NIST Technical Note 1455

Performance of Home Smoke Alarms

Analysis of the Response of Several Available

Technologies in Residential Fire Settings 

Richard W. Bukowski

Richard D. Peacock

Jason D. Averill

Thomas G. Cleary

Nelson P. Bryner

William D. Walton

Paul A. Reneke

Erica D. Kuligowski

Performance of Home Smoke Alarms

Analysis of the Response of Several Available

Technologies in Residential Fire Settings 

Richard W. Bukowski

Richard D. Peacock

Jason D. Averill

Thomas G. Cleary

Nelson P. Bryner

William D. Walton

Paul A. Reneke

Erica D. Kuligowski

Fire Research Division

Building and Fire Research Laboratory

January 2007

U.S. Department of Commerce

Donald L. Evans, Secretary

Technology Administration

Phillip J. Bond, Under Secretary for Technology

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director
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.

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

measurement in all its publications. In this document intended for the construction and

building materials industries, however, in North America certain non-metric units are so

widely used instead of metric units that it is more practical and less confusing to include

certain measurement values in customary units only.

National Institute of Standards and Technology Technical Note 1455

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Tech. Note 1455, 396 pages (January 2007)

CODEN: NSPUE2

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
iii

Bibliographic Information

Abstract

This report presents the results of the project and provides details of the response of a range of

residential smoke alarm technologies in a controlled laboratory test and in a series of real-scale

tests conducted in two different residential structures. The data developed in this study include

measurement of temperature and smoke obscuration in addition to gas concentrations for a range

of fire scenarios and residences. The results are intended to provide both insight into siting and

response characteristics of residential smoke alarms and a set of reference data for future

enhancements to alarm technology based on fires from current materials and constructions.

Smoke alarms of either the ionization type or the photoelectric type consistently provide time for

occupants to escape from most residential fires, although in some cases the escape time provided

can be short. Consistent with prior findings, ionization type alarms provide somewhat better

response to flaming fires than photoelectric alarms, and photoelectric alarms provide (often)

considerably faster response to smoldering fires than ionization type alarms. 

Escape times in this study were systematically shorter than those found in a similar study

conducted in the 1970's. This is related to some combination of faster fire development times

for today's products that provide the main fuel sources for fires, such as upholstered furniture

and mattresses, different criteria for time to untenable conditions, and improved understanding

of the speed and range of threats to tenability.

Keywords

detector sensitivity; fire tests; heat alarms; ionization alarms; photoelectric alarms; building

fires; residential buildings; smoke alarms
iv
v

Contents

Contents ....................................................................v

Figures and Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiii

1 Introduction ...............................................................1

1.1 History ............................................................2

1.2 Concerns Raised .....................................................3

1.3 Organizing the Research Project .........................................4

1.3.1 Evaluate the Performance of Current Smoke Alarm Technology ........4

1.3.2 Test Conditions Representative of Current Fatal Residential Fires .......5

1.3.3 Evaluate the Efficacy of Current Requirements for Number and Location of

Smoke Alarms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.3.4 Develop Standard Nuisance Alarm Sources to Be Included in the Test

Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.3.5 Examine Other Fire Detection Technologies in Combination with Smoke

Alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.3.6 Obtain Data on the Potential for Improvements in Performance by New

Technologies ...............................................8

1.3.7 Include Fuel Items That Incorporate Materials and Constructions

Representative of Current Residential Furnishings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1.3.8 Fully Characterize Test Detectors and Alarms in a Consistent Manner to

Facilitate Comparisons .......................................8

1.3.9 Utilize Fire Models to Extend the Applicability of the Test Arrangements

and Maximize the Test Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1.3.10 Make All of the Data Collected as Widely Accessible as Possible ......8

1.3.11 Provide Opportunities to Enhance Public Fire Safety Education .......9

1.4 Project Oversight ....................................................9

2 Residential Fire Alarms, Sensor Response and Calibration in the FE/DE . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.1 Residential Alarms Included in the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.2 The fire emulator/detector evaluator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.3 Smoke Aerosols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.4 Calibration of Smoke and CO alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
vi

2.5 Alarm Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

2.6 Evaluation of Unmodified Alarm Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

2.7 Effect of Sensor Board Location on Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

2.8 Thresholds for Modified Alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

3 Fire Source Test Scenarios and Geometries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

3.1 Scenario Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

3.2 Material Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

3.2.1 Upholstered Furniture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

3.2.2 Mattress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

3.2.3 Cooking Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

3.3 Ignition Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

3.3.1 Flaming Ignition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

3.3.2 Smoldering Ignition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

3.3.3 Cooking Ignition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

3.4 Test Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

3.4.1 Manufactured Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

3.4.2 Two-story Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

4 Fire Source Testing Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

4.1 Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

4.2 Sample Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

4.3 Primary Gases – CO, CO2, and O2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

4.4 FTIR Gas Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

4.5 Optical Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

4.6 Smoke Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

4.7 Smoke and CO Alarm Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

4.8 Sprinkler Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

4.9 Mechanical Heat Alarm Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

5 Fire Source Test Results and Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

5.1 Tests Conducted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

5.2 Test Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

5.3 Calculation of Alarm Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

5.4 Calculation of Time to Untenable Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

5.4.1 Tenability Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

5.4.2 Tenability Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

5.5 Assessment of Overall Alarm Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

5.6 Aerosol Concentration and Size Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

5.6.1 Mass and Number Concentration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

5.6.2 Particle Size Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

5.7 Measurement Uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
vii

6 Residential Smoke Alarm Nuisance Source Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

6.1 Nuisance Scenario Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

6.2 Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

6.2.1 Aerosol Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

6.2.2 Temperature and Humidity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

6.2.3 Flow Velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

6.2.4 Analog Output Photoelectric, Ionization and Sensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

6.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

6.3.1 Toasting Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

6.3.2 Frying Bacon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

6.3.3 Frying Butter and Margarine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

6.3.4 Frying Hamburgers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

6.3.5 Deep-frying Tortillas and French-fried Potatoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

6.3.6 Broiled and Baked/Broiled Pizza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

6.3.7 Broiling Hamburgers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

6.3.8 Boiling Spaghetti Pasta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

6.3.9 Candle Burning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

6.3.10 Cigarette Smoking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

6.4 Controlled Incipient Fire Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

6.4.1 Cotton Smolder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

6.4.2 Wood Smolder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

6.4.3 Polyurethane Foam Smolder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

6.5 FE/DE Emulation of Nuisance Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

6.5.1 Cotton Wick Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

6.5.2 Cotton Smolder Smoke Fire Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

6.5.3 Wood Smolder Smoke Fire Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

6.5.4 Candle Flame Nuisance Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

6.5.5 Heated Margarine or Butter Nuisance Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

6.5.6 Toasting Bread Nuisance Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

7 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

7.1 Smoke Alarm Activation Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

7.2 Tenability Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

7.3 Time Needed for Escape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

7.3.1 Movement Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

7.3.2 Premovement Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

7.3.3 Escape Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238

7.4 Smoke Alarm Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240

7.5 Other Alarm Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

7.5.1 Carbon Monoxide Alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

7.5.2 Heat Alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
viii

7.5.3 Tell-tale Sprinklers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

7.6 Comparison with Earlier Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

7.7 Nuisance Alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

8 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

9 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

10 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

Appendix A: Alarm Activation and Time to Untenable Conditions During Tests of 

Residential Smoke Alarms Included in the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Appendix B: FTIR Gas Measurement in Home Smoke Alarm Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
ix

Figures and Tables

Figures

Figure 1. Sample sensor test board used during tests of residential smoke alarms . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Figure 2. Schematic of the FE/DE (all units in cm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Figure 3. Propene smoke generator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 4. Propene smoke calibration run . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Figure 5. Smolder source, staged wick ignition device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Figure 6. Smolder smoke calibration run . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Figure 7. Smolder smoke CO calibration run . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Figure 8. UL grey smoke (smolder smoke) sensitivity limits and FE/DE data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure 9. UL black smoke sensitivity limits and corresponding FE/DE data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure 10. Alarm identification coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Figure 11. Calibration runs for Ion-1 alarm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Figure 12. Calibration runs for Ion-3 alarm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Figure 13. Calibration runs for Ion-4 alarm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 14. Calibration runs for Photo-1 alarm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 15. Calibration runs for Photo-2 alarm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Figure 16. Calibration runs for ASP alarm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Figure 17. Calibration runs for CO alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Figure 18. Photo-1, eight wicks – 12 s delay, Disp 1 and Disp 7 alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Figure 19. Photo-1, 16 wicks – 12 s delay, Disp 1 and Disp 7 alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Figure 20. Photo-1, eight wicks – 12 s delay, Disp 1 and Disp 7 alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 21. Photo-1, eight wicks – 30 s delay, Disp 4 and Disp 10 alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 22. Photo-1, eight wicks – 12 s delay, Disp 37 and Disp 40 alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Figure 23. Photo-1, eight wicks, 12 s delay, Disp 46 and Disp 55 alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Figure 24. Photo-1, eight wicks – 12 s delay, Disp 52 and Disp 58 alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Figure 25. Photo-1, eight wicks – 12 s delay, Disp 61 and Disp 64 alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Figure 26. Photo-1, eight wicks – 12 s delay, Disp 10 and Disp 55 alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Figure 27. Photo-1, 16 wicks – 12 s delay, Disp 10 and Disp 55 alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Figure 28. Ion-1, three wicks - 30 s delay, Disp 11 and Disp 38 alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Figure 29. Ion-1, four wicks - 30 s delay, Disp 11 and Disp 38 alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Figure 30. Ion-1, four wicks - 30 s delay, Disp 2 and Disp 5 alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Figure 31. Ion-1, six wicks 12 s delay, Disp 2 and Disp 5 alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Figure 32. Ion-1, four wicks 30 s delay, Disp 8 and Disp 44 alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Figure 33. Ion-1, six wicks 12 s delay, Disp 8 and Disp 44 alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Figure 34. Ion-1, six wicks 12 s delay, Disp 41 and Disp 51 alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Figure 35. Ion-1, three wicks 12 s delay, Disp 53 and Disp 44 alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Figure 36. Ion-1, six wicks 12 s delay, Disp 60 and Disp 63 alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
x

Figure 37. Ion-1, six wicks 12 s delay, Disp 57 and Disp 60 alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Figure 38. Ion-3, six wicks - 12 s delay, Disp 39 and Disp 48 alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Figure 39. Ion-3, four wicks - 30 s delay, Disp 39 and Disp 48 alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Figure 40. Ion-3, three wicks 30 s delay, Disp 39 and Disp 48 alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Figure 41. Ion-3, three wicks 30 s delay, Disp 39 and Disp 48 alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Figure 42. Ion-3, three wicks 30 s delay, Disp 3 and Disp 6 alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Figure 43. Ion-3, three wicks 30 s delay, Disp 9 and Disp 12 alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Figure 44. Ion-3, three wicks 30 s delay, Disp 30 and Disp 45 alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Figure 45. Ion-3, three wicks 30 s delay, Disp 54 and Disp 56 alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Figure 46. Ion-3, three wicks 30 s delay, Disp 59 and Disp 62 alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Figure 47. Ion-3, three wicks 30 s delay, Disp 53 and Disp 50 alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Figure 48. UL grey smoke (smolder smoke) sensitivity limits and FE/DE data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Figure 49. Test board layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Figure 50. Axial velocity at a fan speed of 5 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Figure 51. Axial velocity at a fan speed of 7 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Figure 52. Axial velocity at a fan speed of 12 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Figure 53. Ion-1 response, fan speed 5 Hz (see table 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Figure 54. Ion-1 response, fan speed 7 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Figure 55. Ion-1 response, fan speed 12 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Figure 56. Ion-1 response, fan speed 5 Hz - repeat test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Figure 57. Ion-1 response, fan speed 7 Hz - repeat test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Figure 58. Ion-1 response, fan speed 12 Hz - repeat test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Figure 59. Ion-3 response, fan speed 5 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Figure 60. Ion-3 response, fan speed 7 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Figure 61. Ion-3 response, fan speed 12 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Figure 62. Ion-3 response, fan speed 5 Hz - repeat test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Figure 63. Ion-3 response, fan speed 7 Hz - repeat test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Figure 64. Ion-3 response, fan speed 12 Hz - repeat test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Figure 65. Ion-4 response, fan speed 5 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Figure 66. Ion-4 response, fan speed 7 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Figure 67. Ion-4 response, fan speed 12 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Figure 68. Ion-4 response, fan speed 5 Hz - repeat test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Figure 69. Ion-4 response, fan speed 7 Hz - repeat test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Figure 70. Ion-4 response, fan speed 12 Hz - repeat test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Figure 71. Photo-3 response, fan speed 5 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Figure 72. Photo-3 response, fan speed 7 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Figure 73. Photo-3 response, fan speed 12 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Figure 74. Photo-3 response, fan speed 5 Hz - repeat test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Figure 75. Photo-3 response, fan speed 7 Hz - repeat test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Figure 76. Photo-3 response, fan speed 7 Hz - repeat test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Figure 77. Measurements of upholstered chair used for smoldering experiments . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Figure 78. Upholstered chair used for smoldering experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
xi

Figure 79. Measurements of upholstered chair used for flaming experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Figure 80. Upholstered chair used for flaming experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Figure 81. Mattress used for smoldering and flaming experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Figure 82. Corn oil used for kitchen cooking materials fire experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Figure 83. “Electric match” used for flaming ignitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Figure 84. Location of “electric match” ignition source for flaming upholstered chair and

mattress experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Figure 85. Rod used for smoldering ignitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Figure 86. Heating ignition source with cooking oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Figure 87. Layout of manufactured home used for test of smoke alarm performance . . . . . . . . 74

Figure 88. Layout of first floor of two-story home used for tests of smoke alarm performance 75

Figure 89. Layout of second floor of two-story home used for tests of smoke alarm 

performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Figure 90. Sample instrumentation showing relative locations of temperature, primary gas

analysis, smoke obscuration, and smoke alarm response measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Figure 91. Instrumentation in manufactured home during tests of smoke alarm performance . . 79

Figure 92. Instrumentation in first floor of two-story home during tests of smoke alarm

performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Figure 93. Instrumentation in second floor of two-story home during tests of smoke alarm

performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Figure 94. Example of mass loss measurement showing upholstered chair on load cell prior to

one of the flaming ignition tests and load cell apparatus mounted beneath manufactured

home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Figure 95. Optical density instrument designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Figure 96. Smoke properties measurement showing collection lines (foreground) and smoke

velocity measurement (background) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Figure 97. Calibration of residential ionization chamber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Figure 98. Measurement station showing several alarms arranged for testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Figure 99. Measurement station showing unmodified smoke alarms arranged for testing . . . . 91

Figure 100. Mass loss of burning mattress during flaming ignition test of a mattress, 

test SDC05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Figure 101. Gas temperatures from ceiling to floor in remote bedroom during a flaming ignition

test of a mattress, test SDC05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Figure 102. Gas temperatures from ceiling to floor in main bedroom (ignition location) during a

flaming ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Figure 103. Gas temperatures from ceiling to floor in hallway outside remote bedroom in a

flaming ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Figure 104. Gas temperatures from ceiling to floor in hallway outside main bedroom in a

flaming ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Figure 105. Gas temperatures from ceiling to floor in living area during a flaming ignition test of

a mattress, test SDC05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
xii

Figure 106. Gas temperatures from ceiling to floor in front door hallway during a flaming

ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Figure 107. Gas temperature in closed bedroom during a flaming ignition test of a mattress, 

test SDC05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Figure 108. Smoke obscuration at 20 mm and 900 mm below ceiling in remote bedroom during

flaming ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Figure 109. Smoke obscuration at 20 mm and 900 mm below ceiling in main bedroom (ignition

location) during flaming ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Figure 110. Smoke obscuration at 20 mm and 900 mm below ceiling in hallway outside remote

bedroom during flaming ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Figure 111. Smoke obscuration at 20 mm and 900 mm below ceiling in hallway outside main

bedroom during flaming ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Figure 112. Smoke obscuration at 20 mm and 900 mm below ceiling in living area during

flaming ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Figure 113. Smoke obscuration at 20 mm and 900 mm below ceiling in front door hallway

during flaming ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Figure 114. Smoke obscuration at 1520 mm below ceiling in closed bedroom during flaming

ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Figure 115. Carbon monoxide concentration 900 mm below ceiling at four locations during a

flaming ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Figure 116. Carbon dioxide concentration 900 mm below ceiling at four locations during a

flaming ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Figure 117. Oxygen concentration 900 mm below ceiling at four locations during a flaming

ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Figure 118. Measured output for several analog-modified smoke alarms in hallway outside main

bedroom during a flaming ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Figure 119. Measured output for several analog-modified carbon monoxide alarms in hallway

outside main bedroom during a flaming ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05 . . . . . 116

Figure 120. Measured output for a heat alarm in hallway outside main bedroom during a flaming

ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Figure 121. Measured output for a tell-tale residential sprinkler in hallway outside main

bedroom during a flaming ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Figure 122. Smoke properties for smoldering chair scenario SDC01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Figure 123. Smoke properties for flaming chair scenario SDC02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Figure 124. Smoke properties for smoldering mattress scenario SDC06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Figure 125. Smoke properties for flaming mattress scenario SDC07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Figure 126. Smoke properties for smoldering mattress scenario SDC08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Figure 127. Smoke properties for flaming chair scenario SDC10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Figure 128. Smoke properties for smoldering chair scenario SDC11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Figure 129. Smoke properties for cooking oil fire scenario SDC12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Figure 130. Smoke properties for cooking oil fire scenario SDC13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Figure 131. Smoke properties for smoldering mattress with burn room door closed SDC14 . . 135
xiii

Figure 132. Smoke properties for smoldering chair scenario SDC23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Figure 133. Smoke properties for cooking oil fire scenario SDC24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Figure 134. Smoke properties for flaming chair scenario SDC25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Figure 135. Smoke properties for flaming chair scenario SDC26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Figure 136. Smoke properties for smoldering chair scenario with air conditioning SDC27 . . . 140

Figure 137. Cascade impactor results for flaming chair scenario SDC02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Figure 138. Cascade impactor results for flaming chair scenario SDC10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Figure 139. Cascade impactor results for cooking oil fire scenarios SDC12 and SDC13 . . . . 144

Figure 140. Cascade impactor results for smoldering chair fire scenarios SDC23 and SDC27 145

Figure 141. Schematic of the manufactured home for nuisance testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Figure 142. Ion chamber schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

Figure 143. Response of the ion chamber and MIC to cotton smolder smoke . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

Figure 144. Thermocouple and sampling line placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

Figure 145. Photo, Ion, CO and thermistor unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Figure 146. Velocity and speed components for toasting bread nuisance source with and without

forced ventilation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Figure 147. Toasting bread scenario - toaster on at t=0, off at 240 s. No forced flow . . . . . . . 158

Figure 148. Toasting bread scenario – toaster on at t=0, off at 255 s. No forced flow, remote

bedroom window open . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

Figure 149. Toasting bread scenario - toaster on at t=0, off at 255 s. Room fan turned on . . . . 161

Figure 150. Toasting bread scenario - toaster on at t=0, off at 270 s. Room fan turned on . . . . 162

Figure 151. Toasting frozen bagel scenario – toaster on at t=0, off at 300 s. 

Room fan turned off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Figure 152. Toasting frozen bagel scenario – toaster on at t=0, off at 300 s. 

Room fan turned on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

Figure 153. Frying bacon scenario - cast-iron pan, LPG hot plate, no forced flow, burner lit at

t=0, bacon in pan at 60 s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Figure 154. Frying bacon scenario - cast-iron pan, LPG hot plate, no forced flow, burner lit at

t=0, bacon in pan at 60 s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Figure 155. Frying bacon scenario - aluminum pan, electric range, no forced flow, bacon in pan

at 120 s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

Figure 156. Frying bacon scenario - aluminum pan, electric range, floor fan on, bacon in pan at

120 s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Figure 157. Frying butter scenario - aluminum pan, electric range, floor fan off, butter in pan at

t=0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

Figure 158. . Frying butter scenario - aluminum pan, electric range, floor fan off, butter in pan at

t=0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

Figure 159. Frying butter scenario - cast iron pan, electric range, floor fan off, butter in pan at

t=0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

Figure 160. Frying butter scenario - cast iron pan, electric range, floor fan on, butter in pan at

t=0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
xiv

Figure 161. Frying margarine scenario - cast iron pan, electric range, floor fan off, margarine in

pan at t=0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

Figure 162. Frying hamburgers - three hamburgers in non-stick frying pan, floor fan off. 

Hamburgers in pan at t=120 s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Figure 163. Frying hamburgers - three hamburgers in non-stick frying pan, floor fan on, living

room window open. Hamburgers in pan at t=160 s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

Figure 164. Frying hamburgers - three hamburgers in non-stick frying pan, floor fan on. 

Hamburgers in pan at t=150 s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Figure 165. Deep-frying Tortillas scenario - steel wok, LPG hotplate, floor fan off, first tortillas

in pan at t=360 s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

Figure 166. Deep-frying french fries scenario - steel wok, LPG hotplate, floor fan off, first

french fries in pan at t=360 s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

Figure 167. Broiling Pizza - one frozen pizza in oven set on broil, floor fan off. 

Oven on at t=0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

Figure 168. Bake/ broil pizza - one frozen pizza in oven set on bake and pre-heated to 350 EF,

then set to broil 630 s later. Floor fan was off. Pizza in at t=0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Figure 169. Bake/ broil pizza - one frozen pizza in oven set on bake and pre-heated to 350 EF,

then set to broil 630 s later. Floor fan was on. Pizza in at t=0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

Figure 170. Broiling hamburgers - four hamburgers in oven set on broil,

floor fan off. Oven on at t=0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

Figure 171. Broiling hamburgers - four hamburgers in oven set on broil,

floor fan on. Oven on at t=0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

Figure 172. Boiling spaghetti pasta - 1/3 package (150 g), floor fan off.

Pasta placed in pot at t=360 s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

Figure173. Boiling spaghetti pasta - 2/3 package (300 g), floor fan off.

Pasta placed in pot at t=450 s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Figure 174. Boiling spaghetti pasta - 1/2 package (225 g), lid on, floor fan off.

Pasta placed in pot at t=480 s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

Figure 175. Candles burning - four tea candles burning on electric range top area.

Floor fan was off. Candles lit at t=0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

Figure 176. Cigarette smoking - two smokers smoking one cigarette each in kitchen area.

Floor fan was off. Cigarettes lit at t=0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

Figure 177. Cigarette smoking – two smokers smoking one cigarette each in kitchen area.

Floor fan was off. Cigarettes lit at t=0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

Figure 178. Smoldering cotton wicks – eight sets of four wicks were ignited with a 12 s delay

using the staged wick ignition device, located on the living room floor at the chair burn

location. Fan was off. Ignition sequence started at t=30 s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

Figure 179. Smoldering cotton wicks -eight sets of four wicks were ignited with a 12 s delay

using the staged wick ignition device, located on the living room floor at the chair burn

location. Fan was on. Ignition sequence started at t=30 s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
xv

Figure 180. Smoldering wood blocks - eight beech wood blocks on an electric hotplate, located

on the living room floor at the chair burn location. Fan was off. Power to hotplate on at

t=0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

Figure 181. Smoldering wood blocks - eight beech wood blocks on an electric hotplate, located

on the living room floor at the chair burn location. Fan was on. Power to hotplate on at

t=0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

Figure 182. Smoldering foam - A polyurethane foam block, located on the living room floor at

the chair burn location and ignited with an electrically powered nichrome wire heater

imbedded in the block. Fan was off. Power to igniter on at t=0. 

Sample flamed at 798 s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

Figure 183. Smoldering foam - a polyurethane foam block, located on the living room floor at

the chair burn location and ignited with an electrically powered nichrome wire heater

imbedded in the block. Fan was off. Power to igniter on at t=0. Sample stopped

smoldering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

Figure 184. Smoldering foam - a polyurethane foam block, located on the living room floor at

the chair burn location and ignited with an electrically powered nichrome wire heater

imbedded in the block. Fan was on. Power to igniter on at t=0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

Figure 185. Smoldering foam - a polyurethane foam block, located on the living room floor at

the chair burn location and ignited with an electrically powered nichrome wire heater

imbedded in the block. Fan was on. Power to igniter on at t=0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

Figure 186. Photoelectric sensor response to cotton smolder smoke calibration test.

A and B indicate repeated tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

Figure 187. Ionization sensor response to cotton smolder smoke calibration test.

A and B indicate repeated tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

Figure 188. Electrochemical cell CO sensor response to cotton smolder smoke calibration test. 

A and B indicate repeated tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

Figure 189. Smoldering cotton fire scenario, fan speed 7 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212

Figure 190. Smoldering cotton fire scenario, fan speed 7 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

Figure 191. Smoldering cotton fire scenario, fan speed 12Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

Figure 192. Smoldering cotton fire scenario, fan speed 12 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

Figure 193. Smoldering wood fire scenario, fan speed 7 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

Figure 194. Smoldering wood fire scenario, fan speed 7 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

Figure 195. Smoldering wood fire scenario, fan speed 12 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

Figure 196. Smoldering wood fire scenario, fan speed 12 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

Figure 197. Candle flame , fan speed 7 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

Figure 198. Margarine heated in a pan , fan speed 7 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222

Figure 199. Margarine heated in a pan, fan speed 7 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

Figure 200. Butter heated in a pan, fan speed 7 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224

Figure 201. Bread in a toaster, fan speed 7 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

Figure 202. Bread in a toaster, fan speed 7 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226

Figure 203. Bread in a toaster, fan speed 7 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

Figure 204. Bread in a toaster, fan speed 12 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
xvi

Figure 205. Bread in a toaster, fan speed 12 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

Figure 206. Average available egress time for several different alarm and fire types with alarms

on every level for manufactured home tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

Figure 207. Average available egress time for several different alarm and fire types with alarms

on every level + bedrooms for manufactured home tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

Figure 208. Average available egress time for several different alarm and fire types with alarms

in every room for manufactured home tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

Figure 209. Test structure, sample interior room, and instrumentation in original 1975 Indiana

Dunes Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

Tables

Table 1. Calibration of smoke and CO alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Table 2. Listed unmodified alarm sensitivities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Table 3. MIC output and obscuration during tests of two ionization alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Table 4. Mean axial velocity 5 cm below ceiling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Table 5. Threshold criteria for modified alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Table 6. Top fire scenarios ranked by frequency of occurrence, 1992 – 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Table 7. Locations for temperature measurement in tests of smoke alarm response . . . . . . . . . . 78

Table 8. Locations for primary gas measurement in tests of smoke alarm response . . . . . . . . . 83

Table 9. Locations for primary optical density measurements in tests of smoke alarm 

response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Table 10. Alarm and sprinkler locations in tests of smoke and CO alarm response . . . . . . . . . . 90

Table 11. Test conditions for tests conducted in a manufactured home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Table 12. Test Conditions for tests conducted in a two-story home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Table 13. Alarm Times for Several Smoke Alarms in Hallway Outside Main Bedroom During

Flaming Ignition Test of a Mattress, Test SDC05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Table 14. Calculated tenability for a flaming ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05 . . . . . . . 122

Table 15. Activation times for several smoke alarms during a flaming ignition test of a mattress,

test SDC05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Table 16. Activation times for several alternative technologies during a flaming ignition test of a

mattress, test SDC05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Table 17. Cascade impactor results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

Table 18. Estimated particle size from smoldering chair scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

Table 19. Estimated particle size from flaming sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Table 20. Estimated particle size from cooking oil fire scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Table 21. Relative error for tenability time and alarm time during tests of residential smoke

alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Table 22. Alarm sensitivity for photoelectric and ionization sensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
xvii

Table. 23. Average time to alarm (in seconds) for several smoke alarms and fire scenarios in a

manufactured home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234

Table 24. Average time to alarm (in seconds) for several smoke alarms and fire scenarios in a

two-story home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

Table 25. Sample premovement activity time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238

Table 26. Estimates of required escape times for best and worst case scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . 240

Table. 27. Available egress time (in seconds) for several different alarm technologies and fire

scenarios in a manufactured home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242

Table 28. Available egress time (in seconds) for several different alarm technologies and fire

scenarios in a two-story home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

Table. 29. Activation time (in seconds) for several different fire detection technologies and fire

scenarios in a manufactured home. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

Table 30. Comparison of alarm times and times to untenable conditions for 1975 and current

studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248

Table 31. Comparison of tenability criteria used in the 1975 and current studies . . . . . . . . . . 248

Table 32. Comparison of fire growth rates in the 1975 and current studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
xviii
xix

Executive Summary

According to estimates by the National Fire Protection Association and the U. S. Fire

Administration, U. S. home usage of smoke alarms rose from less than 10 % in 1975 to at least

95 % in 2000, while the number of home fire deaths was cut nearly in half. Thus the home

smoke alarm is credited as the greatest success story in fire safety in the last part of the 20th

century, because it alone represented a highly effective fire safety technology with leverage on

most of the fire death problem that went from only token usage to nearly universal usage in a

remarkably short time. Other highly effective fire safety technologies either affect a smaller

share of the fire death problem (e.g., child-resistant lighter, cigarette-resistant mattress or

upholstered furniture) or have yet to see more than token usage (e.g., home fire sprinkler,

reduced ignition-strength cigarette).

A seminal component that underpinned this success was the existence of a comprehensive,

independent set of tests conducted in 1975-76 that clearly demonstrated the potential of smoke

alarms to save lives. These were the so-called Indiana Dunes tests sponsored by The National

Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, (then the National Bureau of Standards) and

conducted by Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute and Underwriters Laboratories.

In the past few years questions were being raised about the efficacy of some smoke alarm

technologies, whether the numbers and locations in homes still represented the optimum

configuration, and if multi-sensor designs (as are becoming popular for commercial fire alarm

systems) might perform better or produce fewer nuisance alarms. Some simply thought that it

was time to reexamine the technology in light of its importance to public safety. To this end a

consortium of four federal agencies and Underwriters Laboratories (with in-kind support from

several others) funded this project.

The present work followed a design similar to that used in the Indiana Dunes tests. Tests were

conducted in actual homes with representative sizes and floorplans, utilized actual furnishings

and household items for fire sources, and tested actual smoke alarms currently sold in retail

stores. Smoke alarm performance was quantified in terms of the escape time provided by groups

of alarms installed in accordance with typical code provisions. While some of the smoke alarms

were modified by their manufacturers to provide continuous, analog output from their sensors

(which allowed the analysis of the performance of multi-sensors and decision algorithms) these

were compared to identical models purchased from retail stores and included in all tests. 

Additionally a separate study of nuisance alarm sources was conducted because this was

identified as an important issue in a prior study by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety

Commission.
xx

The fire emulator/detector evaluator (FE/DE) is a single-pass "wind tunnel" at NIST designed to

reproduce all relevant conditions needed to assess the performance of spot-type particulate,

thermal and gas sensor detectors or combination detectors. Specifically, the FE/DE allows for

the control of the flow velocity, air temperature, gas species, and aerosol concentrations at a test

section wherein detectors and sensors are exposed to these environmental conditions . Included

in this report are complete data from tests conducted in the FE/DE apparatus and calibrations for

all of the alarms and detectors used in this study. Calibration in the FE/DE of the alarms used in

the current study showed that the sensitivity of the alarms was consistent with manufacturer

ratings and, on average, of equivalent sensitivity to those used in the 1975 study. The average

sensitivity measured for all alarms tested was 5.1 %/m ± 1 %/m (1.5 %/ft ± 0.4 %/ft). In the

1975 study, the average of all alarms tested was 6.3 %/m ± 2 %/m (1.9 %/ft ± 0.7 %/ft). While

the average for the 1975 tests is higher, the uncertainty in the data overlaps.

An analysis of residential fire statistics was conducted for this study to identify the important fire

scenarios that were included in the study. Flaming and smoldering upholstered furniture and

mattresses account for the top four most deadly fire scenarios. Flaming cooking materials are

involved more than five times more frequently than any other material. These scenarios included

the top five ranked by number of deaths, and among the top ten ranked by frequency of

occurrence. 

Fire produces heat, smoke, and toxic gases, all of which can threaten human life. In these

experiments environmental parameters that have an impact on human response were measured.

Parameters include temperature rise, toxic gas production, and smoke obscuration. Aspects of

these that can be measured directly include the gas temperature, mass loss of the burning item,

species concentrations, including CO, CO2, O2, and other gases. Two different geometries of

residential structures were used for the tests. The manufactured home geometry represented an

array of residential layouts. The arrangement of the manufactured home was sufficiently generic

as to represent an apartment, condominium, or small ranch house, in addition to a manufactured

home, although it did include a sloped ceiling throughout the structure. The primary partitioning

of the 84.7 m2 (911 ft2) home consisted of three bedrooms, one full bathroom, one kitchen/dining

area, one living room, and two hallways. The 139 m2

 (1495 ft2) two-story home was a brickclad 3 bedroom home. The first floor consisted of a foyer, den, family room, kitchen, dining

room, bathroom, and stairwell to the upstairs. The home did not have a basement. The 2-car

garage was accessible from the first floor den. The second floor consisted of a stairwell to the

downstairs, hallway, 2 bathrooms, and two smaller bedrooms and one master bedroom. A total

of 36 tests were conducted in the two homes; 27 in the manufactured home, and 8 in the 2-story

home.

The experimental design provided data on the performance of alarms in various installation

arrangements. Groups of alarms were located in the room of fire origin, at least one bedroom,

and in a central location on every level. Thus, by considering the alarm times of devices in

various locations against tenability times for any test it was possible to determine the escape
xxi

time provided by various installation arrangements including every room, every level with or

without every bedroom, and single detectors. Since both ionization and photoelectric types were

included at each location the performance by sensor type was also quantified.

Smoke alarms of either type installed on every level generally provided the necessary escape

time for different fire types and locations. Adding smoke alarms in bedrooms increased the

escape time provided, especially for smoldering fires. These tests quantified an increased escape

time for fires starting in the bedroom. 

The results obtained were similar to those of the earlier work. Both common residential smoke

alarm technologies (ionization and photoelectric) provided positive escape times in most fire

scenarios with the ionization type reacting earlier to flaming fires and the photoelectric type

reacting earlier to smoldering fires. The main difference from the earlier work is that the amount

of escape time provided is consistently less. For example, average times to untenable conditions

for flaming tests was 3 min compared to 17 min in the prior work. While some of this difference

may be attributed to the tenability criteria used in the current study, it is also clear that fire

growth in the current tests are significantly faster than in the earlier tests. For flaming fire, time

to alarm activation and measurement of elevated temperatures in the room of fire origin support

this faster fire growth observation. However, the smoldering fire scenarios are very difficult to

reproduce experimentally and tenability times in the present study have an uncertainty (based

upon one standard deviation) which overlaps the uncertainty from the 1975 study. Therefore,

caution should be exhibited in drawing conclusions based upon comparisons of smoldering

tenability times between the two studies. It is important to note that while both the 1975 study

and the current study attempted to use a representative sample of available and important

furnishings, each study included only a small fraction of those available in the marketplace. 

Still, this study is consistent with other recent studies of furniture and mattresses, even though

there may be significant differences in the burning behavior between items of furniture. 

Activation times for other fire detection technologies were also collected. As expected, CO

alarms respond best to fires which produce considerable quantities of carbon monoxide during

the combustion process, i.e., smoldering fire scenarios and the closed-door flaming mattress

(which smoldered after the room of fire origin became oxygen limited). Tell-tell sprinklers and

heat alarms responded to the flaming fire scenarios as well as to the smoldering fire scenarios

after a transition to flaming combustion. Activation times of these devices support the current

practice of use only in conjunction with smoke alarms.

Nuisance alarms in residential settings from typical cooking activities, smoking or candle flames

are affected by the properties of the aerosol produced and its concentration, the location of an

alarm relative to the source, and the air flow that transports smoke to an alarm. This is not

surprising, as the same observations have been made in the fire tests here and other studies. This

study provides a detailed set of data that can be used to address several issues involving nuisance

alarms and reinforces current suggested practices. Clearly, the advice that alarms not be
xxii

installed close to cooking appliances if at all possible is valid. These results show that

homeowners who are able to move the location of an alarm that frequently experiences nuisance

alarms would do well to maximize its distance from cooking appliances while keeping it in the

area to be protected. It was observed that ionization alarms had a propensity to alarm when

exposed to nuisance aerosols produced in the early stages of some cooking activities, prior to

noticeable smoke production. This phenomenon could be particularly vexing to homeowners

who experience such nuisance alarms. Carbon monoxide electrochemical cells at all alarm

locations gathered data on the level of carbon monoxide produced during the tests and

transported to the alarms. These data in conjunction with the complete fire test series data could

be used to verify combined smoke/CO alarm algorithms.

The FE/DE nuisance source tests captured salient features of some of the manufactured home

tests. More work needs to be done to produce a set of tests and the performance criteria that

covers a significant range of residential nuisance sources, and would assure a benefit in terms of

nuisance alarm reduction. This work is part of ongoing research with the FE/DE at NIST. The

nuisance alarm study also represents a wealth of data valuable in establishing (amazingly for the

first time) test methods and criteria for what a smoke alarm should not respond to. Testing labs

are examining NIST's unique FE/DE apparatus to replace the current, product specific test

apparatus that do not allow multi-sensor devices to be evaluated. 

The present work has produced an extensive database of documented data on typical residential

fires. All data collected in the tests are available in electronic form (http://smokealarm.nist.gov)

and are already being used by the smoke alarm industry to improve their products, by the

product approval agencies to improve testing procedures, and by researchers to validate and

improve fire models. 

The present work has considerable potential for communicating important fire safety messages

to the public. The material has been made freely available and NIST plans to produce examples

and is willing to work with others wishing to do the same.
xxiii

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the efforts of the Fire Metrology Group and others,

including D. Stroup, W. Twilley, J. Lee, G. Roadarmel, J. McElroy, M. Selepak, D. Weinert, M.

Donnelly, M. Nyden, C. Davis, and L. DeLauter. G. Forney developed the web conversion for

the test data. In addition, an in-kind contribution from the National Research Council-Canada

measured toxicological species with FTIR within the manufactured home. The measurements

were taken by Dr. J. Su and Dr. J. Kanabus-Kaminska. 

The steering committee for the project included representatives from government and other

organizations interested in the research. Their expertise provided direction throughout the

project and insightful review of this report. Members of the committee included S. Coulberson,

Ceners for Disease Control and Prevention; J. Hall, National Fire Protection Association; A. Lee,

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC); R. McCarthy, U.S. Fire Administration

(USFA); J. Milke, University of Maryland; M. Nealy, CPSC; J. Ottoson, USFA; I. Papier and P.

Patty of Underwriters Laboratories Inc.; J. Su, National Research Council Canada; and

E. Taylor, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Healthy Homes Initiative.

The home smoke alarm project was sponsored by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety

Commission, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Fire Administration, and the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Healthy Homes Initiative, Underwriters

Laboratories. The National Fire Protection Association (In-kind contribution), and National

Research Council Canada, (In-kind contribution).
xxiv
1

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

1

Performance of Home Smoke Alarms

Analysis of the Response of Several Available Technologies

in Residential Fires1

Richard W. Bukowski, Richard D. Peacock, Jason D. Averill, Thomas G. Cleary,

Nelson P. Bryner, William D. Walton, Paul A. Reneke, and Erica D. Kuligowski

Fire Research Division

Building and Fire Research Laboratory

1 Introduction

Smoke alarms are often the primary life safety strategy for occupants in the event of an

unwanted residential fire. As the number of annual residential fire deaths (about 3000) far

outpaces the number of commercial and industrial fire deaths (just over 100 in all non-residential

structure fires) it is crucial to understand the level of safety provided by smoke alarms in the

residential environment. In 1975, the Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute (IITRI)

and Underwriters Laboratories, Inc (UL), with funding from the National Bureau of Standards

(NBS, now the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)), evaluated the

performance of commercially available smoke alarms in 76 residential fire experiments

representative of the major fatal fire scenarios of the time, in actual homes scheduled for

demolition. The purpose of the project, known as the Indiana Dunes Tests, was to evaluate the

“requirements for fire alarms to protect residential occupancies.” [1] The tests became the basis

for the siting and response characteristics of residential smoke alarms, worldwide.

Since 1975, however, the materials and construction of contents that represent the major

combustible items in a typical residential structure have changed and the response characteristics

of current smoke alarms have also changed as the technology matured. Thus, a systematic

evaluation of current residential smoke alarm requirements is again considered necessary. The

United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the United States Fire

Administration (USFA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the United

States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.

(UL), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and the National Research Council
2

Canada (NRCC), in conjunction with NIST’s Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL),

have joined forces to evaluate the current state of residential smoke alarm requirements.

The overall purpose of the project is to determine how different types of fire alarms can respond

to threatening residential fire settings in order to permit egress of typical occupant sets. The plan

was to conduct real-scale tests of current smoke alarms and related technologies in actual homes

with actual contents as fuels.

This report presents the results of the project and provides details of the response of a range of

residential smoke alarm technologies in a controlled laboratory test and in a series of real-scale

tests conducted in two different residential structures. The results are intended to provide both

insight into siting and response characteristics of residential smoke alarms and a set of reference

data for future enhancements to alarm technology based on fires from current materials and

constructions.

1.1 History

As early as 1961 the potential of early warning of fire to reduce fatalities was recognized [2],

however the costs associated with commercial detectors and alarm systems was prohibitive and

such systems were found in fewer than 1 % of U.S. dwellings. In 1965 the first self-contained

(so-called single-station) smoke alarms were developed but it was not until the battery-powered

smoke alarm was marketed in 1969 that homeowners began to take notice. 

Initial sales were slow due largely to costs near $100 but interest by large, consumer products

companies brought more efficient production and marketing to bear and costs declined. By 1975

prices had dropped below $39.95 (which General Electric cited as a level that brought impulse

buyers) and sales really began to accelerate.

At about this time the National Bureau of Standards (now NIST) was promoting building code

requirements for the installation of smoke alarms in new and existing dwelling units. Research

to develop minimum product performance standards was being conducted in cooperation with

Underwriters Laboratories (UL) and installation requirements were proposed to the National Fire

Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 74, Household Fire Warning Equipment. 

Initially, the installation scheme was based on the McGuire and Ruscoe recommendations [2]

but it was recognized that testing was needed to verify the adequacy of the number, sensitivity,

and location of devices in typical homes. This led to the conduct of the so-called Indiana Dunes

Tests [1] that pioneered the every-level smoke alarm requirement now found in nearly every

building code in the world.
3

In the decade 1975-1985 smoke alarm sales were estimated in the 14 million per year range and

(state and local) building codes were commonly amended to require smoke alarms at least in

new residential construction. Many jurisdictions reported precipitous drops in residential fire

fatalities, in many cases reaching zero [3]. This success inspired other jurisdictions to require

smoke detectors in existing dwellings and programs to distribute free smoke alarms to the

disadvantaged. 

According to estimates by the National Fire Protection Association and the U. S. Fire

Administration, U. S. home usage of smoke alarms rose from less than 10 % in 1975 to at least

95 % in 2000, while the number of home fire deaths was cut nearly in half. Thus the home

smoke alarm is credited as the greatest success story in fire safety in the last part of the 20th

century, because it alone represented a highly effective fire safety technology with leverage on

most of the fire death problem that went from only token usage to nearly universal usage in a

remarkably short time. Other highly effective fire safety technologies either affect a smaller

share of the fire death problem (e.g., child-resistant lighter, cigarette-resistant mattress or

upholstered furniture) or have yet to see more than token usage (e.g., home fire sprinkler,

reduced ignition-strength cigarette).

1.2 Concerns Raised

In the early 1990s the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), in conjunction with

the US Fire Administration, NFPA, NIST, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

undertook an extensive study called the National Smoke Detector Project. The objective was to

examine who did and did not have detectors, how many were working (many were now more

than 10 years old), and, if not working, why. Also included were consumer awareness issues,

availability in economically disadvantaged households, and rates of testing and battery

replacement [4].

While the results of the study were generally good there were areas for concern. Surveys of

representative homes showed that most had working smoke detectors (since renamed smoke

alarms) correctly installed. While a third of the smoke detectors did not work on initial test, half

of these were made operational by restoring power (mostly installing a fresh battery). 

Homeowner interviews revealed that most of these were intentionally disconnected due to

nuisance alarms, mostly from cooking. While there were some failures identified there were no

large or systematic problems identified with detector designs or manufacturing practices that cast

any doubt on their long term reliability.

In this period, reports surfaced that some privately funded testing had shown delayed response

from smoke alarms using ionization-type sensors to smoldering fires. While detailed reports

were never published in the open literature, these persistent reports were the cause of some

concern. Given the significant public benefits resulting from smoke alarms in homes CPSC,
4

NIST, and others felt that it was time to make a new investment in research that would address

these concerns directly and would examine ways to improve the protection provided while

reducing nuisance alarms that were leading to disabling of the alarms.

1.3 Organizing the Research Project

Under the leadership of CPSC staff and with technical support from NIST, a series of public

meetings were held to garner support for a new research program. Funding was provided by

CPSC, USFA, HUD (Healthy Homes Initiative), CDC, and Underwriters Laboratories with

additional support from NFPA, National Research Council of Canada, University of Maryland,

and the US smoke alarm manufacturers to make this ambitious program possible. The level of

resources allowed a broad program of research objectives to be identified. These were:

1. Evaluate the performance of current smoke-alarm technology. 

2. Test conditions representative of current fatal residential fires. 

3. Evaluate the efficacy of current requirements for number and location of smoke alarms. 

4. Develop standard nuisance alarm sources to be included in the test program.

5. Examine other fire detection technologies in combination with smoke alarms (example:

residential sprinkler and heat detectors). 

6. Obtain data on the potential for improvements in performance by new technologies.

7. Include fuel items that incorporate materials and constructions representative of current

residential furnishings. 

8. Fully characterize test detectors and alarms in a consistent manner to facilitate

comparisons. 

9. Utilize fire models to extend the applicability of the test arrangements and maximize the

test instrumentation. 

10. Make all of the data collected as widely accessible as possible.

11. Provide opportunities to enhance public fire safety education.

The considerations made to address each of these objectives are discussed in the following

sections.

1.3.1 Evaluate the Performance of Current Smoke Alarm Technology

Current technology includes two operating principles – the ionization-type sensor and the

photoelectric (scattering) sensor. The major manufacturers produce both types representing

unique designs that exhibit individual performance characteristics. Thus, the project included

examples of current products containing each of the sensor designs so that the results would be

representative of the full range of product performance expected. 
5

In addition, representative electrical and mechanical heat detectors, and residential sprinklers

were included in the test program to provide reference data on activation times. Also included

were current residential carbon monoxide (CO) alarms employing two of the three sensor types

found in commercial products (metal oxide and electrochemical cells). The biometric sensors

were not included because they could not be modified for continuous, analog output. The CO

alarms evaluated are specifically marketed as not being suitable as fire detectors, but rather are

for detecting high levels of CO from malfunctioning or improper use of combustion appliances. 

However, they were included because they are increasingly being required in addition to smoke

alarms and because they may be useful in improving performance and reducing nuisance alarms

in conjunction with smoke alarms.

All prior studies had been done with ordinary alarm devices that operate on an alarm threshold

basis – produce an alarm signal when some pre-determined alarm level is exceeded. This limits

the ability to evaluate the change in performance from variations above or below the set

threshold, and does not allow determination of performance of multiple sensors or of alarm

algorithms. Thus it was decided to include devices that were modified (by their manufacturers)

to produce a continuous, analog output signal from their sensor.

