN CO CN 1—

CN in

•H -H

Real DevServ

Yrs ice o O

O o o O o O

m

O o o in o > « • • • t <u u r' CN CD o rH in •sr 00 rH CO a\ U 0) CN CO CN CTi rH (T> rH CD o CO •H CO OC a\ CO 00 on m CD CD CD > CN r- rH rH ro rH in 1—

rH

0) c Q M

rH rH

O

CO I—

Id Cn

00CD

in

r~

nj

CN CN

00m

rH

'3' CO

m tH rH CD

CN

O in rH IN CO CO rH iH

Id I—

<

Id

0)

CD CD CD

O

N*

ro Crm CTi

>1 rH rH I-C 10 CO Id 'a 1—1 1—1 03 <u 1—

G (D o >1 Id Id -P 0 +J Id O -p G fH P G

CO x: -p c *H CO 0 >1

p

G o

<U 4-> <ua

p P -P <u P rH <uG •H

EH <U (U

p •H 0) o Id Jd Eh P cr Xi 4J Id rH CO

p P 2 Id C -P G P cn 0) •P (U +j P 'H p Id CD CD o Cri p Id X <U ‘H 4J Xi CO p G Id e Id CJ > XI e •H 0 2 G O •P (U IP 0 P OJ cu o CD +J CO u CQ ID O 2 o Eh 2 Ot CO >H o 2 O

22

Figures

not

computed

due

to

low

n\imber

of

responses.
APPENDIX A

A COMPLETE TABULATION OF THE RESULTS FROM THE SURVEY QUESTIONS

Table

Al.

Summary

of

results

by

manufacturer

3cm

0) 1 3 O cn 00 CM iH ON cn ON m 00 <»»

• cn

•

0)CO CT r-j CU X CM rH

• ON d CM 00 d 00 CM

CO

0) *H O

•H>

0) Q

<U

CJ C -H O o o o m in o o o• o in

• %n

• m• CMm

o

CM00 CM 00

iH

rH

CO

CM

CJN Oiri

rHin

00

00

CM

<T> o

o

r>^ CMm

00

in cn tH CM rH CO rH rH

0) CO w e

fH U

cd ctT f-j <1

O

LO

CO

CM

vO

tH

tnm vO

(Tv O

a^

CM

CM

CO

g

CU CO

ptf rH

<5

iH O

tH fM cn

M-r CO O M

o

4J -U a o

0) 0) o -u

)-i <u

(U P

p

00

00

ON CM v£) NO m CM O vO d CM 00 ON cn CO in

rH rH rH

fO o

CM o

u

0> I

Z M-lo

t—

cfl 4-1 oH

v£> vO -Ct

CTN o>

ro 00

rH

ri o m

m

in

vO

CTi

ro

CM

CS O 3

m

CM 00 00

<o

CO 0

0)a o

0)

CM

CM O

tH d

op

00 m v£) COd

cnm

'£> CM

vO v<? d

o

CO

CU •2 o

0 Pn 3Z

cn m 00 in vO

CM O o 00

CM rH rH rH

r~

sD <>0 COm

vO

CM vO

0) o tj

cO IM o

3

3

« Pd Id O P:!

Al
Table

A2.

Summary

of

results

by

model

number

to O CM H fl I <5 <U O

3 rH

0) CT'-^

CO (U X

rH K

(0 Pi^ b

<N| ^ m C'J 00 ON m

CO 1 -O 00 rH 1 -o 1 o 00 d -tr rH SO rH ON -o

vOvO

-O' m o CT\

CNI O 00 cO •4’ vO sr vO

r>. oo 00 ON -o- CM fO rH tH r» ON O SO iH

cn rH O o o ON

rH 00 CM m 11 d cnJ en o rH

Q -H

COU0)U o o o m o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o UO o in m o o O o o

>< •H> 00 CO iTi CO m -o CM m CM so -o -o in o 00 CO lO ON 00 rH 00 ON rH o\ CJN 00

0) u o CO rH 00 so CO CM o rH o rH O CM m so -o CO rH O I-H o CO 00 r*«.

f0) cn 00 CO rH m rH 00 rH o CO rH -sr m <M rH CM CO CM so r**. •H CO CO CM rH rH CM fH CM