While greatly increasing the usefulness of the data such modification by the manufacturer raises

the issue of whether the performance is representative of an unmodified commercial product. To

address this the project employed two approaches:

 • First, there were numerous unmodified devices of the identical model as the analog

device that were purchased by NIST from local retail sources. These served as a

comparison to the analog devices when characterized in NIST’s fire emulator / detector

evaluator (FE/DE) apparatus [5]. The FE/DE is a single-pass "wind tunnel" designed to

reproduce all relevant conditions needed to assess the performance of spot-type

particulate, thermal and gas sensor detectors or combination detectors. 

 • Second, these unmodified devices were used in every test in the room of fire origin.

1.3.2 Test Conditions Representative of Current Fatal Residential Fires

To ensure that the room sizes and arrangements, materials of construction, and ventilation

conditions are representative of actual dwellings, all tests were conducted in real dwelling units. 

First, a manufactured home was procured and delivered to the NIST site for use in both fire tests

and nuisance alarm tests. The floor plan selected was a three bedroom, two bath arrangement

with a master suite at one end and the other bedrooms at the other end. This size and

arrangement represents not only manufactured homes but also apartments and condominiums of

about 100 m2

 (or about 1000 ft2).
6

A second test site, obtained through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), was

a three bedroom, two-story, brick home in Kinston, NC. The home was in an area impacted by a

hurricane where the homes were purchased to be demolished and the owners relocated. While

most homes in the area had flood damage, this one was on a higher elevation lot and had not

been damaged. Floor plan drawings of both homes are provided in section 3.4.

Of key importance to the representativeness of the study was the selection of the test scenarios. 

These include the room of fire origin, ignition source and first item ignited, and the ventilation

conditions that affect the fire development and combustion chemistry. Here we began with an

NFPA analysis of the USFA’s National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) data on fatal

residential fires. 

In addition to the scenarios themselves, the test matrix considered the need to perform sufficient

replicates to allow estimates of experimental uncertainty and repeatability.

Finally the desire to run tests in a wide range of geometries (room sizes, materials, arrangements,

and ventilation conditions) is limited by the costs of full-scale tests and available resources. 

Here the availability of computer fire models can provide a means to assess the potential impact

of other geometries on smoke alarm performance. NIST’s computational fluid dynamics (CFD)

model, FDS, was used in advance of the tests to assist in planning and instrumentation and to

provide quantification of modeling uncertainty. CFD models are now available to extrapolate

the test results to other geometries of interest.

1.3.3 Evaluate the Efficacy of Current Requirements for Number and Location of Smoke

Alarms. 

Current U.S. model building codes contain requirements for smoke alarms in residential

occupancies. These codes typically require smoke alarms on every level (story) outside sleeping

areas and in all sleeping areas (bedrooms). Bedroom alarms are generally required only in

newly constructed units. This requirement added in the mid-1990s based on the need for

audibility with bedroom doors closed. Proposals to extend bedroom alarms to existing

construction have lacked justification on life safety grounds compared to the significant expense.

The design of the experiments was meant to provide data on the performance of alarms in

various installation arrangements. Groups of alarms were located in the room of fire origin, at

least one bedroom, and in a central location on every level. Thus, by considering the alarm

times of devices in various locations against tenability times for any test it was possible to

determine the escape time provided by various installation arrangements including every room,

every level with or without every bedroom, and single detectors. Since both ionization and

photoelectric types were included at each location the performance by sensor type is also

quantified.
7

The inclusion of analog sensors allowed the evaluation of performance changes resulting from

variation in alarm threshold settings. The analysis in this report is based on typical alarm

threshold settings. Data are also available to allow comparison at other threshold values. 

1.3.4 Develop Standard Nuisance Alarm Sources to Be Included in the Test Program.

Smoke alarms are susceptible to alarming when exposed to non-fire aerosols. In residential

settings, this typically involves cooking activities or transient, high humidity conditions (i.e.,

"shower steam"). The Smoke Detector Operability Survey [6] conducted by the U.S. Consumer

Product Safety Commission reported that about one half of the 1012 respondents indicated they

experienced nuisance alarms, with 80 % of those attributed to cooking activities, and an

additional 6 % citing steam from bathrooms. Dust, and tobacco smoke are also mentioned

sources. The survey also reported that of the alarms with missing or disconnected batteries, or

disconnected AC power, more than one third of respondents indicated that power was removed

due to nuisance alarms.

The objective of this research task was to develop a basis for standard residential nuisance

source testing. The approach taken was to define a set of nuisance scenarios, replicate the events

that cause nuisance alarms, and quantify the important variables that cause nuisance alarms. 

Translating the results to a set of nuisance source conditions reproducible in a suitable test-bed

(i.e., a test room or the fire emulator/detector evaluator) would allow for more comprehensive

detector performance testing. Preliminary tests were performed in the FE/DE with this in mind. 

Programming realistic and reproducible fire and nuisance conditions in the FE/DE is an ongoing

research project at NIST. 

1.3.5 Examine Other Fire Detection Technologies in Combination with Smoke Alarms

Prior studies have evaluated alternate detection technologies such as heat detectors [1] and metal

oxide gas sensing [7] compared to and in combination with particulate smoke sensing. In the

present study residential carbon monoxide alarms were included to evaluate their performance

individually and in combination with smoke and heat sensing. By including these data, the use

of multi-criteria algorithms to combine the signals from different sensors can be examined as

opposed to the simple AND and OR logic of the past. Similar work has been performed by

others [8, 9] for a broader range of sensor types but many of these are not commercially feasible,

especially for the price-sensitive residential market.

Simple combinations of smoke sensors with CO and thermal signals were evaluated for

performance against fires and nuisance sources. More complex algorithms were evaluated under

a grant to University of Maryland and will be reported separately.

Residential fire sprinklers have increasingly been required in new, multiple dwelling units

(apartments, condominiums, and some townhomes) and under the relevant standards include

smoke alarms in the same number and locations as without sprinklers. While these sprinklers

have been extensively evaluated and have an outstanding record of saving lives and property

[10], there are no research programs that provide data on how the two systems work together. 
8

Thus typical residential sprinklers were included in these tests to provide comparative data on

activation times but the sprinklers were not connected to water as this would have interfered with

the data on smoke alarm performance.

1.3.6 Obtain Data on the Potential for Improvements in Performance by New Technologies

Simple alarm times are not sufficient to identify potential performance improvements; so analog

sensor data were recorded for both the fire performance and nuisance alarm testing. Additional

instrumentation was selected and located to supplement the analog sensor data and allow better

quantification of results. Examples include thermocouple measurements of temperatures and

temperature gradients, smoke and gas species concentrations in several locations, and convective

flow velocities in the ceiling layer at the level of the sensors.

1.3.7 Include Fuel Items That Incorporate Materials and Constructions Representative of

Current Residential Furnishings

Fuel (combustible) items were selected as generically appropriate to the room of origin and fire

scenario identified from NFIRS analysis and typical of materials and constructions in common

use today. Specifically, upholstered chairs were used for living room fires and mattresses for

bedroom fires that were purchased from local, retail sources. No modifications were made and

no accelerants were used to enhance or retard the burning behavior of the items. Cooking oil

used in kitchen fires was also a normal commercial product that was not modified in any way. 

1.3.8 Fully Characterize Test Detectors and Alarms in a Consistent Manner to Facilitate

Comparisons

All detectors (smoke, heat, and CO) were characterized in NIST’s FE/DE apparatus [5] under

similar conditions using an appropriate source. This allows direct calibration of all devices in a

comparable way and a means to verify the performance of sensors in combination or utilizing

algorithms that may be suggested by the results of this study.

1.3.9 Utilize Fire Models to Extend the Applicability of the Test Arrangements and

Maximize the Test Instrumentation

Modeling, using NIST’s CFAST and FDS models, was performed prior to testing to evaluate the

impacts of the selected fuels and fire scenarios on the instrumentation and test structures and to

assist in identifying the most appropriate instrument locations. 

1.3.10 Make All of the Data Collected as Widely Accessible as Possible

Clearly the best method of (global) dissemination of the test data was to employ the Internet. 

Thus, a public web site was established (http://smokealarm.nist.gov/) on which the detailed

results of tests were published as NIST Report of Tests [11, 12]. This publication vehicle exists

as a means to quickly disseminate test data that is factual in nature – no observations or

conclusions can be included. Thus the web site contains floor plans of the test sites showing

instrument locations, details of the fuels and test conditions, and test data in electronic form. For
9

this we used the Fire Data Management System (FDMS) format [13] and the ability to export the

data to a spreadsheet (.xls) file.

1.3.11 Provide Opportunities to Enhance Public Fire Safety Education

The information obtained in these tests will provide a basis for numerous public fire safety

messages and will quantify the protection provided by residential smoke alarms. The project

data will be used to show the reduction in protection resulting from one or more devices being

nonfunctional as a motivation for testing and maintenance by the homeowner. Videos will be

made available for use in public safety announcements and educational materials. A press day

was held that resulted in stories carried on all the major news networks and on more than 75

local outlets from Maine to Hawaii.

1.4 Project Oversight

The project was initiated by NIST in October 2000 with a 24 month schedule for completion. A

Project Steering Committee was established with representatives of each of the sponsoring

organizations along with NFPA, the University of Maryland, and the National Research Council

of Canada. In addition a larger mailing list of interested parties was organized by CPSC to

whom copies of the quarterly reports were sent by email. Semi-annual meetings were held with

the Steering committee and annual briefings were held for the larger group in order to keep

communications open. However, in keeping with NIST policy, recommendations from either

group were given every consideration but were not a priori considered binding on the NIST

team. 
10
11

Figure 1. Sample sensor test board used during tests of

residential smoke alarms

2 Residential Fire Alarms, Sensor Response and

Calibration in the FE/DE

2.1 Residential Alarms Included in the Study

Figure 1 shows one of the fire alarm

sensor test boards used during the

tests. Two classes of alarms were

used in the test series, unmodified

off-the-shelf smoke alarms and

modified smoke and CO alarms that

produce a continuous voltage signal

in response to the sensor

environment (such as smoke or CO

concentrations, ambient pressure,

humidity, and temperature). The

unmodified alarms consisted of a

photoelectric model and two

ionization alarms corresponding to

the modified models provided by

the manufacturers. These alarms

were purchased from retail

establishments for use in this test

series. The alarm response was

verified by a single test in the FE/DE for at least 12 alarms of each type. The modified smoke

and CO alarms were provided by their respective manufacturers. These represented three

photoelectric type smoke alarms (one of which was of an aspirated design), three ionization type

smoke alarms, and three CO alarms, two of which employed an electrochemical cell, and one

which employed a tin oxide semiconductor (so-called Taguchi-type) sensor. Each alarm was

assigned an arbitrary number for this report. A naming convention using the alarm type (i.e.,

Ion) and the arbitrary number is used throughout the report to identify individual alarms (i.e.,

Ion-1 identifies one particular model of the ionization alarms; additional identification details the

location for each alarm in each test – see section 2.4). Calibration tests were performed on the

modified smoke and CO alarms in order to develop voltage response curves for smoke and

carbon monoxide gas exposures. The effects of local flow conditions and sensor test board

location on the sensor response were examined in the FE/DE to quantify alarm response biasing

due to a particular alarm's position on the test board in the test series. Details of these

experiments are given below. 
12

Essentially all residential smoke alarms sold in the United States are listed by Underwriters

Laboratories Inc. and meet the requirements of test standard UL 217 [14]. From tests performed

on a particular model of detector, a sensitivity value is derived from an average of smoke levels

reached at alarm for repeated tests. This sensitivity is recorded on the back of the smoke

detector along with a lower and upper range that defines the allowed variation in sensitivity for

the particular model. Alarms are periodically checked during the manufacturing process in

accordance with UL 217 to make sure the model type still alarms within its sensitivity range. 

During the formulation of the research plan for the Home Smoke Alarm Project it was decided

that modified smoke and CO alarms that provide a continuous signal would be used. The

purpose for this decision was two-fold. First, using the voltage response curve, any single

sensitivity (alarm point) can be specified for a particular alarm model or type of alarm. 

Therefore any range of sensitivities can be examined. Second, continuous sensor output is

useful for experimental algorithm development; it lends itself to signal processing feature

extraction, and multi-sensor/multi-criteria algorithm development. The time investment in the

modification of the smoke alarms, and their individual calibrations required that they be re-used

throughout the test series. In almost all cases, calibrations were re-checked after a test series was

complete for alarms used in that series.

2.2 The fire emulator/detector evaluator

The fire emulator/detector evaluator (FE/DE) is a single-pass "wind tunnel" at NIST designed to

reproduce all relevant conditions needed to assess the performance of spot-type particulate,

thermal and gas sensor detectors or combination detectors. Specifically, the FE/DE allows for

the control of the flow velocity, air temperature, gas species, and aerosol concentrations at a test

section wherein detectors and sensors are exposed to these environmental conditions [5]. A

schematic of the FE/DE is shown in figure 2. 

Room air is drawn into the opening, and exhausted to a ventilation hood at the end of the duct. 

The air velocity at the test section is controlled over a range of flows between 0.02 m/s (4 ft/min)

to over 2 m/s (400 ft/min) by means of the computer-controlled axial blower. Air is first

propelled through the annular finned heating elements, then travels along the duct to the test

section. The flow is conditioned before it reaches the test section by passing through a 0.1 m

(4 in) long aluminum honeycomb with 5 mm rectangular openings. The goal is to provide a

carefully controlled flow profile indicative of what would be experienced by a detector in a

ceiling jet flow. A rectangular baffle plate covering 1/2 of the duct cross-section may be placed

in the center of the duct 0.3 m (1 ft) upstream from the test section to produce velocity

fluctuations similar to those observed in room flows. Additional information on flows during

room tests is discussed in section 6.
13

Figure 2. Schematic of the FE/DE (all units in cm)

Heat may be added to the flow by a series of 9 annular finned heating elements. Each element is

rated at 5 kW for a total maximum heat input of 45 kW. Power to the heating elements is

controlled by a feedback controller that receives set-point values from an input file and compares

them to the air temperature upon exiting the heaters. A rate of temperature rise in airflow of

0.5 EC/s is achievable at the test section, up to maximum of about 80 EC. For the testing

described in this report, this feature was not used; any temperature rise is attributed to the smoke

source heat output. Air temperature at the test section is measured with a chromel-alumel

thermocouple located 5 cm below the duct ceiling. 

CO, CO2, or other gas blends may be metered into the flow via electronic mass flow controllers.

CO, and CO2 gas concentrations at the test section are monitored by a dual gas non-dispersive

infrared (NDIR) analyzer (Siemens Ultramat 22P CO/CO2 analyzer). Various types of smokes

and non-combustion aerosols may be introduced into the flow, including flaming soot, smolder

smokes, dust, nebulized liquid mists, and cooking aerosols. Laser light transmission

measurements across the duct at the test section are used to calculate the light extinction

coefficient, optical density, or obscuration of the aerosol. Extinction coefficient or optical

density is the typical "concentration" measurement of smoke. In this report though, obscuration

expressed in terms of (percent per foot) will be used often as it is the industry standard

measurement unit. A linearly polarized helium-neon laser at 632.8 nm wavelength coupled with

a stabilizer utilizing a liquid crystal polarizer is the light source. This system maintains nearly

constant laser intensity. The main beam is split and introduced at two heights: the center of the

duct, and 5 cm below the top of the duct. Each light beam is reflected off two mirrors inside the
14

Figure 3. Propene smoke generator.

duct and directed at a photodetector placed on the opposite side of where the beam enters the

duct. The total light transmission path length inside the duct is 1.52 m ± 0.01 m. The

photodetector output voltage is linear with respect to the transmitted light intensity. The

standard relative uncertainty due to random fluctuations in the output is 0.06 % of the measured

light transmittance (light intensity divided by smoke-free initial light intensity). A measuring

ionization chamber (MIC) is located in the test section to provide a reference chamber current

measurement appropriate for characterizing ionization detectors. The chamber voltage potential

was set at 18 V, the flow rate was set at 30 L/min and the chamber current was measured with a

picoammeter that provides a proportional analog voltage. The picoammeter voltage output was

calibrated with a precision current source (99.7746 pA at 20 EC) constructed from a weston

standard cell and a 10 GΩ resistor. The clean air chamber output was typically 95 pA ± 5 pA

with a standard relative measurement uncertainty of 2 pA. Relative humidity was recorded with

a capacitance-type humidity sensor (Oakton model WD-35612-10) with a stated measurement

uncertainty of 2 %. Barometric pressure in the FE/DE laboratory was recorded by an electronic

manometer (Druck model DPI 145) with the measurement uncertainty of 1 Pa.

2.3 Smoke Aerosols

The modified smoke alarms were calibrated against two smoke sources: a propene flame soot

generator, and smoldering cotton wick smoke. Initially, all detectors were tested against each

smoke source twice. Repeat calibration checks were performed with the cotton smolder smoke

source.

The propene smoke generator provides black

soot typical of flaming hydrocarbon or

plastics fire smoke, figure 3. The propene

smoke generator is directly attached to the

FE/DE duct at the vertical riser section. The

concentration of smoke is varied by changing

the fuel flow of the burner, and opening or

closing dampers allowing more or less flow

from the burner to enter the duct. For the

calibration runs performed in this study, the
15

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Laser

MIC

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52 m pathlength)

MIC output (pA)

Time (s)

Figure 4. Propene smoke calibration run

Figure 5. Smolder source, staged wick ignition device

burner fuel and air were

incremented every

170 s in a series of 8 steps to

produce steps in the soot

concentration ending with a light

transmittance value of

approximately 0.7. The flat sections

of the upper laser beam light

transmission curve (spanning

approximately 120 s) are compared

to the detector signal over the same

time interval. Figure 4 shows the

light transmittance and MIC current

output as a function of time for one

of the test runs. The curves consist

of a series of stepped outputs which

were averaged to determine values

for the calibration curves.

Smoldering cotton smoke is generated

by a staged-wick-ignition device

(figure 5) that ignites wicks by

applying power to electrical heating

wires in a prescribed computercontrolled sequence to affect a

specific rate of smoke build-up at the

test section. Eight groups of up to

four individual wicks can be ignited in

sequence to provide the controlled

rate-of-rise in smoke concentration at

the test section. The cotton smolder

source is similar to the cotton smolder

test fire 3 in EN 54 part 9 [8] and the

UL standard [14]. Power is applied at

200 s intervals to each of the four sets

of four wick igniters followed by 2

sets of 8 wick igniters to yield six

steps in the smolder smoke concentration. Figure 6 shows the light transmittance and MIC

current output as a function of time for one of the test runs, with the steady values used for

calibration curves highlighted. The smoldering cotton smoke source was used to produce

increasing levels of CO for calibrating the CO alarms as well. Figure 7 shows the CO and CO2

volume fractions as a function of time for the same test. 
16

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 500 1000 1500

Laser

MIC

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52 m pathlength)

MIC output (pA)

Time (s)

Figure 6. Smolder smoke calibration run

0

50

100

150

200

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0 500 1000 1500

CO

CO2

Carbon Monoxide Mole Fraction

(x106

)

Carbon Dioxide Mole Fraction

Time (s)

Figure 7. Smolder smoke CO calibration run

Examining the relationship between

the test smokes used here and those

used in the UL standard [14] is

important in order to establish the

validity of computed alarm times

from the smoke sensor voltage

values recorded in the test series.

The smolder smoke source is used

to specify an alarm's sensitivity,

thus establishing the relationship

between the UL cotton wick aerosol

and the cotton wick aerosol

produced here is of primary

concern. Direct comparison of the

physical properties and size

distribution of the test smokes was

not within the scope of this study.

However, the UL standard allows

for alternate aerosol generation

equipment so long as the

relationship between the MIC and

the light transmittance values fall

within specified sensitivity test

limits. This relationship fixes the

obscuration range at ionization

alarm levels, but not necessarily the

obscuration range at photoelectric

alarm levels for alternate aerosols. 

The relationship for cotton smolder

smoke is shown in figure 8. Along

with the sensitivity test limits,

results from 12 separate FE/DE tests

(spanning a 6 month test interval)

are shown, where the mean values

over the steady time periods are

plotted along with the corresponding

standard deviations. It is seen that the FE/DE results fall within the UL cotton smolder smoke

test limits down to light transmittance values of about 0.9, then deviate outside of those bounds

for lesser light transmittance values. The observation that the FE/DE test results stay within the

bounds down to a transmittance of 0.9 is significant because the sensitivity range for most

residential ionization alarms falls within a transmittance range above 0.9 for the smolder smoke. 
17

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30

Laser Light Transmittance

(1.52 m pathlength)

MIC output (pA)

Figure 8. UL grey smoke (smolder smoke) sensitivity

limits and FE/DE data

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30

Laser Light Transmittance

(1.52 m pathlength)

MIC output (pA)

Figure 9. UL black smoke sensitivity limits and

corresponding FE/DE data

Thus, within the range typical of

ionization smoke alarms, the response

is within the limits of the UL 217 test. 

Residential photoelectric alarms

typically alarm at transmittances greater

than 0.84 in the UL test. While the

FE/DE smoke deviates outside the MIC

limits at a transmittance of about 0.9,

this observation is not by itself a cause

for concern. 

The deviation between UL and FE/DE

test smoke results at lower light

transmittance values suggests a smoke

size distribution difference between the

two smolder smokes. Since the UL

smoke box is a re-circulating system, it can take between 12 min to 17 min to reach a light

transmittance value of 0.8. The FE/DE is an open, single-pass flow system and the smoke

transport time for these calibration tests is on the order of 30 s. Therefore, potentially more

smoke aging (i.e. coagulation growth of

the smolder aerosol) can take place in

the smoke box relative to the FE/DE. 

Assuming that fresh smolder smokes are

identical in the smoke box and the

FE/DE, additional coagulation growth in

the smoke box will tend to increase light

extinction while decreasing the MIC

output for a fixed amount of smoke. 

This could explain MIC difference

between the two sources at lower

transmittances. The difference between

relative levels of obscuration and light

scattering of fresh and aged smolder

smokes should be less pronounced. 

There are two reasons for this

supposition. First, coagulation growth

tends to incorporate the smallest

particles into bigger particles. The

smaller particles scatter little light, and contribute almost nothing to obscuration, thus they are

not missed. Second, the growth of particles that scatter significant amounts of light will tend to
18

increase the scattered light at the same rate the obscuration is increased since for the light

colored smolder smoke scattering dominates the light extinction.

The relationship for black smoke is shown in figure 9. Along with the sensitivity test limits,

results from 9 separate FE/DE tests are shown as well. It is seen that for the most part, the

FE/DE results fall outside the UL black smoke test limits yielding lower transmittance values

over the MIC output range, although the trend is the same. Although certainly related to the

characteristics of the smoke, the reasons for the difference has not been studied.

2.4 Calibration of Smoke and CO alarms

Calibration details for each type of detector are described below, including alarm power

requirements, data acquisition details, and observations on sensor range limits. While the data

collection conditions were similar between the laboratory calibrations runs and field tests for the

analog alarms, slight differences between alarm power, signal transmission noise environment,

and amplifier characteristics could affect initial (clean air) sensor voltage readings, not to

mention background environmental effects. It is important to account for these differences in

some cases by shifting field test baselines. 

The FE/DE uses a custom routine programmed with National Instrument's Labview software

running on a Pentium PC computer. Analog data acquisition is performed with two AT-MIO/AI

E series multifunction I/O boards. The modified alarm analog signals were digitized on a ATMIO-16E-10 board configured for 8 differential inputs, with a voltage range of 0 V to 10 V. It

has 12 bit resolution, and an offset error of ± 0.5 mV and a gain error of ± 0.01 % of reading. 

The input impedance of the programmable gain amplifier is 100 GΩ in parallel with 50 pF with

input and offset bias currents of ± 200 pA and 100 pA respectively. All floating signal sources

(i.e. battery powered alarms) had their ground reference (negative terminal) tied to the board

analog input ground. 

For smoke alarms, typically two flaming soot and two smoldering smoke calibration runs were

performed for each detector prior to field test use, followed by a single smoldering smoke

calibration run after each use in a field test series. CO alarms were subjected to a single

smoldering smoke calibration run prior to field tests with the smoldering smoke calibration rerun after a field test series. The calibration data for each detector is available [15]. The data

fields for the smoke alarms consist of test time, air temperature, laser light transmittance from

the upper laser beam, relative humidity in the duct, barometric pressure in the laboratory, MIC

output, and alarm voltage signal. The continuous time data is segmented into time blocks with

nominally steady smoke production to produce the steady values for calibration. Over these

steady periods, the mean values of alarm voltage, MIC output, and laser light transmittance were

computed and recorded along with the standard deviation. From the mean laser light output, the
19

extinction (m-1), , where I is the light intensity, I0 k II L is the initial light m = ln( / ) 0

intensity, and Lm is the path length in meters. Obscuration (%/ft),

, where Lf obs I I ( ) ( ) is the path length in feet, were computed along with

Lf

=− × 1 100 0

1

their standard deviation. The data fields for the ionization alarms include a dimensionless

variable, Y, computed from the alarm voltage signal whose functional form was derived from

ionization chamber theory [16, 17]. Y is defined as:

Y V

V

V V

O V V

O

O

= ⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ −

−

⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ Δ Δ

Δ

2

1 (1)

Since the ion chamber current is proportional to the ion alarm analog voltage (V), a simple

substitution is made. V0 is the initial “clean air” chamber voltage and ΔV is (V0 -V). The benefit

of converting the alarm output to the dimensionless variable Y is that it is a linear function of

obscuration. Best fit lines through obscuration versus Y provides the calibration equation. These

best fit lines are presented along with the calibration data, beginning in figure 11. During the recalibration of detectors, the picoammeter used to measure the MIC chamber current ceased

functioning and subsequently, only light extinction data are reported for re-calibration runs.

The data collected for the CO alarms include: CO and CO2 analyzer voltage output, and the CO

alarm voltage, (the MIC output is not included). The conversion factor between voltage and

volume fraction for the CO analyzer is 93.0 (volume fraction x106

)/V, with a stated measurement

uncertainty of 2.5x10-6 volume fraction. The conversion factor for the CO2 analyzer is 7.48x10-3

(volume fraction)/V, with a stated measurement uncertainty of 4.0x10-5 volume fraction.

Ionization smoke alarm Ion-1: The analog output was provided by the alarm's application

specific integrated circuit (ASIC) as a voltage signal proportional to the ion chamber current

flow. 9.00 V was provided by a variable voltage DC power supply. Clean air voltage level was

on the order of 6 V and the value decreased with increasing smoke level. 

Ionization smoke alarm Ion-3: Similar to Ion-1, the analog voltage was provided by the

alarm's application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) as a voltage signal proportional to the ion

chamber current flow. 9.00 V was provided by a variable voltage DC power supply. Clean air

voltage level was on the order of 4 V and the value decreased with increasing smoke level.

Ionization smoke alarm Ion-4: This alarm provided a digital signal that was transmitted to a

multiplexing box that converted the digital signal to an analog voltage. The multiplexing box

also provided the power to the detector. The clean air voltage level was nominally 0 V, with an

increasing output in the presence of smoke. In order to compute Y values, a cutoff voltage of 2 V

was specified and the voltage signal was transformed by the equation:
20

New Signal Old Signal = 2 − (2)

With this transformation, new signal decreases with increasing smoke and equation (1) is used to

compute Y. The 2 V cutoff voltage was chosen as an approximate upper limit for the output of

the alarm.

Photoelectric smoke alarm Photo-1: This alarm was modified by adding a sample and hold IC

and an amplifier to monitor and amplify the photo-detector signal. It needed a dual power

supply of ± 9 V, which was provided by a series/parallel (6x2) arrangement of 1.5 volt AA size

alkaline batteries. The nominal clean air voltage level was 0.2 V.

Photoelectric smoke alarm Photo-3: Identical to Ion-4, this alarm provided a digital signal

that was transmitted to a multiplexing box that converted the digital signal to an analog voltage. 

The multiplexing box also provided the power to the detector. The clean air voltage level was

nominally 0 V. The voltage output increased in the presence of smoke. 

Photoelectric smoke alarm ASP-1: This alarm is a commercial design and already has the

provision for an amplified analog voltage proportional to the photodetector signal. It has an

integrated fan that aspirates room air through a special filter medium and into the sensing

chamber periodically at a fixed time interval. While it has no smoke entry lag characteristics, its

response was affected by the aspiration time interval (normally 30 s). It was powered at 12.0 V

by a variable voltage DC power supply. 

Carbon monoxide alarm CO-1: This alarm contained a semiconductor tin oxide CO sensor

and provided a digital signal that was transmitted to a multiplexing box that converted the digital

signal to an analog voltage. The multiplexing box also provided the power to the detector. As a

consequence of its programming, this alarm did not produce any voltage change until the CO

volume fraction was greater than 50 × 10-6 (as indicated on the unit’s LED display). Calibrations

for this alarm start at 50 (volume fraction x106

). 

Carbon monoxide alarm CO-2: This alarm contained a CO electrochemical cell, and provided

an analog voltage proportional to the concentration of CO. These alarms were powered by a

fresh alkaline 9 volt battery. The nominal clean air voltage level was 0.45 V.

Carbon monoxide alarm CO-3: This alarm contained a CO electrochemical cell, and provided

an analog voltage proportional to the concentration of CO. 9.00 V was provided by a variable

voltage DC power supply. Clean air voltage level was on the order of 0 V.

Representative calibration plots are show in figures 11 to 17 for each alarm type. A single

smoldering test was used to specify a specific alarm's calibration used for particular test series. 
21

Table 1. Calibration of smoke and CO alarms

The test series are identified as S1, S2 and S3 for the first manufactured homes series (tests 1 to

15), the two-story home (tests 20 to 28), and the second manufactured home series (tests 30 to

42) respectively. The alarm calibrations are listed in table 1. 

Detector Test Seriesa m0

b m1b Rc

Aspirated-1- - -3 s1 -1.629 2.971 0.988

s3 -1.392 2.064 0.999

Aspirated-1- - -5 s1 -1.512 2.568 0.996

s2 -1.349 2 0.999

s3 -1.672 2.144 0.985

Aspirated-1- - -6 s1 -1.276 1.846 0.996

s2 -1.714 2.324 0.996

Aspirated-1- - -7 s1 -1.37 2.625 0.991

s2 -1.598 3.021 0.994

s3 -2.338 3.994 0.981

Aspirated-1- - -12 s1,s2 -1.727 2.998 0.999

CO-1- - -1 s1 -44.67 239.1 0.999

CO-1- - -2 s2 -0.733 109.1 0.98

CO-1- - -3 s2 -9.807 153.7 0.993

CO-1- - -4 s1 -4.379 129.8 0.999

CO-1- - -5 s1 -43.62 233.2 0.97

CO-1- - -6 s1 -19.05 100.7 0.991

s3 1.61 114.1 0.986

CO-1- - -8 s1 -33.82 193 0.975

CO-1- - -9 s1 -22.58 180.9 0.997

s3 24.76 153.4 0.958

CO-1- - -10 s2 -10.32 132.5 0.988

CO-1- - -14 s3 56.17 110 0.979

CO-1- - -16 s2,s3 27.5 132.2 0.969

CO-1- - -17 s2,s3 34.38 140 0.944

CO-2- - -1 s1 -45.93 109.4 0.995

CO-2- - -2 s1 -45.07 92.91 0.993

CO-2- - -3 s3 -59.45 117.6 0.999

CO-2- - -5 s1 -48.8 113.7 0.999

CO-2- - -6 s2 -57.92 115.2 0.999

s3 -74.84 179.5 0.998

CO-2- - -8 s2 -52.18 119.9 0.999

s3 -56.24 144.3 0.999

CO-2- - -9 s2 -58.96 137.9 0.998

s3 -63.73 128.8 0.991

CO-2- - -11 s1 -50.37 104.25 0.997

CO-2- - -12 s2 -45.4 93.62 0.997

s3 -48.92 98.93 0.997

CO-2- - -13 s2 -44.05 103.4 0.999

CO-3- - -1 s2 -6.924 166.1 0.999
Detector Test Seriesa m0

b m1b Rc

22

CO-3- - -2 s2 -2.237 165.7 0.999

CO-3- - -3 s2 -5.251 161.6 0.996

s3 -2.551 165.4 0.997

CO-3- - -4 s1 -6.457 163.4 0.998

CO-3- - -5 s1 -6.232 170.8 0.999

CO-3- - -6 s1 -0.882 172.9 0.99

s3 -1.96 173.8 0.999

CO-3- - -7 s2 -2.464 171.2 0.999

s3 -2.58 168.8 0.995

CO-3- - -8 s1 -2.542 165.5 0.998

CO-3- - -10 s1 -2.954 165.7 0.998

CO-3- - -11 s3 -4.059 163.1 0.998

Ion-1- - -1 s1 2.151 0.998

Ion-1- - -2 s3 2.07 0.997

Ion-1- - -3 s2 1.789 0.995

Ion-1- - -4 s1 1.66 0.991

Ion-1- - -5 s2 2.164 0.998

s3 1.827 0.994

Ion-1- - -6 s1 2.27 0.997

Ion-1- - -7 s1 1.685 0.987

Ion-1- - -8 s3 1.823 0.997

Ion-1- - -9 s2 1.93 0.999

s3 1.863 0.992

Ion-1- - -10 s1 1.919 0.998

Ion-1- - -11 s1 2.093 0.997

s3 2.095 0.999

Ion-3- - -1 s3 1.247 0.985

Ion-3- - -2 s3 1.197 0.988

Ion-3- - -3 s1 1.215 0.949

Ion-3- - -4 s2 1.558 0.998

Ion-3- - -6 s1 1.421 0.997

Ion-3- - -7 s2 1.001 0.998

s3 1.007 0.999

Ion-3- - -9 s1 1.144 0.998

Ion-3- - -10 s1 0.984 0.999

Ion-3- - -11 s2 1.184 0.987

s3 1.299 0.989

Ion-3- - -13 s1 1.147 0.995

Ion-3- - -17 s2 1.066 0.988

Ion-4- - -1d s1 1.462 0.996

s3 1.506 0.998

Ion-4- - -2d s2 2.374 0.99

Ion-4- - -3d s1 1.463 0.992

Ion-4- - -4d s3 2.926 0.997

Ion-4- - -5d s1 1.806 0.953

Ion-4- - -6d s1 3.353 0.984

s3 2.624 0.985

Ion-4- - -8d s1 2.562 0.997

Ion-4- - -9d s2 1.35 0.996
Detector Test Seriesa m0

b m1b Rc

23

s3 1.222 0.998

Ion-4- - -10d s1 2.642 0.993

s3 2.498 0.984

Ion-4- - -11d s2 1.832 0.996

Ion-4- - -12d s2 3.202 0.985

Photo-1- - -1 s1 -0.801 5.779 0.997

s2 -2.351 7.755 0.997

s3 -2.274 8.117 0.997

Photo-1- - -2 s1 -2.185 5.786 0.997

s2 -3.761 8.383 0.994

s3 -2.758 8.589 0.987

Photo-1- - -3 s1 -1.498 6.717 0.997

s2,s3 -1.566 7.855 0.998

Photo-1- - -4 s1 -1.523 8.569 0.995

s2 -0.0972 0.452 0.999

s3 -2.569 14.15 0.996

Photo-1- - -5 s1 -1.963 6.882 0.996

Photo-1- - -6 s1 -1.56 9.248 0.997

s2 -2.195 11.82 0.997

s3 -2.154 12.67 0.997

Photo-3- - -1d s2 -1.724 11.03 0.999

s3 -2.415 12.87 0.999

Photo-3- - -2d s2 -1.701 9.473 0.998

Photo-3- - -3d s1 -1.734 10.83 0.999

Photo-3- - -4d s1 -0.875 8.524 0.995

s3 -2.408 11.2 0.998

Photo-3- - -5d s1 -2.096 11.563 0.999

Photo-3- - -6d s1 -1.421 9 0.999

s3 -1.825 12.032 0.997

Photo-3- - -8d s1 -1.411 10.574 0.996

Photo-3- - -9d s1 -1.289 9.323 0.999

s3 -1.532 10.124 0.998

a For the purposes of these calibrations, the test series is identified as s1 for tests 1-15, s2 for tests 20-28, and

s3 for tests 30-41.

 b Obsion = m1Y (in %/ft), where Y is defined in eq. (1)

Obsphoto = m0 + m1V (in %/ft), where V is in volts

XCO = m0 + m1V (in volume fraction x 106

), where V is in volts

c R is the square root of the coefficient of determination for the regression equation defined in note b.

d Alarms Photo-3 and Ion-4 are components of a single dual alarm.

Due to differences in power supply levels, data acquisition hardware, signal noise pickup, and

other environmental effects, initial “clean air” voltage signals measured in the field tests usually

deviated slightly from those observed in laboratory tests. In applying the calibration equations to

test series data, differences in initial “clean air” values were handled in a consistent manner. 

First, an average initial value was obtained from the twenty recorded values preceding the start

of the test (time = 0), typically 20 s of data. Second, adjustments were made using this initial
24

voltage. In the case of photoelectric and CO sensors, the difference between the calibration

“clean air” value (-m0/m1) and the average initial value was added to the data to adjust for any

offset. In the case of the ionization sensors, equation 1 was applied to the test data and using the

initial “clean air” average as V0.

2.5 Alarm Identification

Throughout the report, each alarm is identified with a specific code that identifies the model of

the alarm, the location the alarm was used in a test, and the specific sample of the alarm used

(see figure 10). The code has the format ‘device type’ - ‘model’ - ‘alarm board location’ - ‘alarm

board position’ - ‘alarm sample’ where ‘device type’ specifies the technology of the device,

‘model’ is a number which identifies a specific model of the type, ‘alarm board location’ is a

letter code that specifies where in the structure the alarm was located for a specific test, ‘alarm

board position’ is a number that specifies the location of the alarm on an alarm board in a

particular test, and ‘alarm sample’ is a number which identifies a specific sample of an alarm. 

For example, Ion-1-A-3-8 describes a specific model of an ionization alarm (Ion-1) located on

alarm sensor board ‘A’ at position 3 (-A-3) and it is identified as the eighth sample of that

particular model alarm. Since the calibrations were not dependent upon a position in a test and

these test locations were randomly varied throughout the test series to minimize systematic

errors due to specific alarm placement, the ‘alarm board location’ and ‘alarm board position’ are

left blank in table 1. Appendix A includes full identification for every alarm in each of the tests.

Ion - 1 - A - 3 - 8

Alarm Type

Ionization

Photoelectric

Aspirated

Carbon Monoxide

Alarm Model

Numeric code

indicating of 

specific alarm

manufacturer

and model

Alarm Board

Manufactured Home

Two-story Home

A = Bedroom 2 (remote bedroom)

B = Bedroom 1 

C = Hallway 1 (outside bedroom 1)

D = Hallway 2 (outside bedroom 2)

E = Living Area (near hallway 2)

A = Upstairs Bedroom 1 (remote bedroom)

D = First Floor Den 

B = Entry Hall Foyer

C = Upstairs Hallway

Position

Numeric code

indicating of

position on

alarm board

(see figure 48)

Sample

Number

indicating

specific sample

of the alarm

model

Figure 10. Alarm identification coding
25

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Smolder smoke

Propene Soot

Obscuration (%/ft)

Y

Figure 11. Calibration runs for Ion-1 alarm

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

012345

Smolder smoke

Propene soot

Obscuration (%/ft)

Y

Figure 12. Calibration runs for Ion-3 alarm
26

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Smolder smoke

Propene soot

Obscuration (%/ft)

Y

Figure 13. Calibration runs for Ion-4 alarm

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 0.5 1 1.5

Smolder smoke

Propene soot

Obscuration (%/ft)

Alarm output (v)

Figure 14. Calibration runs for Photo-1 alarm
27

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Smolder smoke

Propene soot

Obscuration (%/ft)

Alarm output (v)

Figure 15. Calibration runs for Photo-2 alarm

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0.5 1 1.5 2

Smolder smoke

Propene soot

Obscuration (%/ft)

Alarm output (v)

Figure 16. Calibration runs for ASP alarm
28

0

50

100

150

200

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

CO_1

CO_2

CO_3

CO Volume Fraction

(x106

)

Alarm output (v)

Figure 17. Calibration runs for CO alarms

2.6 Evaluation of Unmodified Alarm Response

Unmodified smoke alarms of the same models selected for modified alarms Ion-1, Ion-3 and

Photo-1 were used in the test series at locations were thermal damage might potentially occur,

and to supplement the analog output alarm results. Each of these alarms were powered with a

previously unused 9 V alkaline battery and the alarm state was determined by monitoring the

interconnect voltage signal. This signal changes from nominally 0 V to approximately 7 V to

9 V when the alarm threshold is met, with a 3 s delay in the response. No adjustment was made

in the data for this delay. 

In order to verify the manufacturer-specified alarm response, a number of alarms were tested

after they had been used in fire tests. Cotton wick smoke, generated by the staged wick ignition

device, was used to produce an increasing level of smoke in the FE/DE (the ignition protocol

was different than the one used in the calibration of modified alarms.) After 30 s delay from the

start of data logging, groups of wicks were ignited in series. The delay time between the

application of power to the ignition coils was either 12 s or 30 s, with between one and four

wicks ignited at each step. The FE/DE fan speed was set to 12 Hz which produced a mean axial

velocity of 0.16 m/s at the center of the duct test section, and 50 mm (2 in) below the ceiling. 

Alarms pairs were placed in the FE/DE test section side by side and the interconnect voltage

signal was recorded for each alarm. The nominal alarm sensitivities recorded on the alarms and

the production range is given in table 2 along with the corresponding transmittance values over a

1.52 m (5.0 ft) path length.
29

Alarm Model Sensitivity 

%/m (%/ft)

Sensitivity

Range 

%/m (%/ft)

Transmittance Transmittance

Range (hi/low)

Ion-1 4.13 (1.26) ± 1.2 (± 0.38) 0.939 0.957/0.921

Ion-3 4.23 (1.29) ± 1.7 (± 0.51) 0.937 0.962/0.913

Photo-1 6.76 (2.06) ± 4.3 (± 1.3) 0.901 0.963/0.843

Table 2. Listed unmodified alarm sensitivities.

The following graphs show the upper laser transmittance and the alarm interconnect voltage for

pairs of like-model alarms. The corresponding 1.52 m (5.0 ft) transmittance values equivalent to

the model's listed sensitivity range are shown as dashed horizontal lines. At the test flow

velocity, the smoke entry lag time should be short, thus detectors should alarm somewhere

within the upper and lower transmittance boundaries. 

Figures 18 – 27 show the results for 12 Photo-1 photoelectric type alarms. Typically, 8 wicks

ignited in pairs of two every 12 seconds was sufficient to produce enough smoke to set off the

alarms. Disposable alarms Disp-10 and Disp-46 appeared to be less sensitive than the majority

of the photoelectric alarms. Disp-10 alarmed when a group of 16 wicks was used (figure 27). 

The light transmittance at alarm was typically at the middle sensitivity value. Thus, the

unmodified alarms can be expected to provide alarms consistent with the manufacturer’s

specification. Similar and consistent alarm criteria will be chosen for the measurements from

the modified alarms.
30

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

0

2

4

6

8

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Disp_1

Disp_7

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52 m pathlength)

Interconnect Voltage (V)

Time (s)

Figure 18. Photo-1, eight wicks – 12 s delay,

Disp 1 and Disp 7 alarms

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

0

2

4

6

8

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Disp_1

Disp_7

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52 m pathlength)

Interconnect Voltage (V)

Time (s)

Figure 19. Photo-1, 16 wicks – 12 s delay,

Disp 1 and Disp 7 alarms
31

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

0

2

4

6

8

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Disp_1

Disp_7

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52 m pathlength)

Interconnect Voltage (V)

Time (s)

Figure 20. Photo-1, eight wicks – 12 s delay, 

Disp 1 and Disp 7 alarms

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

0

2

4

6

8

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Disp_4

Disp_10

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52 m pathlength)

Interconnect Voltage (V)

Time (s)

Figure 21. Photo-1, eight wicks – 30 s delay,

Disp 4 and Disp 10 alarms
32

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

0

2

4

6

8

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Disp_37

Disp_40

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52 m pathlength)

Interconnect Voltage (V)

Time (s)

Figure 22. Photo-1, eight wicks – 12 s delay,

Disp 37 and Disp 40 alarms

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

0

2

4

6

8

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Disp_46

Disp_55

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52 m pathlength)

Interconnect Voltage (V)

Time (s)

Figure 23. Photo-1, eight wicks, 12 s delay,

Disp 46 and Disp 55 alarms
33

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

0

2

4

6

8

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Disp_52

Disp_58

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52 m pathlength)

Interconnect Voltage (V)

Time (s)

Figure 24. Photo-1, eight wicks – 12 s delay,

Disp 52 and Disp 58 alarms

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

0

2

4

6

8

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Disp_61

Disp_64

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52 m pathlength)

Interconnect Voltage (V)

Time (s)

Figure 25. Photo-1, eight wicks – 12 s delay,

Disp 61 and Disp 64 alarms
34

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

0

2

4

6

8

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Disp_10

Disp_55

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52 m pathlength)

Interconnect Voltage (V)

Time (s)

Figure 26. Photo-1, eight wicks – 12 s delay,

Disp 10 and Disp 55 alarms

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

0

2

4

6

8

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Disp_10

Disp_55

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52 m pathlength)

Interconnect Voltage (V)

Time (s)

Figure 27. Photo-1, 16 wicks – 12 s delay,

Disp 10 and Disp 55 alarms
35

Figures 28 – 37 show the results for 12 Ion-1 ionization type alarms. Typically, 4-6 wicks

ignited separately every 30 s was sufficient to produce alarms. The light transmittance at alarm

was typically at the upper sensitivity value. On one occasion, the alarms were set off at

transmittance levels above the upper sensitivity value. 

Figures 38 – 47 show the results for 12 Ion-3 ionization type alarms. Typically, 3 wicks ignited

separately every 30 s was sufficient to produce alarms. The light transmittance at alarm was

typically above the upper sensitivity value for this alarm. 

For the most part, these tests confirm that each model of unmodified alarm yielded consistent

sensitivity results with cotton wick smoke generated in the FE/DE. The two ionization alarms

with the same nominal sensitivity showed a demonstrable difference in the actual sensitivities for

the alarms tested here. Moreover, the tendency for the ionization alarms to appear more

sensitive than the nominal sensitivity listed on the alarms raises some questions related to the

differences between smoke generation techniques, smoke properties, and measurement

techniques of the UL smoke box and the FE/DE. 

Recall that the steady smoke generated in the calibration tests falls within the allowed bounds of

light transmittance versus MIC output up to a transmittance value of approximately 0.9

(figure 44). The MIC picoammeter was not functioning during the verification tests, so several

cotton smolder tests were performed after it was repaired to assure consistent results with earlier

tests (figure 8). These results, shown in figure 48, follow the lower sensitivity limit quite closely

until a transmittance value of 0.94, then the FE/DE results deviate outside the UL limits for grey

smoke. Additional tests were conducted to better quantify differences between the two

ionization alarms relative to their response to the FE/DE smolder smoke. Separate tests using

one, two, three, and four wicks were conducted. An Ion_1 and an Ion-3 alarm were placed in the

test section, and the wicks were allowed to burn for several hundred seconds in order to achieve

steady obscuration and MIC output values. The mean obscuration and MIC output along with

the alarm state were obtained during the steady burning period. Table 3 shows the results for

four tests.
36

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1

0

2

4

6

8

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Disp_11

Disp_38

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52 m pathlength)

Interconnect Voltage (V)

Time (s)

Figure 28. Ion-1, three wicks - 30 s delay,

Disp 11 and Disp 38 alarms

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1

0

2

4

6

8

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Disp_11

Laser Light Transmittance 

Disp_38

(1.52 m pathlength)

Interconnect Voltage (V)

Time (s)

Figure 29. Ion-1, four wicks - 30 s delay,

Disp 11 and Disp 38 alarms
37

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1

0

2

4

6

8

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Disp_2

Laser Light Transmittance 

Disp_5

(1.52 m pathlength)

Interconnect Voltage (V)

Time (s)

Figure 30. Ion-1, four wicks - 30 s delay,

Disp 2 and Disp 5 alarms

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1

0

2

4

6

8

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Disp_2

Laser Light Transmittance 

Disp_5

(1.52 m pathlength)

Interconnect Voltage (V)

Time (s)

Figure 31. Ion-1, six wicks 12 s delay,

Disp 2 and Disp 5 alarms
38

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1

0

2

4

6

8

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Disp_8

Laser Light Transmittance 

Disp_44

(1.52 m pathlength)

Interconnect Voltage (V)

Time (s)

Figure 32. Ion-1, four wicks 30 s delay,

Disp 8 and Disp 44 alarms

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1

0

2

4

6

8

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Disp_8

Laser Light Transmittance 

Disp_44

(1.52 m pathlength)

Interconnect Voltage (V)

Time (s)

Figure 33. Ion-1, six wicks 12 s delay,

Disp 8 and Disp 44 alarms
39

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1

0

2

4

6

8

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Disp_41

Laser Light Transmittance 

Disp_51

(1.52 m pathlength)

Interconnect Voltage (V)

Time (s)

Figure 34. Ion-1, six wicks 12 s delay,

Disp 41 and Disp 51 alarms

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1

0

2

4

6

8

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Disp_53

Laser Light Transmittance 

Disp_54

(1.52 m pathlength)

Interconnect Voltage (V)

Time (s)

Figure 35. Ion-1, three wicks 12 s delay,

Disp 53 and Disp 44 alarms
40

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1

0

2

4

6

8

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Disp_60

Laser Light Transmittance 

Disp_63

(1.52 m pathlength)

Interconnect Voltage (V)

Time (s)

Figure 36. Ion-1, six wicks 12 s delay,

Disp 60 and Disp 63 alarms

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1

0

2

4

6

8

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Disp_57

Laser Light Transmittance 

Disp_60

(1.52 m pathlength)

Interconnect Voltage (V)

Time (s)

Figure 37. Ion-1, six wicks 12 s delay,

Disp 57 and Disp 60 alarms
41

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1

0

2

4

6

8

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Disp_39

Disp_48

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52 m pathlength)

Interconnect Voltage (V)

Time (s)

Figure 38. Ion-3, six wicks - 12 s delay,

Disp 39 and Disp 48 alarms

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1

0

2

4

6

8

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Disp_39

Disp_48

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52 m pathlength)

Interconnect Voltage (V)

Time (s)

Figure 39. Ion-3, four wicks - 30 s delay,

Disp 39 and Disp 48 alarms
42

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1

0

2

4

6

8

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Disp_39

Disp_48

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52 m pathlength)

Interconnect Voltage (V)

Time (s)

Figure 40. Ion-3, three wicks 30 s delay,

Disp 39 and Disp 48 alarms

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1

0

2

4

6

8

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Disp_39

Disp_48

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52 m pathlength)

Interconnect Voltage (V)

Time (s)

Figure 41. Ion-3, three wicks 30 s delay,

Disp 39 and Disp 48 alarms
43

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1

0

2

4

6

8

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Disp_3

Disp_6

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52 m pathlength)

Interconnect Voltage (V)

Time (s)

Figure 42. Ion-3, three wicks 30 s delay,

Disp 3 and Disp 6 alarms

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1

0

2

4

6

8

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Disp_9

Disp_12

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52 m pathlength)

Interconnect Voltage (V)

Time (s)

Figure 43. Ion-3, three wicks 30 s delay,

Disp 9 and Disp 12 alarms
44

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1

0

2

4

6

8

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Disp_30

Disp_45

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52 m pathlength)

Interconnect Voltage (V)

Time (s)

Figure 44. Ion-3, three wicks 30 s delay,

Disp 30 and Disp 45 alarms

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1

0

2

4

6

8

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Disp_54

Disp_56

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52 m pathlength)

Interconnect Voltage (V)

Time (s)

Figure 45. Ion-3, three wicks 30 s delay,

Disp 54 and Disp 56 alarms
45

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1

0

2

4

6

8

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Disp_59

Disp_62

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52 m pathlength)

Interconnect Voltage (V)

Time (s)

Figure 46. Ion-3, three wicks 30 s delay,

Disp 59 and Disp 62 alarms

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1

0

2

4

6

8

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Disp_53

Disp_50

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52 m pathlength)

Interconnect Voltage (V)

Time (s)

Figure 47. Ion-3, three wicks 30 s delay,

Disp 53 and Disp 50 alarms
46

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30

Set 1

Set 2

Sensitivity test limits

(grey smoke)

Laser Light Transmittance

(1.52 m pathlength)

MIC output (pA)

Figure 48. UL grey smoke (smolder smoke) sensitivity

limits and FE/DE data

Number of

wicks

Alarm state Transmittance MIC output Obscuration

(%/m / %/ft)

1 Ion-1 - off

Ion-3 - off

0.985 85.2 1.0 / 0.31

2 Ion-1 - off

Ion-3 - on

0.981 77.1 1.3 / 0.39

3 Ion- 1- off

Ion-3 – on

0.965 68.3 2.4 / 0.72

4 Ion-1 – on

Ion-3 – on

0.958 63.5 2.9 / 0.87

Table 3. MIC output and obscuration during tests of two ionization alarms

From the table above, an obscuration ranging from 1.3 %/m to 2.9 %/m (0.39 %/ft to 0.87 %/ft)

was necessary for the devices to trip an alarm state. To insure the device would be expected to

alarm (to insure both devices trip an alarm state would require an obscuration of 2.9 %/m or

0.87 %/ft), an approximate minimum value of 2.8 %/m ± 1.6 %/m (0.85 %/ft ± 0.5 %/ft) was

used as representative of this range. This would correspond to MIC output values of 80.6 pA,

59.5 pA, and 50.9 pA for high, nominal and low sensitivity. 
47

Figure 49. Test board layout

2.7 Effect of Sensor Board Location on Response

The test board layout was a

compromise between placing

multiple alarms at approximately

the same physical location, while

limiting the local flow effects the

crowding of alarms will have and

the biasing of sensor response

due to position. The layout of the

test board is shown in figure 49. 

Since the primary purpose of this

study was the performance of

smoke alarms, preference was

given to the positioning of the

smoke alarms and positions 1-5

were reserved for smoke alarms,

while positions 6 – 8 were

reserved for CO alarms. The

arrow indicates the board

orientation in the expected

resultant flow during the fire

tests. It is obvious from the

layout that positions 4 and 5 may

experience a flow blocking effect. 

A series of tests were carried out

in the FE/DE to quantify the

effects of the test board position of a smoke sensor on its response for 6 flow conditions. The test

board was mounted on the ceiling of the FE/DE duct at the test section approximately 20 cm

from the laser beam. Duplicate tests were performed on two different board configurations at 3

separate FE/DE fan speeds with and without a baffle placed upstream of the test section. The

baffle is a 10 cm high by 20 cm long steel plate oriented across duct flow. Its function is to

promote velocity fluctuations that are similar to those observed in room flows in section 6. 

Table 4 shows the mean axial velocity at a height 5 cm below the ceiling and standard deviation

for each configuration. Figures 50 – 52 show the results for the three fan speeds with and

without the baffle present.
48

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0 20 40 60 80 100

No Baffle

Baffle

Axial velocity 5 cm below ceiling

(m/s)

Time (s)

Figure 50. Axial velocity at a fan speed of 5 Hz

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0 20 40 60 80 100

No Baffle

Baffle

Axial velocity 5 cm below ceiling

(m/s)

Time (s)

Figure 51. Axial velocity at a fan speed of 7 Hz
49

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0 20 40 60 80 100

No Baffle

Baffle

Axial velocity 5 cm below ceiling

(m/s)

Time (s)

Figure 52. Axial velocity at a fan speed of 12 Hz

Fan speed With baffle

(m/s)

Without baffle

(m/s)

5Hz Velocity

Standard deviation

0.057

0.01

0.047

0.004

7Hz Velocity 

Standard deviation

0.073

0.021

0.073

0.005

12 Hz Velocity 

Standard deviation

0.159

0.043

0.162

0.01

Table 4. Mean axial velocity 5 cm below ceiling

Alarm positions for board 1 are: position 1 - Ion-3- - -6, position 2 - Ion-1- - -1, position 3 -

Photo-1- - -3, position 4 - (Ion-4- - -8 and Photo-3- - -8; these sensors are co-located in the

same alarm housing), and position 5 empty. Alarm positions for board 2 are: position 1 is

empty, position 2 - Ion-3- - -13, position 3 - (Ion-4- - -3 and Photo-3- - -3), position 4 - Ion3- - -4, and position 5 - Photo-1- - -6. Thus, a Photo-1 type detector was in a front location on

board 1 and a rear location on board 2, while Ion-4 and Photo-3 were in a rear location on board

1 and in a front location on board 2. Ion-1 was located in the front on board 1 and in a rear

location on board 2; however, since location 1 is empty on board 2, the full effects of blockages

are not expected. Ion-3 remained in a front location on each board. Smoke was generated with

the same staged wick ignition device described earlier, using eight pairs of wicks with a 12 s

ignition delay between pairs. Figures 53-76 show the results for each alarm. 
50

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

100 120 140 160 180 200

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52m pathlength)

Sensor output (V)

(Dashed lines)

Time (s)

Black - Board 1 

Blue - Board 1 w/baffle

Red - Board 2

Green - Board 2 w/baffle

Figure 53. Ion-1 response, fan speed 5 Hz (see table 4)

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

100 120 140 160 180 200

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52m pathlength)

Sensor output (V)

(Dashed lines)

Time (s)

Black - Board 1 

Blue - Board 1 w/baffle

Red - Board 2

Green - Board 2 w/baffle

Figure 54. Ion-1 response, fan speed 7 Hz
51

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

80 100 120 140 160 180

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52m pathlength)

Sensor output (V)

(Dashed lines)

Time (s)

Black - Board 1 

Blue - Board 1 w/baffle

Red - Board 2

Green - Board 2 w/baffle

Figure 55. Ion-1 response, fan speed 12 Hz

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

100 120 140 160 180 200

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52m pathlength)

Sensor output (V)

(Dashed lines)

Time (s)

Black - Board 1 

Blue - Board 1 w/baffle

Red - Board 2

Green - Board 2 w/baffle

Figure 56. Ion-1 response, fan speed 5 Hz - repeat test
52

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52m pathlength)

Sensor output (V)

(Dashed lines)

Time (s)

Black - Board 1 

Blue - Board 1 w/baffle

Red - Board 2

Green - Board 2 w/baffle

Figure 57. Ion-1 response, fan speed 7 Hz - repeat test

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52m pathlength)

Sensor output (V)

(Dashed lines)

Time (s)

Black - Board 1 

Blue - Board 1 w/baffle

Red - Board 2

Green - Board 2 w/baffle

Figure 58. Ion-1 response, fan speed 12 Hz - repeat test
53

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

100 120 140 160 180 200

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52m pathlength)

Sensor output (V)

(Dashed lines)

Time (s)

Black - Board 1 

Blue - Board 1 w/baffle

Red - Board 2

Green - Board 2 w/baffle

Figure 59. Ion-3 response, fan speed 5 Hz

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

100 120 140 160 180 200

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52m pathlength)

Sensor output (V)

(Dashed lines)

Time (s)

Black - Board 1 

Blue - Board 1 w/baffle

Red - Board 2

Green - Board 2 w/baffle

Figure 60. Ion-3 response, fan speed 7 Hz
54

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

80 100 120 140 160 180

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52m pathlength)

Sensor output (V)

(Dashed lines)

Time (s)

Black - Board 1 

Blue - Board 1 w/baffle

Red - Board 2

Green - Board 2 w/baffle

Figure 61. Ion-3 response, fan speed 12 Hz

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

100 120 140 160 180 200

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52m pathlength)

Sensor output (V)

(Dashed lines)

Time (s)

Black - Board 1 

Blue - Board 1 w/baffle

Red - Board 2

Green - Board 2 w/baffle

Figure 62. Ion-3 response, fan speed 5 Hz - repeat test
55

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52m pathlength)

Sensor output (V)

(Dashed lines)

Time (s)

Black - Board 1 

Blue - Board 1 w/baffle

Red - Board 2

Green - Board 2 w/baffle

Figure 63. Ion-3 response, fan speed 7 Hz - repeat test

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52m pathlength)

Sensor output (V)

(Dashed lines)

Time (s)

Black - Board 1 

Blue - Board 1 w/baffle

Red - Board 2

Green - Board 2 w/baffle

Figure 64. Ion-3 response, fan speed 12 Hz - repeat test
56

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

100 120 140 160 180 200

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52m pathlength)

Sensor output (V)

(Dashed lines)

Time (s)

Black - Board 1 

Blue - Board 1 w/baffle

Red - Board 2

Green - Board 2 w/baffle

Figure 65. Ion-4 response, fan speed 5 Hz

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

100 120 140 160 180 200

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52m pathlength)

Sensor output (V)

(Dashed lines)

Time (s)

Black - Board 1 

Blue - Board 1 w/baffle

Red - Board 2

Green - Board 2 w/baffle

Figure 66. Ion-4 response, fan speed 7 Hz
57

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

80 100 120 140 160 180

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52m pathlength)

Sensor output (V)

(Dashed lines)

Time (s)

Black - Board 1 

Blue - Board 1 w/baffle

Red - Board 2

Green - Board 2 w/baffle

Figure 67. Ion-4 response, fan speed 12 Hz

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1 0

0.5

1

1.5

2

100 120 140 160 180 200

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52m pathlength)

Sensor output (V)

(Dashed lines)

Time (s)

Black - Board 1 

Blue - Board 1 w/baffle

Red - Board 2

Green - Board 2 w/baffle

Figure 68. Ion-4 response, fan speed 5 Hz - repeat test
58

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52m pathlength)

Sensor output (V)

(Dashed lines)

Time (s)

Black - Board 1 

Blue - Board 1 w/baffle

Red - Board 2

Green - Board 2 w/baffle

Figure 69. Ion-4 response, fan speed 7 Hz - repeat test

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52m pathlength)

Sensor output (V)

(Dashed lines)

Time (s)

Black - Board 1 

Blue - Board 1 w/baffle

Red - Board 2

Green - Board 2 w/baffle

Figure 70. Ion-4 response, fan speed 12 Hz - repeat test
59

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

100 120 140 160 180 200

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52m pathlength)

Sensor output (V)

(Dashed lines)

Time (s)

Black - Board 1 

Blue - Board 1 w/baffle

Red - Board 2

Green - Board 2 w/baffle

Figure 71. Photo-3 response, fan speed 5 Hz

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

100 120 140 160 180 200

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52m pathlength)

Sensor output (V)

(Dashed lines)

Time (s)

Black - Board 1 

Blue - Board 1 w/baffle

Red - Board 2

Green - Board 2 w/baffle

Figure 72. Photo-3 response, fan speed 7 Hz
60

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1 0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

80 100 120 140 160 180

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52m pathlength)

Sensor output (V)

(Dashed lines)

Time (s)

Black - Board 1 

Blue - Board 1 w/baffle

Red - Board 2

Green - Board 2 w/baffle

Figure 73. Photo-3 response, fan speed 12 Hz

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

100 120 140 160 180 200

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52m pathlength)

Sensor output (V)

(Dashed lines)

Time (s)

Black - Board 1 

Blue - Board 1 w/baffle

Red - Board 2

Green - Board 2 w/baffle

Figure 74. Photo-3 response, fan speed 5 Hz - repeat test
61

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52m pathlength)

Sensor output (volts)

(Dashed lines)

Time (s)

Black - Board 1 

Blue - Board 1 w/baffle

Red - Board 2

Green - Board 2 w/baffle

Figure 75. Photo-3 response, fan speed 7 Hz - repeat test

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Laser Light Transmittance 

(1.52m pathlength)

Sensor output (V)

(Dashed lines)

Time (s)

Black - Board 1 

Blue - Board 1 w/baffle

Red - Board 2

Green - Board 2 w/baffle

Figure 76. Photo-3 response, fan speed 7 Hz - repeat test
62

 

A photo-1 alarm malfunctioned and the results for that alarm type are not included. The results

show at low flow (5 Hz) there is an additional response delay on the order of 10 s at alarm

concentrations for alarms placed in positions 4 and 5 versus the front three positions due to the

additional transport time and blockage effects. At 7 Hz, the effect is less pronounced, on the

order of a 5 s delay. At 12 Hz there appears to be no effect. In general, the baffle lessens the

effect of position on the alarm response at the low flows. It is concluded that at all but the low

flows there is little or no appreciable bias affecting the alarm response and the board position. It

is important to note that this simultaneous data were only available for the ionization alarms

since only one photoelectric alarm was included in the data. The effects of background flows are

discussed further in section 6 from testing of nuisance sources in the manufactured home.

2.8 Thresholds for Modified Alarms

Since the modified CO and smoke alarms do not produce an alarm signal, appropriate thresholds

need to be specified to perform the calculations of time to alarm presented in the Appendix A. 

Selection of alarm thresholds was driven by the desire to consistently apply the same reasonable

criterion for each sensor type. Moreover, high and low ranges were specified for photoelectric

and ionization alarms characteristic of allowed production ranges. For CO alarms, high and low

ranges were specified to indicate sensitivity of a fixed threshold. 

Table 5 gives the alarm

thresholds used in the fire

test series analysis. The

justification for the CO

alarm threshold and range

is based on levels that

should be above potential

house CO concentration

levels. The photoelectric alarm threshold and range are indicative of typical nominal values and

falls within the observed alarm threshold for the unmodified photoelectric alarms tested in the

FE/DE. The ionization alarm threshold and range are indicative of typical nominal values,

however, the observed alarm threshold for one unmodified ionization alarm fell outside the

range. It was decided to use the nominal threshold value of 4.3 %/m (1.3 %/ft) based on two

observations. First, the cotton smoke source appears to meet the UL criterion for typical

ionization alarm values, and second, it is a more conservative value than the apparent alarm

thresholds for the unmodified ionization alarms. Furthermore, the average relative time

difference between an alarm sensitivity settings of 4.3 %/m and 3.2 %/m (that is, 100 times the

{time to alarm at 4.3%/m – time to alarm at 3.2 %/m} divided by the time to alarm at 4.3 %/m

Low Mid High

Ionization (%/m / %/ft) 2.6 / 0.8 4.3 / 1.3 5.9 / 1.8

Photoelectric (%/m / %/ft) 3.3 / 1.0 6.6 / 2.0 9.8 / 3.0

CO (volume fraction / ppm) 2.5×10-5 / 25 5.0×10-5 / 50 1.0×10-4 / 100

Table 5. Threshold criteria for modified alarms
63

for all (modified) ionization alarms in all tests was computed to be 2.9 %, indicating that the

time to reach alarm is not particularly sensitive to threshold settings near the chosen 4.3 %/m

setting used for these fire tests. 
64
65

3 Fire Source Test Scenarios and Geometries

In order to evaluate the performance of residential smoke alarms in-situ, a test series was

designed to encompass multiple fire scenarios, residential geometries, and alarm technologies.

This section describes the design of the test series.

3.1 Scenario Development

Of key importance to the representativeness of the study was the selection of the test scenarios. 

These include the room of fire origin, ignition source and first item ignited, and the ventilation

conditions that affect the fire development and combustion chemistry. Here we began with an

NFPA analysis of USFA’s NFIRS data on fatal residential fires conducted for CPSC [18]. The

statistics were categorized according to:

 • fire location (living room, bedroom, kitchen, and other),

 • fire type (smoldering, flaming, and fast flaming),

 • first item ignited.

The data were divided into the most frequent fires, and fires resulting in the greatest number of

deaths. Relatively hazardous fires may be fires that occur more frequently than others, or ones

that result in a high number of deaths. Of particular interest are fires that occur relatively

frequently, and when they do, they result in a disproportionately high death rate. Table 6 shows

the top ten scenarios for frequency of occurrence and number of deaths. Flaming and smoldering

upholstered furniture and mattresses account for the top four most deadly fire scenarios. 

Flaming cooking materials are involved more than five times more frequently than any other

material. The scenarios chosen for testing included the top five ranked by number of deaths, and

among the top ten ranked by frequency of occurrence:

 • smoldering upholstered furniture in the living room,

 • flaming upholstered furniture in the living room,

 • smoldering mattress in the bedroom,

 • flaming mattress in the bedroom, and

 • cooking materials in the kitchen.

These chosen scenarios are consistent with typical scenarios included for the performance-based

design option in NFPA 101 [19] and available guides for performance-based design [20].
66

Location Fire Type First Item Ignited Frequency

Ranked by Frequency of Occurrence

Kitchen Flaming Cooking Materials 82 905

Bedroom Flaming Mattress 15 914

Kitchen Flaming Wire / Cable 7499

Bedroom Smoldering Mattress 6437

Kitchen Fast Flaming Cooking 5234

Bedroom Flaming Wire / Cable 4551

Kitchen Flaming Interior Wall Covering 4271

Living Room Smoldering Upholstered Furniture 4060

Living Room Flaming Upholstered Furniture 3715

Living Room Flaming Wire / Cable 3481

Ranked by Number of Deaths

Living Room Smoldering Upholstered Furniture 372

Bedroom Smoldering Mattress 251

Bedroom Flaming Mattress 249

Living Room Flaming Upholstered Furniture 160

Kitchen Flaming Cooking Materials 142

Kitchen Flaming Clothing 79

Living Room Flaming Wire / Cable 61

Living Room Flaming Interior Wall Covering 52

Bedroom Flaming Clothing 51

Kitchen Flaming Structural Member / Framing 50

Source: 1992 – 1996 NFIRS Data [18]

Table 6. Top fire scenarios ranked by frequency of occurrence, 1992 – 1996
67

0.89 m

0.05 m

0.18 m

1.0 m

0.33 m

0.94 m

0.84 m

0.56 m

0.56 m

Figure 77. Measurements of upholstered chair used

for smoldering experiments

Front View Side View Back View

Figure 78. Upholstered chair used for smoldering experiments

3.2 Material Selection

3.2.1 Upholstered Furniture

Once the fire scenarios were determined, the materials were procured. The primary goal of each

material was to provide a realistic residential fire signature. The burning behavior of individual

items, however, can vary dramatically depending upon the specific materials, geometry, and

construction used to fabricate the items. Therefore, two different pieces of upholstered living

room furniture were selected in order to take advantage of different combustion characteristics

of the fuels. Figures 77 and 78 show the upholstered chair selected for the smoldering

experiments. The smoldering chair weighed 34 kg. Extended propagation (greater than one

hour) of the smoldering front necessitates a large quantity of foam for the seat cushion. The seat

cushion consisted of 79 %

urethane foam and 21 %

synthetic fiber. The

cushioning in the rest of

the chair consists of 68 %

urethane foam, 29 % felted

textile fibers of unknown

kind, 2 % resin treated

synthetic fiber, and 1 %

olefin foam. The frame of

the chair was constructed

of wood.
68

0.86 m

0.53 m

0.06 m

0.18 m 0.18 m

0.05 m

0.13 m

0.15 m

0.66 m

0.94 m

0.58 m

Figure 79. Measurements of upholstered chair used

for flaming experiments

Front View Side View Back View

Figure 80. Upholstered chair used for flaming experiments

The flaming chair was chosen with a lower foam content than the smoldering chair to reduce the

peak heat release rate of the chair. A high peak heat release rate may have resulted in

unintentional damage to the test structures. Thus, the total quantity of foam in the flaming chair

was less than the total quantity of foam in the smoldering chair. The quantity of wood in the

framing was not a consideration because the fires were always extinguished prior to the framing

becoming substantially involved. Figures 79 and 80 show the chair selected for the flaming

living room experiments. 

The flaming chair weighed

28 kg. The seat cushion

consisted of 79 %

polyurethane foam and 21 %

polyester fiber. The

remaining cushioning

consisted of 28 %

polyurethane foam and 72 %

felted textile fiber of

unknown composition. A

separate back pillow

consisted of 100 % polyester

fiber. The frame was

constructed of wood. 

Both smoldering and

flaming chairs were obtained from a furniture rental retailer in order to reproduce the flaming or

smoldering characteristics of lived-in furniture. 
69

Figure 81. Mattress used for smoldering and

flaming experiments

Corn Oil Corn Oil in Pan on Gas Range

Figure 82. Corn oil used for kitchen cooking materials fire experiments

3.2.2 Mattress

For the smoldering and flaming

bedroom scenarios, a single

mattress style was obtained. The

twin size mattress had a “pillowtop” layer of foam. While the

“pillow-top” mattresses are popular

due to the extra cushioning it

provides, the layers of foam also

provide a route for the smoldering

front to spread. The stuffing

material consisted of 66 % resin

treated shredded padding of

unknown composition and 34 % polyurethane foam. The mattress rigidity was provided by a

metal innerspring unit. Figure 81 shows a picture of the mattress. The mattress mass was 19 kg.

3.2.3 Cooking Materials

The most frequently occurring fire in the United States is the cooking materials fire. 500 mL of

100 % corn oil was heated on a gas range until the fuel ignited and was consumed in the fire. 

Corn oil was selected because it is commonly used and a repeatable fuel source. 
70

Figure 83. “Electric match” used for flaming

ignitions

3.3 Ignition Methodology

There were three primary ignition sources: flaming, smoldering, and cooking. The flaming

ignition source required a moderate flame source which would quickly ignite the material. The

smoldering source necessitated a slow, steady introduction of heat to the material in order to

initiate a self-propagating smolder front. The cooking material ignition source was easier to

define with a gas cooking range heating source. The size, timing, and location of each source

were design to give repeatable results, to the extent possible. 

3.3.1 Flaming Ignition

One of the goals of the experiments was to quantify the performance of differing smoke detector

technologies, which suggests that a slower fire growth rate will act to more clearly differentiate

smoke detector alarm times. Thus, a relatively

small ignition source, an electric match, was

chosen. An electric match (see figure 83) is a

cardboard match book with the cover flipped

back, and with a small gauge nichrome wire

loop run through the sulfur ends of the matches.

The other end of the wire was attached to a

switched power source. When the switch was

closed, the wire heated quickly, igniting the

matchbook within 2 s. Since the match book

would burn out quickly, a folded piece of paper

surrounding the match book assembly extended

the flaming for approximately 20 s to ensure

ignition of the surrounding material. 

The geometric placement of the electric match

assembly was selected in order to minimize the fire growth rate. Beyond the characteristics of

the fuel, the flame spread rate is largely determined by the available surface area and the

orientation of the surface. In a horizontal orientation, the area of material involved in the

combustion process grows in a circular manner, away from the origin. Thus, eliminating any

direction for the flames to propagate reduces the surface area available to the fire. Locating the

origin at the edge of a horizontal surface reduces by half the available surface area. Flames

travel more rapidly up vertical surfaces than across horizontal surfaces due to buoyant

convection of the heated gases. 

In order to reduce the fire growth rate, the origin was located away from large vertical surfaces

(the arms and back of the chair and the sides of the mattress) since flames travel more rapidly
71

Flaming Chair and Electric Match Mattress and Electric Match

Figure 84. Location of “electric match” ignition source for flaming upholstered chair

and mattress experiments

vertically than horizontally. The electric match was located near an edge or corner to minimize

the available surface area. The location of the electric match was in the front of the chair

between the cushion and the frame. This minimized the horizontal surface area and maximized

the distance to the arms and back as shown in figure 84. A similar rationale was used to select

the ignition point for the mattress, also shown in figure 84. 

3.3.2 Smoldering Ignition

Sustained smoldering in the urethane foam was difficult to reliably reproduce. If the rate of

heating was too high, the foam would either melt and move away from the smoldering region, or

runaway reactions would transition the material to flaming combustion. If the rate of heating

was too low, the heat input would not sustain the pyrolysis of the material and the smoldering

front would extinguish. 30 min to120 min of smoldering could be achieved in these

experiments, if sufficient urethane foam was available, using the techniques described here.
72

Figure 85. Rod used for smoldering ignitions

Figure 86. Heating ignition source with

cooking oil

Figure 85 shows the smoldering rod fabricated

for theses tests. The rod material was ceramic

through which nichrome wire was enclosed. The

total length of wire was about 0.76 m (30 in) A

loop was formed by the wire at the end of the

rod. The diameter of the loop was

approximately 0.13 m (5 in). The wires were

connected to a variac to control the voltage (and

thus the current applied) to the loop. 

Smoldering was initiated with a low current that

was slowly increased as necessary to insure

sufficient heat to sustain extended smoldering of

the polyurethane foam. Typical heat output was

approximately 0.2 kW A thermocouple,

attached to the top surface of the seat cushion or mattress above the wire loop was monitored

during the test to insure continued smoldering. The test was terminated once flaming occurred. 

3.3.3 Cooking Ignition

The cooking oil fire scenario produced both extended

pyrolyzing and extended flaming combustion. The

500 mL of corn oil was poured into a 0.3 m (12 in)

diameter aluminum saute pan. A propane burner

provided approximately 1.5 kW to the underside of the

pan, typical of cooking applications. The corn oil

pyrolyzed for a period of time, after which a transition

to flaming occurred, consuming the remainder of the

corn oil. Figure 86 shows the heating ignition source.

3.4 Test Geometry

3.4.1 Manufactured Home

The manufactured home geometry represented an array

of residential layouts. The arrangement of the

manufactured home was sufficiently generic as to

represent an apartment, condominium, or small ranch house, in addition to a manufactured

home. The primary partitioning of the 85 m2 (910 ft2) home consisted of three bedrooms, one

full bathroom, one kitchen/dining area, one living room, and two hallways. Each bedroom also
73

contained a small closet. Figure 87 shows the general layout of the manufactured home. For

testing, the doors to the bedroom 3 and the bathroom were always closed. Conditions in the

middle bedroom were monitored during the tests to assess the tenability of the environment

behind the closed door. In the bathroom, a partially open window (0.06 m2

) minimized the

pressure differential to the outside during tests. Additionally, both doors leading outside the

manufactured home were closed during testing. The ceiling of the manufactured home was

peaked on the long axis, reaching a height of 2.4 m (8 ft). The outside walls of the manufactured

home were approximately 2.1 m (7 ft) in height. The slope of the ceiling was approximately

8.4E. Smoke detector arrays were mounted parallel to the ceiling.

3.4.2 Two-story Home

The two-story home in Kinston, N.C. was a brick-clad 3 bedroom home, 139 m2

 (1490 ft2) in

size. The first floor consisted of a foyer, den, family room, kitchen, dining room, bathroom, and

stairwell to the upstairs. The home did not have a basement. The 2 car garage was accessible

from the first floor den. The second floor consisted of a stairwell to the downstairs, hallway, 2

bathrooms, and two smaller bedrooms and one master bedroom. Figures 88 and 89 show the

layout of the two-story home. 
4.06 m

3.96 m

1.96 m 2.13 m

3.35 m

4.17 m

3.38 m 2.16 m 3.20 m

0.81 m

3.05 m

Bedroom #3(ClosedBedroom) Living Room

Dining Room

Bedroom #2(Remote Bedroom)

Bath

Close

Close

2.34 m 1.6

20.12 m

Kitchen

Kitchen

Figure 87. Layout of manufactured home used for test of smoke alarm performance

74
Dining Room Kitchen

2.98 m

1.55 m

5.06 m

3.63 m 3.56 m 1.64 m 3.53 m

0.64 m

6.31 m

2.63 m

0.89 m

1.97 m

3.34 m

Den

Living Room Foyer Bath

Figure 88. Layout of first floor of two-story home used for tests of smoke alarm performanc

75
3.63 m

2.21 m

3.56 m

1.52 m 1.52 m

4.34 m

3.34 m

0.45 m

0.53 m

2.29 m 3.27 m

5.30 m

Bedroom 3

Bath

Bath

Closet

Bedroom 2(Remote Bed

Bedroom 1(Closed Room)

Figure 89. Layout of second floor of two-story home used for tests of smoke alarm perfor

76
77

Figure 90. Sample instrumentation showing relative

locations of temperature, primary gas analysis, smoke

obscuration, and smoke alarm response measurements

4 Fire Source Testing Instrumentation

Fire produces heat, smoke, and toxic gases, all of which can threaten human life. In these

experiments environmental parameters that have an impact on human response were measured.

Parameters included temperature rise, toxic gas production, and smoke obscuration. Aspects of

these that can be measured directly include the gas temperature, mass loss of the burning item,

species concentrations, including CO, CO2, O2, and other gases. The instrumentation and

methods used to measure each of

these quantities are discussed

below. Readers interested in a

general overview of large-scale

fire testing data collection and

analyses are referred to Peacock

and Babrauskas [21].

4.1 Temperature

Temperature measurements were

accomplished using small

diameter, bare-bead type K

thermocouples. Thermocouple

trees that consist of thermocouples

spaced evenly from floor to

ceiling provide a measure of

vertical temperature stratification

(an example is shown in figure

90). Bare-bead trees were

arranged in the room of origin, in

at least one remote bedroom, and

along the egress path to provide

vertical temperature distributions

as a function of time. The barebead thermocouples were

constructed from 0.25 mm

diameter wire. Table 7, below,

summarizes the location of
78

Structure Location Vertical Positions

(mm from ceiling)

Manufactured

Home

Bedroom 2 (remote bedroom) 20, 300, 610, 900, 1220, 1520, 1820

Bedroom 1 (room of fire origin for

mattress tests) 20, 300, 610, 900, 1220, 1520, 1820

Hallway 1 (outside bedroom 2) 20, 300, 610, 900, 1220, 1520, 1820

Hallway 2 (outside bedrooms 1 and 3) 20, 300, 610, 900, 1220, 1520, 1820

Living area (room of fire origin for

upholstered chair and cooking oil tests) 20, 300, 610, 900, 1220, 1520, 1820

Hallway 2 (near living room) 20, 300, 610, 900, 1220, 1520, 1820

Bedroom 3 (closed bedroom) 1520

Two-Story

House

Bedroom 2 (remote bedroom) 20, 300, 610, 900, 1220

Second floor hallway 20, 300, 610, 900, 1220

Bedroom 3 (room of fire origin for

mattress tests) 20, 300, 610, 900, 1220

First floor foyer 20, 300, 610, 900, 1220

First floor den 20, 300, 610, 900, 1220

Living room (room of fire origin for

upholstered chair tests) 20, 300, 610, 900, 1220

Kitchen (room of fire origin for cooling

oil tests) 20, 300, 610, 900, 1220

Table 7. Locations for temperature measurement in tests of smoke alarm response

temperature measurement in the different test structures. Figures 91 to 93 show the

instrumentation in the manufactured home and two-story home, respectively.

For a series of well-controlled gas burner tests [22], the standard uncertainty for peak gas

temperature was found to be ± 16 °C. These are expressed as the standard deviation of the peak

values for 12 replicate tests. While random error in the current experiments is expected to be

comparable to these values, additional uncertainty due to variation in the ignition and fire growth

of the fire sources from this test series can be expected. Replicate tests were conducted for this

report to better quantify uncertainty.
0.97 m

1.63 m 1.98 m

1.88 m

1.65 m

1.70 m

0.31 m 0.50 m

1.05 m

0.38 m

0.38 m 0.38 m

0.38 m

0.38 m

0.38 m

0.25 m

1.05 m 

0.65 m 

0.10 m

0.38 m

0.3

0.38 m

LoadCell

Kitchen BurnerLocation

TemperatureSmoke ObscurationPrimary Gas AnalysisSmoke Alarm ResponseUnmodified Smoke AlarmMechanical Heat AlarmVelocity

A

C

E

D

F

G

K

Figure 91. Instrumentation in manufactured home during tests of smoke alarm perform

79
1.83 m

1.78 m 1.79 m

1.45 m

1.14 m

0.82 m

0.38 m

0.38 m

0.2 m 

0.39 m

0.61 m

1.63 m

0.70 m

0.70 m

0.96 m

0.77 m

0.51 m

0.38 m

1

3.38 m

150 m 1.35 m 1.50 m

1.04 m

0.80 m 0.53 m

1.55 m1.70 m1.85 m

VelocityProbe

2.63 m

Camera

Camera

1.17 m

LoadCell Sprinkler

TemperatureSmoke ObscurationPrimary Gas AnalysisSmoke Alarm ResponseUnmodified Smoke AlarmMechanical Heat AlarmUnique Instrumentation

Kitchen BurnerLocation

B

Figure 92. Instrumentation in first floor of two-story home during tests of smoke alarm perform

80
1.63 m

1.41 m

0.10 m

1.24 m

1.68 m

1.17 m

0.76 m

0.98 m

1.75 m

2.81 m

2.49m

0.38 m

2.54 m

284 

TemperatureSmoke ObscurationPrimary Gas AnalysisSmoke Alarm ResponseUnmodified or Aspirated Smoke AlarmMechanical Heat AlarmUnique Instrumentation

Velocity

Velocity

A

C

Figure 93. Instrumentation in second floor of two-story home during tests of smoke alarm perfor

81
82

Figure 94. Example of mass loss measurement showing

upholstered chair on load cell prior to one of the flaming

ignition tests and load cell apparatus mounted beneath

manufactured home

4.2 Sample Mass

Mass loss from the object of fire origin was recorded using a floor-mounted load cell apparatus.

Figure 94 shows the apparatus for one of the flaming ignition tests. As the object of fire origin is

consumed by the fire, the mass decreases. The mass was measured over time, yielding the

instantaneous measure of specimen mass, as well as the total mass consumed by the fire. The

mass loss rate is simply the rate of

change of the measured mass loss.

It is determined from the slope of

a straight line fit through seven

adjacent points to minimize noise

in the instantaneous

measurements. Mass loss rate is

directly correlated with the

generation of combustion products

(toxic species, smoke, etc.), as

well as heat release rate.

Standard uncertainty for the mass

loss measurements is expressed as

a percentage of the full-scale

resolution of the load cells. For

the load cell used for these tests,

this is approximately ± 2 g. While

random error in the current

experiments is expected to be

comparable to these values,

additional uncertainty due to

variation in the ignition and fire

growth of the fire sources from

this test series can be expected. 

Replicate tests were conducted for

this report to better quantify

uncertainty.
83

Structure Location Vertical Positions

(mm from ceiling)

Manufactured

Home

Bedroom 2 (remote bedroom) 900

Bedroom 1 (only for mattress tests) 900

Hallway 1 (outside bedroom 2) 900

Living area (only for upholstered chair and cooking

oil tests) 900

Hallway 2 (near living room) 900

Two-Story

House

Bedroom 2 (remote bedroom) 900

First floor foyer 900

Table 8. Locations for primary gas measurement in tests of smoke alarm response

4.3 Primary Gases – CO, CO2, and O2

Measurement of CO, CO2, and O2 concentrations, along with temperature and smoke

obscuration, provide an assessment of the tenability of a fire environment and allow

determination of available egress time (discussed in section 5.4). CO and CO2 measurements

were performed with nondispersive infrared (NDIR) analysis. NDIR works on the principle that

a gas species will absorb infrared light at a known wavelength. These instruments are carefully

designed to avoid absorption bands that are near those of strong interfering bands such as those

of water. O2 measurements were made using paramagnetic analyzers. In these tests, primary gas

concentration measurements were made in the room of fire origin, in at least one remote

bedroom and at two points along the egress path. An example of the measurement point at one

of the locations is shown in figure 90. For all experiments and locations, the NDIR gas analysis

sampling point was located at an elevation of 1.5 m (5 ft) from floor level. Table 8, below,

summarizes the location of gas analysis in the two test geometries.

Upstream of the analyzers, the gas stream was filtered to remove particulates and also passed

through ice water and dry ice traps to remove water from the samples. Each analyzer was

calibrated with a known concentration of gas prior to each test to insure correct operation and

provide appropriate small corrections to manufacturer-supplied calibration curves. Typically,

this correction was less than 1 % of the measured value. Additionally, delay times to account for

line delays in the instrumentation for each measurement location was determined by introducing

a gas pulse at the measurement point and noting the time required for the analyzer to respond.
84

(a)

(b)

Figure 95. Optical density instrument designs

With different line lengths, vacuum pumps, and filters in each analyzer system, these delays can

be expected to be different for each analyzer. With multiple replicates, this delay ranged from

9 s ± 1 s to 34 s ± 3 s. Test data were shifted to account for these delay times.

For a series of well-controlled gas burner tests [22], the standard uncertainty for oxygen

concentration, carbon dioxide concentration, and carbon monoxide concentration was found to

be ± 0.6 % volume fraction, ± 0.4 % volume fraction, and ± 0.06 % volume fraction,

respectively. These are expressed as the standard deviation of the peak values for 12 replicate

tests. While random error in the current experiments is expected to be comparable to these

values, additional uncertainty due to variation in the ignition and fire growth of the fire sources

from this test series can be expected. Replicate tests were conducted for this report to better

quantify uncertainty.

4.4 FTIR Gas Analysis

In the manufactured home tests, the secondary gas measurement was performed by

representatives from National Research

Council of Canada using FTIR (Fourier

Transform Infrared) techniques. FTIR gas

analysis provides measures of additional gases

which may effect tenability, such as HCN,

HCl, NO, or NO2, in addition to providing a

second measure of CO and CO2. Data on

secondary gases are included as Appendix B. 

4.5 Optical Density

Optical density was measured using laserbased light extinction measurement trees. A

laser beam’s signal strength is measured over

time. As smoke passes through the laser beam,

the smoke absorbs and reflects a fraction of the

light, reducing the light level at an in-line

receiver. Figure 95 shows the two designs of

smoke obscuration instruments used in the

tests. The light source was a low-cost laser

pointer consisting of Class II laser diode with a

stated wavelength range of 630 nm to 680 nm

and a maximum power output of less than a 1
85

mW, coupled to a plastic lens. The laser was powered by a regulated power supply set at a

constant voltage of 4.50 V. The light receiver was a silicon photovoltaic cell (i.e., solar cell)

where the open-circuit voltage was monitored by an analog voltage input channel of the data

acquisition system. The “clean air” voltage was typically between 0.15 V and 0.3 V depending

on the smoke meter, and its alignment before a test. Prior to each test, the smoke meters were

powered up, allowed to reach a steady state, and calibrated with neutral density filters covering a

range in optical densities. Neutral density filters typically have an uncertainty of 2 % of the

stated value. The data were fitted to calibration curves, which were then used to compute the

optical densities from the voltages gathered during the subsequent test. The relative uncertainty

of the field-calibrated smoke meters was typically 10 % of the reading. 

Optical density was measured near smoke alarms, in the room of origin, in at least one remote

bedroom, and along the egress path. Smoke obscuration coupled with irritant effects may impair

the ability of occupants to egress in fires [23]. Figure 90 shows an example set of smoke

obscuration instruments in one of the bedrooms of the manufactured home. Measurements of

smoke obscuration from floor to ceiling were made in the room of fire origin, at least one remote

bedroom, and at locations along the egress path. Table 9, below, summarizes the location of

optical density measurements in the two test geometries.

As testing progressed, the design of the optical density instruments evolved. Three different

designs were used in the three test series. In test 1-15, the design shown in figure 95a was used.

Although the simplest design, the output of the in-line receiver changed at high temperature.

Since the primary focus of these tests was early detection, the design provided reasonable results

for all but the hottest measurement locations. For tests 20-41, the design was modified to

include high temperature insulation around both the laser and receiver ends of the instrument

(figure 95b). In addition, for tests 30-41, more insulation was added along with a glass window

on the receiver end to clearly define the path length.
86

Structure Location Vertical Positions

(mm from ceiling)

Manufactured

Home

Bedroom 2 (remote bedroom) 20, 900

Bedroom 1 (room of fire origin for mattress tests) 20, 900

Hallway 1 (outside bedroom 2) 20, 900

Hallway 2 (outside bedrooms 1 and 3) 20, 900

Living area (room of fire origin for upholstered chair

and cooking oil tests) 20, 900

Hallway 2 (near living room) 20, 900

Bedroom 3 (closed bedroom) 1020

Two-Story

House

Bedroom 2 (remote bedroom) 20, 900

Second floor hallway 20, 900

First floor foyer 20, 900

First floor den 20, 900

Table 9. Locations for primary optical density measurements in tests of smoke alarm response

The main function of the field test smoke meters was to provide obscuration data for assessing

tenability limits. An optical density of 0.25 m-1 (1.5 m from the floor) was used in the analysis

as the tenability criterion for smoke obscuration. It is important to note that heat transfer from

hot gases transported to the smoke meters causes their voltage output to drift, giving a false

indication of smoke and a larger apparent optical density than what would be due to the smoke in

the optical path. The time after a significant amount of heat transfer occurred represents a period

of smoke meter operation where the smoke obscuration results would not be reliable. 

Smoldering fire tests typically did not produce significantly elevated temperatures, thus the

uncertainty in a smoke meter obscuration measurement during smoldering phases is essentially

the ambient temperature calibration uncertainty. Laboratory tests on un-insulated and insulated

smoke meters indicated that a temperature change approximately 20 EC to 40 EC over 100 s to

200 s, would start to affect the reliability of the computed smoke obscuration by the end of the

heating period (the insulated meters performed better.) Therefore, caution must be used when

analyzing these smoke meter results anytime the ambient temperature has changed. During the

flaming phase of these tests, the optical density tenability limits were reached prior to significant

smoke meter heating. 
87

4.6 Smoke Properties

In addition to optical density, other

smoke properties were measured in

selected tests in one or more

locations. Figure 96 shows the

instrumentation in the two-story

home. The aerosol mass

concentration was recorded with a

tapered-element oscillating

microbalance (TEOM model 1100,

Rupprecht and Pastashnick Co.,

Inc) designed for diesel soot

monitoring. This is a widely used

instrument for continuous recording

of mass concentration. It consists

of a filter attached to a tube

oscillating in an inverted pendulum

fashion. Particle-laden flow is

drawn through the filter and down

the tube. Aerosol particles that

deposit on the filter change the

frequency of oscillation, which is sensed and converted into a change in mass. The flow rate is

fixed at 3.00 L/min, hence the aerosol mass concentration can be computed. The air entering the

instrument is heated to approximately 45 o

C. The range of the instrument was between

0.2 mg/m3

 to about 500 mg/m3 with an absolute uncertainty if 0.1 mg/m3. An attempt was made

to sample from two different locations during some of the manufactured home tests by switching

between the sampling locations every 30 s with a two-way valve. The TEOM had problems

recovering after flow switching, and this technique was abandon. 