COg

(U (0 P6 rj

OCO-OCMOOnOO O O CO iH in CO CO co O rH CO fO O CO Mr o .H O CM O

CO

(u a

CO M

1—I cO cd tH

Psi <!

i-IOCMOOO 00 0-0

m m

O CM O

-o

CM in o so

CM iH

CM O CO ON ov O CO

CO in CM rH CO 00 t--. <r CO O rHCO I-H

Ph

M-l 3

o M

3

4J u

3 3

(U Cd O 4M3

(U 3

Oh Cd s

*4-1 o cnM

4J O

3 4J 3 3

O 3 M u

3 3

Ph O

SO

CO o o CM rH o m CO o 00 ON UO m ON Mf m CM CO m o CM CM so CTN o rH CM CM ON sD o CM CO o 00

\D rH ON CO O CO m o o 00 rH ON liO d <r UO CO 00 m CO rH CM CO rH iH o 00 rH rH

rH

^inrHcooo-oocoin rHrHCMinOvOsOOCM rH rH C3N SO

rH SO CO

ON 00 r- r- H MT CM CM

I-H CO ON r- so CO

r- CM ON 00 m

CMOOrHCMOrHOO rH O O ON O SO O -O rH O rH CO O O rH

vOON

00 m CO I-H O CO ON ON m CM -sT so rH rH O O O

CO o M

O

PH u

3 3

•9 3

s u

3 3

Z O

rH M

<U 3

rQ o 0 s 3Z

r^cMincMoocooNCMoo

LO rH rH rH -O rH

rH I-H CM 00

CM 00 O SO

in I-H CM

r--

CO in CO CO

in CO I-H ON

-Sf CO O rH H CO ON

CO CM -o so ON

rH CM

-tf O

r- -<r so 00 o

Oi ON CM so

CO CO m CO

?—i r~^

OrHcMco-d-insor-'-oo O rH CM CO O rH CM CO O rH CM CO MT m O rH O rH CM CO

013

4j (U

CJ T3

CO O

<4-1 O

3

C

to s

P3 U W O

A2
Table

A2.

Summary

of

results

by

model

number

(cont'd)

a

>1 ^U CNJ Ov 00 sj- 0 1 cn CO CM vO VO OV rH OV o 00 o OV vO 1 m 8 1 i-j 0) o iH rH 1 00 CO vO m 1 fO m 1 vO pp) 1 • • • • 0 H • • • • • • • • • • • • m CO 00 o

H CO a\ in CO UO o PO vO rH o <u (U X rH rH rH CM rH

CO M

rH pH

cfl (u

CO 0 o m o m o o

M O O o o o o m o o o o o o o o o o • • • • fH -H rH 04 Hf > vO CM cy> LO If) a\ CM CJV rH o m ON vO 00 00 v£> 0> 0 lO O m CO vO o CM m 00 rH CO CO CM rH CO PI rH O 0 CO rH CO vO •Jf rH CO rH rH rH rH

•H cn >

0) Q

cn iH o o rH O O O OOO<N0JiHOO f'lOO <NJ o fo

False

Alarms <r O

in o COrH 62 23 24 o 00 CM o COCM m CO 00CM o CO

CM CO o 32 >a- o

(-4 M-l 0 o

0 m 00 o CO <1- CO o in vD rH ON o vD U 4J vO CM vO m ON 00 MT CM 00 CM rH CTn CM 00 00 00 •sf o p^ 0 o 0 cd CO vO CM m rH ON CM CO m rH 00 vO ON o 00 VO •4* o in a 4-1 CO rH m CO <r rH rH vD rH rH o ON u 0

0 0

Ph

;g

M-lo CO0 u o lO rH ov o o\ 00 m m Pv| -4* rH (N <r ov o ov m PvJ CO o> 0 JJ rH <! rH CO o r*^ m rH CM 00 ov m <r in vO iH CM CM o o •*4* 0 a O 0 rH o o rH CO rH o o o CM o o o o o o iH o o CM o o 0 4J 0 0

Ph o

4-1 CO o P4o

M JJ <r o m vD o o rH vO o Ov CM 00 CM CO '0- vO rH 00 00 CM NO 0 o 00 CO rH ov CVJ CO rH iH rH VO m CO CO 00 CM CO