The number concentration was recorded with a condensation particle counter (model 3022A,

Thermo-systems Inc.) This instrument counts all particles in the range of 10 nm to over 3 μm by

growing them to a single size via condensation of alcohol vapor and then counting them

individually via single-particle light scattering, or by calibrated photometry. The instrument can

record up to 1x107

 particles/cm3. This upper range was extended to 8x108 particles/cm3 by

employing a 80:1 diluter. The stated relative uncertainty is 10 % of reading up to 5x105

particles/cm3. As with the TEOM, an attempt was made to sample from two different locations

in the two-story home tests. By switching the flow between two locations every 60 s it was

possible to record the number concentration at 60 s intervals every 120 s for each location. 

Figure 96. Smoke properties measurement showing

collection lines (foreground) and smoke velocity

measurement (background)
88

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3

Y Parameter from MIC Current

Ion Chamber Voltage (V)

Y = X(2-X)/(1-X)

X=(V0-V/)(Vmax-V0)

Vmax = 3.139

Figure 97. Calibration of residential ionization chamber

Finally, a size distribution measurement of the smoke was made using a cascade impactor. A

micro-orifice, uniform-deposit impactor (MOUDI) was used. It is a 12-stage impactor that

measures the sized distribution from 18 μm down to 0.03 μm. The MOUDI requires 28.3 SLM

flow. It provides a time-averaged size distribution over its collection time period. Aerosols over

a narrow aerodynamic size are collected on pre-weighed filters by impaction at each stage. After

the last stage, a final filter collects all particles that were not impacted. The standard uncertainty

of mass collected on any single stage is 0.01 mg. Typically, a sum of over 2 mg of material was

collected on all stages. The mass fraction of aerosol on each stage is computed and was used to

estimate the mass median aerodynamic particle diameter and the width of the size distribution. 

Ionization chambers were constructed to emulate the response of a measuring ionization

chamber (MIC) to provide an estimate of the first moment of the size distribution. The design of

these chambers is described in Section 6. In addition to the ionization chambers, individual

modified residential ionization alarms were located at the sampling position for the chambers. 

Figure 97 shows the response of a modified alarm exposed to cotton smolder smoke generated in

the FE/DE as compared to the Y value computed from a MIC located inside the FE/DE. The

modified alarm was located inside a plenum and drew air from the FE/DE duct at the test section

location. This comparison was used to compute Y values from the voltage data from all four

modified alarms. In order to compute a Y value from the voltage, the voltage signal must be

transformed into a variable that ranges from 0 to 1 over a smoke concentration of 0 to infinity

(where the MIC goes from 100 pA to 0 pA, and the normalized change in current goes from 0 to

1). The data in figure 97 were fitted via non-linear least squares regression to the following

equation:

YX X X =− − ( )( ) 2 1 where

the voltage was transformed into X,

the normalized current change,

by ; X V V VV =− − ( )( ) max 0 0

V0 is the initial clean air voltage and

Vmax is a maximum value obtained

via the regression.

The regression curve is shown in

figure 97. A best-fit value for Vmax

was 3.139 V with a standard error

of 0.013 V. A correlation

coefficient of 0.9975 indicates a

good fit with the equation. Above

values of Y = 2.3, the equation was

extrapolated. Propagating the
89

Figure 98. Measurement station showing several alarms

arranged for testing

uncertainty in X when computing Y yields a combined standard uncertainty in computed Y of

0.022. 

All sample lines were 9.5 mm (3/8 in) OD copper tubing. The main sampling location in the

manufactured home tests was 25 mm below the ceiling in the remote bedroom, 1.60 m from the

window and 1.65 m from the wall opposing the door. Air was flowed through the ionization

chamber, and a fraction of the flow leaving the chamber was sent to the TEOM. Additionally, a

sampling location was located 25 mm below the ceiling in the hallway 1.70 m from the back

bedroom door, and 0.50 m from the exterior wall. The air sample from this location went to an

ionization chamber. 

The main sampling location in the two-story home was 25 mm below the ceiling in the upstairs

remote bedroom 1.57 m from the back wall and 1.60 m from the garage side wall. The

secondary sampling location was 25 mm below the ceiling in the den 2.44 m from the back wall

and 1.60 m from the garage sidewall. 

4.7 Smoke and CO Alarm Response

Figure 98 shows one of the alarm

arrays. Alarm response was

measured by direct recording of

the voltage signal from ionization

smoke alarms, photoelectric

smoke alarms, and CO alarms

arranged for analog output,

instead of the more common

alarm threshold. By recording

analog output, the performance of

the alarms at any desired

threshold setting as well as the

potential use of algorithms that

reduce nuisance alarms can be

evaluated. The analog signal was

compared to unmodified alarms

purchased in local, retail outlets,

in the laboratory to verify that the

modifications did not affect the

alarm performance (see section 2.8 for details). Alarms were located in typical, code-required

locations, as well as in the room of origin, in order to determine the effectiveness of alternative

siting rules. In the room of fire origin, three unmodified alarms were used to avoid destruction
90

Structure Location

Manufactured

Home

Smoke and CO Alarms – Bedroom 2 (remote bedroom)

Smoke and CO Alarms and Tell-tale Sprinkler – Bedroom 1 (room of

fire origin for mattress tests)

Smoke and CO Alarms – Hallway 1 (outside bedroom 2)

Smoke and CO Alarms – Hallway 2 (outside bedrooms 1 and 3)

Smoke and CO Alarms and Tell-tale Sprinkler – Living area (room of

fire origin for upholstered chair and cooking oil tests)

Smoke and CO Alarms – Hallway 2 (near living room)

Two-Story House

Smoke and CO Alarms – Bedroom 2 (remote bedroom)

Smoke and CO Alarms – Second floor hallway

Smoke and CO Alarms – First floor foyer

Tell-tale Sprinkler – Living Room

Smoke and CO Alarms – First floor den

Table 10. Alarm and sprinkler locations in tests of smoke and CO alarm response

of the limited supply of analog-modified alarms (figure 99). For these alarms, the interconnect

signal was monitored to determine the time of alarm. Table 10 summarizes the alarm locations

for the two test structures.

4.8 Sprinkler Response

Residential sprinklers have made significant market penetration in multi-family housing. Many

current codes include independent requirements for smoke alarms and sprinklers. This is not

necessarily the most effective arrangement but limited data exist that demonstrate the relative

performance of the combination. Sprinkler response was measured using an air pressurized (so

called telltale) sprinkler. A small quantity of water at the sprinkler head provides an appropriate

thermal sink. Upon activation, the pressure in the sprinkler line drops to ambient and the

activation time is recorded as the time of this pressure drop. For the test installation, pipe lengths

were sufficiently short so that measurement delay from sprinkler activation to noted response

was less than 2 s. Typical residential sprinklers (listed for installation in a sloped ceiling with up
91

Figure 99. Measurement station showing unmodified

smoke alarms arranged for testing

to a 26.6 E pitch for the

manufactured home) were

installed in the room of fire origin

in accordance with the requirements

of NFPA 13D, Standard for the

Installation of Sprinkler Systems

in One- and Two-Family

Dwellings and Manufactured

Homes. The sprinklers had a listed

activation temperature of 68 EC

(155 EF) with a K-factor of 5.5

and were appropriate for spacing

up to 6 m (20 ft). Table 10

summarizes the alarm locations

for the two test structures. 

4.9 Mechanical Heat Alarm

Response

Mechanical heat alarms were located in the room of origin in accordance with the requirements

of NFPA 72, the National Fire Alarm Code. The heat alarms were listed for 57 EC (135 EF)

activation at a spacing up to 21 m (70 ft). Heat alarm response can be compared to the

performance of other smoke and heat alarms. Activation was recorded by the acoustic signal

emitted by the device. 
92
93

5 Fire Source Test Results and Calculations

In this section, experimental test results are presented which characterize the environment in

typical residential fire scenarios. Data presented include the time varying concentrations of CO,

CO2, and O2, gas velocities, smoke obscuration, and temperature at multiple locations in the

structure. Additional measurement of smoke particle size and concentration are discussed later in

the report.

5.1 Tests Conducted

Real-scale tests of current smoke, heat, and carbon monoxide alarms in actual homes with

appropriate contents as fuels provide a base of data to evaluate the performance of modern

residential alarm technologies. Fire scenarios (including ignition source, first item ignited, and

room of fire origin) were selected based upon a statistical analysis of available fire loss data.

Selected fires include a mattress fire in a bedroom, upholstered chair fire in a living area, and a

cooking oil fire in a kitchen. In most tests, a single item fire was used. In one test, additional

items in the room of fire origin were allowed to ignite to more fully characterize fire growth in

the structure. Table 11 summarizes the 27 tests conducted in the manufactured home. Similarly,

table 12 shows the 9 tests conducted in the two-story home. Multiple replicates of most

scenarios were included to quantify repeatability and measurement uncertainty in the

experiments.

Inclusion of all of the test data would overwhelm this report, with several thousand readings per

instrument, 150 instruments per test, and 36 tests. All of the data from the tests conducted are

available in two companion reports, one for the tests conducted in the manufactured home [24],

and one for the tests conducted in the two-story home [25]. For each of the tests, these two

reports include a summary of the test conditions and ignition source. Graphs of all test data

along with spreadsheets of the data are included.

For this report, detailed presentation and analysis will be included for one of the tests. For this

test, all of the measured data characterizing the environment (temperature, gas concentrations,

smoke obscuration, and specimen mass loss) will be presented. For one of the alarm locations,

data from all of the alarms (multiple photoelectric, ionization, aspirated photoelectric, and heat

alarms) will be presented. Details of calculations to determine individual alarm times and to

estimate time to untenable conditions will be discussed.

For the remainder of the tests, the results of identical analyses will be summarized.
94

Test Ignition Fuel Package Fire Location Comments

SDC01 Smoldering Chair Living Area

SDC02 Flaming Chair Living Area

SDC03 Smoldering Mattress Bedroom Ignition failure

SDC04 Smoldering Mattress Bedroom

SDC05 Flaming Mattress Bedroom

SDC06 Smoldering Mattress Bedroom

SDC07 Flaming Mattress Bedroom

SDC08 Smoldering Mattress Bedroom

SDC09 Flaming Mattress Bedroom

SDC10 Flaming Chair Living Area

SDC11 Smoldering Chair Living Area

SDC12 Heating Cooking Oil Kitchen Area

SDC13 Heating Cooking Oil Kitchen Area

SDC14 Smoldering Mattress Bedroom Bedroom door closed

SDC15 Flaming Chair Living Area

SDC30 Smoldering Chair Living Area Ignition failure

SDC31 Smoldering Chair Living Area

SDC32 Flaming Chair Living Area Ignition failure

SDC33 Flaming Chair Living Area

SDC34 Smoldering Chair Living Area

SDC35 Flaming Chair Living Area

SDC36 Flaming Mattress Bedroom Bedroom door closed

SDC37 Smoldering Mattress Bedroom

SDC38 Flaming Mattress Bedroom

SDC39 Flaming Mattress Bedroom

SDC40 Smoldering Mattress Bedroom

SDC41 Heating Cooking Oil Kitchen Area

Table 11. Test conditions for tests conducted in a manufactured home
95

Test Ignition Fuel Package Fire Location Comments

SDC20 Flaming Mattress Bedroom Bedroom door closed

SDC21 Smoldering Mattress Bedroom Alarms not reached

SDC22 Flaming Mattress Bedroom Ignition failure

SDC23 Smoldering Chair Living Room

SDC24 Heating Cooking Oil Kitchen

SDC25 Flaming Chair Living Room

SDC26 Flaming Chair Living Room

SDC27 Smoldering Chair Living Room Air-conditioning

upstairs

SDC28 Flaming Fully furnished room Living Room

Table 12. Test Conditions for tests conducted in a two-story home

5.2 Test Data

As an example of the analysis details, test SDC05 was chosen. This test was a flaming mattress

test in a bedroom of the manufactured home. It was chosen as a single representative test, but

does include all of the relevant test data. In addition for this test, all of the alarm types

responded to the fire. Figures 100 through 121 present the data from test SDC05.

Mass loss of the burning mattress is shown in figure 100. Mass loss grows from shortly after

ignition to a peak of approximately 150 g at the end of the test. Like all of the tests in the

project, this test was terminated once untenable conditions had been reached in the path of egress

from the home. A manually-operated water spray from copper tubing directed at the burning

chair (see figure 94) at the end of the test quickly suppressed the fire resulting in a sharp drop in

mass loss at the end of the test as the water collected in the pan supporting the mattress. The

initiation of this manual suppression is noted in the figure as “Initiation of Suppression.”

Figures 101 to 107 show measured profiles of gas temperature from ceiling to floor in several

locations throughout the home. In the ignition location (in a bedroom at one end of the

manufactured home, noted as “Main Bedroom” for this report), temperatures reached 120 EC

near the ceiling (20 mm from the ceiling) and 98 EC near face level (900 mm below ceiling or

1.5 m from the floor) at the end of the test. Further from the fire, peak temperatures were

naturally lower, ranging from 87 EC just outside the main bedroom down to 42 EC in the

bedroom farthest from the fire. In the closed bedroom, temperatures remain near ambient.
96

Mass Loss

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400

Mass Loss (g)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Initiation of Suppression

Figure 100. Mass loss of burning mattress during flaming ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05

(Note that the mass loss is averaged to minimize noise in the data. Thus, peak mass loss and

initiation of suppression do not exactly coincide)
97

Remote Bedroom

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400

Temperature (°C)

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

20 mm

300 mm

610 mm

900 mm

1220 mm

1520 mm

1820 mm

Initiation of Suppression

Figure 101. Gas temperatures from ceiling to floor in remote bedroom during a flaming ignition

test of a mattress, test SDC05
98

Main Bedroom

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400

Temperature (°C)

0

50

100

150

200

20 mm

300 mm

610 mm

900 mm

1220 mm

1520 mm

1820 mm

Initiation of Suppression

Figure 102. Gas temperatures from ceiling to floor in main bedroom (ignition location) during a

flaming ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05
99

Hallway Outside Remote Bedroom

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400

Temperature (°C)

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

20 mm

300 mm

610 mm

900 mm

1220 mm

1520 mm

1820 mm

Initiation of Suppression

Figure 103. Gas temperatures from ceiling to floor in hallway outside remote bedroom in a

flaming ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05
100

Hallway Outside Main Bedroom

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400

Temperature (°C)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

20 mm

300 mm

610 mm

900 mm

1220 mm

1520 mm

1820 mm

Initiation of Suppression

Figure 104. Gas temperatures from ceiling to floor in hallway outside main bedroom in a

flaming ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05
101

Living Room

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400

Temperature (°C)

10

20

30

40

50

60

20 mm

300 mm

610 mm

900 mm

1220 mm

1520 mm

1820 mm

Initiation of Suppression

Figure 105. Gas temperatures from ceiling to floor in living area during a flaming ignition test of

a mattress, test SDC05
102

Front Door Hallway

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400

Temperature (°C)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

20 mm

300 mm

610 mm

900 mm

1220 mm

1520 mm

1820 mm

Initiation of Suppression

Figure 106. Gas temperatures from ceiling to floor in front door hallway during a flaming

ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05
103

Closed Bedroom

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400

Temperature (°C)

10

15

20

25

30

1520 mm

Initiation of Suppression

Figure 107. Gas temperature in closed bedroom during a flaming ignition test of a mattress, 

test SDC05
104

Figures 108 through 114 show smoke obscuration near the ceiling (20 mm below the ceiling)

and near face height (900 mm from ceiling or 1.5 m from floor) at several locations throughout

the home. Like the gas temperatures, peak values are highest near the fire (an optical density of

nearly 5.0 m-1 near the ceiling in the main bedroom) and peak values less than 2.0 m-1 further

removed from the fire. In the main bedroom, the smoke meter near the ceiling shows an initial

peak beginning about 50 s not evident in other locations. Examination of the video for this test

shows little reason for this initial peak so it may indicate a malfunction in the instrument. 

Values at the 1.5 m level are naturally lower, typically below 1.0 m-1. In the closed bedroom, an

increase in obscuration is noticeable, but still near ambient levels throughout the test.

Figure 115 shows carbon monoxide concentration 900 mm below ceiling level (1.5 m from the

floor) at several locations throughout the home. Peak values range from a high of 0.099 %

volume fraction near the fire down to 0.043 % volume fraction remote from the fire – both

shortly after initiation of suppression. Just prior to suppression, these values are 0.049 % volume

fraction and 0.017 % volume fraction, respectively. Similarly, values from carbon dioxide

(figure 116) range from 2.3 % volume fraction near the fire down to 0.74 % volume fraction

remote from the fire overall and 2.0 % volume fraction down to 0.25 % volume fraction prior to

suppression. Oxygen concentration (figure 117) lowers quickly in the main bedroom fire room

to a low of about 19 % volume fraction. By the end of the test, concentrations at all

measurement points are similar at just under 20 % volume fraction.

A total of 43 fire alarms were monitored in each test. Figures 118 to 121 show the measured

output for the alarms at one measurement location (just outside the main bedroom). Many of the

smoke alarms (figure 118) respond within about 40 s after ignition. In this test, all but one of the

alarms responded to the fire. One alarm, Ion-4 (see figure 10 for details of the alarm

identification codes), showed little response by the end of the test. The carbon monoxide alarms

(figure 119) begin to respond within about 50 s, with significant output after 100 s. One of the

alarms, CO-1, was inadvertently disconnected during this test. The heat alarm at 127 s

(figure 120) and tell-tale sprinkler at 147 s (figure 121) respond within 20 s of one another. One

of the photoelectric alarms shows little response until late in the test.

5.3 Calculation of Alarm Times

For each of the analog alarms, voltage readings were converted to engineering units typical for

the alarm – obscuration for smoke alarms (from table 1) and concentration for carbon monoxide

alarms (from a linear calibration with reference gases). Calibrations of each individual alarm was

determined in the FE/DE (see section 2) and are shown in table 13. Typical alarm points for each

type of alarm were used to determine a time of alarm for each alarm at each measurement

location:
105

Remote Bedroom

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400

Optical Density (m-1) -0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

20 mm

900 mm

Initiation of Suppression

Figure 108. Smoke obscuration at 20 mm and 900 mm below ceiling in remote bedroom during

flaming ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05
106

Main Bedroom

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400

Optical Density (m-1) 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

20 mm

900 mm

Initiation of Suppression

Figure 109. Smoke obscuration at 20 mm and 900 mm below ceiling in main bedroom (ignition

location) during flaming ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05
107

Hallway Outside Remote Bedroom

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400

Optical Density (m-1) 0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

20 mm

900 mm

20 mm, near alarm board

Initiation of Suppression

Figure 110. Smoke obscuration at 20 mm and 900 mm below ceiling in hallway outside remote

bedroom during flaming ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05
108

Hallway Outside Main Bedroom

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400

Optical Density (m-1) 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

20 mm

900 mm

Initiation of Suppression

Figure 111. Smoke obscuration at 20 mm and 900 mm below ceiling in hallway outside main

bedroom during flaming ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05
109

Living Room

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400

Optical Density (m-1) 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

20 mm

900 mm

Initiation of Suppression

Figure 112. Smoke obscuration at 20 mm and 900 mm below ceiling in living area during

flaming ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05
110

Front Door Hallway

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400

Optical Density (m-1) 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

20 mm

900 mm

Initiation of Suppression

Figure 113. Smoke obscuration at 20 mm and 900 mm below ceiling in front door hallway

during flaming ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05
111

Closed Bedroom

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400

Optical Density (m-1) 0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

Initiation of Suppression

Figure 114. Smoke obscuration at 1520 mm below ceiling in closed bedroom during flaming

ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05
112

Carbon Monoxide

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400

% Volume Fraction

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14 Remote Bedroom

Main Bedroom

Hallway Outside Remote Bedroom

Hallway Outside Main Bedroom

Initiation of Suppression

Figure 115. Carbon monoxide concentration 900 mm below ceiling at four locations during a

flaming ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05
113

Carbon Dioxide

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400

% Volume Fraction

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Remote Bedroom

Main Bedroom

Hallway Outside Remote Bedroom

Hallway Outside Main Bedroom

Initiation of Suppression

Figure 116. Carbon dioxide concentration 900 mm below ceiling at four locations during a

flaming ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05
114

Oxygen

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400

% Volume Fraction

19

20

21

22

Remote Bedroom

Main Bedroom

Hallway Outside Remote Bedroom

Hallway Outside Main Bedroom

Initiation of Suppression

Figure 117. Oxygen concentration 900 mm below ceiling at four locations during a flaming

ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05
115

Smoke Alarm Output

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400

Smoke Alarm Output (%/ft)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Smoke Alarm Output (%/m)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Photoelectric-1-D-5-4

Photoelectric-3-D-7D-3

Aspirated-1-D-0-8

Ionization-1-D-3-11

Ionization-3-D-4-9

Ionization-4-D-7B-8

Initiation of Suppression

Figure 118. Measured output for several analog-modified smoke alarms in hallway outside main

bedroom during a flaming ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05
116

CO Alarm Output

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400

CO Alarm Output (ppm)

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

CO Alarm Output (volume fraction x 106

)

0

100

200

300

400

500

CO 1D

CO 2D

CO 3D

Initiation of Suppression

Figure 119. Measured output for several analog-modified carbon monoxide alarms in hallway

outside main bedroom during a flaming ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05
117

Heat Alarm

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400

Alarm Output (mV)

-1600

-1400

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

Initiation of Suppression

Figure 120. Measured output for a heat alarm in hallway outside main bedroom during a flaming

ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05
118

Sprinkler Response

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400

Output (mV)

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Initiation of Suppression

Figure 121. Measured output for a tell-tale residential sprinkler in hallway outside main

bedroom during a flaming ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05
119

ID

Calibrations (from table 1) Alarm Times (s)

m0 m1 low mid high

Smoke Alarm ION-1-D-3-7 0 2.09 37 37 42

Smoke Alarm ION-3-D-4-13 0 1.14 37 37 37

Smoke Alarma ION-4-D-7-3 2 2.56 n.a.b n.a. n.a.

Smoke Alarm PHOTO-1-D-5-4 -1.96 6.88 42 42 52

Smoke Alarma PHOTO-3-D-7-3 -1.42 9.00 172 192 197

Smoke Alarm ASPIRATED-1-D-0-8 -1.27 1.84 52 52 52

CO Alarm CO-1-D-1-5 -43.6 233.3 n.a. n.a. n.a.

CO Alarm CO-2-D-2-2 -45.1 93.0 142 142 172

CO Alarm CO-3-D-3-5 -3.44 165.5 87 147 177

a – Alarms Ion-4 and Photo-3 are components of a dual mode alarm

b – n.a. = no activation indicated

Table 13. Alarm Times for Several Smoke Alarms in Hallway Outside Main Bedroom During

Flaming Ignition Test of a Mattress, Test SDC05

 • carbon monoxide alarms – 50 x 10-6 volume fraction (50 ppm)

 • ionization alarms – 4.3 %/m (1.3 %/ft)

 • photoelectric alarms – 6.6 %/m (2 %/ft)

 Section 2.8 discusses determination of these alarm points. For some alarms, a single alarm time

was obvious from the output (for example, see figure 120). For the one location in the hallway

outside the main bedroom, alarm times are shown in table 13. For this location, all alarms

reached typical alarm points in times ranging from a first alarm at 37 s to one shortly after

initiation of manual suppression at 192 s. For many alarms, the choice of alarm point had little

effect on the resulting alarm times.

5.4 Calculation of Time to Untenable Conditions

5.4.1 Tenability Limits

The time available for occupant egress is simply the amount of time from the first indication of a

fire (in this case, the alarm time) to the time at which conditions become untenable. This topic

has been the subject of current work by an international committee of experts working as ISO

Technical Committee (TC) 92, subcommittee (SC) 3. This group has published a technical
120

standard, ISO TS 13571, that recommends limits of human tolerance to fire products [26]. 

These limits are also consistent with the recommendations in the SFPE Handbook of Fire

Protection Engineering. Additional discussion of ISO TS 13571 is included in section 7.2

Heat exposure: The current version of ISO TS 13571 includes equations for calculating

incapacitation from skin exposure to radiant heating, from exposure to convected heat resulting

form elevated gas temperatures, from exposure to the incapacitating effects of asphyxiant gases,

and from exposure to irritant gases. 

For these tests, heat exposure is determined as an effect of only elevated gas temperatures. At

early times of fire development typical of the tests included in this project, the effects of radiant

heating would be negligible. Thus, the Fractional Effective Dose (FED) for heat exposure is

given from ISO TS 13571 as:

FED

T

x

t HEAT t

t

= ∑

3 4

7 1 5 10

2

.

Δ (5)

where T is in °C and Δt is in min.

Exposure to toxic gases: The FED equation for the incapacitating effects of asphyxiant gases,

derived from the current version of ISO TS 13571 is:

( )

FED

CO

t

e

t GASES t

t HCN

t

t

= + ∑ ∑ 1 35000 220

2

1

2

43

Δ Δ (6)

where CO and HCN are in volume fraction x 106 (ppm) and Δt is in min. CO and HCN are the

average values over the time increment Δt. The person “receives” incremental doses of smoke

until an incapacitating value of FED is reached. 

To determine a time to incapacitation, an FED value of 0.3, indicating incapacitation of the

susceptible population was used [26]. This limit was used for both heat and gas tenability. 

While this is a conservative limit, it is reasonably consistent with the 1975 study. Section 7.6

compares tenability limits in the two studies.

ISO TS 13571 also includes an equation for incapacitation from irritant gases. The primary gas

analysis available for this report included only CO, CO2, and O2; data on irritant gases were not

available. 

Smoke obscuration: For smoke obscuration, an optical density of 0.25 m-1 was used as a

tenability criterion, a value typically used by the smoke alarm industry. For all calculations,

temperature, smoke obscuration, and gas concentration values 900 mm below the ceiling (1.5 m

from the floor) were used. This height was intended to be representative of the mouth and nose

height for a typical adult during egress from the home. 
121

5.4.2 Tenability Times

Chapter 8 of the National Fire Alarm Code [27] entitled Fire Warning Equipment for Dwelling

Units states that the primary function of a dwelling fire warning system is to, “... provide a

reliable means to notify the occupants of a dwelling unit of the presence of a threatening fire and

the need to escape to a place of safety before such escape might be impeded by untenable

conditions in the normal path of egress.” The chapter further explains that, “Fire warning

systems for dwelling units are capable of protecting about half of the occupants in potentially

fatal fires. Victims are often intimate with the fire, ..., such that they cannot escape even when

warned early enough that escape should be possible.” This is consistent with the earlier research

of McGuire and Ruscoe [2]. When escape is not practical, other strategies such as protection-inplace, assisted escape or rescue may be necessary.

Similarly, the Life Safety Code [28] states in 4-1.1, “The goal of this code is to provide an

environment for the occupants that is reasonably safe from fire and similar emergencies by the

following means: (1) Protection of occupants not intimate with the initial fire development.

(2) Improvement of the survivability of occupants intimate with the initial fire development.”

The limitations applicable to the protection of people intimate with the fire are common and

recognize the associated difficulties and costs of such protection. Based on this position in the

Codes, the performance criteria applied to the fire alarms in this study were based on the egress

time provided between alarm and the time that selected tenability criteria were exceeded at any

point in the primary egress path in the home but not including the instruments located at the fire

source. These instruments were used to quantify conditions produced by the fire but were not

counted towards escape as they represent the conditions to which a person intimate with the fire

would experience.

Table 14 shows calculated tenability values for test SDC05. The time to untenable conditions

and value for each calculated tenability calculation is shown. To judge available safe egress

time, the minimum time to untenable conditions for measurement locations outside the room of

fire origin was used. For this test, only the smoke obscuration reached untenable conditions in

times ranging from 137 s to 217 s. 

In the room of fire origin, the main bedroom, the convected heat criteria was close to untenable

with an FED value of 0.273 – near the tenability criterion of FED = 0.3. Results of tenability

calculations for all of the tests is included as Appendix A.
122

Measurement Location

Time from Ignition

to Untenable

Conditions (s)

Final Tenability

Value at End of Test

ISO Gas FED = 0.3

Remote Bedroom (A) 0.024

Hallway Outside Remote Bedroom (C) 0.024

Front Door Hallway (F) 0.029

Main Bedroom (BEK) 0.08

ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Master Bedroom (A) 0.009

Burn Room Bedroom (B) 0.273

Hallway Outside Remote Bedroom (C) 0.016

Hallway Outside Main Bedroom (D) 0.013

Living Area (E) 0.02

Front Door Hallway (F) 0.022

Closed Bedroom (G) 0.004

Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

Remote Bedroom (A) 197* 0.276

Main Bedroom (B) 137 0.329

Hallway Outside Remote Bedroom (C) 182 0.341

Hallway Outside Main Bedroom (D) 162 0.403

Living Area (E) 177 0.26

Front Door Hallway (F) 217* 0.291

Closed Bedroom (G) 0.006

* occurs after initiation of suppression

Table 14. Calculated tenability for a flaming ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05

5.5 Assessment of Overall Alarm Performance

With 43 separate alarms throughout the structure in each test, an assessment of overall

performance of the alarms requires some grouping of the alarms. For existing homes (and all

homes, prior to 1993) smoke alarms are required outside the sleeping rooms and on each

additional story of the home. For this report, this arrangement will be referred to as “every

level” and represents the minimum arrangement allowed by code. In 1993 the National Fire
123

First Alarm

(s)

Average

(s)

Last Alarm

(s) Activated TotalAlarms

Every

Level

Photoelectric 42 117 192 2 of 4

Ionization 37 92 147 4 of 6 12

Aspirated 52 84.5 117 2 of 2

Every

Level +

Bedrooms

Photoelectric 42 118 192 4 of 7

Ionization 32 99 162 8 of 11 21

Aspirated 52 112 167 3 of 3

Every

Room

Photoelectric 42 125 192 5 of 9

Ionization 32 104 192 10 of 14 27

Aspirated 52 106 167 4 of 4

Table 15. Activation times for several smoke alarms

during a flaming ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05

Alarm Code was revised to require smoke alarms in every bedroom for new construction in

addition to the every level locations. We will refer to this arrangement as “every level +

bedrooms.” Finally, the greatest escape times would be guaranteed only if smoke alarms were

required in every room – an arrangement that has never been required in any code. Such an

“every room” result represents the maximum required performance that can be contrasted

against “every level” as the minimum required performance as a function of number and

location. Alarm times for heat alarms and residential sprinklers are based on the activation of

devices in the room of fire origin.

Table 15 shows the overall smoke alarm performance for test SDC05 using typical alarm points

as defined in section 5.3. For each alarm type, the time of first alarm activation is noted as a

“First Alarm” time. The average of all alarms in a category is noted as “Average.” The time to

the last alarm activation is noted as “Last Alarm.” Finally, the total number of alarms in a group

which activated is shown. Table 16 shows activation times for several other technologies that

may be used in conjunction with smoke alarms. Individual calculations for all of the alarms in

all of the tests is included as Appendix A. A summary of these results is included in the

discussion section, below.
124

First Alarm

(s)

Average

(s)

Last Alarm

(s) Activated

Every Level CO 142 182 217 5 of 6

Every Level + Bedrooms CO 142 200 247 8 of 9

Every Room

CO 142 198 247 10 of 12

Heat 140 140 140 1 of 1

Tell-tale

Sprinkler 147 147 147 1 of `

Table 16. Activation times for several alternative technologies

during a flaming ignition test of a mattress, test SDC05

5.6 Aerosol Concentration and Size Measurements

The amount of smoke, its particle size distribution, and light scattering properties in the case of

photoelectric sensors affect the response of smoke alarms. Mulholland and Lui studied the

response of ionization and photoelectric alarms to nearly mono-disperse (single size) di-octyl

pthalate aerosols over a size range from 0.05 μm to 1.1 mm [29]. Theory and experimental

results have established the relationship between the response of an ionization-type alarm and

the product of the aerosol number concentration and the count mean diameter [16, 30]. (The

count mean diameter is defined as the sum over all sizes of the number of particles of a given

size times the particle diameter divided by the total number of particles.) For light scattering

photoelectric alarms, the size relationship is more complex for the range of particle sizes found

in smoke. In addition, the light scattering properties of the material that forms the particles is

important. 

Surrogate measures of smoke concentration via light extinction techniques, such as the laser

beam smoke extinction meters used in this study, may provide approximate measures of smoke

mass concentration by application of Bouguer’s Law if an appropriate specific extinction

coefficient is know for the smoke causing the extinction. In the case of soot generated from

flaming fires, an estimated mean value of 8.7 m2

/g with an expanded uncertainty (95 %

confidence interval) of 1.1 m2

/g computed from a wide range of experiments has been reported

[31]. In the case of non-soot smolder smokes, the specific extinction coefficient lies typically

between 3 m2

/g to 5 m2/g.

The concentration and size distribution of smoke aerosols were measured during several selected

tests conducted in the first manufactured home series and the two-story home series. 
125

Measurements of the aerosol number and mass concentration were recorded at fixed locations

for selected tests. In addition, the continuous voltage output from modified residential ionization

smoke alarms (some installed in plenums through which room air was drawn in and others

located at the sampling location) were recorded. Response of these alarms was related to the

response of a MIC reference chamber to establish an effective chamber constant for the modified

alarms. The combination of these measures allows for an estimation of two mean particle sizes

(the count mean diameter and the diameter of average mass) and potentially the width of the size

distribution as a function of time. In a select number of fire tests, cascade impactor samples

were collected and analyzed to estimate the mass median aerodynamic diameter and the

geometric standard deviation for those samples. 

5.6.1 Mass and Number Concentration

The number concentration, ion chamber, and mass concentration results for 15 tests are

presented below. In addition to these results, estimates of the count mean diameter and diameter

of average mass were computed at selected time periods. 

SDC01 was a smoldering chair test in the manufactured home. Figure 122a shows the mass and

number concentrations measured in the remote bedroom. Except for a slight increase at 1400 s,

the number concentration declined until 5200 s when it started to climb rapidly. Mass

concentration started to climb at 5400 s and peaked around 7200 s when suppression action was

taken.

Figure 122b shows the ionization chamber results in terms of the dimensionless “Y” parameter. 

The two flow-through ionization chambers were Ion 1 and Ion 2. Ion 3 and Ion 4 were located

next to the sampling locations at the ceiling. Ion 1 and Ion 3 were measuring the hallway

location, and Ion 2 and Ion 4 were measuring the remote bedroom location. This was the

arrangement for the tests conducted in the manufactured home. For the most part, the flowthrough and room ionization chambers sampling the same location responded similarly, with no

significant response time difference. The difference between the two sampling locations reflects

smoke transport time and differences in smoke concentration and size distribution. 

In this particular test, there appears to be a discrepancy since the remote bedroom responded

sooner and achieved a higher level than the hallway location. A possible explanation for this

observation is that the back bedroom window was left open, and the bay doors to the test facility

were also open during this test. Flow into the test building imposed a pressure gradient in the

manufactured home that restricted flow down the hallway. Repeat tests where the window was

closed and the building doors shut did not show this effect.
126

SDC02 was a flaming chair test in the manufactured home. Figure 123a shows the number and

mass concentrations for this test. Both started rising around 100 s. Figure 123b shows the

ionization chamber results. The hallway chambers responded within 20 s of ignition, while the

remote bedroom chambers responded 70 s after ignition. The difference between the response of

the remote bedroom chambers and the mass and number concentration is attributed to

differences in aerosol transport time to the instruments. 

SDC06 was a smoldering mattress test in the manufactured home. Figure 124 shows the number

concentration and the ionization chamber results. The mass concentration was not recorded

during this test. The number concentration declined until about 6000 s when it shot up after the

mattress flamed. The initial decrease in number concentration appears to be related to decrease

in the ambient number concentration during the long period the house was closed up. Ionization

chambers started to increase slightly around 2800 s then climbed rapidly between 5700 s and

5900 s.

SDC07 was a flaming mattress test in the manufactured home. Figure 125 shows the number

concentration and the ionization chamber results. Again, mass concentration was not recorded

during this test. The hallway chambers increased rapidly around 50 s while the remote bedroom

chambers increased nearly as rapidly, but delayed until about 130 s. The number concentration

started to increase very rapidly at 150 s. 

SDC08 was a smoldering mattress test in the manufactured home. Figure 126a shows the

number and mass concentrations for this test. Number concentration was flat and no mass

concentration was recorded until about 3750 s, 70 s after the mattress started to flame, when both

increased rapidly. Figure 126b shows the ionization chamber results. The chambers located in

the hallway and target room started rising as early as 500 s. The hallway ionization chambers

increased rapidly around 3680 s, while the target room chambers did the same around 3730 s. 

SDC10 was a flaming chair test in the manufactured home. Figure 127a shows the number and

mass concentrations for this test. The number concentration started rising about 130 s after

ignition with the mass concentration following 10 s later. Figure 127b shows the ionization

chamber results. The hallway chambers started to increase sharply at 55 s, while the remote

bedroom chambers started to rise between 110 s and 120 s. 
127

104

105

106

0

5

10

15

20

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Number

Mass

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Time (s)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Ion 1

Ion 2

Ion 3

Ion 4

Ion Chamber "Y" Response 

(dimensionless)

Time (s)

A

B

Figure 122. Smoke properties for smoldering chair scenario SDC01
128

104

105

106

107

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Number

Mass

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Time (s)

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Ion 1

Ion 2

Ion 3

Ion 4

Ion Chamber "Y" Response 

(dimensionless)

Time (s)

A

B

Figure 123. Smoke properties for flaming chair scenario SDC02
129

104

105

106

107

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Number

Ion 1

Ion 2

Ion 3

Ion 4

Number Concentration (particles/cm3)

Ion Chamber "Y" Response

(dimensionless)

Time (s)

Figure 124. Smoke properties for smoldering mattress scenario

SDC06

104

105

106

107

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0 50 100 150 200 250

Number

Ion 1

Ion 2

Ion 3

Ion 4

Number Concentration (particles/cm3)

Ion Chamber "Y" Response

(dimensionless)

Time (s)

Figure 125. Smoke properties for flaming mattress 

scenario SDC07
130

104

105

106

107

0

50

100

150

200

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Number 

Mass

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Time (s)

104

105

106

107

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Number

Ion 1

Ion 2

Ion 3

Ion 4

Number Concentration (particles/cm3)

Ion Chamber "Y" Response

(dimensionless)

Time (s)

A

B

Figure 126. Smoke properties for smoldering mattress scenario SDC08
131

104

105

106

107

0

50

100

150

200

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Number

Mass

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Time (s)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Ion 1

Ion 2

Ion 3

Ion 4

Ion Chamber "Y" Response 

(dimensionless)

Time (s)

A

B

Figure 127. Smoke properties for flaming chair scenario SDC10
132

SDC11 was a smoldering chair test in the manufactured home. Figure 128a shows the number

and mass concentrations for this test. Only after transition to flaming at about 4200 s do both

number and mass concentrations start to rise. Figure 128b shows the ionization chamber results. 

The two chambers located inside the manufactured home started rising around 1000 s, while the

two flow-through chambers remained at nominally zero until after transition to flaming when all

chambers increased rapidly. The environmental conditions that caused the room chambers to

increase early in the test evidently were not transported to the flow-through chambers. It could

be condensation or volatile particulates. 

SDC12 was a cooking oil fire in the manufactured home. Figure 129 shows the number

concentration and ionization chamber results. The number concentration started to increase at

about 200 s due to the small particles produced by the gas burner. The number concentration

increases at a moderate rate until transition to flaming at about 1400 s. The hallway ionization

chambers started to increase almost immediately after ignition of the burner, while the remote

bedroom chambers did not start increasing until about 500 s. All ionization chambers reached

relatively high levels before ignition of the cooking oil. 

SDC13 was a repeat of the cooking oil fire in the manufactured home. Figure 130 shows the

number concentration and ionization chamber results. The results are similar to SDC12. 

SDC14 was a smoldering mattress fire with the burn bedroom door closed in the manufactured

home. Figure 131 shows the number concentration and ionization chamber results. Around

3400 s the mattress transitioned to flaming, and smoke was forced out the door cracks, which

caused the hallway chambers to increase rapidly. The smoke drifted back to the remote bedroom

and caused the bedroom ionization chambers to rise along with the number concentration. 

Around 4000 s the burn bedroom door was opened, the mattress burst into flames again, and

consequentially, much more smoke was transported to the remote bedroom. Soon after, the

exterior doors were opened and the fire extinguished.

SDC23 was a smoldering chair test in the two-story home. Figure 132a shows the number and

mass concentrations recorded in the den. The mass concentration started to increase at 1000 s

while the number concentration started to increase at 2000 s. Around 4600 s the number and

mass concentration started to increase rapidly. Figures 132b and 132c show the number

concentration and flow-through ionization chamber results for the den and remote bedroom

locations respectively. The den ionization chamber started to rise at 600 s and reached a peak at

2000 s. After 3800 s the data from the den ionization chamber was invalid. The remote

bedroom ionization chamber started to rise at 1400 s, while the number concentration started to

increase at 1600 s, leveled off to a plateau, then increased rapidly again at 4200 s. The

ionization chamber increased rapidly at 4600 s. 
133

104

105

106

107

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Number

Mass

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Time (s)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Ion 1

Ion 2

Ion 3

Ion 4

Ion Chamber "Y" Response 

(dimensionless)

Time (s)

A

B

Figure 128. Smoke properties for smoldering chair scenario SDC11
134

104

105

106

107

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 500 1000 1500

Number

Ion 1

Ion 2

Ion 3

Ion 4

Number Concentration (particles/cm3)

Ion Chamber "Y" Response

(dimensionless)

Time (s)

Figure 129. Smoke properties for cooking oil fire

scenario SDC12

104

105

106

107

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 500 1000 1500

Number

Ion 1

Ion 2

Ion 3

Ion 4

Number Concentration (particles/cm3)

Ion Chamber "Y" Response

(dimensionless)

Time (s)

Figure 130. Smoke properties for cooking oil fire

scenario SDC13
135

1000

104

105

106

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Number

Ion 1

Ion 2

Ion 3

Ion 4

Number Concentration (particles/cm3)

Ion Chamber "Y" Response

(dimensionless)

Time (s)

Figure 131. Smoke properties for smoldering mattress with burn

room door closed SDC14
136

104

105

106

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Number, Den

Mass

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Time (s)

104

105

106

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Number, Den

Ion 4

Number Concentration (particles/cm3)

Ion Chamber "Y" Response

(dimensionless)

Time (s)

A

B

104

105

106

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Number, Bedroom

Ion 3

Number Concentration (particles/cm3)

Ion Chamber "Y" Response

(dimensionless)

Time (s) C

Figure 132. Smoke properties for smoldering chair scenario SDC23
137

SDC24 was a cooking oil fire in the two-story home. Figure 133a shows the number and mass

concentrations recorded in the den. The number concentration started to increase almost

immediately following ignition of the gas burner. The mass concentration started to increase at

600 s, and rose at an ever-increasing rate until the instrument upper range was reached at 1750 s. 

Figure 133b shows the number concentration and ionization chamber results for the den. From

200 s to 1400 s the ion chamber signal increased steadily. From 1400 s to the peak at 1700 s the

signal increased at a steeper rate. Figure 133c shows the number concentration and ionization

chamber results for the remote bedroom. The number concentration increased steadily up to

1700 s when both it and the ionization chamber signal rose rapidly. 

SDC25 was a flaming chair test in the two-story home. Figure 134 shows the mass

concentration and ionization chamber results. The condensation particle counter was inoperable

for this test and subsequent tests below. The den and remote bedroom ionization chamber

signals started to increase rapidly around 110 s and 125 s respectively. The mass concentration

in the den started to rise at 125 s and peaked around 275 s.

SDC26 was a repeat of the flaming chair test above. Figure 135 shows the mass concentration

and ionization chamber results. The results were similar to SDC25, but it appears that the early

fire growth period was longer. 

SDC27 was a smoldering chair test with an operating window-mounted air conditioning unit

located in the remote bedroom. Figure 136 shows the mass concentration and ionization

chamber results. Interestingly, the remote bedroom ionization chamber started to increase before

the den ionization chamber, and reached a higher level. The mass concentration increased

steadily from 1000 s to 3500 s. 

5.6.2 Particle Size Analysis

5.6.2.1 Cascade Impactor Tests

The size distribution results for each MOUDI cascade impactor run are presented below. It is

customary to fit impactor data to a log-normal size distribution and report the mass median

aerodynamic diameter (equivalent spherical particle with unit density) and geometric standard

deviation.

Here, two techniques were used to fit the data: graphically on a log-probability chart, and by

non-linear regression curve fitting of the data. On log-probability paper, a log-normal

distribution is described by a straight line. Data points are fitted to a straight line that is

weighted toward fitting the points around the 50 % probability. The geometric standard

deviation was estimated by taking the ratio of the diameter at 50 % to the diameter at 16.1 %. 

Results for the MOUDI tests are presented in table 17. The sampling time was identified along
138

104

105

106

107

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Number, Den

Mass

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Time (s)

104

105

106

107

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 400 800 1200 1600 2000

Number, Den

Ion 4

Number Concentration (particles/cm3)

Ion Chamber "Y" Response

(dimensionless)

Time (s)

A

B

104

105

106

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 400 800 1200 1600 2000

Number, Bedroom

Ion 3

Number Concentration (particles/cm3)

Ion Chamber "Y" Response

(dimensionless)

Time (s) C

Figure 133. Smoke properties for cooking oil fire scenario SDC24
139

0

125

250

375

500

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Mass Ion 3, Bedroom

Ion 4, Den

Mass Concentration (mg/m3)

Ion Chamber "Y" Response

(dimensionless)

Time (s)

Figure 134. Smoke properties for flaming chair scenario SDC25

0

125

250

375

500

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Mass Ion 3, Bedroom

Ion 4, Den

Mass Concentration (mg/m3)

Ion Chamber "Y" Response

(dimensionless)

Time (s)

Figure 135. Smoke properties for flaming chair scenario SDC26
140

0

25

50

75

100

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Mass

Ion 3, Bedroom

Ion 4, Den

Mass Concentration (mg/m3)

Ion Chamber "Y" Response

(dimensionless)

Time (s)

Figure 136. Smoke properties for smoldering chair scenario

with air conditioning SDC27
141

Test

Sampling

start / 

duration (s) 

L-P fit

MMAD

(μm)

L-P fit

σg

L-S fit

MMAD

(μm)

L-S fit

σg

Mean Mass

concentration,

UC (mg/m3

)

SDC02

Flaming

Chair

360 / 60 0.32 4.0 -- -- 78.3 1.7

SDC10

Flaming

Chair

200 / 60 0.33 4.1 -- -- 87.1 1.7 

SDC12

Cooking

Oil

980 / 240 1.0 2.5 1.09 2.59 41.3 0.4

SDC13

Cooking

Oil

830 / 270 1.0 2.7 0.93 2.86 16.8 0.4

SDC23

Smoldering

Chair

3520 / 600 2.3 1.7 2.68 1.78 11.5 0.2

SDC27

Smoldering

Chair

1850 / 300 2.2 1.7 2.46 1.67 15.0 0.4

L-P fit – log probability fit

MMAD – mass median aerodynamic diameter

σg – geometric standard deviation

L-S – least squares

UC – combined standard uncertainty

Table 17. Cascade impactor results
142

with the average mass concentration obtained from the sum of masses on all stages and the

backup filter. 

Figures 137 and 138 show the results for SDC02 and SDC10, repeats of the flaming chair

scenario. The collection times were nominally the same and near the end of the test. The mass

median aerodynamic diameters of 0.32 μm and 0.33 μm were within 5 % and the geometric

standard deviations were nominally the same. The data from these two runs were not fitted by

non-linear regression due to poor fitting of the very broad data. The aerodynamic size

distribution of soot agglomerates yields very broad distribution. Cleary [32] reported mass

median diameters of soot from an acetylene diffusion flame ranging from 0.3 μm to over 8 μm

depending on the fuel flow. The open agglomerate structure of soot produces a drag force

greater than an equivalent spherical volume and consequently, an agglomerate cross-sectional

diameter is much greater than its aerodynamic diameter. 

Figure 139 shows the results for SDC12 and SDC13, repeats of the cooking oil fire scenario in

the manufactured home. Sample collection was conducted prior to ignition of the hot oil. The

aerosol was made up of condensed pyrolyzate from the hot oil. The mass median diameters

obtained from the log-probability fit for the two tests were the same (1.0 μm), while the nonlinear regression fits were within 17 % of each other with a mean value of 1.01 μm. The various

geometric standard deviations ranged from 2.59 to 3.0. 

Figure 140 shows the results for SDC23 and SDC27, the smoldering chair tests in the two-story

home. SDC27 differed from SDC23 by the placement and operation of a window air

conditioning unit in the remote bedroom. The two samples were collected at different time

periods from the beginning of the tests. The mass median aerodynamic diameters estimated by

the log-probability fits were within 5 % of each other for the repeated tests, while the non-linear

regression fits were within 9 % of each other. The mass median aerodynamic diameters

computed by the non-linear regression were higher than those estimated by the log-probability

fits by 16 % and 12 % for SDC23 and SDC 27 respectively. 

5.6.2.2 Particle size from moment analysis

Estimates of the count mean diameter and diameter of average mass were computed from the

number concentration, flow-through ionization chamber results and mass concentration data for

selected time periods of several tests. The ratio of the ionization chamber “Y” to the number

concentration is proportional to the count mean diameter, while the cubed root of the quotient

the mass concentration to the number concentration is proportional to the diameter of average

mass. Details of this analysis are available [33]. The material density factors into the calculation

and when unknown, it was assumed to be 1 g/cm3

. The results are presented in the tables below

where each table was dedicated to a particular scenario. 
143

0.01

0.1

1

10

.01 .1 1 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 90 95 99 99.9 99.99

50 % cut-off Diameter

(μm)

Percent less than stated size

MMAD = 0.32 m

 g

 = 4.0

μ

σ

Figure 137. Cascade impactor results for

flaming chair scenario SDC02

0.01

0.1

1

10

.01 .1 1 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 90 95 99 99.9 99.99

50 % cut-off Diameter

Percent less than stated size

MMAD = 0.33 m

 g

 = 4.1

μ

σ

(μm)

Figure 138. Cascade impactor results for

flaming chair scenario SDC10
144

0.01

0.1

1

10

.01 .1 1 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 90 95 99 99.9 99.99

50 % cut-off Diameter

(μm)

Percent less than stated size

MMAD = 1.0 m

 g

 = 2.5

μ

σ

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2

0.01 0.1 1 10

Mass (mg)

Dp (μm)

Value Error

1.09 0.06

2.59 0.13

0.06 NA

0.98 NA

MMAD( m)

g

 

R

μ

σ

χ2

A

B

0.01

0.1

1

10

.01 .1 1 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 90 95 99 99.9 99.99

50 % cut-off Diameter

(μm)

Percent less than stated size

MMAD = 1.0 m

 g

 = 2.7

μ

σ

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0.01 0.1 1 10

Mass (mg)

Dp (μm)

Value Error

0.93 0.07

2.86 0.18

0.01 NA

0.97 NA

MMAD( m)

g

 

R

μ

σχ2

A

B

Test SDC12 Test SDC13

Figure 139. Cascade impactor results for cooking oil fire scenarios SDC12 and SDC13
145

0.01

0.1

1

10

.01 .1 1 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 90 95 99 99.9 99.99

50 % cut-off Diameter

(μm)

Percent less than stated size

MMAD = 2.3 m

 g = 1.7

μ

σ

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0.01 0.1 1 10

Mass (mg)

Dp (μm)

Value Error

2.68 0.14

1.78 0.08

0.1 NA

0.98 NA

MMAD( m)

g

 

R

μ

σχ2

A

B

0.01

0.1

1

10

.01 .1 1 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 90 95 99 99.9 99.99

50 % cut-off Diameter

(μm)

Percent less than stated size

MMAD = 2.2 m

 g = 1.7

μ

σ

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0.01 0.1 1 10

Mass (mg)

Dp (μm)

Value Error

2.46 0.05

1.67 0.03

0.01 NA

1 NA

MMAD( m)

g

 

R

μ

σχ2

A

B

Test SDC23 Test SDC27

Figure 140. Cascade impactor results for smoldering chair fire scenarios SDC23 and SDC27
146

Test Time

(s)

Number

Conc.

(cm-3)

“Y”

Ion 

Chamber

Mass

Conc.

(mg/m3)

CMD, Uc

(μm)

Dam,Uc

(μm)

SDC01 3000 21900 0.072 - 1.0, 0.2 -

6400 8.02x105 1.55 5.35 0.64, 0.13 0.23

7000 5.21x105 1.55 10.5 0.93, 0.19 0.34

SDC23 (den) 3000 35600 0.096 85.3 0.82, 0.16 1.7, 0.2

(bedroom) 3000 64600 .017 - 0.08, 0.02 -

3520 81300 0.032 - 0.12, 0.02 -

SDC24 (den) 850 1.83e6 .658 9.46 0.11, 0.02 0.21, 0.02

1110 99000 0.913 44.7 0.22, 0.04 0.41, 0.04

1400 25600 1.27 123.5 0.39, 0.08 0.62, 0.06

Table 18. Estimated particle size from smoldering chair scenario

Table 18 presents the results for the smoldering chair scenario. Estimates were made for three

tests during the smoldering period. For a fixed location, the observed trend was that both the

count mean diameter (CMD) and diameter of average mass (Dam) increased as time increased. 

The exception to that trend was the estimate at 3000 s for SDC01, were the smoldering rate had

leveled off for a long period. The diameter of average mass estimates from SDC01 were

inconsistent with the count mean diameters. The most likely cause was a sampling bias where

the room mass concentration was underestimated. Recall that during the manufactured home

tests, the aerosol passed through the ionization chamber first, then it flowed to the TEOM. It

was likely that a significant fraction of large particles were lost inside the ionization chamber

and did not add to the mass concentration. The MOUDI size distribution measurement in the

remote bedroom during SDC23 compares favorably with the den mean sizes estimated at 3000 s.

Table 19 presents the results for a flaming chair scenario and a smoldering mattress fire after it

transitioned to flaming. The count mean diameter was computed using a chamber constant for

flaming soot of 0.025 cm2

 [262]. Again, the mass concentrations for the manufactured home test

(SDC02) were suspected to be low. Table 20 presents the results for the cooking oil scenario. 

After an initial increase in particle size, the count mean diameter remained relatively constant

prior to ignition of the oil. 

The concentration and size distribution measurements provide a more fundamental

characterization of the smoke levels compared to the light extinction measurements. The data

gathered here provide detailed information that may be used to help interpret the smoke alarm

responses observed in these tests, and to specify the smoke production rate and size

characteristics for modeling exercises.
147

Test Time

(s)

Number

Conc.

(cm-3)

“Y”

Ion 

Chamber

Mass

Conc.

(mg/m3)

CMD, Uc

(μm)

Dam,Uc

(μm)

SDC02 275 3.98x106 3.18 68.1 0.32, 0.06 0.26

360 1.13x106 2.77 53.5 0.98, 0.19 0.3

SDC06

(flaming)

6150 6.51x106 2.88 - 0.18, 0.04 -

Table 19. Estimated particle size from flaming sources

Test Time

(s)

Number

Conc.

(cm-3)

“Y”

Ion 

Chamber

Mass

Conc.

(mg/m3)

CMD, Uc

(μm)

Dam,Uc

(μm)

SDC12 1325 1.80x106 1.25 - 0.21, 0.04 -

1550 7.62x106 4.44 - 0.18, 0.04 -

SDC13 850 6.16x105 0.23 - 0.11, 0.02 -

1250 1.26x106 1.01 - 0.24, 0.05 -

1550 7.03x106 5.51 - 0.24, 0.05 -

Table 20. Estimated particle size from cooking oil fire scenario

5.7 Measurement Uncertainty

Replicate tests were performed for the manufactured home tests to assess the uncertainty in

alarm times and time to untenable conditions based on measurements of temperature, smoke

obscuration, and toxic gas concentrations. Table 21 shows standard uncertainties expressed as a

relative error (in this case calculated as the ratio of the standard uncertainty for replicate tests

and the average value for the replicate tests).
148

Tenability

Time

(%)

Alarm Time

Ionization

Alarm (%)

Photoelectric

Alarm (%)

Aspirated

Alarm (%)

CO Alarm

(%)

Flaming 10 41 23 32 18

Smoldering 32 30 51 39 18

Cooking Oil 6 58 7 34 6

Table 21. Relative error for tenability time and alarm time during tests of residential smoke

alarms (expressed as the ratio of standard uncertainty for replicate tests and the average value for

these tests)
149

6 Residential Smoke Alarm Nuisance Source Testing

Smoke alarms are susceptible to alarming when exposed to non-fire aerosols. In residential

settings, this typically involves cooking activities or transient, high humidity conditions (i.e.,

“shower steam”). The Smoke Detector Operability Survey: Report on Finding [6] conducted by

the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission reported that about one half of the 1012

respondents indicated they experienced nuisance alarms, with 80 % of those attributed to

cooking activities, and an additional 6 % citing steam from bathrooms. Dust, and tobacco smoke

are also mentioned sources. The Survey also reported that of the alarms with missing or

disconnected batteries, or disconnected AC power, more than one third of respondents indicated

that power was removed due to nuisance alarms. The Smoke Detector Operability Survey:

Engineering Laboratory Analysis found that there was a correlation between the occurrence of

nuisance alarms and the sensitivity of the alarm, location of the alarm relative to the nuisance

source, and the condition (cleanliness) of the alarm [34]. A field study of nuisance alarms in the

Native American community reported that of 80 households with one or more ionization alarms

63 reported nuisance alarms [3]. The activities associated with these alarms and the percentage

of detectors implicated in said nuisance alarms were: cooking (77 %), steam from bathroom (18

%), cigarettes (6 %), and fireplace/wood stove (4 %), other, unknown and chirping (low battery

alert) (12 %). The types of cooking activities identified with nuisance alarms included: frying,

baking, boiling, and toaster/toaster oven. This study concluded that the type of sensor

technology, and the location of an alarm play an important role in the frequency of nuisance

alarms in residential settings. 

The benefits of an alarm that is relatively insensitive to common nuisance sources while

maintaining a high sensitivity to a wide range of fire scenarios are self-evident. In the last

decade, a significant research effort has been expended to achieve more robust fire detection

with a focus on new sensors (including gas sensing), signal processing techniques, and advanced

algorithm development [35], [36], [37], [38]. The practical implementation of any new

technologies on a broad basis depends on the participation of several key entities including:

research organizations, standards bodies, testing organizations, and the commercial sector. The

demonstration of improved fire detection, both enhanced sensitivity to fire and insensitivity to

nuisance sources, through detector performance testing is a necessary objective. While standard

fire tests are designed to quantify a given alarm’s ability to detect fire conditions (e.g., UL 268

[39], and EN-54 [40] fire sensitivity tests), there are no consensus standards to test its ability to

reject nuisance alarms. 
150

The objective of this research task was to develop a basis for standard residential nuisance

source testing. The approach taken is to define a set of nuisance scenarios, replicate the events

that cause nuisance alarms, and quantify the important variables that cause nuisance alarms. 

Translating the results to a set of nuisance source conditions reproducible in a suitable test-bed

(i.e., a test room or the fire emulator/detector evaluator) would allow for more comprehensive

detector performance testing. Preliminary tests were performed in the FE/DE with this in mind. 

Programming realistic and reproducible fire and nuisance conditions in the FE/DE is an ongoing

research project at NIST. 

6.1 Nuisance Scenario Tests

Nuisance scenario tests were performed in the manufactured home used for other tests in this

study. The selections were based on what are commonly thought to be causes of residential

nuisance alarms, and scenarios were designed to mimic normal activities (i.e. no intentional food

burning, with the exception of toasted bread). No consideration was given to the probability of

occurrence for any given scenario; the objective was to gather data on a number of scenarios. 

The bulk of the scenarios were related to cooking activities including: frying, deep-frying,

baking, broiling, boiling, and toasting. In addition, cigarette smoking and candle burning were

included. Neither a “shower steam” scenario, nor dust exposure test were performed in the

manufactured home. Both have been investigated in the FE/DE in prior studies. Three

smoldering fire scenarios (smoldering polyurethane foam, beech wood blocks and cotton wick)

were examined for comparative purposes. 

A schematic of the manufactured home is shown in figure 141. The dark shaded areas were

closed off. During most tests, all external doors and windows were closed. Most scenarios were

repeated with and without a floor fan blowing air from the master bedroom into the

kitchen/living room area. 

6.2 Instrumentation

Aerosol concentrations, temperature, humidity, flow velocity and analog output from

photoelectric, ionization and carbon monoxide sensors were gathered. Most tests were

videotaped. Figure 141 shows the approximate ceiling location of all the measurement positions. 

Details of the measurement are given below. Note, carbon monoxide data were not presented in

the graphs, but are included in the data files, which in addition include all analog sensor outputs. 

The complete data set is available in electronic form [41].
151

RH 

A1

A2 

A3

A

B

C

D E

F

G

U+ 

V+ 

Figure 141. Schematic of the manufactured home for nuisance testing

6.2.1 Aerosol Instruments

Two portable aerosol instruments were used to gather aerosol number and mass concentrations

during the tests. Number concentration was recorded with a TSI model 3007 portable

condensation particle counter (CPC). This instrument is capable of counting particles greater

than 10 nm in diameter up to concentrations of 5x105 particles/cm3 with an uncertainty of 10 %

of the reading. The upper concentration range of the instrument is insufficient for many fire and 

nuisance conditions so the air sample was diluted with a fixed amount of clean air prior to

entering the CPC. The air sample was drawn through a 1.5 m long, 6 mm ID PVC tube (Tygon

brand, which is recognized to have low electrostatic particle loss characteristics.) to a laminar

flow element that was attached to one branch of a “Y” tube fitting. The other branch of the

fitting was attached to a HEPA filter, while the main branch was attached to the inlet of the CPC. 

The CPC internal pump draws air from the sampling tube and clean (particle-free) air through

the filter into the unit. With this arrangement, approximately a 20 to 1 dilution of the air

sample is achieved. The dilution ratio for each test was obtained by computing the ratio of

undiluted to diluted background room aerosol. The uncertainty in the dilution ratio is estimated

to be 2%. A TSI model 8520 “Dustrak” portable aerosol mass monitor was used to gather the

aerosol mass concentration. This device is a light scattering photometer that analyzes the light

scattered at an angle of 90E from particles flowing through the device. Its default calibration is

set to the respirable fraction of standard ISO 12103-1 A1 test dust. It has a range from
152

I

INLET

OUTLET 

TO PUMP

SMOKE 

ALARM 

ION 

CHAMBER

METAL SCREEN

9.0 VOLTS 

PLUS 

SIGNAL OUT

STANDOFF

30 CM ID 

PVC PLENUM

Figure 142. Ion chamber schematic

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80 1.8

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

0 400 800 1200 1600

MIC

Ion Chamber

MIC Current (pA)

Residential Ion Chamber Voltage (V)

Time (s)

Figure 143. Response of the ion chamber and MIC

to cotton smolder smoke

0.001 mg/m3

 to 150 mg/m3. The effective particle size measurement range is 0.1 μm up to 10

μm. The device can be calibrated for any aerosol with scattering properties different from the

test dust provided the true mass concentration is determined. Here, the default calibration was

used, so any given mass concentration measurement reported is relative and related measure to

an equivalent mass of test dust. Since

the device is not calibrated to each of

the aerosols produced in the nuisance

tests, the uncertainty in the

measurement in not determined. 

However, the results are proportional

to the mass concentration and

correspond directly to the scattering

signal strength of photoelectric

detectors with an equivalent amount

of aerosol in its sensing region. Both

the CPC and Dustrak log data to

internal memory along with a time

stamp every second. Data were

downloaded after each test.

Two flow-through ionization chamber

devices were constructed from

commercially available ionization

alarms. Figure 142 is a schematic

diagram of this device. To make the modification, the horn from the alarm circuit board was

removed, and the voltage from the IC circuit pin that follows the chamber current was

monitored. 17 cm3/s of room air was

drawn through each device and each circuit

was powered by 9.00 V from a regulated

power supply. These devices function

effectively as measuring ionization

chambers (MIC), and their voltage output

can be correlated to a MIC chamber

current. Figure 143 shows the voltage

output from the ion chamber devices and

the MIC current for cotton smolder smoke

generated in the FE/DE. The ion chamber

device was located outside the FE/DE test

section and the air sample was drawn into

the devices by 1.5 m long, 10 mm ID

copper tubing. The ion chamber voltage
153

Thermocouple

Ion 

Chamber

CPC 

And 

Dustrak

Ceiling 

Ridge 

Figure 144. Thermocouple and sampling line

placement

lags the MIC current due to the time difference between the aerosol transport through the tubing

and chamber filling, but the steady voltage value is proportional to the MIC current. The

reported ion chamber values in the nuisance tests below differ by a constant value due to

differing amplifier gains.

In the nuisance tests, the copper tubes used to transport the air sample to the devices were 2.5 m

long. Chamber #1 was located in the living room area, while chamber #2 was located in the

kitchen area next to the other aerosol sampling points (figure 140).

6.2.2 Temperature and Humidity

A type-K 0.5 mm stainless steel sheathed thermocouple monitored the ceiling air temperature. It

was placed at the aerosol sampling location, 3 cm below the ceiling. 

Figure 144 is a picture showing the

thermocouple placement along with the

CPC, Dustrak, and ion chamber 2 sampling

lines.

An Oakton 35612 series thermohygrometer 

probe was used to monitor the relative

humidity throughout the experiments. The

probe was positioned 2.0 m off the floor at

the position indicated by “RH” in figure

141. The stated measurement uncertainty

for this device is 2.5 % of the reading. 

6.2.3 Flow Velocity

Three CATI sonic anemometers (Applied

Technologies Inc.) were used to record the two-component air velocities perpendicular to the

sloped ceiling at a depth of 5 cm. Their locations are shown in figure 141 and identified as

anemometer A1, A2, and A3. The component velocity orientation is also shown. 

These devices use piezoelectric crystals to form ultrasonic transducers that can send and receive

ultrasonic pulses. The forward and backward travel time of these pulses are used to compute the

component velocity between two opposing transducers. The anemometers record the mean

velocity over a 15 cm sonic path length (which equals the distance separating opposing

transducers) at a frequency of up to 10 Hz. The measurement resolution is 1 cm/s with a stated

uncertainty of 1 cm/s. 
154

Thermistor

CO Cell 

Ion 

Chamber

Photoelectric 

Sensor

Figure 145. Photo, Ion, CO and thermistor unit

6.2.4 Analog Output

Photoelectric, Ionization

and Sensors

Seven commercially

available dual photo/ion

smoke alarms were modified

at NIST to provide

continuous analog output

(figure 145). The

modifications made to the

alarms included removing

the horn, modifying the

circuit board to suppress the

alarm mode, and speeding

up the IR light source to a

flash rate of approximately

every 2 s. The photodetector

was disconnected from the circuit board and monitored by a peak detection circuit. The

photodetector signal was amplified with an op-amp circuit then sent over a multi-conductor

ribbon cable to a single board computer (SBC) dedicated to each modified alarm. The signal

was amplified by an instrument amplifier then, sent to the peak detector. The peak detector was

reset every 2 s by a 1 ms digital signal pulse to the gate of a MOSFET attached across the peak

circuit’s holding capacitor. The voltage stored by the peak detector was sampled by the analog

input circuit of the SBC every 2 s, just prior to the reset. The SBC processed this data with a 3-

point median filter to suppress spurious signals. The voltage follower IC pin output that follows

the chamber current was sampled to obtain the ionization signal. An electro-chemical CO cell

removed from a commercially available CO alarm was fitted in the dual smoke alarm housing at

the horn’s previous location. The voltage drop across a resistor placed across the cells terminals

was sampled. Both the Ion and CO voltages were sent to instrument amplifiers prior to being

sampled by the analog input of the SBC. A 10 kΩ thermistor was located in the dual smoke

alarm just sticking out of the detector housing at the LED light pipe hole. 

The SBC logged the photo, ion, and CO sensor voltages every two seconds to non-volatile flash

ram. The data were downloaded after each test. The voltages were expressed as 8 bit characters

to minimize data storage. Each detector was calibrated in the FE/DE with the cotton wick

smoke, and the sensor values are presented in engineering units of extinction (m-1) and mole

fraction of CO. The locations of the sensor packages are indicated on figure 141 and represented

in the results by the letters A - G.
155

Sensor High sensitivity 

Extinction m-1, 

(%/ft Obsc.)

Medium sensitivity

Extinction m-1, 

(%/ft Obsc.)

Low sensitivity 

Extinction m-1, 

(%/ft Obsc.)

Photoelectric

0.05, 1.5 0.083, 2.5 0.117, 3.5

Ionization

0.016, 0.5 0.033, 1.0 0.050, 1.5

Table 22. Alarm sensitivity for photoelectric and ionization sensors

On several occasions, the SBC data were monitored via a data stream sent over a serial port to a

laptop. This was observed to corrupt some of the sensor data saved to the flash ram,

consequently, some data columns were left blank in the test data files. One photo sensor

monitoring circuit did not function properly and was omitted from the test data files (Unit E). 

6.3 Results

Selected results for each of the tests performed are shown in the figures below. Data from all of

the tests are available [41]. The time to reach photoelectric and ionization alarm points was

determined from ion and photoelectric sensor calibration test data, and estimated alarm

sensitivities appropriate for the FE/DE cotton wick smoke. Estimated high, medium and low

sensitivities for both photoelectric and ionization alarms are given in Table 22. These values

cover the range expected for residential smoke alarms for each sensor type. 

6.3.1 Toasting Scenarios 

Either two slices of white bread or frozen bagel halves were placed in a two-slice toaster, located

on the counter to the left of the range. The toaster’s automatic pop-up mechanism was disabled

by holding the lever in the on position with a wrap of wire attached to the bottom of the toaster. 

Power was applied by plugging in an extension cord attached to the toaster. The cord extended

out of the manufactured home through an access hole. At time=0 the power was applied to the

toaster. The toaster was left on for up to 300 s. This was sufficient to char (“burn”) toast but not

the frozen bagels. No flames were produced in these tests. This scenario is unique compared to

all of the following nuisance scenarios in that it transitions from nuisance to an impending

hazard as the bread chars since it could produce flames. 

Three tests (two with bread, one with a frozen bagel) were conducted with no forced room airflow, while an additional three tests were conducted with the floor fan operating. Similar

background conditions, (i.e., fan or no fan) ostensibly produced the same flow conditions at the
156

measurement locations. In the repeated toasting bread test with no forced flow, the remote

bedroom window was left open, which did affect the airflow slightly. Figure 146 shows the

velocity components and speed. The reported speed is a time-smoothed representation computed

from the component velocities. With no forced flow, background flow velocities were initially

between 0 m/s and 0.1 m/s. After the toaster is turned on, the plume from hot gases is evident

with computed speeds up to 0.2 m/s. When the toaster power was removed, the flow at location

A1 returned to its low background value; the return to background values was less pronounced at

locations A2 and A3. With the floor fan turned on, speeds between 0.15 m/s and 0.6 m/s were

recorded. The effects of the toaster heat plume were not clearly evident in these velocity

measurements.

The results for each test are shown in a series of four graphs for each case. Figure 147A shows

the computed time to reach various alarm thresholds for toasted bread with no forced flow. 

Every threshold for all photoelectric and Ion sensors was reached in this test. Note that at alarm

location E is displayed in gray since no photoelectric alarm times are indicated; there was no

functioning photoelectric alarm at this position. This notation is used in the figures that follow

to indicate when no alarms were placed at a given position. In all cases the ion sensors reached

the alarm thresholds before the photoelectric sensors. Generally, the closer the sensor was to the

source the sooner the alarm threshold was reached. Figure 147B shows the temperature and

relative humidity. There was approximately a 4 EC rise in temperature and a 7 % drop in

relative humidity during the test. Figure 147C shows the mass concentration and the number

concentration readings. The earlier increase in the number concentration and the later increase

in the mass concentration correspond to the earlier ionization alarm times followed later by

photoelectric alarm times. The Dustrak surpassed its maximum range of 300 mg/m3

 from about

240 s to 300 s. 
157

-0.5

-0.25

0

0.25

0.5

-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

U1

V1

Speed1

Velocity or Speed (m/s)

Time (s)

A (Bread, no forced airflow)

-0.5

-0.25

0

0.25

0.5

-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

U1

V1

Speed 1

Velocity or Speed (m/s)

Time (s)

B (Bread, forced airflow)

-0.5

-0.25

0

0.25

0.5

-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

U2

V2

Velocity or Speed (m/s)

Speed2

Time (s)

C (Bread, replicate, no forced airflow)

-0.5

-0.25

0

0.25

0.5

-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

U2

V2

Velocity or Speed (m/s)

Speed 2

Time (s)

D (Bread, replicate, forced airflow)

-0.5

-0.25

0

0.25

0.5

-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

U3

V3

Speed3

Velocity or Speed (m/s)

Time (s)

E (Bagel, no forced airflow)

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

U3

V3

speed 3

Velocity or Speed (m/s)

Time (s)

F (Bagel, forced airflow)

Figure 146. Velocity and speed components for toasting bread nuisance source

with and without forced ventilation
158

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

ABCD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

Ion low

Ion mid

Ion high

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

40

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 120 240 360 480 600

temperature relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0

2.5 106

5 106

7.5 106

1 107

0 120 240 360 480 600

Mass

Number

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

4

5

6

7

8

0

2.5 106

5 106

7.5 106

1 107

0 120 240 360 480 600

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 147. Toasting bread scenario - toaster on at t=0, off at 240 s. No forced flow

 Figure 147D shows the number concentration and the voltage from the flow-through ion

chambers. First, note that ion chamber 2 responds first and achieves a higher peak voltage due

to the fact that it was located closer to the source. Second, note that the voltage signal from ion

chamber 2 followed the number concentration curve which again is expected since they were at

the same sampling location. The ion chamber voltage is related to the first moment of the

particle size distribution, while the number concentration is essentially the zeroth moment of the

size distribution. The ratio of these moments is equal to the count median diameter of the

aerosol size distribution. Likewise, the ratio of the mass concentration (3rd moment) to the

number concentration is proportional to another particle diameter, the diameter of average mass. 

These characteristic particle sizes were computed from these moments for several smoke and

nuisance source aerosols generated in the FE/DE [33]. These calculations were possible

because the MIC was used to get the first moment since previous research had established its

proportionality constant, and a direct mass measurement was taken to obtain the 3rd moment. 
159

One can still observe trends in these particle size statistics by examining the number

concentration, ion chamber output and the Dustrak mass concentration. In figure 147D, it is

observed that the number concentration and the ion chamber begin to rise at about 60 s and the

rate of rise for each is constant up to 150 s. This implies that the count median diameter is

constant while the number concentration increases. After 150 s the number concentration starts

to level off then drop, while the ion chamber voltage continues to increase until it reaches a peak

at 240 s. This implies that the count median diameter starts to increase from 150 s to 240 s. 

After 240 s the ion chamber voltage and the number concentration drop rapidly until reaching

minimums at 420 s. The ion chamber voltage remains relatively flat while the number

concentration starts to rise suggesting a decrease in the count median diameter from that point

on. 

In figure 147C, it is observed that the number concentration has reached its peak at 180 s before

any significant amount of mass concentration was recorded. In fact, the mass concentration just

begins to rise at 180 s. The rapid increase in mass concentration along with the decreasing

number concentration implies a significant increase in the diameter of average mass as the

Dustrak reaches its peak. The steep drop in the mass concentration also implies a significant

decrease in the diameter of average mass since the number concentration is decreasing at a much

lower rate. At 420 s the mass concentration continued to fall while the number concentration

started to rise implying continuing decrease in the diameter of average mass. 

Figure 148 shows the results for a repeated test where the remote bedroom window was left

open. The times to reach alarm thresholds are similar to the initial toasted bread test. Again, the

trends were increasing ambient air temperature and decreasing relative humidity. The mass

concentration, number concentration and ion chamber voltages show more fluctuation due to the

open window disturbing the room flows, but they achieved maximum values similar to the

previous test. Note that the number concentration started out higher than normal room air

background (1x106

 particles/cm3) because this test was run before the previous test aerosol

concentration was cleared from the manufactured home. 
160

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

ABCD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

ION high

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

40

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 120 240 360 480 600

temperature Relative Humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0

2.5 106

5 106

7.5 106

1 107

0 120 240 360 480 600

Mass

Number

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentation (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

4

5

6

7

8

0

2.5 106

5 106

7.5 106

1 107

0 120 240 360 480 600

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentation (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 148. Toasting bread scenario – toaster on at t=0, off at 255 s.

No forced flow, remote bedroom window open

Figures 149 and 150 show the time to alarm results for the toasted bread cases with the floor fan

on. Fewer alarm thresholds were reached compared to the cases without the fan flow, which was

due primarily to the dilution effects of the forced flow. Consequently, the number and mass

concentration and ion chamber voltage peaks were lower than the tests without the fan turned on. 

Another difference between the cases without and with the fan flow was the decay of the number

concentration, mass concentration, and ion chamber voltage after the toaster was turned off,

where after an initial drop, there was a more even linear decay in each of these values. The fan

flow is promoting mixing throughout the entire volume of the open rooms. There was an

observed difference between the two tests. 
161

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

ABCD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

ION high

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

40

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

temperature

relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0

1 106

2 106

3 106

4 106

5 106

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Mass

Number

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

0

1 106

2 106

3 106

4 106

5 106

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 149. Toasting bread scenario - toaster on at t=0, off at 255 s. Room fan turned on

 
162

0

50

100

150

0

1 106

2 106

3 106

4 106

5 106

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Mass

Number

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

0

1 106

2 106

3 106

4 106

5 106

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

ABCD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

ION high

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

40

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

temperature

relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

Figure 150. Toasting bread scenario - toaster on at t=0, off at 270 s. Room fan turned on

Figures 151 and 152 show the time to alarm results for the toasting frozen bagel tests. In

these tests, only ionization alarm thresholds were achieved. The fan off, no forced flow test

reached more threshold levels. The frozen bagels were toasted to a medium brown color and did

not char significantly, thus the heavy gray smoke observed with the charring of bread was not

present. The temperature and relative humidity show the same trend as the toasting bread

scenarios. The peak number concentrations for these tests compare with the respective fan, no

fan toasting bread scenarios, however, peak mass concentrations were an order of magnitude

lower. 
163

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

ABCD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

ION high

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

40

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

temperature

relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

2.5 106

5 106

7.5 106

1 107

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Mass

Number

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

4

5

6

7

8

0

2 106

4 106

6 106

8 106

1 107

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 151. Toasting frozen bagel scenario –

toaster on at t=0, off at 300 s. Room fan turned off
164

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

ABCD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

ION high

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

40

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

temperature

relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

10

20

30

0

1 106

2 106

3 106

4 106

5 106

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Mass

Number

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

4

4.5

5

5.5

0

1 106

2 106

3 106

4 106

5 106

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 152. Toasting frozen bagel scenario –

toaster on at t=0, off at 300 s. Room fan turned on

Several generalizations describe the toasting scenarios:

 • For the most part, a high concentration of small particles produced in the early stages of

toasting contributed to the ion alarm events. 

 • With no forced flow, the particles were carried to the ceiling and were transported far

from the source at sufficient concentration to cause ionization alarms.

 • Forced flow diluted the aerosol concentration such that only ionization alarms closest to

the source were susceptible to reaching their threshold. 
165

 • Photoelectric alarm thresholds were met only after items started to char and produce

visible smoke, i.e., the photoelectric alarms lag the ionization alarms due to the type of

smoke aerosol produced.

 • Forced flow reduced the number of photoelectric alarm thresholds met. However, at

several locations, photoelectric alarm thresholds were met where ionization alarm

thresholds were not. 

6.3.2 Frying Bacon

Strips of bacon were fried in either a 300 mm (10 in) diameter cast-iron frying pan or 280 mm

(9 in) aluminum non-stick frying pan heated by both a single-unit LPG hot plate (maximum

output 4 kW) or the electric range (large burner, nominally 1.5 kW maximum output). With the

electric range, the aluminum non-stick pan was pre-heated on the high setting, then turned down

to medium high after the bacon was added. Cooking time was between 5 min to 6 min. With the

LPG hot plate, LP gas was piped to the burner from a bottle located outside the manufactured

home. After the burner was lit, the cast iron pan was pre-heated for 1 min, then, the bacon was

added. Cooking time was 10 min. In all cases, approximately 230 g of bacon was cooked for a

time sufficient to crisp the bacon, but not char it.

Figures 153 and 154 show results for bacon cooked in the cast iron pan with no forced air flow.

(Note, there was no companion forced air flow test for this scenario.) Figures 153A and 154A

show similar trends in that ionization alarm thresholds were reached first, followed by

photoelectric alarm thresholds. For any fixed location, delays between ionization and

photoelectric alarm ranged between several hundred seconds to 10’s of seconds. The

temperature rise was about 7 EC during these tests. From figure 154B, the ignition of the

hotplate was apparent from a temperature spike at time = 0. The relative humidity initially

increased, then decreased suggesting moisture driven off early the cooking process (as evidenced

by condensed water vapor above the frying pan) was the primary cause (moisture from the

combustion process also affects the relative humidity). 

The number concentration rose to peak values of approximately 6x106

 particles/cm3 at the end of

the cooking time, while the mass concentration peaked at about 50 mg/m3

 at the end of each test. 

The ion chamber voltages rose steadily from about 180 s to the end of the cooking time (660 s). 

There was no evident rise in the number concentration from the LP gas combustion alone. 
166

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

ABCD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

ION high

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

40

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 120 240 360 480 600

temperature relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

10

20

30

40

50

0

2.5 106

5 106

7.5 106

1 107

0 120 240 360 480 600

Mass

Number

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

4

5

6

7

8

0

2.5 106

5 106

7.5 106

1 107

0 120 240 360 480 600

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 153. Frying bacon scenario - cast-iron pan, LPG hot plate,

no forced flow, burner lit at t=0, bacon in pan at 60 s

Figure 155 shows the results for bacon cooked in the aluminum non-stick frying pan heated by

the electric range with no forced air flow. Figure 155A shows the time to reach alarm

thresholds. Usually, ionization thresholds were reached before photoelectric thresholds with the

exception of the lower threshold at position G. Fewer thresholds were reached in this test

compared to the cast iron frying tests above, even though the bacon was cooked to the same

nominal doneness. The temperature rise was about 3 EC over the test time, and again the relative

humidity increased to a peak, then decreased below the initial value by the end of the test. 

There were two peaks in the number concentration attributed to the method of cooking (i.e.

turning the bacon and moving it and pressing it with a spatula), on the order of 4x106

particles/cm3. The mass concentration also experienced two peaks, the early one about 20 mg/m3

and the latter one about 80 mg/m3. The ion chamber voltages follow the number concentration
167

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

ABCD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

ION high

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

40

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 120 240 360 480 600

temperature relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

10

20

30

40

50

0

2.5 106

5 106

7.5 106

1 107

0 120 240 360 480 600 720

Mass

Number

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

4

5

6

7

8

0

2.5 106

5 106

7.5 106

1 107

0 120 240 360 480 600 720

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 154. Frying bacon scenario - cast-iron pan, LPG hot plate,

no forced flow, burner lit at t=0, bacon in pan at 60 s

trend and both experience two peak values. The magnitude of the second peak is greater than the

first suggesting the mean particle size is larger, which is confirmed by the mass concentration

peaks. 
168

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

A CD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

ION high

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

temperature

relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

1 106

2 106

3 106

4 106

5 106

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Mass

Number

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

0

1 106

2 106

3 106

4 106

5 106

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 155. Frying bacon scenario - aluminum pan, electric range,

no forced flow, bacon in pan at 120 s
169

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

A CD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

ION high

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

temperature

relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

1 106

2 106

3 106

4 106

5 106

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Mass

Number

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

0

5 105

1 106

1.5 106

2 106

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 156. Frying bacon scenario - aluminum pan, electric range,

floor fan on, bacon in pan at 120 s

Figure 156 shows the results for bacon cooked in the aluminum non-stick frying pan heated by

the electric range with forced air flow. During this test, only photoelectric alarm thresholds were

met, and then at three locations. A slight decrease in relative humidity was observed, as was a

slight increase in temperature. The number concentration peaked at about 1x106

 particles/cm3,

while the mass concentration experienced a sharp peak to a value of 25 mg/m3

. The ion

chamber voltages follow the number concentration increase, but only reach values about 0.2 V

above clean air background value.

 Several generalizations describe the frying bacon scenarios:

 • With no forced air flow, ionization alarm thresholds were met before photoelectric alarm

thresholds at most locations. 
170

 • The combination of the type of pan and heat source affects the number of alarm

thresholds met. The rendered byproducts from the bacon tended to stick to the cast iron

pan and burn, producing more visible smoke during cooking.

 • With forced airflow, all ionization alarms were suppressed, while three locations reached

photoelectric alarm thresholds. The alarm closest to the source actually reached the

lowest threshold after two alarms located farther from the source. 

6.3.3 Frying Butter and Margarine 

One tablespoon of butter or margarine was placed in either the aluminum or cast iron pan set on

the large element burner. Power was set to high and the pan was left for 5 min to 6 min, then

power was turned off and the pan was removed from the burner and set aside.

Figures 157 and 158 show results for repeated tests of butter heated in the aluminum pan with no

force air flow. Both photoelectric and ionization alarm thresholds were met at most locations. 

Usually the ionization thresholds were reached first. In both tests, the temperature rose about

4 EC, while the relative humidity dropped from 20 % to 15 %. The mass concentration peaked at

about 360 s at values of 150 mg/m3

 and 300 mg/m3. Number concentration maximums were on

the order of 5x106 particle/cm3. Ion chamber 2 voltage followed the number concentration

curve, tracking peaks and valleys though advanced in time which is assumed to be due to a

sample transport time difference. Ion Chamber 1 voltage on average is lower than chamber 2

voltage due to the fact that it is further from the source. 

Figure 159 shows the results for butter heated in a cast iron pan with no forced air flow. 

Photoelectric alarms thresholds were met at all locations with working sensors (location E does

not have a photoelectric sensor, and location C did not have a working sensor for this test) before

ionization alarm thresholds were met. Temperature rise was about 6 EC, and a slight decrease in

relative humidity was observed. Mass concentration peaked at over 300 mg/m3, while the

number concentration peaked at about 4x106 particle/cm3. The ion chamber voltages follow the

number concentration with chamber 2 peaking higher and slightly sooner than chamber 1. 

Figure 160 shows the results for butter heated in a cast iron pan with forced air flow. All

locations with photoelectric sensors reached alarm thresholds, while only 2 locations reached

ionization thresholds, and usually after the photoelectric thresholds were met. Temperature rise

was about 2 EC and the relative humidity dropped a few percent during the test, then rebounded

at the end. No CPC data was taken during this test. Mass concentration peaked above

35 mg/m3

, while the ion chamber voltages rose between 0.3 V and 0.4 V. 
171

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

ABCD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

ION high

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

40

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 120 240 360 480

temperature

relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

50

100

150

0

2.5 106

5 106

7.5 106

1 107

0 120 240 360 480

Mass

Number

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

4

5

6

7

0

2 106

4 106

6 106

8 106

1 107

0 120 240 360 480

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 157. Frying butter scenario - aluminum pan, electric range,

floor fan off, butter in pan at t=0
172

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

ABCD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

ION high

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

30

0 120 240 360 480

temperature

relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0

2.5 106

5 106

7.5 106

1 107

0 120 240 360 480

Mass

Number

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

4

5

6

7

0

2 106

4 106

6 106

8 106

1 107

0 120 240 360 480

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 158. . Frying butter scenario - aluminum pan, electric range,

floor fan off, butter in pan at t=0
173

0

100

200

300

400

ABCD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)ION high

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 100 200 300 400 500

temperature

relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0

1 106

2 106

3 106

4 106

5 106

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Mass

Number

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

0

1 106

2 106

3 106

4 106

5 106

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 159. Frying butter scenario - cast iron pan, electric range,

floor fan off, butter in pan at t=0
174

0

100

200

300

400

500

ABCD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

ION high

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 100 200 300 400

temperature

relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

3.9

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

0

1 106

2 106

3 106

4 106

5 106

0 100 200 300 400

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

No CPC

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

0

10

20

30

40

50

0

1 106

2 106

3 106

4 106

5 106

0 100 200 300 400

Mass

No CPC

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 160. Frying butter scenario - cast iron pan, electric range,

floor fan on, butter in pan at t=0
175

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

A B C D E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

ION high

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 100 200 300 400 500

temperature

relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

1 106

2 106

3 106

4 106

5 106

0 100 200 300 400 500

Mass

Number

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

0

5 105

1 106

1.5 106

2 106

2.5 106

3 106

0 100 200 300 400 500

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number 

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 161. Frying margarine scenario - cast iron pan, electric range,

floor fan off, margarine in pan at t=0

Figure 161 shows the results for margarine heated in a cast iron pan with no forced air flow. 

Photoelectric alarm thresholds were met at all six locations that had photoelectric sensors, while

ionization threshold was met only at the location closest to the source. There was little change in

temperature or relative humidity during the test. The mass concentration experienced a sharp

peak of 100 mg/m3

 310 s into the test. Four of the six alarm locations had already reached

photoelectric alarm thresholds before that peak mass concentration was recorded. Number

concentration peaked at a value of approximately 2.8x106

 particles/cm3. Ion chamber voltages

rose between 0.5 V and 0.6 V for chambers 1 and 2 respectively. 
176

The following generalizations describe butter or margarine heated in pans.

 • Heating butter in the aluminum non-stick pan caused ionization alarm thresholds to be

achieved first, while heating butter or margarine in the cast iron pan caused photoelectric

alarm thresholds to be achieved first. 

 • Forced air flow reduced the number of locations that reached ionization alarm thresholds,

but not the number of photoelectric alarm thresholds. 

 • Butter in the cast iron pan with no forced flow produced more alarm threshold conditions

slightly earlier than margarine tested under the same conditions. 

6.3.4 Frying Hamburgers

Three 110 g (quarter pound) frozen hamburgers (28 % fat content) were cooked in the aluminum

pan on the large electric burner. First, the pan was placed on the large electric burner and the

power was set to high. After a preheat time (between 130 s to 160 s) the power was lowered to a

medium-high setting. The hamburgers were placed in the heated pan. The hamburgers were

flipped after approximately 4 min and cooked for an additional 5 min. The stove was turned off

and the hamburgers were removed from the pan.

Figure 162 shows the results for test conditions with no forced flow. At about 250 s, a threshold

was met by the photoelectric sensor closest to the source. The rest of the locations reached

alarm thresholds between 400 s and 600 s. Some locations record photoelectric alarm thresholds

first, while others record ionization alarm thresholds first. Temperature rose about 3 EC during

the test while the relative humidity rose about 5 %. After initial peaks in the mass and number

concentration, the mass concentration peaked at about 100 mg/m3

, while the number

concentration peaked at 4x106 particles/cm3. Ion chamber voltage rise was 1.4 V and 1.1 V for

chambers 2 and 1 respectively. 

Figure 163 shows the results for test conditions with force air flow and the living room window

open. All locations with a photoelectric sensor reach alarm thresholds for that sensor. Only two

locations recorded ionization alarm thresholds. The temperature rise was about 2 ECduring the

test, while the relative humidity rose about 3 %. Mass concentration peaked at about 30 mg/m3

,

while the number concentration peaked at 2x106

 particles/cm3. The peak ion chamber voltage

change was 0.4 V and 0.6 V for chamber 1 and 2 respectively.

Figure 164 shows the results for test conditions with forced air flow and the normal conditions of

all exterior doors and windows closed. Five out of six locations reach photoelectric alarm

thresholds, while none reach ionization alarm thresholds. The closer to the source the sooner the

photoelectric thresholds were reached. Temperature rose about 2 EC, while the relative humidity
177

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

ABCD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

ION high

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

40

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

temperature

relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

2.5 106

5 106

7.5 106

1 107

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Mass

Number

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

4

4.5

5

5.5

0

2 106

4 106

6 106

8 106

1 107

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 162. Frying hamburgers - three hamburgers in non-stick frying pan,

floor fan off. Hamburgers in pan at t=120 s

rose about 2 %. The mass concentration showed several short duration spikes, with the highest

peak about 30 mg/m3

. The number concentration peaked at about 1.6x106 particles/cm3. Peak

ion chamber voltage change was about 0.5 V for each chamber. 
178

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

ABCD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)ION high

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

temperature

relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

1 106

2 106

3 106

4 106

5 106

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Mass

Number

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

0

1 106

2 106

3 106

4 106

5 106

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 163. Frying hamburgers - three hamburgers in non-stick frying pan,

floor fan on, living room window open. Hamburgers in pan at t=160 s
179

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

ABCD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

ION high

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

temperature

relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

1 106

2 106

3 106

4 106

5 106

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Mass

Number

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

0

1 106

2 106

3 106

4 106

5 106

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 164. Frying hamburgers - three hamburgers in non-stick frying pan,

floor fan on. Hamburgers in pan at t=150 s
180

The following generalizations describe the frying hamburgers tests:

 • With no forced flow, photoelectric and ionization alarm thresholds were recorded at all

locations with no clear preference as to which type reached a threshold first at the

specified locations. 

 • The forced flow tests yielded significantly less ionization alarm thresholds.

6.3.5 Deep-frying Tortillas and French-fried Potatoes

Using the LP hot plate, 0.15 m diameter (6 in) corn tortillas were deep-fried in a large flatbottom wok-style steel pan in corn oil approximately 50 mm in depth. The hot plate was set to

the high setting. Six minutes after the burner was lit and the oil pre-heated, tortillas were added. 

A total of 10 tortillas were fried over a period of 10 min. Using the cast iron pan, 30 mm of

vegetable oil was pre-heated on the large electric burner element for eight minutes. 454 g (1 lb)

of frozen “French-fried” potatoes were added to the pan and cooked for 5 min to 6 min, removed

and another 454 g of potatoes were added and cooked for an additional 5 min to 6 min, then

removed.

Figure 165 shows the results for tortilla frying test with no forced air flow. Three locations

reached ionization alarm threshold levels. The temperature rose 9 EC over the test period, while

relative humidity rise reached a maximum of about 8 %. The mass concentration did not rise

above 2 mg/m3

 during the test. The number concentration peaked at about 6.5x106 particles/cm3. 

The ion chamber voltage rise follows the number concentration rise, with peak change in the

voltages of 0.5 V and 0.6 V for chamber’s 1 and 2 respectively. 