X3 0 CM rH CM P 4J 3 0

z P

rH J-l (U 01 'O ,n o S O rH (N CO O iH PO OiHcMro<3-Lnsor' O rH cs O rH

0)3

J-l 0) 0 T3

0) O

4H O

3a1

w

A3
Table A3. Stimmary of results by type of facility

Type of

Facility

Number

of Forms

Percent

of Forms

Number of

Detectors

Percent of

Detectors

Real

Alarms

False

Alarms

Nursing

Home 892 88.40 6290 85.89 63 903

Hospital 117 11.60 1033 14.11 15 185

Totals 1009 100.00 7323 100.00 78 1088

False alarm to real alarm ratio for nursing homes14.3:1

False alarm to real alarm ratio for hospitals: 12. 4:1

False alarm to real alarm ratio for all health care facilities: 14.0:1

Table A4. Siimmary of results by time in service

Time in

Service

Number

of Forms

Percent

of Forms

Number of

Detectors

Percent of

Detectors

1.0 75 7.43 802 10.59

1.5 17 1.68 114 1.56

2.0 82 8.13 821 11.21

2.5 22 2.18 166 2.27

3.0 195 19.33 1343 18.34

3.5 52 5.15 424 5.79

4.0 318 31.52 1869 25.52

4.5 13 1.29 65 0.89

5.0 139 13.78 920 12.56

6.0 25 2.48 185 2.53

7.0 26 2.58 175 2.39

8.0 16 1.59 106 1.45

9.0 2 0.20 12 0.16

10.0 13 1.29 101 1.38

11.0 1 0.10 6 0.80

12.0 5 0.59 47 0.64

13.0 1 0.10 12 0.16

13.5 1 0.10 132 1.80

14.0 2 0.20 15 0.20

15.0 1 0.10 2 0.03

20.0 2 0.20 6 0.08

Totals 1009 100.00 7323 100,00

A4
Table

A5.

Summary

of

results

by

location

(U •HeQCJ ^

cna

O

Cd rH

(U CO

O VO liO CM o rH

cd fH

X o rH o CM CM CX3 o rH in

iH • • • • • • • • • < 0) 0) IT» «d- m m rH CO o cn o o CM CO rH

0) •iH •H

00 > >

rH (U

M

cd P 0)

C/i

u /-N

di C3co ru Tf 1O COB

iH

cd a\ CO o u (U X crc o 1 vO 1 1 vO

td fH • • • • • iH <u CM CO CM CM cs

<3 <uy

O -H

m vO

rH •pH >

nj > u

(U 0) a) Pi Q w

CO OJ m o o o o o O o o o m • • • • • • • • • > rH C3N o no <N •<} o o nj

0) !-i CM v£> CO CO rH MT 'd' rH O 0) CO pH rH

•H

M <1* 00 rH

Dev in

rH

CO

0) 0 00

m o CM o CM o ON

CO CO vO rH rH rH rH CO

»-H cd CM

Cd rH

pH <

CO rH i

Cd

w <t o CM CM o o o CO

<D cd iH

rH

m <

MHO CD

cr\ o^m CM rH <r in CO rH

4J

O

m CO rH rH rH CM f—

in

P3 -U • 0) o rH rH o c>

d rH

d o vf

yy

M HI y y

PH

Q

CM

4H CO O Uo H y r-H 00 rH <T\ CO rH rH a\ in y y 00 CM rH CJN rH CO p y m CM CO a 4H y y

2: P

rH

m

4-) CO ON o o cy^ o> 00 CO y tl vO rH in CO <Tv CO y o • • • • • • • • H pH \o CTk o o o rH o rH 00 yp M-f

r-- o

CO

y

a

-9 P r-. o^

m 00 00 o sr 0 P v£5 rH CM 00 3Z Po

COy

a •iH o 4J 4J A!

pH 4J

Oy P3 ^>^ tH 3 U c _ 00 y J-( H O y 00

Cd

y 0 •H rt 0 0 'b iH & p 3 0 u

y •H

O

H o y P3y

u

y •H

Oy o U o H o o CO 3 y y 4J 3 O X p y p O 4J pi cd cd P 3 •pH •H Pi 4J p O CO PC) P P P o