Figure 166 shows the results for deep frying French fried potatoes with no forced air flow. Only

one ionization alarm threshold was recorded at the location closest to the source. The

temperature increased 5 EC during the test period. The relative humidity initially dropped 2 %

during the pre-heating stage, but showed a 10 % rise after each batch of potatoes were added to

the hot oil. As the water was driven off the potatoes, the relative humidity would drop. The

mass concentration showed two spikes of 3 mg/m3

 and 1 mg/m3 soon after the potatoes were

dropped into the hot oil. The number concentration peaked at about 3.5x106

 particles/cm3. Ion

chamber 2 voltage change peaked at 0.45 V, while chamber 1 voltage change peaked at 0.3 V.

The lack of sufficient aerosol mass concentration means it would be unlikely that these scenarios

would produce any photoelectric alarms for any extended cooking time. Though, extended

cooking times could produce aerosol levels sufficient to produce alarms in the more distant

ionization alarms. Any spillage or spatter of hot oil on an electric heating element produces

smoke and, some times, small short-lived flames, which would change the nature of the aerosol

produced. Repeated spatter of the hot oil might produce enough smoke to reach the threshold for
181

0

200

400

600

800

1000

ABCD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

ION high

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

40

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 200 400 600 800 1000

temperature

relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

1

2

3

4

5

0

2.5 106

5 106

7.5 106

1 107

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Mass

Number

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

4

4.5

5

5.5

0

2 106

4 106

6 106

8 106

1 107

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 165. Deep-frying Tortillas scenario - steel wok, LPG hotplate,

floor fan off, first tortillas in pan at t=360 s

photoelectric alarms; however one could argue that such a situation is potentially hazardous and

an alarm sounding would not be characterized as a nuisance alarm.
182

0

200

400

600

800

1000

ABCD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

ION high

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

Alarm Location

0

1

2

3

4

5

0

1 106

2 106

3 106

4 106

5 106

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Mass

Number

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

A

B

3.9

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

0

1 106

2 106

3 106

4 106

5 106

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

20

25

30

35

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

temperature

relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 166. Deep-frying french fries scenario - steel wok, LPG hotplate,

floor fan off, first french fries in pan at t=360 s
183

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

ABCD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

ION high

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

40

15

20

25

30

0 120 240 360 480 600

temperature relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

10

20

30

40

50

0

2.5 106

5 106

7.5 106

1 107

0 120 240 360 480 600 720

Mass

Number

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

0

1 106

2 106

3 106

4 106

5 106

0 120 240 360 480 600 720

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 167. Broiling Pizza - one frozen pizza in oven set on broil, floor fan off. Oven on at t=0

6.3.6 Broiled and Baked/Broiled Pizza

For the broiled pizza scenario, a small (158 g) frozen plain pizza was placed on a large metal

“broiler” pan that was covered with aluminum foil, and placed in the oven. The broiler was set to

high and the door opened to the broiling position. The pizza cooked for approximately 13 min

then was removed. There was no forced flow for this test. 

Figure 167 shows the results for broiling frozen pizza. While five locations reached ionization

alarm thresholds, and only two locations reached photoelectric alarm thresholds, the first

threshold reached was for the photoelectric alarm closest to the source. This was reached almost

300 s before the lowest ionization threshold was reached at that location. Interestingly, there

was nothing evident in the Dustrak or CPC readings at the time the first photoelectric threshold

was met. Temperature rise was on the order of 5 EC , though there was little change in the
184

relative humidity. The number concentration starts to rise at 120 s and peaks at 4x106

particles/cm3

 just before 600 s. The mass concentration starts to rise at 400 s and reaches a peak

of 30 mg/m3 at 600 s. The mass concentration increase is attributed to the browning of the

cheese layer and small amounts of spatter hitting the broiler heating element. The ion chambers

peaked at 600 s at voltage changes of approximately 0.7 V and 1.0 V for chamber 1 and 2

respectively. The voltage curve of chamber 2 does not follow the early rise in the number

concentration suggesting that the aerosol produced early in the test was of a size too small to

produce any significant ion chamber voltage change. 

For the baked, then broiled pizza scenario, the oven was pre-heated to a setting of 176 EC

(350 EF). At time t=0 the oven door was opened and one small frozen pizza on the broiler pan

was placed in the oven. The pizza was baked for 630 s. During this time the oven door was

opened once to visually check the pizza. After 630 s, the oven door was opened to the broil

position, the broiler was turned to high, and the pizza was broiled for an additional 10 min. 

After broiling, the pizza was removed and the oven turned off. This scenario was repeated with

the floor fan off and on. Typically, the pizzas were dark drown with some black, but deemed

edible.

Figure 168 shows the results for the scenario with the floor fan off. All ionization alarm

positions reached at least one threshold level, while only one position reached a photoelectric

alarm threshold. The temperature showed two spikes in the baking phase, which were caused by

the hot gases escaping the oven during the two periods the door was opened then closed. When

the door was opened at the beginning of the broiling phase, the temperature jumped about 5 EC ,

then continued to rise another 3 EC over the next 600 s. The relative humidity dropped by about

5 % during the broiling phase. Three spikes in the number concentration on the order of (2 to 3

x106

) particles/cm3 were observed in the number concentration at the three times the door was

opened. By the end of the broiling phase, the number concentration had risen to

4x106 particles/cm3. The mass concentration started to climb at about 900 s and peaked at

6 mg/m3

 by the end of the broiling phase. Both ion chambers tracked the early number

concentration spikes and reached a voltage change of about 1 V for each chamber.

Figure 169 shows the results for the scenario with the floor fan on. During this test, only one

ionization alarm reached a threshold value. Spikes in the air temperature were observed at the

times the oven door was opened. The temperature rose 6 EC during the test, while the relative

humidity fell from 30 % to 25 %. The number concentration also showed spikes when the oven

door was opened, and it reached a peak of about 4x106

 particles/cm3 by the end of the test. The

mass concentration started to rise at about 1000 s and peaked with a value of nearly 5 mg/m3

 at

1225 s. The ionization chambers followed the number concentration value and they reached

peak values of about 0.5 V above their background levels.
185

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

ABCD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

ION high

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

temperature

relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

2

4

6

8

10

0

1 106

2 106

3 106

4 106

5 106

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Mass

Number

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

0

1 106

2 106

3 106

4 106

5 106

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 168. Bake/ broil pizza - one frozen pizza in oven set on bake and pre-heated to 350 EF,

then set to broil 630 s later. Floor fan was off. Pizza in at t=0
186

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

ABCD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

ION high

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

temperature

relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

1

2

3

4

5

0

1 106

2 106

3 106

4 106

5 106

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Mass

Number

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

3.5

4

4.5

5

0

1 106

2 106

3 106

4 106

5 106

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 169. Bake/ broil pizza - one frozen pizza in oven set on bake and pre-heated to 350 EF,

then set to broil 630 s later. Floor fan was on. Pizza in at t=0

The following generalizations characterize the broiling, and bake/broil scenarios:

 • Every time the pre-heated oven was opened, a wave of heat and small particles spill out. 

Forced ventilation dilutes this source. 

 • Ionization alarm thresholds were reached more frequently than photoelectric alarms. 

 • Aerosol mass concentration is not significant until the cheese starts to brown on the

pizzas. 

 • Forced flow significantly reduced the number of alarm thresholds reached.
187

6.3.7 Broiling Hamburgers

Four 110 g (quarter pound) frozen hamburgers were placed on an aluminum foil covered broiler

pan and placed in the oven. With the oven door open to the broil position, the oven was set to

high broil. After 10 min, the hamburgers were flipped, cooked for 5 to 6 min longer, then

removed and the oven turned off.

Figure 170 shows the results for the case with the floor fan off. All ionization alarm locations

reached alarm thresholds, while four out of six photoelectric alarms reached thresholds. Four

ionization thresholds were reached before the hamburgers were flipped at 600 s. The air

temperature started to rise at 200 s and climbed steadily to about 6 EC above the ambient

temperature. The relative humidity did not change appreciably. The number concentration

started to rise at about 200 s and reached a peak of about 4x106

 particles/cm3 by the end of the

test. The mass concentration started to rise at 500 s and reached a peak value of about 25 mg/m3

near the end of the test. The ionization chambers followed the number concentration and

reached peaks about 1 V above the initial values. 

Figure 171 shows the results for the case with the floor fan on. All of the ionization alarms

reached thresholds, while five out of 6 photoelectric alarms reached thresholds. The air

temperature climbed about 3 EC except for a short spike near the end of the test. The relative

humidity remained at the initial value. The number concentration started to rise at 200 s and

reached a peak at 800 s of nearly 5x106 particles/cm3. The mass concentration started to rise at

about 400 s and between 800 s and 1000 s reached spiked to about 15 mg/m3. Ionization

chamber 2, which is closer to the source, started to rise at about 200 s, while chamber 1 started to

rise at about 300 s. Chamber 2 voltage showed two peaks at 600 s and 800 s corresponding to

peaks in the number concentration. By the end of the test, chamber 1 voltage had rise by about

0.9 V and chamber 2 had risen by about 1.1 V. 

The following generalizations characterize the broiling hamburger tests:

 • More ionization alarm thresholds were reached than photoelectric thresholds. 

 • The forced airflow case saw more photoelectric alarm locations reaching thresholds than

the no forced flow case. 

 • Number concentration in both tests started to increase 200 s before an appreciable rise in

the mass concentration, suggesting smaller particles being produced in the early cooking

stage. 
188

0

200

400

600

800

1000

A BCD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

ION high

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

40

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 200 400 600 800 1000

temperature

relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

5

10

15

20

25

0

2.5 106

5 106

7.5 106

1 107

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Mass

Number

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

4

4.4

4.8

5.2

5.6

6

0

2 106

4 106

6 106

8 106

1 107

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 170. Broiling hamburgers - four hamburgers in oven set on broil,

floor fan off. Oven on at t=0
189

0

200

400

600

800

1000

ABCD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

ION high

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

40

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 200 400 600 800 1000

temperature

relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

5

10

15

0

2.5 106

5 106

7.5 106

1 107

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Mass

Number

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

4

4.5

5

5.5

0

2 106

4 106

6 106

8 106

1 107

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 171. Broiling hamburgers - four hamburgers in oven set on broil,

floor fan on. Oven on at t=0

6.3.8 Boiling Spaghetti Pasta

In a “two quart” non-stick pot of boiling water, between 1/3 and 2/3 of a 454 g (1 lb) package of

dry spaghetti pasta was cooked for 10 min to 13 min. The water-filled pot was placed on the

large electric burner element. The burner was set on high and, after the water began to boil, the

pasta was added. In one variation, a tight-fitting lid was placed on the pot with the intention of

causing the boiling water to spill over.

Figure 172 shows the results for the case with 1/3 package of spaghetti. A single ionization

alarm threshold was reached at the location nearest to the source. The air temperature rose about

5 EC during the course of the test. The relative humidity rose from an initial value of 17 % to
190

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

ABCD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

ION high

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

40

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 120 240 360 480 600 720

temperature

relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0

2.5 106

5 106

7.5 106

1 107

0 120 240 360 480 600 720

Mass

Number

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

0

1 106

2 106

3 106

4 106

5 106

0 120 240 360 480 600 720

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 172. Boiling spaghetti pasta - 1/3 package (150 g), floor fan off.

Pasta placed in pot at t=360 s

over 50 % during the test. The number concentration started to climb at 120 s reaching a peak of

4x106 particles/cm3 when the pasta was added, followed by another peak of 5x106 particles/cm3

at 560 s. The mass concentration shows a spike at 100 s possibly due to material on the burner

element being driven off. The was a spike at 360 s when the pasta was added, and again a spike

560 s; all spikes were below 1 mg/m3

. Ionization chamber 2 followed the number concentration

trend, peaking at 360 s and 560 s, with a maximum value of 0.4 V above the initial value. 

Chamber 1 increased about 0.2 V above its initial value. 

Figure 173 shows the results for the case with 2/3 of a package of pasta. Only one ionization

threshold was met at the location closest to the source, before the pasta was added. The

temperature and relative humidity trends were the same as observed in the test above. The

number concentration started to rise at about 180 s, reaching a plateau at 360 s of 1.5x106

particles/cm3, then spiking to a value of 3.7x106 partcles/cm3 at 610 s. The mass concentration
191

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

ABCD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

ION high

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

40

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 120 240 360 480 600 720

temperature

relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0

1.25 106

2.5 106

3.75 106

5 106

0 120 240 360 480 600 720

Mass

Number

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

0

1 106

2 106

3 106

4 106

5 106

0 120 240 360 480 600 720

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure173. Boiling spaghetti pasta - 2/3 package (300 g), floor fan off.

Pasta placed in pot at t=450 s

showed only one spike greater than 1 mg/m3 at 540 s. The ionization chambers followed the

number concentration trend (except for the spike at 610 s.) Chamber 1 and 2 increased

approximately 0.1 V and 0.2 V above their initial values, respectively. 

Figure 174 shows the results for the case with 1/ 2 of a package of pasta cooked with the lid on. 

Only one ionization alarm reached a threshold, the alarm located closest to the source, 120 s

after the pasta was added. The number concentration started to rise at 100 s climbing to a

average value of 2.5x106

 particles/cm3 by 400 s. At 625 s the number concentration spiked to

nearly 5x106

 particles/cm3, then dropped to about 2x106 particles/cm3. This spike is attributed to

boil-over of the pot. The mass concentration, though elevated to about 0.5 mg/m3

 initially,

experienced only one peak above 1 mg/m3

 at 530 s. The lid was removed at 940 s. Its removal

did not appear to change room conditions.
192

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

ABCD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

ION high

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

40

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 200 400 600 800 1000

temperature

relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

1

2

3

4

5

0

1 106

2 106

3 106

4 106

5 106

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Mass

Number

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

3.9

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

0

1 106

2 106

3 106

4 106

5 106

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Chamber1

Chamber 2

Number

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 174. Boiling spaghetti pasta - 1/2 package (225 g), lid on, floor fan off.

Pasta placed in pot at t=480 s

Since only one alarm threshold was reached in each test, and all attributed to the alarm closest to

the source, this scenario was not particularly challenging. However, the aerosol measurements

do suggest that the electric heating element on a high setting produces aerosols. It is assumed

that the cleanliness of the element and the pan surface in contact with it affect this aerosol

production. In general, the boiling of the pasta in and of itself did not account for much aerosol

production unless boil-over of the pot occurs, in which case the pasta water splashing on the hot

surfaces appears to cause more aerosol formation.
193

0

100

ABCDEFG

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

ION high

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

Alarm Location

No Alarms

20

25

30

35

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 200 400 600 800 1000

temperature

relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0

2 105

4 105

6 105

8 105

1 106

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Mass

Number

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

0

2 105

4 105

6 105

8 105

1 106

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 175. Candles burning - four tea candles burning on electric range top area.

Floor fan was off. Candles lit at t=0

6.3.9 Candle Burning

Four scented tea candles were placed on the counter top to the right of the stove and lit with a

butane lighter. The candles burned for 15 min, then they were extinguished. There was no

forced flow during this test. 

Figure 175 shows the results for this test. No alarm thresholds were reached during this test. 

Since there was no forced airflow, the candle flames were laminar, with no flickering. Air

temperature rose about 2 EC, and the relative humidity dropped by about 2 % during the test. 

The number concentration spiked at about 50 s to 5x105

 particles/cm3, which is attributed to the

butane lighter and the candle ignitions. Around 300 s the number concentration rose sharply for

1x105

 particles/cm3 to 6x105 particles/cm3. This steep rise is most likely due to the ceiling jet
194

from the plume formed by the burning candles reaching the aerosol sampling location. The

number concentration peaked at about 8x105

 particles/cm3 near the end of the test. No

appreciable mass concentration was recorded; two spikes are attributed to local airborne dust or

other background aerosol. Ionization chamber 2 voltage rose about 0.1 V above its initial value,

while, chamber 1’s voltage rose by a factor of 3 less. 

Clearly, this scenario poses little threat for producing nuisance alarms. It is not clear if

flickering candle flames or the presence of additives in the candles would produce enough

aerosol to be a significant nuisance alarm threat.

6.3.10 Cigarette Smoking

Two persons seated in the kitchen area proceeded to smoke one cigarette each. In approximately

4 min, the smokers finished their cigarettes and exited the manufactured home, closing the door

behind them. In both tests, there was no forced air flow.

Figures 176 and 177 show the results for these two tests. In the first test, no alarm thresholds

were reached, while in the second test, the ionization alarm located nearest to the smokers did

reach two thresholds near the end of the smoking period. Little change in air temperature or

relative humidity was observed during both tests. The maximum number concentration reached

was 1.45x105

 particles/cm3 and 8.5x104 particles/cm3 for the first and second test. Mass

concentration peaks of 2.5 mg/m3

 and 3 mg/m3 were recorded in the first and second tests. 

Neither ionization chamber voltage changed significantly from the background mean values

during both tests. 

It is surprising that the ionization alarms were recorded during the second test, while no

indications of a significant level of aerosol was recorded by the particle counter nor ionization

chamber 2. The mass concentrations during both tests appear to be approaching threshold levels

for photoelectric alarms, suggesting repeated smoking, or more smokers could produce threshold

level values. 

6.4 Controlled Incipient Fire Sources

The following incipient fire sources were performed to provide comparative results and put the

nuisance alarm tests into context with the FE/DE tests. The cotton smolder and pyrolyzing wood

blocks tests, are variants of EN 54 fire sensitivity test sources. The cotton smolder source was

the same as used for the FE/DE tests discussed in Chapter 2. Thus, these data are mainly useful

to determine the differences in detector response due to the layout of the building and resulting

flow patterns during the tests. In addition, the data show the detector responses at various

locations throughout the manufactured home.
195

0

20

40

60

80

100

ABCDEFG

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

ION high

Alarm Location

No Alarms

20

25

30

35

40

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 120 240 360 480

temperature

relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0

5 104

1 105

1.5 105

2 105

0 120 240 360 480

Mass

Number

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

3.9

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

0

4 104

8 104

1.2 105

1.6 105

2 105

0 120 240 360 480

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 176. Cigarette smoking - two smokers smoking one cigarette each in kitchen area.

Floor fan was off. Cigarettes lit at t=0

6.4.1 Cotton Smolder

The staged wick ignition device was used to produce cotton smolder smoke. This is the same

source used in the FE/DE to calibrate all of the modified analog output smoke alarms. 32 cotton

wicks were placed in the staged wick ignition device, which was then set on the chair-burn load

cell pan located in the living room area. After an initial 30 s delay, 8 sets of 4 wicks were ignited

with a 12 s delay time between sets. The wicks smoldered for 30 min then the doors to the

manufactured home were opened. The test was run with the floor fan off and repeated with the

floor fan on. 
196

0

100

200

300

400

A B C D E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

ION high

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 100 200 300 400

temperature

relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

1

2

3

4

5

0

2 104

4 104

6 104

8 104

1 105

0 100 200 300 400

Mass 

Number

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

3.9

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

0

2 104

4 104

6 104

8 104

1 105

0 100 200 300 400

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 177. Cigarette smoking – two smokers smoking one cigarette each in kitchen area.

Floor fan was off. Cigarettes lit at t=0

Figure 178 shows the results for the case with the floor fan off. All ionization alarms reached

threshold levels, and all but one before 300 s. Five out of six photoelectric alarms reached

threshold levels, the two closest to the source (location B) reached thresholds sooner. The air

temperature rise was about 1 EC, while the relative humidity dropped about 3%. The mass and

number concentration both start to rise at 120 s and reach local peak values before 300 s of 30

mg/m3

 and 1.2x106 particles/cm3. The wick smoldering rate is highest soon after ignition. After

a wick smolders away from its ignition coil smoldering proceeds at a steady rate reaching values

of approximately 35 mg/m3 and 1.25x106 particles/cm3. The early peaks in the number and mass

concentrations are due the higher smoldering rates of the wicks soon after ignition. After

dropping from the peak values, the number and mass concentration continued to climb for the

duration of the test. The ionization chamber voltages followed the number concentration results,
197

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

ABCD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

ION high

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

temperature

relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

5 105

1 106

1.5 106

2 106

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Mass 

Number

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

0

5 105

1 106

1.5 106

2 106

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number 

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 178. Smoldering cotton wicks – eight sets of four wicks were ignited with a 12 s delay

using the staged wick ignition device, located on the living room floor at the chair burn location. 

Fan was off. Ignition sequence started at t=30 s

realizing the early peak, then climbing for the remainder of the test. By the end of the test, the

voltage change for each chamber was nearly 1 V. 

Figure 179 shows the results for the case with the floor fan on. Again, all ionization alarms

reached threshold levels. There is clearly a relationship between the time to reach a threshold

and the distance from the source; alarms closer to the source reach threshold levels first. Only

three photoelectric alarms reached threshold levels, with the alarm closest to the source (F)

reaching it first. The air temperature rose by about 2 EC and the relative humidity dropped by

about 5 % during the test. Contrary to what was observed in the smoldering wick test without

forced flow, there were no early peaks in the mass or number concentration. At 100 s the mass

and number concentration start to rise. From 300 s to the end of the test, the mass concentration

increased linearly to 36 mg/m3

, while the number concentration increased towards an asymptote
198

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

ABCD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

ION high

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 400 800 1200 1600

temperature

relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

10

20

30

40

50

0

5 105

1 106

1.5 106

2 106

0 400 800 1200 1600

Mass

Number 

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

0

5 105

1 106

1.5 106

2 106

0 400 800 1200 1600

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 179. Smoldering cotton wicks -eight sets of four wicks were ignited with a 12 s delay

using the staged wick ignition device, located on the living room floor at the chair burn location. 

Fan was on. Ignition sequence started at t=30 s

of approximately 1.1x106

 particles/cm3. Initially, the ionization chambers follow the number

concentration trend, but from 800 s on they continue to climb while the number concentration

starts to level off. This observation, along with the steady rise in the mass concentration

suggests that the mean particle size was increasing during the test. 

The following generalizations characterize the smoldering cotton scenarios:

 • Ionization alarm thresholds were reached earlier and at more locations than photoelectric

alarm thresholds. 

 • The mass and number concentration by the end of the test were nearly the same for both

cases. 
199

 • A somewhat counterintuitive observation that in the case with the floor fan on, the time

to reach a threshold level for ionization alarms was a strong function of the distance from

the source, while in the case with the floor fan off, the time to reach ionization threshold

levels occurred nearly simultaneously for six of seven alarms. 

6.4.2 Wood Smolder

Eight 3.5 cm x 2.0 cm x 1.0 cm beech wood blocks were placed on a 750 W electric hot plate

that was placed on the chair-burn load cell. Full power was applied to the hot plate. Within

about 500 s, the blocks started to pyrolyze. After 20 min, the power to the hot plate was

removed. The test was performed with the floor fan off and repeated with the floor fan on. 

Figure 180 shows the results for the case with the floor fan off. All six photoelectric alarms

reached threshold values, with the ones closer to the source tending to reach thresholds first. 

Four out of seven ionization alarms reached threshold values, and where three were collocated

with photoelectric alarms, the ionization alarms took longer to reach threshold values. Only a

very slight increase in air temperature, and decrease in relative humidity was observed. The

number concentration started to rise at 550 s, while the mass concentration started to rise

appreciably at 700 s. The number concentration peaked at about 1x106

 particles/cm3 at 1350 s

while the mass concentration reached a peak of about 65mg/m3 at 1200 s. The ionization

chambers followed the rise in number concentration, and reached voltage change peaks of 

0.7 V. 

Figure 181 shows the results for the case with the floor fan on. Five out of six photoelectric

alarms reached threshold values, the one farthest from the source did not. Four out of seven

ionization alarms reached threshold values, again, after photoelectric thresholds were met. 

Similar to the test above, only a very slight increase in air temperature, and decrease in relative

humidity was observed. The number concentration started to rise at 500 s, peaking at 4x105

particles/cm3, while the mass concentration started to rise at 700 s, peaking at 38 mg/m3. 

Ionization chamber 1 started to rise noticeably at 800 s, and peaking at about 1 volt above the

initial voltage at 1250 s. Chamber 2 started to rise at 1000 s and peaked 0.3 V above the initial

voltage at 1500 s.

The following generalizations characterize the smoldering wood blocks tests:

 • Photoelectric alarms reached thresholds earlier and at more locations than ionization

alarms.

 • The relatively high mass concentration and low number concentration levels suggest a

mean particle size larger than the smoldering cotton source. 
200

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

ABCD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

ION high

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

temperature

relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

2 105

4 105

6 105

8 105

1 106

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Mass 

Number 

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

0

2 105

4 105

6 105

8 105

1 106

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 180. Smoldering wood blocks - eight beech wood blocks on an electric hotplate, located

on the living room floor at the chair burn location. Fan was off. Power to hotplate on at t=0
201

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

ABCD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

ION high

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

temperature

relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

10

20

30

40

50

0

2 105

4 105

6 105

8 105

1 106

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Mass conc. (mg/m^3)

Number conc. (p/cm^3)

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

0

2 105

4 105

6 105

8 105

1 106

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 181. Smoldering wood blocks - eight beech wood blocks on an electric hotplate, located

on the living room floor at the chair burn location. Fan was on. Power to hotplate on at t=0

6.4.3 Polyurethane Foam Smolder

Blocks of polyurethane foam, (approximately 8 cm x 8 cm x 10 cm) were removed from a chair

cushion of the same type used in the smoldering chair fire scenario in the Home Smoke Alarm

tests. A single block was used in each smolder test. A slit was made in the foam at the center of

the 10 cm high block, and a nichrome heating wire (similar to the one used to ignite the chairs

for the smoldering fire tests) was inserted. Electric power was applied to the wire to cause the

foam block to smolder in the same manner as the fire tests discussed in section 3.3.2. 

Smoldering was allowed to proceed for approximately 15 min. The test was repeated three times

with the floor fan off and once with the floor fan on. 
202

Figure 182 shows the results for the first test run with the floor fan off. Several photoelectric

alarm thresholds were reached between 200 s and 400 s. Around 800 s all alarm thresholds were

reached, this corresponded to a transition from smoldering to flaming of the foam block. The air

temperature rose slightly until about 800 s where it rapidly rose by 10 EC following flaming of

the foam. The flaming period was short lived due to the limited amount of material to burn, and

the temperature dropped over the next 100 s. The relative humidity dropped by about 5 %

during the test. The mass concentration started to rise at 100 s, and by 250 s reached a local

peak of nearly 40 mg/m3

. By 500 s it had dropped down to about 10 mg/m3, then started rising

slowly again until 800 s when it rapidly shot up to a peak greater than 150 mg/m3. The number

concentration started to rise at 100 s and by 300 s had reached a value of 1x105 particles/cm3,

and remained steady until 800 s when it rapidly increased to a value of 4x106 particles/cm3. 

The ionization chambers showed an increase of 0.1 V from 100 s to 200 s. They remained

unchanged until 800 s when they shot up rapidly by over 2 V. 

Figure 183 shows the results for the second test run with the floor fan off. Two photoelectric

alarms reached threshold values before 200 s, but no other alarms did. The block of foam

initially smoldered vigorously, but as time went on, it apparently stopped. The test was stopped

at 800 s. The air temperature rise was on the order of 2 EC, while the relative humidity dropped

by about 5 %. The mass concentration started to rise at 100 s and reached a nominally steady

value of 6 mg/m3 at 400 s. The number concentration started to rise at about 80 s and reached a

maximum value of 9x104

 particles/m3 by the end of the test. During the test, the increases in the

ionization chambers voltages were 0.2 V and 0.05 V for chamber 1 and 2 respectively. 
203

0

200

400

600

800

ABCD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

ION high

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

temperature

relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

50

100

150

0

1 106

2 106

3 106

4 106

5 106

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Mass 

Number 

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

0

1 106

2 106

3 106

4 106

5 106

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number 

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 182. Smoldering foam - A polyurethane foam block, located on the living room floor at

the chair burn location and ignited with an electrically powered nichrome wire heater imbedded

in the block. Fan was off. Power to igniter on at t=0. Sample flamed at 798 s

Figure 184 shows the results for the third test run with the floor fan off. Three out of six

photoelectric alarms reached threshold values, the three closest to the source. Air temperature

rise was on the order of a couple of degrees Celsius, while the relative humidity dropped by

about 5 % during the test. The mass concentration started to rise steadily at 100 s and reached a

plateau of 13 mg/m3

 at 700 s. The number concentration started to increase around 50 s and

reached a plateau of almost 6x104

 particles/cm3 by 600 s. The spike in the mass concentration

and number concentration just after the 600 s mark could be due to a transient flame inside the

foam block. Flashing flames were observed in lab tests during smoldering of this chair foam. 

Sometimes the flashing led to sustained flaming, and sometimes not. Almost no change in either

ionization chamber voltage was observed. 
204

0

100

200

300

ABCD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

ION high

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

temperature

relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

2

4

6

8

10

0

2 104

4 104

6 104

8 104

1 105

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Mass 

Number

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

0

2 104

4 104

6 104

8 104

1 105

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number 

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 183. Smoldering foam - a polyurethane foam block, located on the living room floor at

the chair burn location and ignited with an electrically powered nichrome wire heater imbedded

in the block. Fan was off. Power to igniter on at t=0. Sample stopped smoldering

Figure 185 shows the results for the test run with the floor fan on. The three photoelectric

alarms closest to the source reached threshold values, no other alarms did. Same as the last test,

the air temperature rise was on the order of a couple of degrees Celsius, while the relative

humidity dropped by about 5 %. The mass and number concentration both started to rise around

50 s. The mass concentration reached a peak of about 30 mg/m3

 at 260 s, while the number

concentration reached a peak of 1.8x105

 particles/cm3 at 360 s. By 500 s both mass and number

concentration had leveled off to nearly steady values of 5 mg/m3

 and 1x105 particles/cm3

respectively. Ionization chambers reached peak values between 200 s and 300 s, with voltage

rises of 0.15 V and 0.2 V for chambers 1 and 2 respectively. 
205

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

ABCD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

ION high

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 200 400 600 800

temperature

relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

5

10

15

20

0

1 105

2 105

3 105

4 105

5 105

0 200 400 600 800

Mass 

Number

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

0

2 104

4 104

6 104

8 104

1 105

0 200 400 600 800

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 184. Smoldering foam - a polyurethane foam block, located on the living room floor at

the chair burn location and ignited with an electrically powered nichrome wire heater imbedded

in the block. Fan was on. Power to igniter on at t=0

The following generalizations characterize the smoldering foam tests:

 • This test showed a lot of variation in terms of smoke production.

 • The propensity was for photoelectric alarms to reach threshold values during smoldering,

and all alarms to reach thresholds after transition to flaming. 
206

0

100

200

300

400

500

ABCD E F G

PE low

PE mid

PE high

ION low

ION mid

ION high

Time to Alarm Threshold (s)

Alarm Location

20

25

30

35

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

temperature

relative humidity

Air Temperature ( oC)

Relative Humidity (%)

Time (s)

A

B

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

1 105

2 105

3 105

4 105

5 105

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Mass 

Number

Mass Concentration (mg/m3

)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

0

5 104

1 105

1.5 105

2 105

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Chamber 1

Chamber 2

Number

Ion Chamber (volts)

Number Concentration (particles/cm3

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 185. Smoldering foam - a polyurethane foam block, located on the living room floor at

the chair burn location and ignited with an electrically powered nichrome wire heater imbedded

in the block. Fan was on. Power to igniter on at t=0

The nuisance source test results performed here supported the two main conclusions drawn from

the field studies on nuisance alarms, the type of alarm (ionization or photoelectric) and the

location of the alarm (relative to the source) affect the frequency of nuisance alarms. 

Specifically, it was observed that the properties of the aerosol produced and its concentration

affect whether either type of alarm threshold would be met. A relatively high number

concentration of small particles is sufficient to produce nuisance alarms in ionization-type

detectors, while not causing photoelectric-type alarms to activate. A high mass concentration of

large particles can have the exact opposite outcome. In a quiescent environment only disturbed

by a cooking heat source, cigarette, candle flame, or smoldering source, a distinct trend of an

alarm’s location relative to a source, and the propensity to reach an alarm threshold was

observed. Forced flow conditions do not always follow that trend due to more rapid mixing,

dilution and the directional nature of the flow relative to the source and the alarms. 
207

6.5 FE/DE Emulation of Nuisance Sources

Several preliminary tests were performed in the FE/DE with the intent of reproducing similar

environments observed in the manufactured home tests above. The tests included toasting bread,

a burning candle, margarine and butter heated in a pan, smoldering cotton and wood blocks. The

data collected included the air temperature and relative humidity inside the test section, laser

light extinction, MIC current, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide concentration, barometric

pressure, flow velocity, and the output from two modified photo, ion, CO, thermistor units (D1

and D8, which were placed near the rear (location A) and front (location G) doors, respectively

in the manufactured home; see figure 141 for locations) 

The main objective of these tests was to demonstrate that important features of the selected

scenarios could be reproduced in the FE/DE. Reproduction of perfect time histories of smoke

and gas concentration, temperature and velocity at any detector location was not the goal. The

tests were run at two different fan flows which produce flow velocities on the order of what was

observed in the manufactured home test during no forced flow and forced flow tests (see section

6.3.1 for details of flow velocities). The results are presented below with a comparison to

observations in the manufactured home tests. 

6.5.1 Cotton Wick Calibration 

Two calibration tests using the staged wick ignition source were performed. These tests were

identical to the cotton wick calibration tests in section 5. The results are shown in figures

186 – 188. The electrochemical cell in D1 was not functioning properly and its results are not

presented. Notice that the MIC signal fluctuated in clean air conditions as well as during steady

smoke levels as shown in figure 187. This was caused by a problem in the picoammeter that was

used to monitor the MIC and transmit a scaled voltage signal to the FE/DE data acquisition

board. For this test and the FE/DE nuisance tests described below, this noisy MIC signal was

present, and thus the MIC signal should be viewed as a relative indication of how a MIC would

respond. Figure 186 shows repeated results for the photoelectric sensors compared to the laser

light extinction. The sensor from unit D1 rose from an initial value of zero, while the sensor

from unit D8 starts out at a value of about 5. An increase in the output for each of these sensors

of about five would be the alarm threshold equivalent to 2.5 % obscuration. Figure 187 shows

repeated results for the ionization sensors compared to the MIC output. For these sensors, a

decrease of 25 from the initial level would be the equivalent of about 1 %/ft obscuration. Figure

188 shows the results for the CO sensor in unit D1 compared to the CO concentration from the

gas analyzer for the repeated tests. The initial jump in the CO sensor response from zero to 10

was attributed to signal noise; this periodic noise was observed throughout the tests. The carbon

monoxide results are presented below, but no further discussion of the results will be made here.
208

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 500 1000 1500

Extinction

D1

D8

Extinction (m-1)

Photoelectric Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 500 1000 1500

Extinction

D1

D8

Extinction (m-1)

Photoelectric Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

A

B

Figure 186. Photoelectric sensor response to cotton smolder smoke calibration test.

A and B indicate repeated tests
209

0

20

40

60

80

100

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 500 1000 1500

MIC 

D1

D8

MIC Current (pA)

Ionization Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

0

20

40

60

80

100

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 500 1000 1500

MIC 

D1

D8

MIC Current (pA)

Ionization Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

A

B

Figure 187. Ionization sensor response to cotton smolder smoke calibration test.

A and B indicate repeated tests
210

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

10

20

30

40

50

0 500 1000 1500

Analyzer

D8

Carbon Monoxide Concentration

(Volume Fraction x106

)

CO Cell Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

10

20

30

40

50

0 500 1000 1500

Analyzer

D8

Carbon Monoxide Concentration

(Volume Fraction x106

)

CO Cell Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

A

B

Figure 188. Electrochemical cell CO sensor response to cotton smolder smoke

calibration test. A and B indicate repeated tests
211

6.5.2 Cotton Smolder Smoke Fire Scenario

The cotton smolder smoke scenario employed the same ignition sequence used in the

manufactured home tests, but with half of the number of wicks (16). Tests were conducted at

fan speeds of 7 Hz and 12 Hz, and each was repeated. The baffle plate was installed in the duct

upstream of the test section to produce turbulent flow characteristics similar to those observed in

the manufactured home tests. (The baffle plate was left in during all subsequent tests.) 

Figures 189 and 190 show results for repeat runs at a fan speed of 7 Hz. The extinction was

observed to peak at about 0.3 m-1 for the first test, and 0.5 m-1 for the second test. This

difference is attributed to variation in the time to ignition for the two sets of wicks. At about

500 s the wicks were approaching a steady burning rate. The photoelectric and ionization sensor

alarms reach threshold levels. Figure 191 and 192 show results for repeat runs at a fan speed of

12 Hz. Although the smoke concentration was lower due to the dilution with the higher duct

flow, both photoelectric and ionization alarms reach threshold levels. The photoelectric sensor

signal rise lags the rise in smoke concentration, and responds slower than the ionization sensor

for all of these tests. This is partially due to smoke entry lag into the photoelectric sensor and an

artifact from filtering the photoelectric sensor signals. 

Both the FE/DE results and the manufactured home results for sensor units near the source

achieve alarm threshold levels for both types of alarms during the ignition phase of the wicks

when the peak amount of smoke was produced. The smoke concentration in the upper layer of

the manufactured home continued to rise because it was a closed system. 

6.5.3 Wood Smolder Smoke Fire Scenario

The generation of wood smolder smoke was identical to the method used in the manufactured

home. Eight beech wood blocks were placed on the electric hot plate which was located at the

bottom of the vertical rise in the duct. At time = 0 the heater was turned on. Figures 193 to 196

show the results for repeated tests at 7 Hz and 12 Hz fan flows. 

The photoelectric sensors reach the alarm threshold levels slightly earlier than the ionization

sensors. In the manufactured home tests, photoelectric alarm thresholds were reached earlier

than the ionization alarm thresholds, but the time differential tended to be larger than what was

observed in the FE/DE tests due to the inherently smaller volume of the FE/DE apparatus.
212

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 100 200 300 400 500

Extinction

MIC 

Extinction (m-1)

MIC Current (pA)

Time (s)

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 100 200 300 400 500

Extinction 

D1

D8

Extinction (m-1)

Photoelectric Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

A

B

0

20

40

60

80

100

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 100 200 300 400 500

MIC 

D1

D8

MIC Current (pA)

Ionization Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

10

20

30

40

50

0 100 200 300 400 500

Analyzer

D8

Carbon Monoxide Concentration

(Volume Fraction x106

)

CO Cell Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 189. Smoldering cotton fire scenario, fan speed 7 Hz
213

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 100 200 300 400 500

Extinction

MIC

Extinction (m-1)

MIC Current (pA)

Time (s)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 100 200 300 400 500

Extinction

D1

D8

Extinction (m-1)

Photoelectric Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

A

B

0

20

40

60

80

100

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 100 200 300 400 500

MIC 

D1

D8

MIC Current (pA)

Ionization Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

10

20

30

40

50

0 100 200 300 400 500

Analyzer

D8

Carbon Monoxide Concentration

(Volume Fraction x106

)

CO Cell Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 190. Smoldering cotton fire scenario, fan speed 7 Hz
214

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Extinction 

MIC 

Extinction (m-1)

MIC Current (pA)

Time (s)

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0

5

10

15

20

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Extinction 

D1

D8

Extinction (m-1)

Photoelectric Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

A

B

0

20

40

60

80

100

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

MIC 

D1

D8

MIC Current (pA)

Ionization Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

0

50

100

150

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Analyzer

D8

Carbon Monoxide Concentration

(Volume Fraction x106

)

CO Cell Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 191. Smoldering cotton fire scenario, fan speed 12Hz
215

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Extinction 

MIC 

Extinction (m-1)

MIC Current (pA)

Time (s)

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Extinction

D1

D8

Extinction (m-1)

Photoelectric Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

A

B

0

20

40

60

80

100

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

MIC 

D1

D8

MIC Current (pA)

Ionization Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

0

50

100

150

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Analyzer

D8

Carbon Monoxide Concentration

(Volume Fraction x106

)

CO Cell Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 192. Smoldering cotton fire scenario, fan speed 12 Hz
216

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 500 1000 1500

Extinction 

MIC 

Extinction (m-1)

MIC Current (pA)

Time (s)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 500 1000 1500

Extinction 

D1

D8

Extinction (m-1)

Photoelectric Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

A

B

0

20

40

60

80

100

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 500 1000 1500

MIC 

D1

D8

MIC Current (pA)

Ionization Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

0

20

40

60

80

100

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 500 1000 1500

Analyzer

D8

Carbon Monoxide Concentration

(Volume Fraction x106

)

CO Cell Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 193. Smoldering wood fire scenario, fan speed 7 Hz
217

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 500 1000 1500

Extinction 

MIC 

Extinction (m-1)

MIC Current (pA)

Time (s)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 500 1000 1500

Extinction

D1

D8

Extinction (m-1)

Photoelectric Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

A

B

0

20

40

60

80

100

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 500 1000 1500

MIC 

D1

D8

MIC Current (pA)

Ionization Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

0

20

40

60

80

100

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 500 1000 1500

Analyzer

D8

Carbon Monoxide Concentration

(Volume Fraction x106

)

CO Cell Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 194. Smoldering wood fire scenario, fan speed 7 Hz
218

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 500 1000 1500

Extinction 

MIC

Extinction (m-1)

MIC Current (pA)

Time (s)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 500 1000 1500

Extinction 

D1

D8

Extinction (m-1)

Photoelectric Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

A

B

0

20

40

60

80

100

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 500 1000 1500

MIC

D1

D8

MIC Current (pA)

Ionization Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 500 1000 1500

Analyzer

D8

Carbon Monoxide Concentration

(Volume Fraction x106

)

CO Cell Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 195. Smoldering wood fire scenario, fan speed 12 Hz
219

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 500 1000 1500

Extinction 

MIC 

Extinction (m-1)

MIC Current (pA)

Time (s)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 500 1000 1500

Extinction 

D1

D8

Extinction (m-1)

Photoelectric Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

A

B

0

20

40

60

80

100

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 500 1000 1500

MIC 

D1

D8

MIC Current (pA)

Ionization Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 500 1000 1500

Analyzer

Carbon Monoxide Concentration

(Volume Fraction x106

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 196. Smoldering wood fire scenario, fan speed 12 Hz
220

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 100 200 300 400 500

Extinction 

MIC 

Extinction (m-1)

MIC Current (pA)

Time (s)

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 100 200 300 400 500

Extinction 

D1

D8

Extinction (m-1)

Photoelectric Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

A

B

50

60

70

80

90

100

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

0 100 200 300 400 500

MIC 

D1

D8

MIC Current (pA)

Ionization Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

0

5

10

15

20

0 100 200 300 400 500

Analyzer

Carbon Monoxide Concentration

(Volume Fraction x106

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 197. Candle flame , fan speed 7 Hz

6.5.4 Candle Flame Nuisance Scenario

A single tea candle, the same brand used in the manufactured home tests, was placed in the

FE/DE duct and lit. Figure 197 shows the results. This produced a slight decrease in the MIC

output and in the ionization sensors, but not sufficient for an ionization alarm threshold. There

was no observable light extinction. These observations mirror the manufactured home results,

where no alarm thresholds were met. Only an increase in aerosol number concentration and a

slight rise in the ionization chambers were evident. 
221

6.5.5 Heated Margarine or Butter Nuisance Scenario

In these tests, a portable, thermostatically controlled, 15 cm diameter electric hotplate was used

to heat either 1⁄2 tablespoon of margarine or butter placed in a 15 cm diameter cast-iron frying

pan. All tests were performed at a fan flow of 7 Hz.

Figures 198 to 200 show the results. No ionization alarm thresholds were reached during the

margarine tests or the butter test. Photoelectric thresholds were reached during one margarine

test and the butter test. 

The FE/DE tests are somewhat different than the manufactured home tests in that the hot plate

used in the FE/DE did not apparently heat up the cast-iron pan to temperatures reached on the

cast-iron pan placed on the electric range. The thermostat in the portable hot plate does not let

the temperature reach a level where the margarine or butter will smoke heavily. 

6.5.6 Toasting Bread Nuisance Scenario

The same toaster and brand of bread that was used in the manufactured home tests was used in

the FE/DE tests. The only difference was that one slice of bread was used in the FE/DE tests. 

For these tests, the toaster was turned on at 60 s and turned off at 300 s. Three tests at a fan

speed of 7 Hz and two tests at 12 Hz were performed.

The results are shown in figures 201 to 205. Consistent with the manufactured home tests, both

ionization and photoelectric alarm thresholds were reached, with the ionization alarms thresholds

reached first. The delays between the extinction measurements and the photoelectric sensor

signals were evident during all of the tests. 
222

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Extinction 

MIC 

Extinction (m-1)

MIC Current (pA)

Time (s)

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Extinction 

D1

Extinction (m-1)

Photoelectric Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

A

B

0

20

40

60

80

100

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

MIC 

D1

MIC Current (pA)

Ionization Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 100 200 300 400 500

Analyzer

Carbon Monoxide Concentration

(Volume Fraction x106

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 198. Margarine heated in a pan , fan speed 7 Hz
223

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Extinction

MIC 

Extinction (m-1)

MIC Current (pA)

Time (s)

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Extinction 

D1

D8

Extinction (m-1)

Photoelectric Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

A

B

0

20

40

60

80

100

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

MIC

D1

D8

MIC Current (pA)

Ionization Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 100 200 300 400 500

Analyzer

Carbon Monoxide Concentration

(Volume Fraction x106

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 199. Margarine heated in a pan, fan speed 7 Hz
224

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Extinction 

MIC

Extinction (m-1)

MIC Current (pA)

Time (s)

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Extinction 

D1

D8

Extinction (m-1)

Photoelectric Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

A

B

0

20

40

60

80

100

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

MIC 

D1

D8

MIC Current (pA)

Ionization Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Analyzer

Carbon Monoxide Concentration

(Volume Fraction x106

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 200. Butter heated in a pan, fan speed 7 Hz
225

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 100 200 300 400 500

Extinction 

MIC 

Extinction (m-1)

MIC Current (pA)

Time (s)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 100 200 300 400 500

Extinction

D1

D8

Extinction (m-1)

Photoelectric Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

A

B

0

20

40

60

80

100

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 100 200 300 400 500

MIC 

D1

D8

MIC Current (pA)

Ionization Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 100 200 300 400 500

Analyzer

Carbon Monoxide Concentration

(Volume Fraction x106

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 201. Bread in a toaster, fan speed 7 Hz
226

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 100 200 300 400 500

Extinction

MIC 

Extinction (m-1)

MIC Current (pA)

Time (s)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0

50

100

150

200

0 100 200 300 400 500

Extinction 

D8

Extinction (m-1)

Photoelectric Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

A

B

0

20

40

60

80

100

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 100 200 300 400 500

MIC 

D1

D8

MIC Current (pA)

Ionization Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 100 200 300 400 500

Analyzer

Carbon Monoxide Concentration

(Volume Fraction x106

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 202. Bread in a toaster, fan speed 7 Hz
227

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 100 200 300 400 500

Extinction 

MIC 

Extinction (m-1)

MIC Current (pA)

Time (s)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 100 200 300 400 500

Extinction 

D1

D8

Extinction (m-1)

Photoelectric Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

A

B

0

20

40

60

80

100

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 100 200 300 400 500

MIC 

D1

D8

MIC Current (pA)

Ionization Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 100 200 300 400 500

Analyzer

Carbon Monoxide Concentration

(Volume Fraction x106

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 203. Bread in a toaster, fan speed 7 Hz
228

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 100 200 300 400 500

Extinction 

Extinction (mMIC 

-1)

MIC Current (pA)

Time (s)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 100 200 300 400 500

Extinction 

D1

D8

Extinction (m-1)

Photoelectric Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

A

B

0

20

40

60

80

100

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 100 200 300 400 500

MIC 

D1

D8

MIC Current (pA)

Ionization Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 100 200 300 400 500

Analyzer

Carbon Monoxide Concentration

(Volume Fraction x106

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 204. Bread in a toaster, fan speed 12 Hz
229

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 100 200 300 400 500

Extinction

Extinction (m

MIC 

-1)

MIC Current (pA)

Time (s)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 100 200 300 400 500

Extinction 

D1

D8

Extinction (m-1)

Photoelectric Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

A

B

0

20

40

60

80

100

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 100 200 300 400 500

MIC 

D1

D8

MIC Current (pA)

Ionization Output

(arbitrary units)

Time (s)

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 100 200 300 400 500

Analyzer

Carbon Monoxide Concentration

(Volume Fraction x106

)

Time (s)

C

D

Figure 205. Bread in a toaster, fan speed 12 Hz
230
231

7 Discussion

In 1975, the Indiana Dunes study pioneered the idea of measuring the performance of home

smoke alarms by the amount of escape time provided. Escape time is the time between the

device alarm and the occurrence of untenable conditions at any point along the primary escape

path – generally the corridors and stairs leading from the sleeping rooms to the egress door. 

While building codes require that sleeping rooms have a secondary exit, usually a window of

sufficient size and within 6 m (20 ft) of grade [42], experience shows that these are rarely used to

escape home fires. Thus, calculating the time between alarm activation and the onset of

untenable conditions represents the performance metric most appropriate to evaluating the

performance of smoke alarms in residences.

7.1 Smoke Alarm Activation Time

Smoke alarm requirements in building codes and standards require multiple devices depending

on the size and arrangement of the dwelling. Thus, when determining the performance of smoke

alarms, the escape time provided by any single device is not (necessarily) appropriate. Rather

the escape time provided by the first of several devices at specific locations cited in the codes is

the appropriate parameter to report.

For existing homes (and all homes, prior to 1993) smoke alarms are required outside the sleeping

rooms and on each additional story of the home. This arrangement will be referred to as “every

level” and represents the minimum arrangement allowed by code. In 1993 the National Fire

Alarm Code (NFPA 72) was revised to require smoke alarms in every bedroom for new

construction in addition to the every level locations, in order to improve audibility in bedrooms

where occupants sleep with the door closed and to provide warning to the occupants of

bedrooms with closed doors when the fire starts in that bedroom. We will refer to this

arrangement as “every level + bedrooms.” The greatest escape times would be produced by a

smoke alarm in the room of fire origin, but this would be guaranteed only if smoke alarms were

required in every room – an arrangement that has never been required in any code. Thus the

“every room” result represents the best possible performance that can be compared to “every

level” as the minimum performance as a function of number and location. 

Alarm times for heat alarms and residential sprinklers are always based on the activation of

devices in the room of fire origin. NFPA 72 allows the use of heat alarms on an individual basis

(for example, in locations where smoke alarms are not appropriate - in an attic). Similarly, some

rooms - e.g., bathrooms, some closets - are not required to have sprinklers in a code-compliant

home sprinkler system (NFPA 13D). All fires in these test series were in normally-occupied
232

spaces of the structures (living room, bedroom, or kitchen). Placement of heat alarms and

residential sprinklers in these spaces is consistent with the appropriate codes.

Tables 23 and 24 shows a summary of alarm activation times for all of the tests. For each alarm

technology and fire scenario, the average time to alarm is shown for typical alarm criteria

(4.3 %/m for ionization alarms and 6.6 %/m for photoelectric alarms). For the manufactured

home tests, each alarm time value is an average of available replicates. For the two-story home

tests, only the flaming chair was replicated; all other data are single-test values. 

Tables 23 and 24 also include alarm response times for three different alarm placement analyses

described earlier: “Every Level,” “Every Level + Bedrooms,” and “Every Room.” For the

“Every Level” placement, alarms in hallways of each structure are included. For the “Every

Level + Bedrooms” placement, these alarms are supplemented with alarms included in all the

bedrooms of the structure. Finally, the “Every Room” placement included every alarm in all

rooms of the structure. 

The “Every Level” alarm placement provides a comparison of different smoke alarms and fire

scenarios. For flaming fires, the ionization alarms provided the first alarms for all flaming

scenarios except the flaming mattress with the door closed in the two-story home. Alarm times

for the flaming fires range from 61 s to 188 s, depending on the specific fire scenario and

dwelling geometry. For the flaming mattress with door-closed scenario, the sprinkler directly

above the fire responded first, with alarms outside the room of fire origin following later since

flow out of the room was limited to leakage around the door. Photoelectric and ionization alarms

provided comparable alarm times with 186 s and 188 s respectively. Other alarms responded at

later times. For smoldering fires, the photoelectric alarms provide shorter alarm times compared

to other technologies. Alarm times range from 1114 s to 3470 s, depending on the fire scenario

and dwelling geometry. In all but one smoldering test, photoelectric alarms provided the first

alarm (for the smoldering chair in the two-story home, the aspirated alarm uses photoelectric

alarm technology and for the smoldering mattress in the two-story home, the photoelectric alarm

in the dual alarm responds first). For the cooking oil tests, an ionization alarm responded first in

the manufactured home while the photoelectric aspirated alarm responded first in the two-story

home test.

Providing alarms in the bedrooms in addition to the “Every Level” alarm placement (the “Every

Level + Bedroom” alarm placement) reduces the time to alarm for every fire scenario and most

alarm technologies, providing an additional 3 s to 923 s of available egress time, depending on

the fire scenario. Not surprisingly, alarm times for the bedroom fire scenarios were most affected

by the additional alarms since alarms were now included for the room of fire origin. For all but

one fire scenario, the same alarm technology was the first to respond in the “Every Level +

Bedroom” alarm placement compared to the “Every Level” alarm placement. For this exception,
233

one of the Dual Ion/Photo alarms in the bedroom in one test responded earlier than other alarms

and moved the average alarm time downward. Other alarms responded shortly after this alarm.

In the “Every Room” alarm placement, all alarms in the structures were included in the

calculations. For the photoelectric and ionization alarms, no additional reduction in alarm time

was noted for the bedroom fire scenarios since the bedroom alarms were already included in the

“Every Level + Bedroom” alarm placement. Some additional reduction in alarm times for

flaming fire scenarios was expected due to placement of alarms in the room of fire origin for

these scenarios.

Alarm placement had the greatest impact on reducing alarm time when alarms in the room of fire

origin were included in the scenario. For bedroom fires, the greatest reduction was noted in the

“Every Level + Bedrooms” placement scenario. For living room or kitchen fires, the reduction

occurred in the “Every Room” placement. Few changes were noted for other alarm locations. In

both test geometries, this is likely due to the simple geometries and initial alarm placement. For

the manufactured home, the structure is essentially a single large compartment with bedrooms at

either end of the structure. Thus, including additional alarms in the main compartment of the

structure would be expected to have a minor impact on time to alarm. For the two-story home,

there was no soffit between the living room and the stairwell to the upstairs level of the home. 

Thus, in most fires, alarms in the upstairs hallway of the home, included in the “Every Level”

placement, were the first to alarm. Additional alarm locations in other location outside the room

of fire origin thus had only a small impact on alarm time. For more complex geometries, the

impact of alarm placement can be expected to be more pronounced.
Every Level Installation Criterion

Flaming Photo Ion Dual Ion/Photo Aspirated

Living Room 131 73 77 138Bedroom 96 61 186 121Bedroom (Door Closed) 619 172 630 643SmolderingLiving Room 4615 4829 4605 4541Bedroom 2622 3631 3471 2997CookingKitchen 766 520 912 1172Every Level + Bedrooms Installation Criterion Change from EvFlaming Photo Ion Dual Ion/Photo Aspirated Photo Ion 

Io

Living Room 125 60 68 138 -5 -13 Bedroom 78 37 186 121 -18 -25 Bedroom (Door Closed) 84 34 619 643 -535 -138 SmolderingLiving Room 3856 4695 4304 4541 -759 -134 Bedroom 2179 3618 3471 2997 -443 -13 CookingKitchen 764 520 539 1172 -3 -- Every Room Installation Criterion Change from Every LeFlaming Photo Ion Dual Ion/Photo Aspirated Photo Ion 

Io

Living Room 92 28 77 n.a -22 -22 Bedroom 78 37 104 n.a -- -- Bedroom (Door Closed) 84 34 134 n.a -- -- SmolderingLiving Room 2552 4402 4304 n.a -1304 -293 Bedroom 2179 3618 3429 n.a -- -- CookingKitchen 691 487 539 n.a -73 -33 

Table. 23. Average time to alarm (in seconds) for several smoke alarms and fire scenarios in a manu

234
235

Every Level Installation Criterion

Flaming Photo Ion Dual Ion/Photo Aspirated

Living Room 107 70 553 553

Bedroom 404 30 404 404

Bedroom (Door Closed) 186 164 3602 3602

Smoldering

Living Room 1542 4824 1508 1424

Living w/AC 1366 4192 2030 2072

Cooking

Kitchen 880 1554 898 858

Every Level + Bedrooms Installation Criterion

Flaming Photo Ion Dual Ion/Photo Aspirated

Living Room 107 70 553 553

Bedroom 98 30 82 404

Bedroom (Door Closed) 186 164 3602 3602

Smoldering

Living Room 1542 4824 1508 1424

Living w/AC 1338 4192 2030 2072

Cooking

Kitchen 880 1554 898 858

Every Room Installation Criterion

Flaming Photo Ion Dual Ion/Photo Aspirated

Living Room 107 70 307 330

Bedroom 98 30 82 404

Bedroom (Door Closed) 186 164 3602 3602

Smoldering

Living Room 1542 4824 1508 1424

Living w/AC 1338 4192 2030 2072

Cooking

Kitchen 880 1290 876 828

Table 24. Average time to alarm (in seconds) for several smoke alarms and

fire scenarios in a two-story home
236

7.2 Tenability Times

For this report, the tenability time is when the first tenability limit is exceeded 1.5 m (5 ft) from

the floor at any point along the primary escape path. It should be noted that the conditions at the

instrument locations nearest to and in the same room as the fire were excluded since the codes

are not designed to protect people intimate with the initial fire. The tolerance of people to fire

conditions is a subject of considerable debate worldwide, because it has significant implications

for public safety and for product liability. Deciding on appropriate tolerance limits is highly

complex because of the broad variability among people and the need for conservatism to protect

the more vulnerable portions of any population.

This topic has been the subject of current work by an international committee of experts working

as ISO Technical Committee (TC) 92, subcommittee (SC) 3. This group has published a

technical standard, ISO TS 13571 [26], that recommends limits of human tolerance to fire

products. These limits are also consistent with the recommendations in the SFPE Handbook of

Fire Protection Engineering [23]. Limits for elevated temperature and toxic gas species were

taken from ISO TS 13571. For smoke obscuration, an optical density of 0.25 m-1 was used as a

tenability criterion, a value typically used by the smoke alarm industry.

It should be noted that ISO TS 13571 is considered by most (including its principle authors) to

be highly conservative, stating that the “... values are intended to assure with high confidence

that even vulnerable people will not be incapacitated, then killed.” Thus, any observations based

on analyses using these values may look much worse than what would be seen in actual use

because tenability is based on the most susceptible of the population. The ISO TS 13571 values

represent the best, international consensus so they were used for the primary analysis, but the

data has been made available so that others can examine the impact of other limits.

7.3 Time Needed for Escape

As with the original Indiana Dunes tests this report does not select a value of time needed for

escape since this is highly variable and is a function of the age and condition of the occupants,

travel distances, behavior affecting pre-movement times, etc. An independent analysis of the

Indiana Dunes data in 1975 [43] chose 3 min as an (arbitrary) reference number. A subsequent

study funded by NIST at the University of Massachusetts (Amherst) [44] found average times

needed to awaken sleeping occupants, phone the fire department, and evacuate all family

members was about 50 s for families with children and nearly 70 seconds for the elderly.

This section will address escape times for best and worst case fire scenarios occurring in both the

manufactured and 2-story homes. The evacuation of occupants in any occupancy consists of a
237

series of actions beginning with cues received from the fire situation to eventual movement out

of the building or refuge within the space. This escape time analysis assumes that the initial cue 

is provided by the smoke alarm and that the occupants have received, recognized, and

interpreted this and other cues of the fire situation. It is difficult to establish a quantitative result

for escape time. Movement time has been monitored and recorded in a number of studies, and

especially in residential cases, it is simple to obtain an occupant velocity for unimpeded flow

(low density). Premovement times, on the other hand, are more difficult to obtain since these

response times are not only dependent on the fire situation, but also on the layout of the house,

time of day, placement of items in relation to occupants (such as clothes, phone, personal

effects), position of occupants in relation to each other (i.e., are the children in the same room,

hiding in a closet in the house), and the role of the person(s) in the house in times of emergency

(i.e., will they investigate, gather others). 

7.3.1 Movement Speed

Movement speeds are calculated using the maximum (unimpeded) exit flow speeds (table 3-14.4

in SFPE Handbook [45]). The population density of the space is low, therefore maximum

speeds are considered to be possible. The maximum speed along a horizontal exit route is

1.2 m/s (235 ft/min). The stairs in the two-story home have 18 cm (7 in) risers and 28 cm (11 in)

treads, which corresponds to a maximum travel speed of 0.95 m/s (187 ft/min). Stair travel

speeds only apply to the two-story dwelling. 

For elderly occupants, Ando [46] investigated unimpeded horizontal movement times and

determined that travel speed for males and females was dependant upon age. A female around

the age of 30, to signify a young occupant, would move at a velocity of 1.2 m/s (235 ft/min) and

a female at the age of 70 years would move at approximately 0.75 m/s (148 ft/min). The

younger occupant's speed agrees with the SFPE handbook's value for unimpeded movement over

horizontal components. Proulx [47] performed a study of drilled-evacuation from four

apartment buildings and summarized that occupants over 65 years old moved through the

stairway at an unimpeded velocity of 0.43 m/s (85 ft/min). 

7.3.2 Premovement Activities

Bryan [48], Wood [49], and Keating [50] have studied premovement actions of residential

occupancies after the recognition phase has been completed. These actions (in no specific order)

may be divided among the parental unit or taken on by a single person within the household and

are the following: notifying others, getting dressed, calling the fire department, investigating,

fighting the fire, and leaving. Wood states that the more serious a resident considers the fire to

be, the more likely he/she is to leave the building immediately. Also, in his studies, he found

that familiarity with the residence did not affect whether a person attempted to immediately exit

the building or first retrieve personal items. In a 3 year study of Seattle residents, Keating found
238

Activity Response Time (s) for young adults

Dressing - putting on robe 6 to 10

Calling fire department 15

Obtaining personal items (wallet, keys) 5 to 10

Awakening loved ones 5 to 10 per child

Table 25. Sample premovement activity time

that men were more likely to fight the fire, while women were more likely to request information

(which could involve notifying others, the fire department, etc). However, since this study

occurred more than 20 years ago, it is not clear that this trend would be presently observed. 

Pearson and Joost [51]observed that premovement and movement times will be increased for

those scenarios which include elderly occupants. They studied response times during the day

and night of young adults in good health, elderly in good health, and elderly with arthritic

impairments in a residential experimental facility. When comparing total egress times of all

scenarios, the elderly subjects in good health took approximately 27 % longer and the arthritic

subjects took 44 % longer than the young adult subjects to perform scenario behaviors and

movements. Some response activities noted by Pearson and Joost were accompanied by

estimated time. Again, these depend on the situation and are only included to give the reader

some idea of the time taken to perform the activities shown in table 25 .

7.3.3 Escape Times

For both the two-story home and the manufactured home, several scenarios representing the

shortest escape time, as well as a worst case were calculated. These calculated escape times

represent reasonable lower and upper bounds, although shorter and longer escape times may be

possible. The best case scenario for the manufactured home is an accidental fire where the 

occupants are located in the kitchen and begin evacuation immediately upon alarm activation. 

The worst case scenario includes an arthritic elderly couple asleep at the time of fire ignition. 

One child is present in each bedroom. It is important to note that there is no feedback between

the fire and the occupants accounted for in this calculation. This may extend the escape time

significantly.

In the manufactured home, a worst-case evacuation would involve one or both occupants

walking from bedroom 2, through the kitchen, through the living room, into bedroom 1, then into

bedroom 3, and finally out through the living room door. This is estimated to be 41 m (135 ft). 
239

Distances are taken as straight lines (excluding obstacles) and are measured from the furthest

corner in any room to the room door. A 41 m travel distance would take an elderly occupant

approximately 55 s to traverse at 0.75 m/s. Prior to egress initiation, the occupants are assumed

to dress, call the fire department, obtain personal items, and awaken both children. The

cumulative response time (as opposed to the movement time) would be 55 s for a young adult

family with 2 children to retrieve. For the elderly response times, multiplying 55 s by 1.44 gives

a value of 80 s. Thus, the total escape time would be approximately (55 s + 80 s) or 135 s. 

For the 2-story dwelling, movement of an elderly couple from the master bedroom, to bedroom

3, to bedroom 2, to the stairs, and out the front door totaled 33.7 m (110 ft) on horizontal

surfaces and 5.8 m (19 ft) on the stairs. The movement time for the elderly arthritic couple with

two young children present is 58 s. The premovement time for the two-story home would be

identical to that of the manufactured home. Thus, the total worst case escape time for the twostory home is (58 + 80) or 138 s. 

For the best case scenario, movement times in the manufactured home were calculated for the

scenarios that would take the shortest amount of time to complete. This includes a young couple

making dinner in the kitchen which results in an accidental grease fire. The distance to evacuate

from the kitchen fire is approximately 2.7 m (9 ft.). The kitchen evacuation would take

approximately 3 s to 5 s. Pre-movement time was assumed to be 0 s. In the two-story home, 

the young couple accidently starts a fire. The distance to evacuate from the kitchen is

approximately 11 m (36 ft). The kitchen evacuation would take approximately 10 s. 

Additional scenarios are presented in table 26. The young family at night scenario is identical to

the worst case scenario, except that the young family moves more quickly and takes less time

performing premovement tasks. Additionally, the elderly couple in the kitchen would require a

somewhat longer time than the young couple in order to evacuate the home from the kitchen. In

conclusion, the manufactured home will require 5 s to 135 s of escape time in order to

reasonably protect the occupants. The two-story home will require approximately 10 s to 140 s

of escape time. Note that escape times are sensitive to building geometry and occupant behavior

assumptions.
240

Scenario Premovement Time (s) Movement Time (s) Total Escape Time (s)

M. Home Two-Story M. Home Two-Story M. Home Two-Story

Worst Case

Young

family at

night

55 55 35 35 90 90

Elderly

family at

night

80 80 55 60 135 140

Best Case

Young

couple in

kitchen

– a -- 5 10 5 10

Elderly

couple in

kitchen

-- -- 10 15 10 15

a – best case scenarios neglect any premovement activity; actual escape times are likely to be longer than best

case estimates

Table 26. Estimates of required escape times for best and worst case scenarios

7.4 Smoke Alarm Performance

Table 27 and figures 206 to 208 present the average (for different alarm times of the same type

and multiple tests of each scenario) available egress times for ion, photo, aspirated, and CO

alarms as a function of installation requirement (every level, every level + bedrooms, and every

room) and fire type (flaming, smoldering, and grease), for the manufactured home tests (tests

SDC01 to SDC15 and SDC30 to SDC41). Table 28 includes equivalent results for the two-story

home. For heat alarms and sprinklers, only a single location in the room of fire origin was

included in the tests. Escape times are calculated as the time to the first alarm activation (for

that type of alarm) minus the time to untenable conditions. Negative numbers thus indicate that

tenability criteria were exceeded prior to alarm activation. Discussion in this section focuses on

the manufactured home tests. Smoke alarm activation times and test tenability times for the two

story tests were similar to comparable tests in the manufactured home and are available to

facilitate similar analyses for this structure. Appendix B provides detailed data for alarm

activation and test tenability.

Increasing alarm coverage from every level to every level plus bedrooms provides room of

origin protection for mattress scenarios since the mattress was located in one of the bedrooms.

For chair scenarios, this addition would not indicate an increase in protection for the current test

series since chairs were never located in bedrooms in these tests.
241

On average, the photoelectric alarms provided positive available egress time for all

manufactured home fire scenarios, with available safe egress times ranging from 58 s to 2234 s. 

Ionization type alarms, on average, provided positive escape times for all tested fire scenarios

except the smoldering chair (ranging from -43 s to 1036 s). The ionization alarms did not,

however, provide positive available egress time in every test for the smoldering chair scenarios

when the alarms were located on every level. On average, dual mode alarms using both the

photoelectric and ionization principles provided positive escape times except for the flaming

mattress (ranging from –10 s to 1445 s). It is interesting to note that the dual-mode alarms

provided a typically slower response than ionization alarms to flaming fires; likely due to a more

complex design of the dual-mode alarm. Ionization type smoke alarms provided the longest

egress times for flaming (and grease) fires and photoelectric smoke alarms provided the longest

escape times for smoldering fires. Similar trends are seen for the two-story home tests, with

ionization alarms providing the longest egress times for flaming fires.

As expected, alarm placement can effect the available safe egress time. For the manufactured

home tests, including alarms in bedrooms or in every room in addition to those on every level

increases average available safe egress time by 3 s to 1300 s, depending upon fire scenario,

alarm type, and alarm placement. Greater increases are noted for photoelectric (up to 1304 s) or

dual photoelectric / ionization alarms (up to 923 s) than for the ionization alarms (up to 293 s). 

The change from every level placement to every level + bedrooms provided the greatest typical

increase, averaging 294 s, 64 s, and 329 s additional egress time for the photoelectric, ionization,

and dual photoelectric / ionization alarms, respectively. No increase was seen for the aspirated

photoelectric detector. This may be due to the periodic sampling of this detector. For the twostory home tests, the effect was far less pronounced. This is likely due to the interior design of

the home. For fires downstairs, the upstairs hallway alarms were typically the first to respond

since there was not soffit to impede smoke flow from the first floor into the stairwell to the

alarms at the top of the stairs.
Every Level Installation Criterion

Flaming Photo Ion Dual Ion/Photo Aspirated

Living Room 85 142 138 78Bedroom 58 93 39 45Bedroom (Door Closed) 451 898 958 427SmolderingLiving Room 172 -43 182 245Bedroom 1364 102 344 716CookingKitchen 575 821 899 170Every Level + Bedrooms Installation Criterion Change froFlaming Photo Ion Dual Ion/Photo Aspirated Photo 

Living Room 90 155 138 78 5 Bedroom 76 118 39 45 18 Bedroom (Door Closed) 986 1036 980 427 535 SmolderingLiving Room 930 91 483 245 759 Bedroom 1534 95 339 724 171 CookingKitchen 578 821 803 170 3 Every Room Installation Criterion Change from EveFlaming Photo Ion Dual Ion/Photo Aspirated Photo 

Living Room 123 188 138 n.a 33 Bedroom 76 118 50 n.a -- Bedroom (Door Closed) 986 1036 936 n.a -- SmolderingLiving Room 2234 384 483 n.a 1304 2Bedroom 1534 95 284 n.a -- CookingKitchen 651 855 803 n.a 73 

n.a. – no additional alarm included of this type

Table. 27. Available egress time (in seconds) for several different alarm technologies and fire scenarios in 

242
243

Every Level Installation Criterion

Flaming Photo Ion Dual

Ion/Photo Aspirated

Living Room 108 152 -448 –

Living Room (Replicate) 134 172 -96 –

Living Room (FullyFurnished) 144 172 – –

Bedroom – 374 – –

Bedroom (Door Closed) 3416 3438 – –

Smoldering

Living Room 3298 16 3332 3416

Living Room (Air

Conditioning) 2772 -54 2108 2066

Cooking

Kitchen 952 278 934 974

Every Level + Bedrooms Installation Criterion

Flaming Photo Ion Dual

Ion/Photo Aspirated

Living Room 108 152 -448 –

Living Room (Replicate) 134 172 -96 –

Living Room (FullyFurnished) 144 172 – –

Bedroom (Door Closed) 3416 3438 – –

Smoldering

Living Room 3298 16 3332 3416

Living Room (Air

Conditioning) 2800 -54 2108 2066

Cooking

Kitchen 952 278 934 974

Every Room Installation Criterion

Flaming Photo Ion Dual

Ion/Photo Aspirated

Living Room 108 152 102 –

Living Room (Replicate) 134 172 96 –

Living Room (FullyFurnished) 144 172 – –

Bedroom (Door Closed) 3416 3438 – –

Smoldering

Living Room 3298 16 3332 n.a.

Living Room (Air

Conditioning) 2800 -54 2108 n.a.

Cooking

Kitchen 952 542 956 n.a.

n.a. – no additional alarm included of this type

Table 28. Available egress time (in seconds) for several different alarm technologies and fire

scenarios in a two-story home
244

Range of Required

Egress Time

Flaming Smoldering Cooking

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Living Room Bedroom Bedroom (Door

Closed)

Living Room Bedroom Kitchen

Available Egress Time (s)

Photo

Ion

Dual Ion/Photo

Aspirated

Figure 206. Average available egress time for several different alarm and fire types

with alarms on every level for manufactured home tests

Range of Required

Egress Time

Flaming Smoldering Cooking

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Living Room Bedroom Bedroom (Door

Closed)

Living Room Bedroom Kitchen

Available Egress Time (s)

Photo

Ion

Dual Ion/Photo

Aspirated

Figure 207. Average available egress time for several different alarm and fire types

with alarms on every level + bedrooms for manufactured home tests
245

Range of Required

Egress Time

Flaming Smoldering Cooking

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Living Room Bedroom Bedroom (Door

Closed)

Living Room Bedroom Kitchen

Available Egress Time (s)

Photo

Ion

Dual Ion/Photo

Aspirated

Figure 208. Average available egress time for several different alarm and

fire types with alarms in every room for manufactured home tests

It is important to note that there is uncertainty in the estimates of available egress time as noted

in section 5.7. For some of the tests, these times were relatively short and in some cases

overlapped estimates of the time needed for egress from the buildings. For the most complex

egress scenarios (with occupants asleep in all of the bedrooms) with the most sensitive

populations (elderly adults with young children requiring egress assistance), the flaming fire

scenarios may not provide sufficient time for escape regardless of the alarm technology. Thus,

available escape time would be sufficient only if households follow the advice of fire safety

educators, including sleeping with doors closed while using interconnected smoke alarms to

provide audible alarm in each bedroom, and pre-planning and practicing escape so as to

minimize pre-movement and movement times during egress.

7.5 Other Alarm Technologies

Additional fire detection technologies were included in the test fires to provide a point of

comparison with the smoke alarms and to provide data for future analysis of fire alarms that may

include multiple sensor technologies and complex algorithms to better predict accidental fires

and thus reduce false alarms. For residential applications in the U.S. and Canada, carbon

monoxide alarms, heat alarms, and residential sprinklers are used in concert with smoke alarms. 

Table 29 shows average alarm times for these technologies for the different fire scenarios in the
246

Every Level Installation Criterion

Flaming CO Alarm

Living Room 207

Bedroom 421

Bedroom (Door Closed) 672

Smoldering

Living Room 3496

Bedroom 3184

Cooking

Kitchen 1412

Every Level + Bedrooms Installation Criterion

Flaming CO Alarm

Living Room 207

Bedroom 421

Bedroom (Door Closed) 672

Smoldering

Living Room 3479

Bedroom 3184

Cooking

Kitchen 1399

Every Room Installation Criterion (note a)

Flaming CO Alarm Heat Alarm Tell-tale

Sprinkler

Living Room n.a. 163 247

Bedroom n.a. 403 137

Bedroom (Door Closed) n.a. 1912 126

Smoldering

Living Room n.a. 5992 5914

Bedroom n.a. 3798 3983

Cooking

Kitchen n.a. 1362 1362

a – heat alarms and tell-tale sprinklers were included only in the room of fire

origin

n.a. – no additional alarm included of this type

Table. 29. Activation time (in seconds) for several different

fire detection technologies and fire scenarios in a

manufactured home.

manufactured home. For each alarm technology and fire scenario, the time to alarm is shown for

typical alarm criteria (50 ppm for CO alarms; heat alarms and tell-tale sprinklers were

determined from an audible alarm and measured pressure drop, respectively). For the

manufactured home tests, each alarm time value is an average of available replicates. Individual

calculations for all of the alarms in all of the tests is included as Appendix B.

7.5.1 Carbon Monoxide Alarms

The carbon monoxide alarms

responded to all fire scenarios,

but particularly for scenarios

which would be expected to

produce significant quantities of

carbon monoxide during the

combustion process, i.e.,

smoldering mattress,

smoldering chair, and doorclosed flaming chair (which

smoldered after the room of

origin became oxygen limited).

For smoldering fires, alarm

time ranged from 672 s to 3496

s, depending upon fire scenario

and alarm placement.

7.5.2 Heat Alarms

Since nearly all of the tests in

this study were limited to the

very early stages of fire growth,

heat alarms typically responded

near the end of the tests and

after the transition to flaming

for smoldering tests. For

flaming fires, alarm times

ranged from 163 s to 1912 s.

7.5.3 Tell-tale Sprinklers

The purpose of residential

sprinklers is to improve
247

protection against injury, life loss, and property protection. In particular, the design is expected

to prevent flashover in the room of fire origin and to improve the chance for occupants to escape

or be evacuated [52]. In the tests presented in this report, only the very early stages of a fire were

studied, up to the point of incapacitation for occupants. Tell-tale sprinklers were included in the

room of fire origin to provide a point of comparison between smoke alarms and sprinkler

activation. For flaming fires, response time ranged from 126 s to 247 s. For smoldering fires,

response occurred shortly after the transition to flaming.

7.6 Comparison with Earlier Tests

In the original 1975 study

[1], over 20 detectors of

various generic types and

nominal sensitivities were

exposed to 40 fires in two

actual residences. The fire

types included flaming and

smoldering chairs and

mattresses in the family

room, basement, and

bedroom, as well as JP-4 in

a 20 cm (8 in) pan in the

kitchen. The detector

types included ionization,

photoelectric, dual gate

(combination ionization

and resistance bridge), and

rate-of-rise heat detectors. 

Each location included

both a high sensitivity (one percent per foot obscuration) and a low sensitivity (two percent per

foot obscuration) detector.

The two test sites were a two-story brick structure with a basement and a single-story brick

residence with basement. Instrumentation for both sites included thermocouple arrays, white

light beam obscuration measurements, and equipment to monitor oxygen, carbon monoxide, and

carbon dioxide. The instrumentation was placed in the room of origin, representative bedrooms,

and along the egress path.

Escape times in the current study for the ion type alarms for smoldering fires and for both

ionization and photoelectric alarms for flaming fires were positive but somewhat short when

Figure 209. Test structure, sample interior room, and

instrumentation in original 1975 Indiana Dunes Experiments
248

1975 Tests Current Tests

Alarm Times Flaming 146 ± 93 47 ± 35

Smoldering 1931 ± 1103 2042 ± 876

Tenability Times Flaming 1036 ± 374 175 ± 70

Smoldering 4419 ± 1790 2076 ± 963

Table 30. Comparison of alarm times and times to untenable

conditions for 1975 and current studies

compared to the performance

of similar smoke alarms in the

1975 test series. Table 30

shows a comparison between

the two test series. 

These differences appear to be

not so much because the

alarms are activating more

slowly, but rather because the

tenability limits are being

exceeded much faster. For

flaming fires, alarm activation

was somewhat shorter in the

current tests than in the 1975

tests, and time to untenable

conditions was dramatically

faster in the current tests. This

may be attributed partially to

the different ISO tenability

criteria compared to simpler

limits in the 1975 study, and

also due to significantly faster

fire development observed in

the upholstered furniture and

mattresses used in these tests. Table 31 shows a comparison of tenability criteria used in the two

studies. For the temperature and smoke obscuration criteria, values used in the current study are

similar or slightly higher than those used in the 1975 study. For CO concentration, the range for

the FED-based model used in the current study includes the value used in the 1975 study, but is

also quite a wide range, depending on duration of the fire. For nearly all tests, the temperature or

smoke criteria was met prior to the CO criterion. 

A comparison of the fire

growth in the two tests can be

seen by comparing the

temperatures near the ceiling

for the tests from the two

studies. For this comparison,

the time for the temperature

near the ceiling to reach 65 EC

was used as an indication of the

1975 Study Current Study

Temperature T $ 66 EC T $ 88 ECa

Gas Concentration CO $ 0.04 %

volume fraction

CO $ 0.02 – 0.3b

% volume fraction

Smoke

Obscuration O.D. $ 0.23 m-1 O.D. $ 0.25 m-1

a – calculated value for flaming fires calculated from ISO TS

13571 equation for convected heat

b – range of average values calculated from ISO TS 13571

equation for asphyxiant gases with tenability times for flaming

fires and smoldering fires

Table 31. Comparison of tenability criteria used in the 1975 

and current studies

Time to 65 EC near burn room ceiling (s)

1975 Study Current Study

Flaming 969 ± 527 131 ± 40

Smoldering 4893 ± 2236 4332 ± 1893

Table 32. Comparison of fire growth rates in the 1975 and

current studies 
249

rate of fire growth (table 32). Average time for flaming fires was significantly longer in the 1975

tests than in the current study – 969 s versus 131 s. Average times for smoldering fires in the

current test series were comparable to those observed in the 1975 tests. It is important to note,

however, that the smoldering fire scenarios are very difficult to reproduce experimentally, and

that times in the present study has an uncertainty (based upon one standard deviation) which

overlaps the uncertainty in the 1975 study. Therefore, caution should be exhibited in drawing

conclusions based upon comparisons of smoldering tenability times between the two studies. 

While the 1975 study also used actual upholstered furniture and mattresses, these were

purchased from a (charity) resale shop from donated articles. Such items purchased in 1975

would have been new in the early 1960s or even late 1950s and represented materials and

constructions of that period. The chairs used in the present study were purchased from a

furniture rental store and, while used, were only a year or two old. The mattresses were

purchased new. Thus, the materials were certainly significantly different. Fire development in

the current tests showed generally similar timing in growth of heat release rate to other recent

studies for upholstered furniture [53] and mattresses [54]. 

In the upholstered furniture study, a set of upholstered chairs was constructed from five different

fabric/foam combinations and subjected to a variety of ignition sources suggested by fire

statistics. In the study, an effort was made to choose from across the spectrum of typical

residential materials although no statistical justification for the particular materials was made. 

Time to peak heat release rates in excess of those necessary to lead to untenable conditions in

structures in the current study ranged from about 150 s to nearly 1000 s. It is estimated that a

comparable value for chairs in the current study is about 300 s. For mattresses, time to

incapacitation using similar criteria to the current study ranged from 240 s to 1150 s, depending

upon the mattress. It is important to note that this study included reduced flammability designs

not currently on the market. Thus, the materials used in the current study should not be

dramatically different than other currently available materials. Still, it is important to note that

while both the 1975 study and the current study attempted to use a representative sample of

available and important furnishings, each study included only a small fraction of those available

in the marketplace. 

Conversely, alarms in the current study were, on average, of similar sensitivity compared to the

alarms in the 1975 study. In the current study, the sensitivity of the unmodified smoke alarms

were discussed in section 2.6. The average sensitivity measured for all alarms tested was

1.54 %/ft ± 0.45 %/ft. In the 1975 study, the average of all alarms tested was 1.91 %/ft ±

0.73 %/ft. While the average for the 1975 tests is higher, the uncertainty in the data overlaps.
250

7.7 Nuisance Alarms

Nuisance alarms in residential settings from typical cooking activities, smoking or candle flames

are affected by the properties of the aerosol produced and its concentration, the location of an

alarm relative to the source, and the air flow that transports smoke to an alarm. This is not

surprising, as the same observations have been made in the fire tests here and other studies. This

study provides a detailed set of data that can be used to address several issues involving nuisance

alarms and reinforces current suggested practices including the following:

 • Clearly, the advice that alarms not be installed close to cooking appliances if at all

possible is valid. These results show that homeowners who are able to move the location

of an alarm that frequently experiences nuisance alarms would do well to maximize its

distance from cooking appliances while keeping it in the area to be protected. 

 • It was observed that ionization alarms had a propensity to alarm when exposed to

nuisance aerosols produced in the early stages of some cooking activities, prior to

noticeable smoke production. This phenomenon could be particularly vexing to

homeowners who experience such nuisance alarms. 

 • This data set could be used to assess the efficacy of employing an alarm with its

sensitivity set to a level near the least sensitive limit allowable, relative to a more

sensitive alarm. 

 • This study can be used to assess the benefits in terms of reduction of nuisance alarms

from a typical ionization alarm with the use of a dual photoelectric/ionization sensor

alarm that would maintain better overall sensitivity to a variety of fire sources (flaming

and smoldering). Combined with the fire test series data, a basis for the sensitivity level

settings on each alarm sensor could be proposed that is tied to test data. 

 • The so-called “hush” button or any other function that decreases sensitivity through

human intervention to silence alarms for a fixed time period requires that a sensitivity

adjustment and time period be specified. This data set could be used to assess the

effectiveness of a sensitivity adjustment for a specific time period before resetting to the

base sensitivity relative to these nuisance scenarios. The data could also be used to

compare such a feature to other proposed strategies designed to reduce nuisance alarms. 

 • Carbon monoxide electrochemical cells at all alarm locations gathered data on the level

of carbon monoxide produced during the tests and transported to the alarms. These data

in conjunction with the complete fire test series data could be used to verify combined

smoke/CO alarm algorithms.
251

The FE/DE nuisance source tests captured salient features of some of the manufactured home

tests. Clearly more work needs to be done to produce a set of tests and the performance criteria

that covers a significant range of residential nuisance sources, and would assure a benefit in

terms of nuisance alarm reduction. This work is part of ongoing research with the FE/DE at

NIST.
252
253

8 Summary

The data developed in this study include measurement of the output of a number of alarm

devices for a range of fire scenarios and residences. In addition, temperature, smoke

obscuration, and gas concentrations throughout the structures were monitored during this test

series. A summary of the major efforts of this study relative to the original 11 goals presented in

section 1.3 are discussed below. Specific conclusions are included in section 9.

1. Evaluate the performance of current smoke-alarm technology

Current smoke alarm technology includes two operating principles – the ionization-type sensor

and the photoelectric (scattering) sensor. The project included examples of current products

containing each of the sensor designs currently being sold in the U.S. market so that the results

would be representative of the full range of product performance expected. 

Smoke alarms of either the ionization type or the photoelectric type consistently provided

positive escape times. In some cases the escape time provided was relatively short and may

overlap with a range of estimates of the time necessary for occupant egress.. Consistent with

prior findings, ionization type alarms provided somewhat better response to flaming fires than

photoelectric alarms, and photoelectric alarms provided (often) considerably faster response to

smoldering fires than ionization type alarms. 

In many cases, available escape time would be sufficient only if households follow the advice of

fire safety educators, including sleeping with doors closed while using interconnected smoke

alarms to provide audible alarm in each bedroom, and pre-planning and practicing escape so as

to minimize pre-movement and movement times during egress.

2. Test conditions representative of current fatal residential fires

To ensure that the room sizes and arrangements, materials of construction, and ventilation

conditions were representative of actual dwellings, all tests were conducted in real dwelling

units. First, a manufactured home was procured and delivered to the NIST site for use in both

fire tests and nuisance alarm tests. The floor plan selected was a three bedroom, two bath

arrangement with a master suite at one end and the other bedrooms at the other end. This size

and arrangement represents not only manufactured homes but also apartments and

condominiums of about 100 m2

 (or about 1000 ft2). A second test site was a three bedroom, twostory, brick home, 139 m2

 (1490 ft2) in size. 
254

Careful choice of test scenarios helps insure the representativeness of the study. Important

factors included the room of fire origin, ignition source and first item ignited, and the ventilation

conditions that affected the fire development and combustion chemistry. A review of recent fire

statistics was conducted to select the most important fire scenarios representative of fatal and

non-fatal fires in the U. S. In addition to the scenarios themselves, the test matrix considered the

need to perform sufficient replicates to allow estimates of experimental uncertainty and

repeatability.

3. Evaluate the efficacy of current requirements for number and location of smoke

alarms

The experimental design provided data on the performance of alarms in various installation

arrangements. Groups of alarms were located in the room of fire origin, at least one bedroom,

and in a central location on every level. Thus, by considering the alarm times of devices in

various locations against tenability times for any test it was possible to determine the escape

time provided by various installation arrangements including every room, every level with or

without every bedroom, and single detectors. Since both ionization and photoelectric types were

included at each location the performance by sensor type is also quantified.

Smoke alarms of either type installed on every level generally provided positive escape times for

different fire types and locations. Adding smoke alarms in bedrooms increased the escape time

provided, especially for smoldering fires. In addition, occupants of bedrooms sleeping with the

door closed would benefit from improved audibility of alarms within the room. This provides

data for evaluating whether bedroom smoke alarms should be required in existing homes as they

have been in new homes since 1993. It is important to note that the available safe egress times

may overlap with the range of estimates of necessary egress time for the residences studied. 

Some of this is due to conservative tenability criteria based on incapacitation of the most

vulnerable occupants that was used for the current study. Use of tenability criteria based on

incapacitation or death of healthy individuals would certainly increase the available safe egress

time.

Escape times in this study were systematically shorter than those found in a similar study

conducted in the 1970s. This is related to some combination of faster fire development times for

today's products that provide the main fuel sources for fires, such as upholstered furniture and

mattresses, different criteria for time to untenable conditions, and improved understanding of the

speed and range of threats to tenability. Still, it is important to note that while both studies

attempted to use a representative sample of available and important furnishings, each study

included only a small fraction of those available in the marketplace. Since there may be

significant differences in the burning behavior between items of furniture, general conclusions

are beyond the scope of this study and may warrant additional research.
255

4. Develop standard nuisance alarm sources to be included in the test program

Smoke alarms are susceptible to alarming when exposed to non-fire aerosols. In residential

settings, this typically involves cooking activities or transient, high humidity conditions (i.e.,

“shower steam”). The approach taken was to define a set of nuisance scenarios, replicate the

events that cause nuisance alarms, and quantify the important variables. Translating the results

to a set of nuisance source conditions reproducible in a suitable test-bed (i.e., a test room or the

fire emulator/detector evaluator) would allow for more comprehensive detector performance

testing. Preliminary tests were performed in the FE/DE with this in mind. Programming

realistic and reproducible fire and nuisance conditions in the FE/DE is an ongoing research

project at NIST. 

Experiments conducted with common nuisance sources produced data that should be useful in

the development of new performance requirements for conditions that should not activate smoke

alarms. Since the data include analog signal levels and duration for each of the sensor types they

should be useful in evaluating a range of approaches to nuisance alarm reduction from reducing

alarm threshold for a specified time (“hush” feature) to decision algorithms and multi-sensor

arrays.

5. Examine other fire detection technologies in combination with smoke alarms

The program included mechanically aspirated (system-type) photoelectric smoke detectors,

residential CO alarms, heat alarms, and tell-tale residential sprinklers in the tests along with

currently available residential smoke alarms. Activation times for these devices will facilitate

future analysis and development of fire detection devices using inputs from multiple sensors.

6. Obtain data on the potential for improvements in performance by new technologies

Simple alarm times for currently available smoke alarms are not sufficient to identify potential

performance improvements so analog sensor data were recorded for both the fire performance

and nuisance alarm testing. Additional instrumentation was selected and located to supplement

the analog sensor data and allow better quantification of results. Examples included

thermocouple measurements of temperatures and temperature gradients, smoke and gas species

concentrations in several locations, and convective flow velocities in the ceiling layer at the level

of the sensors.

7. Include fuel items that incorporate materials and constructions representative of

current residential furnishings

Fuel (combustible) items were selected as generically appropriate to the room of origin and fire

scenario identified from NFIRS analysis and typical of materials and constructions in common
256

use today. Specifically, upholstered chairs were used for living room fires and mattresses for

bedroom fires that were purchased from local, retail sources. No modifications were made and

no accelerants were used to enhance or retard the burning behavior of the items. Cooking oil

used in kitchen fires was also a normal commercial product that was not modified in any way.

8. Fully characterize test detectors and alarms in a consistent manner to facilitate

comparisons

All detectors (smoke, heat, and CO) were characterized in NIST’s FE/DE apparatus under

similar conditions using an appropriate source. This allowed direct calibration of all devices in a

comparable way and a means to verify the performance of sensors in combination or utilizing

algorithms that may be suggested by the results of this study.

9. Utilize fire models to extend the applicability of the test arrangements and maximize

the test instrumentation

Modeling, using NIST’s CFAST and FDS models, was performed prior to testing to evaluate the

impacts of the selected fuels and fire scenarios on the instrumentation and test structures and to

assist in identifying the most appropriate instrument locations. 

10. Make All of the Data Collected as Widely Accessible as Possible

Clearly the best method of (global) dissemination of the test data was to employ the Internet. 

Thus, a public web site was established (http://smokealarm.nist.gov/) on which the detailed

results of tests were published as NIST Reports of Tests. This publication vehicle exists as a

means to quickly disseminate test data that is factual in nature – no observations or conclusions

were included. Thus the web site contains floor plans of the test sites showing instrument

locations, details of the fuels and test conditions, and test data in electronic form. 

11. Provide Opportunities to Enhance Public Fire Safety Education

CPSC, USFA, NFPA, and others have significant efforts in public fire safety education. The

information obtained in these tests will provide a basis for improving public fire safety messages

and will quantify the protection provided by residential smoke alarms. The project data could be

used to show the reduction in protection resulting from one or more devices being nonfunctional

as a motivation for testing and maintenance by the homeowner. Video recording of all of the

tests from multiple locations were made. These recordings will be made available as part of the

information on the public web site for use in public safety announcements and educational

materials. 
257

Finally, a press day was held that resulted in stories carried on all the major news networks and

on more than 75 local outlets from Maine to Hawaii.
258
259

9 Conclusions

1. The data developed in this study include measurement of temperature and smoke

obscuration in addition to gas concentrations for a range of fire scenarios and residences.

Measurement of the response of smoke alarms, CO alarms, heat alarms, and tell-tale

sprinklers are also included. These data could be of significant value in developing

appropriate algorithms for alarms that may include one or more sensor types.