A5
Table A6. Summary of results by number of detectors

Number of

Detectors

Number

of Forms

Percent

of Forms

Number of

Detectors

Number

of Forms

Percent

of Forms

1 94 9.32 23 3 0.30

2 191 18.93 25 6 0.59

3 52 5.15 26 3 0.30

4 163 16.15 28 2 0.20

5 25 2.48 29 1 0.10

6 115 11.40 31 3 0.30

7 24 2.38 34 2 0.20

8 103 10.21 35 1 0.10

9 17 1.68 36 2 0.20

10 64 6.34 37 3 0.30

11 11 1.09 38 2 0.20

12 22 3.17 40 4 0.40

13 13 1.29 46 1 0.10

14 16 1.59 49 1 0.10

15 5 0.50 53 1 0.10

16 14 1.39 58 1 0.10

17 1 0.10 62 1 0.10

18 9 0.89 67 1 0.10

19 1 0.10 100 1 0.10

20 10 0.99 108 1 0.10

21 4 0.40 132 1 0.10

22 4 0.40

Totals 1009 100.00

Table A7. Summary of results by false and real alarms

Number of

False Alarms

Number

of Forms

Percent

of Forms

Number

Real Alarms

Number

of Forms

Percent

of Forms

0 804 79.68 0 949 94.05

1 55 5.45 1 47 4.66

2 47 4.66 2 10 0.99

3 25 2.48 3 2 0.20

4 15 1.49 5 1 0.10

5 14 1.39

6 7 0.69

7 4 0.40

8 8 0.79

9 5 0.50

10 6 0.59

11 1 0.10

12 3 0.30

15 3 0.30

16 1 0.10

18 1 0.10

20 1 0.10

23 1 0.10

24 3 0.30

28 1 0.10

29 1 0.10

50 1 0.10

60 1 0.10

87 1 0.10

A6
Table

A8.

Summary

of

results

by

cleaning

frequency

Ci (M •H I M fa

cd vfa o o cn

0)

X o vO 00 iH

fa • • • • • 0) cn CvJ CM vO (1) O

0) »H >

CO >

•H (U (U

«J

C

W

0) am

(li *H I O CO a iH

01

X

c8 fM

iH 0) <J 0) O

•H>

0) 0) (U Pi Q CO

0)o . . *H

CCJ >

CO 0)

i-l

u o o o o o

fa fa • • • • f > CTv CO rH

<u

u

m iH VO CM

O 0) oo vO

m iH

fa CO cs fH ir> >0) a Q fa

CO

OJ S T—\ vO

CO P ON 00 iH CM iH

iH cc5

m on OO

cS fa •<

CO

a e

(U cd fa fa

•<

M 4J

0) 0) fa o

fa CO O Moo

(U

a 0) fa o

0)a 6

-2 ° § ^

fa fao

CMVO

m o

C3V ovvO oC'J cs

CM

'd' CM o COfa in CO o

fa o fH

m in vD rH c fa • • • • 0) o ON o CO m iH o <u CM <1* CM

ON o m

m

vD

O vO vO m CM cn in

iH 00 rH o

CO fa

4J

p

CM oo o 00

U

ti fa 00 00 CO

m ON iH

(U o • • • • fa o 00 00 CO in CM ON

m CTN OM

fa 1—

m fH

a

0) IM fa ON vO 00 OO

PM o Cd r—

rH

ov

00 o

cr.

CTV cn o

vO

U1

60 CJ 0) a c >v fa

•H (U fa >v ,n C 3 j3 fa a

cd cr fa fa Co (U (U a Id (Ufa

fa fa o cu

X t-i CJ Pm S >H & M

<u>

<u fa

0) Xi

cd0)

)-l o

faa

cd

cd fa

0) fa

"a

fa 2

fa fa

H

X fa

fa

M c c cd 0) > X o 0) S >> M(U OJ

0) fa

O

A7
Table

A9.

Summary

of

results

by

cleaning

method

u ^ 0) 0CSI

P-i "H 1O

(0

M

H o 00 UO vO 00 CO fO

a n)

O <v| o kl- 00

C (UM • • • • • • 1 • •

flj

0)

u

r** o vO CM CM r^i

O *H

tt) *H >

OB > M

iH <U <1)

(flQ

W

FbM

(u aco

Pk *H 1o m h <H CM c^ vO CO 00 a nJ 00 CM 00 rH CO CO C <u ><) • • 1 • • • • • 1 rt iH vO CM m 00 \o H <u <d 0) o O fl rH -H >

rt > n

0) 0) (U PA a Vi

(0 (U M O o O o o o o o o o > • • • • • • • • a) ki o 00 CO o rH U (U 00 CO CM ON ON CM vO rH

•H cn rH •*d* rH 00 CO rH

m > CM iH CM CM CM rH rH

0)

C P -H

rH

CO 0) a CO iH rH vO o OV

CO

U

m o Sj- 00 <£> CM o

rH rH rH l-l CO rH

cd iH

Fn <;

CO iH a

cd F-i OV o 00 CM CO rH CM <T«

(U (d rH rH CM

Pi ^

<4-i O COM cn o 00 rH CO ON 00 rH U O i-H CO CO o CO vO 'd- C 4J • • • • • • • (U u 00 uo o o CO o o m m U 0)

l-l 4-1 (U 0) p p

rH rH rH <r

>4-1 CO O l-l o M 4J ' m 00 00 CO vO o CM tn vO

(1)U a> 00 CM a^ CO •<r ON P 0) m CO o^ CO CO a 4J 3 0) Z P

CO

CO 4J a rH

m o CO <» CO o o vO c C 'd' 00 v£> CO un in m 0) o • • • • • • • • • U Fk a\ v£> o r-. v£) 00 o m mT

l-l 0) M-l p O

m

l-la

0)

C 00 v£> a> «<r o so

p o ON vJ3 vO 00 lO a P in 3Z MkO 0) 4J •H

00

O 4J 4J "3 c •T3 iH OJ Cd 5Q •H HI •H O O O o l-l 3 3 td 3 C 9 U JA •H 4J •H Td rt 1^

td 4J 3 <u

O > fl P Td 0) (U

(U a) o CO 4J V-i

O

uO

a M-l

a 4J rH ,3

i-H s cd 3 td •H f—0) o o o cd

OU 4J

O > Q r-» CO

u !Z

O

A8
Table

AlO.

Summary

of

results

by

testing

frequency

M

H

0) 0 ^ y

d ^ •rH rg p •H CM

U

MO OQ

H o a Cd rH (d tH vO vO C (1) ro e*. m o o rH Ov P (1) s-/ •d- 00

cO >-<

K 00

m r«* ro vO C3V vO Cd PH

X • • t-i • • • • • • • rH -d- eg

(U 0) eg <r o <s

y

y

y o 00

y

y

(U •H -H

y

CO > > CO > >

rH 0) >M rH

y

M

Id

Q <U Cdp

y

cn C/3

M

M

(1)

d 1^

y

d CO PM •H 1 Pm •H 1 o o u M rH CO Pi H rH rH s Id rH rH vO m ov 0 cd v-^ vO o Q 0) H 00 m CJv ON rH U y X • Id tH • • * • • • • cd pH ro CM H 0) eg r*. MT rH •d- eg m iH y

0) o rH < yy

y nH

y *H rH tH > rH •H >

Id > IM cd > u

<uyy

yy

y

Pd

Q cn pd P CO

COy CO

y

M

y o o O o o in o Pmy o o tn tH Pm tM • • > CO rH 'd- ro ON > eg y w rH ON rH so o CO T> y Pm eg y y Cd> m vO v£> vO O y y ov

•iH cn ro rHm rH rH

X tM CO eg > rH 4J > rH y d y y d p -H 0

00d P -H

CO •H CO

y

a ^r ro OS rH rH vO •M

y 0 00 e-.

CO c ON eg o in rH eg CO

y iM sD eg rH Cd ro ro rH rH y pH cd m eg

Cd rHu cd rH

Pm <1 Pm <

>* rO

CO CO CO rH a 4J r-i a

CdM o CM ro o rH ro Ov rH cd Pm vO vO

y cd rH rH

d

y cd rH

rH CO < y < u

IM

MH o mm O CO O CO )M rH eg eg (N ON f»v Pm

m rH

4J

O vO eg eg eg o rH JM 4JO o d -u • • • • • • • Cd d MJ • y y vo ro o in vO g y y iH eg y y in CNJ S y y m en

iM -u

d Pm Ml

y

y COyy

Pm

pp P

rH

UM CD rH IM CO O »M < O Pm o ON O vO rH rH eg O o ^ 4J <T> ro eg m y Pm PJ OS y y ON ' <3* eg ro gr tH y y ro p y ro rH p X y ro eg

Id 0 MJ 3 y H d y Z P Z P

CO CO •u a ro 00 o ro 'd- 4-1 a

n eg

d

u vOm in (N ro ro ro

d

C ro o y o • • • • • « • y o • y Pm o e*. eg in o vO y Pm eg tH u m eg Pm m ro y Mm y Mm

Pm

O P O

CO CO

ua Pm

a

y P rH vD vO in ro <r

yC 00 ro

-2 ° rH 1^ CNI

m vO P o eg rH

a Pm

m eg 0 Pm in ro

d

d Z mm Z Mm O o

CO >> 1 y

00

y fH rH

d 4J

dd

M rH o tJO 4J •H (U rH y Cd >> •H d T3 y

•u

d rC 4J 1 d tH CO Vm >M •H

O

y Pm

ra cd •U •d ^ M Cd rH

y

yU

X -X Cd

yy

d <d 0 d Cd

y rH > Xi CO gj o oo

Hn o dy Idyy Cd

y

u

yy

a tM Z O' C/3 >-< o z o H Z C/3 CJ

in vO

m

ro

m

eg o

00

vD

ON

cs oro

m

ON <r

ro 00

tH rH

00m

vO

r-- rHd om

eg

eg

m

eg vo

ro

ON

egm

so

so oiH

O

eg

ro

CNJ SO

ro

m

CO rH

<d 00 *H a kj •H <u 0 <u ^ (0 s e oc

CD

rt X!

>-i &0

<U -H

Pu iJ o

TD0) iJ

(0(1) Huoz M

<U

A9
NBS-114A (REV. 2-80

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. 1. PUBLICATION OR

REPORT NO.

2. Performing Organ. Report No. 3. Publication Date BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET (See instructions) NBSIR 80-2130 October 1980

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

A SURVEY OF FIELD EXPERIENCE WITH SMOKE DETECTORS IN

HEALTH CARE FACILITIES

5. AUTHOR(S)

Richard W. Bukowski and Sharon M. Istvan

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than N BS. see instructions)

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDAROS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

7. Contract/Grant No.

8. Type of Report & Period Covered

Final

9.

SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City. State. ZIP)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Washington, D.C. 20201

10.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

I I Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

11.

ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bi biiography or literature survey, mention it here)

A survey of health care facilities in eight states was conducted to gather data on experience with smoke detection

systems. Requested information included detector manufacturer

and model number, number of detectors and time in service,

detector locations, numbers of false and real alarms and the

methods and frequency of cleaning and testing the detectors.

The results of the survey indicate that about 70 percent of

the detectors were ionization type, and 30 percent were of the

photoelectric type- Fourteen percent of the total number of

detectors were single-station, battery-operated, residential-type

detectors, most of which were installed in health care facilities

in only one of the eight states surveyed. Almost 80 percent of

the detectors were installed in corridors and the average age of

the detector installation was about five years. The detection

systems were found to experience approximately 14 false alarms

for each real fire detected with the highest false alarm rate

occurring in detectors installed in laundry areas, storage areas,

and kitchens. While over 88 percent of the systems were tested

at least annually (55 percent tested monthly), almost half (45.7

percent) were never cleaned. Almost 11 percent of the installed

systems were maintained under an outside service contract.

12.

KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolon s) Detector location; false alarms; health care facilities;

hospitals; ionization detectors; maintenance; NFPA 101;

nursing homes; photoelectric detectors; smoke detectors; surveys.

13. AVAILABILITY

[3^ Unlimited

I I For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

20402.

Q^^Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

36

15. Price

$ 6.00

USCOMM-DC 6043-P80

<oC-/9^