2. Smoke alarms of either the ionization type or the photoelectric type consistently provided

time for occupants to escape from most residential fires.

a In many cases, available escape time would be sufficient only if households

follow the advice of fire safety educators, including sleeping with doors closed

while using interconnected smoke alarms to provide audible alarm in each

bedroom, and pre-planning and practicing escape so as to reduce pre-movement

and movement times.

b. Smoke alarms may not provide protection for people directly exposed to the

initial fire development (so-called "intimate with ignition"). 

c. Consistent with prior findings, ionization type alarms provided somewhat better

response to flaming fires than photoelectric alarms, and photoelectric alarms

provided (often) considerably faster response to smoldering fires than ionization

type alarms. 

d. Smoke alarms of either type installed on every level generally provided positive

escape times for different fire types and locations. Adding smoke alarms in

bedrooms increased the escape time provided by as much as 900 s, especially for

smoldering fires. It is important to note that the available safe egress times may

overlap with the range of estimates of necessary egress time for the residences

studied. Some of this is due to conservative tenability criteria based on

incapacitation of the most vulnerable occupants that was used for the current

study. Use of tenability criteria based on incapacitation or death of healthy

individuals would certainly increase the available safe egress time.

e. Escape times in this study were systematically shorter than those found in a

similar study conducted in the 1970's. This is related to some combination of

different criteria for time to untenable conditions, improved understanding of the
260

speed and range of threats to tenability, and faster fire development times for

today's products that provide the main fuel sources for fires, such as upholstered

furniture and mattresses. It is important to note that while both the 1975 study

and the current study attempted to use a representative sample of available and

important furnishings, each study included only a small fraction of those available

in the marketplace. Still, this study is consistent with other recent studies of

furniture and mattresses even though there may be significant differences in the

burning behavior between items of furniture. 

f. A mechanically aspirated (system-type) photoelectric smoke detector included in

the study consistently responded after the other photoelectric smoke alarms, even

for smoldering fires where convective flow rates are low and smoke entry might

be an issue. Since only one such alarm was included in the study, more general

conclusions cannot be drawn.

g. Residential sprinklers activated well after the smoke alarms and after the heat

alarms in all of the scenarios. While these sprinklers have an outstanding record

of saving lives and property, the later activation time implies that residential

sprinkler installations should always include smoke alarms (as currently required

in NFPA 13D and 13R) to provide greater escape times for those capable of

escaping.

4. Experiments conducted with common nuisance sources produced data that should be

useful in the development of new performance requirements for conditions that should

not activate smoke alarms. Since the data includes analog signal levels and duration for

each of the sensor types they should be useful in evaluating a range of approaches to

nuisance alarm reduction from reducing alarm threshold for a specified time (“hush”

feature) to decision algorithms and multi-sensor arrays.
261

[1] Bukowski, R. W., Waterman, T. E., and Christian, W. J. "Detector Sensitivity and Siting

Requirements for Dwellings: A Report of the NBS ‘Indiana Dunes Tests.'" NFPA No.

SPP-43. Nat. Fire Prot. Assn., Quincy, MA, 1975.

[2] McGuire, J. H. and Ruscoe, B. E., The Value of a Fire Detector in the Home, Fire Study

No. 9 of the Division of Building Research, National Research Council of Canada,

Ottawa, 1962

[3] Hall, J. R., Jr., U. S. Experience with Smoke Detectors and Other Fire Detectors, Who

Has Them? How Well Do They Work? When Don’t They Work? National Fire

Protection Association, 1996.

[4] U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission; U.S. Fire Administration; National Fire

Protection Association; Congressional Fire Services Institute. , “National Smoke

Detector Project,” U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC, 86 p.

1994.

[5] Cleary, T. G., “Fire Emulator/Detector Evaluator: Design, Operation, and Performance.

International Conference on Automatic Fire Detection "AUBE '01", 12th. Proceedings.

National Institute of Standards and Technology. March 25-28, 2001, Gaithersburg, MD,

Beall, K.; Grosshandler, W. L.; Luck, H., Editors, National Institute of Standards and

Technology, Gaithersburg, MD NIST SP 965; February 2001. 312-323 pp, 2001.

[6] Smith, Charles, “Smoke Detector Operability Survey: Report on Findings”, U.S.

Consumer Product Safety Commission, October, 1994

[7] Bukowski, R. W., “Investigation of the Effects of Heating and Air Conditioning on the

Performance of Smoke Detectors in Mobile Home. Final Report.”National Bureau of

Standards, Gaithersburg, MD, NBSIR 79-1915; 179 p. 1979.

[8] Milke, J. A.; and McAvoy, T. J., “Analysis of Signature Patterns for Discriminating Fire

Detection With Multiple Sensors. Fire Technology, Vol. 31, No. 2, 120-136, May 1995.

[9] Gottuk, D.; Rose-Pehrsson, S.; Shaffer, R.; and Williams, F. “Early Warning Fire

Detection via Probabilistic Neural Networks and Multi-Sensor Arrays.” Proceedings of

Research and Practice: Bridging the Gap. Fire Suppression and Detection Research

Application Symposium. Proceedings. Fire Protection Research Foundation. February

23-25, 2000, Orlando, FL, 365-369

10 References
262

[10] “Saving Lives, Saving Money, Automatic Sprinkler A 10 Year Study, A detailed history

of the effects of the automatic sprinkler code in Scottsdale, AZ,” available from the

Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition, http://www.homefiresprinkler.org, 2003.

[11] Peacock, R. D., Averill, J. A., Bukowski, R. D., and Reneke, P. A., “Home Smoke Alarm

Project: Manufactured Home Tests,” Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol., Report of Test FR 4016,

2001.

[12] Averill, J. A., Peacock, R. D., Bukowski, R. W., and Reneke, P. A., “Home Smoke

Alarm Project: Two-Story Home Tests,” Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol., Report of Test FR

4017, 2002.

[13] Babrauskas, V., Peacock, R. D., Janssens, M., and Bathos, N. E., “Standardization and

Presentation of Fire Data: The FDMS,” Fire and Materials, Vol. 15, pp. 85-92, 1991.

[14] “Standard for Safety Single and Multiple Station Smoke Alarms, UL 217,” Underwriters

Laboratories Inc., Northbrook, IL.

[15] Cleary, T. G., “Home Smoke Alarm Project: Alarm Response Calibration,” Natl. Inst.

Stand. Technol., Report of Test FR 4019, 2003.

[16] Helsper, C., Fissan, H., Muggli, J., and Scheidweiler, A., "Verification of Ionization

Chamber Theory," Fire Technology, Vol. 19, No,. 1, pp. 14-21, 1983.

[17] Hosemann, J., P., "Uber Verfahren zur bestimmung der Korngrossenvertteiling

hockkonzentrierter Polydispersionen von dielektrischen Miepartileln," Ph.D. thesis,

Aachen, 1970.

[18] Smith, L., U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, private communication, June

1999.

[19] “NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, 2003 Edition,” Volume 6 of the National Fire Codes,

Natl. Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA (2003).

[20] “SFPE Engineering Guide to Performance-Based Fire Protection Analysis and Design of

Buildings,” NFPA No. SFPE-00, Natl. Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA (2000).

[21] Peacock, R. D. and Babrauskas, V. “Analysis of Large-scale Fire Test Data.” Fire Safety

Journal 17, pp. 387 – 414, 1991.

[22] Peacock, R. D., Bukowski, R. W., Reneke, P. A., Averill, J. D., and Markos, S. H.,

“Development of a Fire Hazard Assessment Method to Evaluate the Fire Safety of

Passenger Trains.” Proceedings of the Fire and Materials 2001 Conference, January

22-24, San Francisco, Interscience Communications, London, pp 67-78.
263

[23] The SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 2nd Ed. P. J. DiNenno, Editor. Nat.

Fire Prot. Assoc., Quincy, MA, 1995.

[24] Peacock, R. D., Averill, J. A., Bukowski, R. W., and Reneke, P. A., “Home Smoke

Alarm Project, Manufactured Home Tests,” NIST Fire Research Report of Test FR4016,

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol., http://smokealarm.nist.gov/Series1.htm, June 2002.

[25] Averill, J. A., Peacock, R. D., Bukowski, R. W., and Reneke, P. A., “Home Smoke

Alarm Project, Two-Story Home Tests,” NIST Fire Research Report of Test FR4017,

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol., http://smokealarm.nist.gov/Series2.htm, June 2002.

[26] Life threat from fire – Guidance on the estimation for time available for escape using fire

data, Proposed Technical Specification, ISO/TS 13571, International Organization for

Standardization. 2002.

[27] “NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm Code, 1999 Edition,” Volume 5 of the National Fire

Codes, Natl. Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA (2002).

[28] “NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, 2000 Edition,” Volume 6 of the National Fire Codes,

Natl. Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA (2002).

[29] Mulholland, G. W., and Liu, B. H., “Response of Smoke Detectors to Monodisperse

Aerosols,” Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards, Vol. 85, No. 3, pp.

223-238, May-June, 1980.

[30] Litton, C. D., “A Mathematical Model for Ionization-type Smoke Detectors and the

Reduced Source Approximation,” Fire Technology, Vol. 13, pp. 226-273, 1977.

[31] Mulholland, G. W., and Croarkin, C., “Specific Extinction Coefficient of Flame

Generated Smoke,” Fire and Materials, Vol. 24, pp. 227-230, 2000.

[32] Cleary, T.G., “Measurements of the Size Distribution and Aerodynamic Properties of

Soot,” MS Thesis, University of Maryland, 1989. 

[33] Cleary, T.G., Weinert, D.W., and Mulholland, G.W., "Moment Method for Obtaining

Particle Size Measures of Test Smokes", Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol., NISTIR 7050, 

2003.

[34] Shapiro, Julie, (Smoke Detector Operability Survey: Engineering Laboratory Analysis",

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, October, 1994.

[35] Gottuk, D.T., Peatross, M.J., Roby, R.J., and Beyler, C.L., “Advanced Fire Detection

Using Multi-signature Alarm Algorithms”, Proceedings of the 11th Int. Conf. on

Automatic Fire Detection (AUBE '99), March 16-18, 1999, Duisburg, Germany, Ed. 

Luck, H., pp. 237-246, 1999.
264

[36] Ishii, H., Ono, T., Yamauchi, Y., Ohtani, S., “Fire Detection System by Multi-layered

Neural Network with Delay Circuit”, Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on

Fire Safety Science, July 13-17, 1994, Ottawa, Canada, Ed. T. Kashiwagi, pp. 761-772,

1994.

[37] Cleary, T., and Ono, T., “Enhanced Residential Fire Detection by Combining Smoke and

Carbon Monoxide Sensors”, Proceedings of the 12th Int. Conf. on Automatic Fire

Detection (AUBE '01), March 26-38, 2001, Gaithersburg, MD, Eds., Beall, K.,

Grosshandler, W., and Luck, H., pp. 346-357, 2001.

[38] Meacham, B.J., “The Use of Artificial Intelligence Techniques for Signal Discrimination

in Fire Detection Systems”, J. of Fire Prot., Engr., Vol. 6, No. 3, pp 125-136, 1994.

[39] UL 268: Standard for Smoke Detectors for Fire Protective Signaling Systems, 4th ed.,

Underwriters Laboratories Inc., Northbrook, IL, 1996.

[40] EN 54: Components of Automatic Fire Detection Systems, Part 9, Fire Sensitivity Test, 

European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 1982.

[41] Cleary, T. G., “Home Smoke Alarm Project: Alarm Response to Nuisance Sources,”

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol., Report of Test FR 4020, 2003.

[42] see, for example, International Building Code 2000, International Code Council, Falls

Church, VA, 2000.

[43] Wilson, R. “Computer Analysis of Data on Fire Detectors Available for Purchase in

Massachusetts.” Data From the National Bureau of Standards Indiana Dunes Tests

Record,.Firepro, Inc., Wellesley Hills, MA, National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg,

MD, 11 p. January 28, 1976.

[44] Nober, E. H.; Peirce, H.; Well, A. D.; Johnson, C. C.; Clifton, C. “Waking Effectiveness

of Household Smoke and Fire Detection Devices. Fire Journal, Vol. 75, No. 4,

86-91,130, July 1981.

[45] Nelson, Harold E. and Mowrer, F. W. “Emergency Movement.” In The SFPE

Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 3rd Edition. National Fire Protection

Association, Quincy, MA (2002).

[46] Ando, K., Ota, H., and Oki, T. “Forecasting The Flow of People.” Railway Research

Review (45) pp. 8-14, 1988.

[47] Proulx, G. “Evacuation Time and Movement in Apartment Buildings.” National

Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Fire Safety Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3,

229-246, 1995.
265

[48] Bryan, J. L. “Project People - A Study of Human Response in Fire Incidents.” Maryland

University, College Park. Alena Enterprises of Canada. Fire Retardents: Proceedings of

1977 International Symposium on Flammability and Fire Retardants. May 19-20, 1977,

Washington, DC, Technomic Publishing Co., Inc., Westport, CT, Bhatnagar, V.M.,

Editor, 103-127 pp, 1979.

[49] Wood, P. G. “Survey of Behavior in Fires.” Surrey Univ., Guildford, England, 

Fires and Human Behavior, John Wiley and Sons, New York, Canter, D., Editor(s),

83-95 p., 1980.

[50] Keating, J. P. and E. L. Loftus. “Post Fire Interviews: Development and Field

Validation of the Behavioral Sequence Interview Technique.” Final Report. Natl Bur.

Stand. (U. S.), NBS GCR 84-477, October 1984.

[51] Pearson, R. G., and Joost, M. G. “Egress Behavior Response Time of Handicapped and

Elderly Subjects to Simulated Residential Fire Situations.” Natl Bur. Stand. (U. S.),

NBS GCR 83-429, 1983.

[52] NFPA 13R: Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One- and Two-Family Dwellings and

Manufactured Homes, 1999 Edition, 2002 National Fire Codes. National Fire Protection

Association, Quincy, MA, 2002.

[53] Cleary, T. G., Ohlemiller, T. J, and Villa, K. M., “The Influence of Ignition Source on the

Flaming Fire Hazard of Upholstered Furniture.” Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol., NISTIR

4847, 1992.

[54] Ohlemiller, T. J, and Gann, R. G.., “Estimating Reduced Fire Risk Resulting From an

Improved Mattress Flammability Standard.” Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol., Tech. Note 1446,

2002.
A-1

Appendix A

Alarm Activation and Time to Untenable

Conditions During Tests of Residential

Smoke Alarms Included in the Study
Calculated Alarm Times
For each alarm included in each test of the program, data are included that identify the alarm, its

inclusion within several alarm placement scenarios, calibration data for the alarm, and estimated

alarm times for different assumed alarm thresholds. Columns in the data include

Key – the alarm type as “Alarm” for an analog-modified alarm, “Dalarm” for an unmodified

alarm, “Sprinkler” for a tell-tale residential sprinkler, or COalarm for a carbon monoxide alarm.

Position – the room where the alarm was located

Level, level + br, all – identifies whether the alarm was included in an alarm placement scenario

of “Every Level”, “Every Level + Bedrooms”, or “Every Room” as described in chapter 7 of the

report.

dual – the alarm was part of a dual sensor alarm

name – specific alarm identification as detailed in section 2.5

label – a short alarm identification included in test data spreadsheets for this alarm

units – recording units for the measurement as recorded by the data acquisition system during

the test, V or mV

m0, m1 – calibration constants for the alarm as detailed in table 1.

ave – average steady-state clear-air alarm output calculated as a average value prior to ignition,

V or mV consistent with “units” column

low, mid, high – estimated alarm times for low, medium and high alarm threshold values, s

last data column (unlabelled) – end of test measured from ignition, s
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 

Title Detectors set at 100% of normal detectionIonLevel Ion PhotoLeve Photo COLevel CO Series ..\Manufactured Home Series #1\Test SDC01 Smoldering Chair in Living RoomTime 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Alarm Master Bedroom (A) x x ION-1-A-3-1 Ion1A volt TCA_1 0 0 0 2.151 Alarm x x ION-3-A-4-10 Ion3A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 0 0.984 Alarm x x x ION-4-A-7B-6 Ion4A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 2 3.353 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-A-5-1 Pho1A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -0.80196 5.7793 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-A-7A-6 Pho3A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -1.4218 9.0001 Alarm x x ASPIRATED-1-A-0-7 Asp1A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -1.3703 2.6251 Alarm Burn Room Bedroom (B) x x ION-1-BE-3-10 Ion1BE volt TCB_1 0 0 0 1.919 Alarm x x ION-3-BE-4-3 Ion3B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 0 1.215 Alarm x x x ION-4-BE-7B-4 Ion4B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 2 2.926 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-BE-5-3 Pho1B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 -1.499 6.7174 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-BE-7A-4 Pho3B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 -0.87544 8.5248 Alarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x ION-1-C-3-7 Ion1C volt TCC_1 0 0 0 1.685 Alarm x x x ION-3-C-4-13 Ion3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 0 1.147 Alarm xxxx ION-4-C-7B-3 Ion4C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 2 1.463 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-C-5-4 Pho1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.5233 8.5698 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-C-7C-3 Pho3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.7342 10.833 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-C-0-8 Asp1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.3285 1.9378 Alarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x ION-1-D-3-11 Ion1D volt TCD_1 0 0 0 2.093 Alarm x x x ION-3-D-4-9 Ion3D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 0 1.144 Alarm xxxx ION-4-D-7B-8 Ion4D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 2 2.562 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-D-5-5 Pho1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.9634 6.8817 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-D-7D-8 Pho3D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.4218 9.0001 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-D-0-6 Asp1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.2765 1.846 key postion level level + br all name label units Dalarm Living Room (E) x PHOTO-2-E-DISP DiPho2 volt Dalarm x ION-2-E-DISP DiIon2 volt Dalarm x ION-4-E-DISP DiIon4 volt Sprinkler x Pres_1 millivolt key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 COalarm Master Bedroom (A) x x CO-1-A-1-4 CO1A millivolt 0 0 0 -4.283 129.73 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-5 CO2A millivolt 0 0 0 -48.823 113.74 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-4 CO3A millivolt 0 0 0 -3.6044 156.98 COalarm Burn Room Bedroom (B) x x CO-1-B-1-6 CO1B millivolt 0 0 0 -18.995 100.65 COalarm x x CO-2-B-2-11 CO2B millivolt 0 0 0 -50.344 104.23 COalarm x x CO-3-B-3-6 CO3B millivolt 0 0 0 -0.87202 172.93 COalarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x CO-1-C-1-8 CO1C millivolt 0 0 0 -33.43 192.31 COalarm x x x CO-2-C-2-1 CO2C millivolt 0 0 0 -45.93 109.43 COalarm x x x CO-3-C-3-8 CO3C millivolt 0 0 0 -2.534 165.5 COalarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x CO-1-D-1-5 CO1D millivolt 0 0 0 -43.62 233.28 COalarm x x x CO-2-D-2-2 CO2D millivolt 0 0 0 -45.107 92.96 COalarm x x x CO-3-D-3-5 CO3D millivolt 0 0 0 -3.4431 165.47 
Test SDC02 Flaming Chair in Living Room

Time 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Alarm Master Bedroom (A) x x ION-1-A-3-1 Ion1A volt TCA_1 0 0 0 2.151 Alarm x x ION-3-A-4-10 Ion3A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 0 0.984 Alarm x x x ION-4-A-7B-6 Ion4A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 2 3.353 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-A-5-1 Pho1A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -0.80196 5.7793 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-A-7A-6 Pho3A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -1.4218 9.0001 Alarm x x ASPIRATED-1-A-0-7 Asp1A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -1.3703 2.6251 Alarm Burn Room Bedroom (B) x x ION-1-BE-3-10 Ion1BE volt TCB_1 0 0 0 1.919 Alarm x x ION-3-BE-4-3 Ion3B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 0 1.215 Alarm x x x ION-4-BE-7B-4 Ion4B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 2 2.926 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-BE-5-3 Pho1B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 -1.499 6.7174 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-BE-7A-4 Pho3B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 -0.87544 8.5248 Alarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x ION-1-C-3-7 Ion1C volt TCC_1 0 0 0 1.685 Alarm x x x ION-3-C-4-13 Ion3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 0 1.147 Alarm xxxx ION-4-C-7B-3 Ion4C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 2 1.463 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-C-5-4 Pho1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.5233 8.5698 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-C-7C-3 Pho3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.7342 10.833 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-C-0-8 Asp1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.3285 1.9378 Alarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x ION-1-D-3-11 Ion1D volt TCD_1 0 0 0 2.093 Alarm x x x ION-3-D-4-9 Ion3D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 0 1.144 Alarm xxxx ION-4-D-7B-8 Ion4D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 2 2.562 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-D-5-4 Pho1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.9634 6.8817 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-D-7D-3 Pho3D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.4218 9.0001 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-D-0-8 Asp1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.2765 1.846 key postion level level + br all dual name label units Dalarm Living Room (E) x PHOTO-2-E-DISP DiPho2 volt Dalarm x ION-2-E-DISP DiIon2 volt 

Dalarm x ION-4-E-DISP DiIon4 volt 

Sprinkler x Pres_1 millivolt key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 COalarm Master Bedroom (A) x x CO-1-A-1-4 CO1A millivolt 0 0 0 -4.283 129.73 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-5 CO2A millivolt 0 0 0 -48.823 113.74 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-4 CO3A millivolt 0 0 0 -3.6044 156.98 COalarm Burn Room Bedroom (B) x x CO-1-B-1-6 CO1B millivolt 0 0 0 -18.995 100.65 COalarm x x CO-2-B-2-11 CO2B millivolt 0 0 0 -50.344 104.23 COalarm x x CO-3-B-3-6 CO3B millivolt 0 0 0 -0.87202 172.93 COalarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x CO-1-C-1-8 CO1C millivolt 0 0 0 -33.43 192.31 COalarm x x x CO-2-C-2-1 CO2C millivolt 0 0 0 -45.93 109.43 COalarm x x x CO-3-C-3-8 CO3C millivolt 0 0 0 -2.534 165.5 COalarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x CO-1-D-1-5 CO1D millivolt 0 0 0 -43.62 233.28 COalarm x x x CO-2-D-2-2 CO2D millivolt 0 0 0 -45.107 92.96 COalarm x x x CO-3-D-3-5 CO3D millivolt 0 0 0 -3.4431 165.47 
Test SDC03 Smoldering Mattress in Bedroom

Time 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Alarm Master Bedroom (A) x x ION-1-A-3-1 Ion1A volt TCA_1 0 0 0 2.151 Alarm x x ION-3-A-4-10 Ion3A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 0 0.984 Alarm x x x ION-4-A-7B-6 Ion4A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 2 3.353 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-A-5-1 Pho1A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -0.80196 5.7793 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-A-7A-6 Pho3A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -1.4218 9.0001 Alarm x x ASPIRATED-1-A-0-7 Asp1A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -1.3703 2.6251 Alarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x ION-1-C-3-7 Ion1C volt TCC_1 0 0 0 1.685 Alarm x x x ION-3-C-4-13 Ion3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 0 1.147 Alarm xxxx ION-4-C-7B-3 Ion4C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 2 1.463 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-C-5-4 Pho1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.5233 8.5698 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-C-7C-3 Pho3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.7342 10.833 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-C-0-8 Asp1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.3285 1.9378 Alarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x ION-1-D-3-11 Ion1D volt TCD_1 0 0 0 2.093 Alarm x x x ION-3-D-4-9 Ion3D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 0 1.144 Alarm xxxx ION-4-D-7B-8 Ion4D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 2 2.562 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-D-5-4 Pho1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.9634 6.8817 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-D-7D-3 Pho3D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.4218 9.0001 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-D-0-8 Asp1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.2765 1.846 Alarm Living Room (E) x ION-1-BE-3-10 Ion1BE volt TCE_1 0 0 0 1.919 Alarm x ION-3-BE-4-3 Ion3B millivolt TCE_1 0 0 0 1.215 Alarm x x ION-4-BE-7B-4 Ion4B millivolt TCE_1 0 0 2 2.926 Alarm x PHOTO-1-BE-5-3 Pho1B millivolt TCE_1 0 0 -1.499 6.7174 Alarm x x PHOTO-3-BE-7A-4 Pho3B millivolt TCE_1 0 0 -0.87544 8.5248 Alarm x ASPIRATED-1-E-0-5 Asp1E millivolt TCE_1 0 0 -1.5123 2.5683 key postion level level + br all dual name label units Dalarm Burn Room Bedroom (B) x x PHOTO-2-B-DISP DiPho2 volt Dalarm x x ION-2-B-DISP DiIon2 volt Dalarm x x ION-4-B-DISP DiIon4 volt Sprinkler x Pres_1 millivolt key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 COalarm Master Bedroom (A) x x CO-1-A-1-4 CO1A millivolt 0 0 0 -4.283 129.73 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-5 CO2A millivolt 0 0 0 -48.823 113.74 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-4 CO3A millivolt 0 0 0 -3.6044 156.98 COalarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x CO-1-C-1-8 CO1C millivolt 0 0 0 -33.43 192.31 COalarm x x x CO-2-C-2-1 CO2C millivolt 0 0 0 -45.93 109.43 COalarm x x x CO-3-C-3-8 CO3C millivolt 0 0 0 -2.534 165.5 COalarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x CO-1-D-1-5 CO1D millivolt 0 0 0 -43.62 233.28 COalarm x x x CO-2-D-2-2 CO2D millivolt 0 0 0 -45.107 92.96 COalarm x x x CO-3-D-3-5 CO3D millivolt 0 0 0 -3.4431 165.47 COalarm Living Room (E) x CO-1-B-1-6 CO1B millivolt 0 0 0 -18.995 100.65 COalarm x CO-2-B-2-11 CO2B millivolt 0 0 0 -50.344 104.23 COalarm x CO-3-B-3-6 CO3B millivolt 0 0 0 -0.87202 172.93 
Test SDC04 Smoldering Mattress in Bedroom

Time 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Alarm Master Bedroom (A) x x ION-1-A-3-1 Ion1A volt TCA_1 0 0 0 2.151 Alarm x x ION-3-A-4-10 Ion3A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 0 0.984 Alarm x x x ION-4-A-7B-6 Ion4A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 2 3.353 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-A-5-1 Pho1A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -0.80196 5.7793 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-A-7A-6 Pho3A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -1.4218 9.0001 Alarm x x ASPIRATED-1-A-0-7 Asp1A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -1.3703 2.6251 Alarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x ION-1-C-3-7 Ion1C volt TCC_1 0 0 0 1.685 Alarm x x x ION-3-C-4-13 Ion3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 0 1.147 Alarm xxxx ION-4-C-7B-3 Ion4C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 2 1.463 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-C-5-4 Pho1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.5233 8.5698 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-C-7C-3 Pho3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.7342 10.833 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-C-0-8 Asp1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.3285 1.9378 Alarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x ION-1-D-3-11 Ion1D volt TCD_1 0 0 0 2.093 Alarm x x x ION-3-D-4-9 Ion3D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 0 1.144 Alarm xxxx ION-4-D-7B-8 Ion4D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 2 2.562 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-D-5-4 Pho1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.9634 6.8817 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-D-7D-3 Pho3D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.4218 9.0001 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-D-0-8 Asp1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.2765 1.846 Alarm Living Room (E) x ION-1-BE-3-10 Ion1BE volt TCE_1 0 0 0 1.919 Alarm x ION-3-BE-4-3 Ion3B millivolt TCE_1 0 0 0 1.215 Alarm x x ION-4-BE-7B-4 Ion4B millivolt TCE_1 0 0 2 2.926 Alarm x PHOTO-1-BE-5-3 Pho1B millivolt TCE_1 0 0 -1.499 6.7174 Alarm x x PHOTO-3-BE-7A-4 Pho3B millivolt TCE_1 0 0 -0.87544 8.5248 Alarm x ASPIRATED-1-E-0-5 Asp1E millivolt TCE_1 0 0 -1.5123 2.5683 key postion level level + br all dual name label units Dalarm Burn Room Bedroom (B) x x PHOTO-2-B-DISP DiPho2 volt Dalarm x x ION-2-B-DISP DiIon2 volt Dalarm x x ION-4-B-DISP DiIon4 volt Sprinkler x Pres_1 millivolt key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 COalarm Master Bedroom (A) x x CO-1-A-1-4 CO1A millivolt 0 0 0 -4.283 129.73 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-5 CO2A millivolt 0 0 0 -48.823 113.74 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-4 CO3A millivolt 0 0 0 -3.6044 156.98 COalarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x CO-1-C-1-8 CO1C millivolt 0 0 0 -33.43 192.31 COalarm x x x CO-2-C-2-1 CO2C millivolt 0 0 0 -45.93 109.43 COalarm x x x CO-3-C-3-8 CO3C millivolt 0 0 0 -2.534 165.5 COalarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x CO-1-D-1-5 CO1D millivolt 0 0 0 -43.62 233.28 COalarm x x x CO-2-D-2-2 CO2D millivolt 0 0 0 -45.107 92.96 COalarm x x x CO-3-D-3-5 CO3D millivolt 0 0 0 -3.4431 165.47 COalarm Living Room (E) x CO-1-B-1-6 CO1B millivolt 0 0 0 -18.995 100.65 COalarm x CO-2-B-2-11 CO2B millivolt 0 0 0 -50.344 104.23 COalarm x CO-3-B-3-6 CO3B millivolt 0 0 0 -0.87202 172.93 
Test SDC05 Flaming Mattress in Bedroom 

Time 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Alarm Master Bedroom (A) x x ION-1-A-3-1 Ion1A volt TCA_1 0 0 0 2.151 Alarm x x ION-3-A-4-10 Ion3A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 0 0.984 Alarm x x x ION-4-A-7B-6 Ion4A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 2 3.353 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-A-5-1 Pho1A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -0.80196 5.7793 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-A-7A-6 Pho3A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -1.4218 9.0001 Alarm x x ASPIRATED-1-A-0-7 Asp1A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -1.3703 2.6251 Alarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x ION-1-C-3-7 Ion1C volt TCC_1 0 0 0 1.685 Alarm x x x ION-3-C-4-13 Ion3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 0 1.147 Alarm xxxx ION-4-C-7B-3 Ion4C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 2 1.463 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-C-5-4 Pho1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.5233 8.5698 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-C-7C-3 Pho3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.7342 10.833 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-C-0-8 Asp1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.3285 1.9378 Alarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x ION-1-D-3-11 Ion1D volt TCD_1 0 0 0 2.093 Alarm x x x ION-3-D-4-9 Ion3D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 0 1.144 Alarm xxxx ION-4-D-7B-8 Ion4D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 2 2.562 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-D-5-4 Pho1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.9634 6.8817 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-D-7D-3 Pho3D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.4218 9.0001 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-D-0-8 Asp1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.2765 1.846 Alarm Living Room (E) x ION-1-BE-3-10 Ion1BE volt TCE_1 0 0 0 1.919 Alarm x ION-3-BE-4-3 Ion3B millivolt TCE_1 0 0 0 1.215 Alarm x x ION-4-BE-7B-4 Ion4B millivolt TCE_1 0 0 2 2.926 Alarm x PHOTO-1-BE-5-3 Pho1B millivolt TCE_1 0 0 -1.499 6.7174 Alarm x x PHOTO-3-BE-7A-4 Pho3B millivolt TCE_1 0 0 -0.87544 8.5248 Alarm x ASPIRATED-1-E-0-5 Asp1E millivolt TCE_1 0 0 -1.5123 2.5683 key postion level level + br all dual name label units Dalarm Burn Room Bedroom (B) x x PHOTO-2-B-DISP DiPho2 volt Dalarm x x ION-2-B-DISP DiIon2 volt Dalarm x x ION-4-B-DISP DiIon4 volt Sprinkler x Pres_1 millivolt key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 COalarm Master Bedroom (A) x x CO-1-A-1-4 CO1A millivolt 0 0 0 -4.283 129.73 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-5 CO2A millivolt 0 0 0 -48.823 113.74 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-4 CO3A millivolt 0 0 0 -3.6044 156.98 COalarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x CO-1-C-1-8 CO1C millivolt 0 0 0 -33.43 192.31 COalarm x x x CO-2-C-2-1 CO2C millivolt 0 0 0 -45.93 109.43 COalarm x x x CO-3-C-3-8 CO3C millivolt 0 0 0 -2.534 165.5 COalarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x CO-1-D-1-5 CO1D millivolt 0 0 0 -43.62 233.28 COalarm x x x CO-2-D-2-2 CO2D millivolt 0 0 0 -45.107 92.96 COalarm x x x CO-3-D-3-5 CO3D millivolt 0 0 0 -3.4431 165.47 COalarm Living Room (E) x CO-1-B-1-6 CO1B millivolt 0 0 0 -18.995 100.65 COalarm x CO-2-B-2-11 CO2B millivolt 0 0 0 -50.344 104.23 COalarm x CO-3-B-3-6 CO3B millivolt 0 0 0 -0.87202 172.93 
Test SDC06 Smoldering Mattress in Bedroom

Time 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Alarm Master Bedroom (A) x x ION-1-A-3-1 Ion1A volt TCA_1 0 0 0 2.151 Alarm x x ION-3-A-4-10 Ion3A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 0 0.984 Alarm x x x ION-4-A-7B-6 Ion4A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 2 3.353 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-A-5-1 Pho1A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -0.80196 5.7793 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-A-7A-6 Pho3A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -1.4218 9.0001 Alarm x x ASPIRATED-1-A-0-7 Asp1A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -1.3703 2.6251 Alarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x ION-1-C-3-7 Ion1C volt TCC_1 0 0 0 1.685 Alarm x x x ION-3-C-4-13 Ion3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 0 1.147 Alarm xxxx ION-4-C-7B-3 Ion4C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 2 1.463 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-C-5-4 Pho1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.5233 8.5698 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-C-7C-3 Pho3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.7342 10.833 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-C-0-8 Asp1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.3285 1.9378 Alarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x ION-1-D-3-11 Ion1D volt TCD_1 0 0 0 2.093 Alarm x x x ION-3-D-4-9 Ion3D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 0 1.144 Alarm xxxx ION-4-D-7B-8 Ion4D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 2 2.562 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-D-5-4 Pho1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.9634 6.8817 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-D-7D-3 Pho3D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.4218 9.0001 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-D-0-8 Asp1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.2765 1.846 Alarm Living Room (E) x ION-1-BE-3-10 Ion1BE volt TCE_1 0 0 0 1.919 Alarm x ION-3-BE-4-3 Ion3B millivolt TCE_1 0 0 0 1.215 Alarm x x ION-4-BE-7B-4 Ion4B millivolt TCE_1 0 0 2 2.926 Alarm x PHOTO-1-BE-5-3 Pho1B millivolt TCE_1 0 0 -1.499 6.7174 Alarm x x PHOTO-3-BE-7A-4 Pho3B millivolt TCE_1 0 0 -0.87544 8.5248 Alarm x ASPIRATED-1-E-0-5 Asp1E millivolt TCE_1 0 0 -1.5123 2.5683 key postion level level + br all dual name label units Dalarm Burn Room Bedroom (B) x x PHOTO-2-B-DISP DiPho2 volt Dalarm x x ION-2-B-DISP DiIon2 volt Dalarm x x ION-4-B-DISP DiIon4 volt Sprinkler x Pres_1 millivolt key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 COalarm Master Bedroom (A) x x CO-1-A-1-4 CO1A millivolt 0 0 0 -4.283 129.73 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-5 CO2A millivolt 0 0 0 -48.823 113.74 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-4 CO3A millivolt 0 0 0 -3.6044 156.98 COalarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x CO-1-C-1-8 CO1C millivolt 0 0 0 -33.43 192.31 COalarm x x x CO-2-C-2-1 CO2C millivolt 0 0 0 -45.93 109.43 COalarm x x x CO-3-C-3-8 CO3C millivolt 0 0 0 -2.534 165.5 COalarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x CO-1-D-1-5 CO1D millivolt 0 0 0 -43.62 233.28 COalarm x x x CO-2-D-2-2 CO2D millivolt 0 0 0 -45.107 92.96 COalarm x x x CO-3-D-3-5 CO3D millivolt 0 0 0 -3.4431 165.47 COalarm Living Room (E) x CO-1-B-1-6 CO1B millivolt 0 0 0 -18.995 100.65 COalarm x CO-2-B-2-11 CO2B millivolt 0 0 0 -50.344 104.23 COalarm x CO-3-B-3-6 CO3B millivolt 0 0 0 -0.87202 172.93 
Test SDC07 Flaming Mattress in Bedroom

Time 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Alarm Master Bedroom (A) x x ION-1-A-3-1 Ion1A volt TCA_1 0 0 0 2.151 Alarm x x ION-3-A-4-10 Ion3A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 0 0.984 Alarm x x x ION-4-A-7B-6 Ion4A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 2 3.353 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-A-5-1 Pho1A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -0.80196 5.7793 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-A-7A-6 Pho3A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -1.4218 9.0001 Alarm x x ASPIRATED-1-A-0-7 Asp1A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -1.3703 2.6251 Alarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x ION-1-C-3-7 Ion1C volt TCC_1 0 0 0 1.685 Alarm x x x ION-3-C-4-13 Ion3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 0 1.147 Alarm xxxx ION-4-C-7B-3 Ion4C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 2 1.463 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-C-5-4 Pho1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.5233 8.5698 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-C-7C-3 Pho3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.7342 10.833 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-C-0-8 Asp1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.3285 1.9378 Alarm Living Room (E) x ION-1-BE-3-10 Ion1BE volt TCE_1 0 0 0 1.919 Alarm x ION-3-BE-4-3 Ion3B millivolt TCE_1 0 0 0 1.215 Alarm x x ION-4-BE-7B-4 Ion4B millivolt TCE_1 0 0 2 2.926 Alarm x PHOTO-1-BE-5-3 Pho1B millivolt TCE_1 0 0 -1.499 6.7174 Alarm x x PHOTO-3-BE-7A-4 Pho3B millivolt TCE_1 0 0 -0.87544 8.5248 Alarm x ASPIRATED-1-E-0-5 Asp1E millivolt TCE_1 0 0 -1.5123 2.5683 key postion level level + br all dual name label units Dalarm Burn Room Bedroom (B) x x PHOTO-2-B-DISP DiPho2 volt Dalarm x x ION-2-B-DISP DiIon2 volt Dalarm x x ION-4-B-DISP DiIon4 volt Sprinkler x Pres_1 millivolt key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 COalarm Master Bedroom (A) x x CO-1-A-1-4 CO1A millivolt 0 0 0 -4.283 129.73 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-5 CO2A millivolt 0 0 0 -48.823 113.74 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-4 CO3A millivolt 0 0 0 -3.6044 156.98 COalarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x CO-1-C-1-8 CO1C millivolt 0 0 0 -33.43 192.31 COalarm x x x CO-2-C-2-1 CO2C millivolt 0 0 0 -45.93 109.43 COalarm x x x CO-3-C-3-8 CO3C millivolt 0 0 0 -2.534 165.5 COalarm Living Room (E) x CO-1-B-1-6 CO1B millivolt 0 0 0 -18.995 100.65 COalarm x CO-2-B-2-11 CO2B millivolt 0 0 0 -50.344 104.23 COalarm x CO-3-B-3-6 CO3B millivolt 0 0 0 -0.87202 172.93 
Test SDC08 Smoldering Mattress in Bedroom

Time 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Alarm Master Bedroom (A) x x ION-1-A-3-1 Ion1A volt TCA_1 0 0 0 2.151 Alarm x x ION-3-A-4-10 Ion3A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 0 0.984 Alarm x x x ION-4-A-7B-6 Ion4A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 2 3.353 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-A-5-1 Pho1A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -0.80196 5.7793 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-A-7A-6 Pho3A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -1.4218 9.0001 Alarm x x ASPIRATED-1-A-0-7 Asp1A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -1.3703 2.6251 Alarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x ION-1-C-3-7 Ion1C volt TCC_1 0 0 0 1.685 Alarm x x x ION-3-C-4-13 Ion3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 0 1.147 Alarm xxxx ION-4-C-7B-3 Ion4C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 2 1.463 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-C-5-4 Pho1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.5233 8.5698 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-C-7C-3 Pho3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.7342 10.833 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-C-0-8 Asp1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.3285 1.9378 Alarm Living Room (E) x ION-1-BE-3-11 Ion1BE volt TCE_1 0 0 0 2.093 Alarm x ION-3-BE-4-9 Ion3B millivolt TCE_1 0 0 0 1.144 Alarm x x ION-4-BE-7B-10 Ion4B millivolt TCE_1 0 0 2 2.642 Alarm x PHOTO-1-BE-5-5 Pho1B millivolt TCE_1 0 0 -1.9634 6.8817 Alarm x x PHOTO-3-BE-7A-10 Pho3B millivolt TCE_1 0 0 -1.3008 9.2233 Alarm x ASPIRATED-1-E-0-5 Asp1E millivolt TCE_1 0 0 -1.5123 2.5683 key postion level level + br all dual name label units Dalarm Burn Room Bedroom (B) x x PHOTO-2-B-DISP DiPho2 volt Dalarm x x ION-2-B-DISP DiIon2 volt Dalarm x x ION-4-B-DISP DiIon4 volt Sprinkler x Pres_1 millivolt key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 COalarm Master Bedroom (A) x x CO-1-A-1-4 CO1A millivolt 0 0 0 -4.283 129.73 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-5 CO2A millivolt 0 0 0 -48.823 113.74 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-4 CO3A millivolt 0 0 0 -3.6044 156.98 COalarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x CO-1-C-1-8 CO1C millivolt 0 0 0 -33.43 192.31 COalarm x x x CO-2-C-2-1 CO2C millivolt 0 0 0 -45.93 109.43 COalarm x x x CO-3-C-3-8 CO3C millivolt 0 0 0 -2.534 165.5 COalarm Living Room (E) x CO-1-B-1-5 CO1B millivolt 0 0 0 -43.62 233.28 COalarm x CO-2-B-2-2 CO2B millivolt 0 0 0 -45.107 92.96 COalarm x CO-3-B-3-5 CO3B millivolt 0 0 0 -3.4431 165.47 
Test SDC09 Flaming Mattress in Bedroom (Burn Room Door Closed)

Time 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Alarm Master Bedroom (A) x x ION-1-A-3-1 Ion1A volt TCA_1 0 0 0 2.151 Alarm x x ION-3-A-4-10 Ion3A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 0 0.984 Alarm x x x ION-4-A-7B-6 Ion4A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 2 3.353 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-A-5-1 Pho1A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -0.80196 5.7793 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-A-7A-6 Pho3A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -1.4218 9.0001 Alarm x x ASPIRATED-1-A-0-7 Asp1A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -1.3703 2.6251 Alarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x ION-1-C-3-7 Ion1C volt TCC_1 0 0 0 1.685 Alarm x x x ION-3-C-4-13 Ion3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 0 1.147 Alarm xxxx ION-4-C-7B-3 Ion4C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 2 1.463 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-C-5-4 Pho1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.5233 8.5698 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-C-7C-3 Pho3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.7342 10.833 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-C-0-8 Asp1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.3285 1.9378 Alarm Living Room (E) x ION-1-BE-3-11 Ion1BE volt TCE_1 0 0 0 2.093 Alarm x ION-3-BE-4-9 Ion3B millivolt TCE_1 0 0 0 1.144 Alarm x x ION-4-BE-7B-10 Ion4B millivolt TCE_1 0 0 2 2.642 Alarm x PHOTO-1-BE-5-5 Pho1B millivolt TCE_1 0 0 -1.9634 6.8817 Alarm x x PHOTO-3-BE-7A-10 Pho3B millivolt TCE_1 0 0 -1.3008 9.2233 Alarm x ASPIRATED-1-E-0-5 Asp1E millivolt TCE_1 0 0 -1.5123 2.5683 key postion level level + br all dual name label units Dalarm Burn Room Bedroom (B) x x PHOTO-2-B-DISP DiPho2 volt Dalarm x x ION-2-B-DISP DiIon2 volt Dalarm x x ION-4-B-DISP DiIon4 volt Sprinkler x Pres_1 millivolt key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 COalarm Master Bedroom (A) x x CO-1-A-1-4 CO1A millivolt 0 0 0 -4.283 129.73 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-5 CO2A millivolt 0 0 0 -48.823 113.74 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-4 CO3A millivolt 0 0 0 -3.6044 156.98 COalarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x CO-1-C-1-8 CO1C millivolt 0 0 0 -33.43 192.31 COalarm x x x CO-2-C-2-1 CO2C millivolt 0 0 0 -45.93 109.43 COalarm x x x CO-3-C-3-8 CO3C millivolt 0 0 0 -2.534 165.5 COalarm Living Room (E) x CO-1-B-1-5 CO1B millivolt 0 0 0 -43.62 233.28 COalarm x CO-2-B-2-2 CO2B millivolt 0 0 0 -45.107 92.96 COalarm x CO-3-B-3-5 CO3B millivolt 0 0 0 -3.4431 165.47 
Test SDC10 Flaming Chair in Living Room

Time 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Alarm Master Bedroom (A) x x ION-1-A-3-1 Ion1A volt TCA_1 0 0 0 2.151 Alarm x x ION-3-A-4-10 Ion3A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 0 0.984 Alarm x x x ION-4-A-7B-6 Ion4A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 2 3.353 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-A-5-1 Pho1A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -0.80196 5.7793 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-A-7A-6 Pho3A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -1.4218 9.0001 Alarm x x ASPIRATED-1-A-0-7 Asp1A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -1.3703 2.6251 Alarm Burn Room Bedroom (B) x x ION-1-BE-3-4 Ion1BE volt TCB_1 0 0 0 1.66 Alarm x x ION-3-BE-4-6 Ion3B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 0 1.421 Alarm x x x ION-4-BE-7B-5 Ion4B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 2 1.806 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-BE-5-2 Pho1B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 -2.1855 5.7859 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-BE-7A-5 Pho3B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 -2.0966 11.563 Alarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x ION-1-C-3-7 Ion1C volt TCC_1 0 0 0 1.685 Alarm x x x ION-3-C-4-13 Ion3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 0 1.147 Alarm xxxx ION-4-C-7B-3 Ion4C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 2 1.463 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-C-5-4 Pho1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.5233 8.5698 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-C-7C-3 Pho3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.7342 10.833 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-C-0-8 Asp1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.3285 1.9378 Alarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x ION-1-D-3-11 Ion1D volt TCD_1 0 0 0 2.093 Alarm x x x ION-3-D-4-9 Ion3D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 0 1.144 Alarm xxxx ION-4-D-7B-10 Ion4D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 2 2.642 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-D-5-5 Pho1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.9634 6.8817 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-D-7D-310 Pho3D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.3008 9.2233 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-D-0-5 Asp1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.5123 2.5683 key postion level level + br all dual name label units Dalarm Living Room (E) x PHOTO-2-E-DISP DiPho2 volt Dalarm x ION-2-E-DISP DiIon2 volt Dalarm x ION-4-E-DISP DiIon4 volt 

Sprinkler x Pres_1 millivolt key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 COalarm Master Bedroom (A) x x CO-1-A-1-4 CO1A millivolt 0 0 0 -4.283 129.73 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-5 CO2A millivolt 0 0 0 -48.823 113.74 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-4 CO3A millivolt 0 0 0 -3.6044 156.98 COalarm Burn Room Bedroom (B) x x CO-1-A-1-9 CO1B millivolt 0 0 0 -22.577 180.93 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-12 CO2B millivolt 0 0 0 -45.376 93.597 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-10 CO3B millivolt 0 0 0 -2.9346 165.71 COalarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x CO-1-C-1-8 CO1C millivolt 0 0 0 -33.43 192.31 COalarm x x x CO-2-C-2-1 CO2C millivolt 0 0 0 -45.93 109.43 COalarm x x x CO-3-C-3-8 CO3C millivolt 0 0 0 -2.534 165.5 COalarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x CO-1-D-1-5 CO1D millivolt 0 0 0 -43.62 233.28 COalarm x x x CO-2-D-2-2 CO2D millivolt 0 0 0 -45.107 92.96 COalarm x x x CO-3-D-3-5 CO3D millivolt 0 0 0 -3.4431 165.47 
Test SDC11 Smoldering Chair in Living Room

Time 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Alarm Master Bedroom (A) x x ION-1-A-3-1 Ion1A volt TCA_1 0 0 0 2.151 Alarm x x ION-3-A-4-10 Ion3A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 0 0.984 Alarm x x x ION-4-A-7B-6 Ion4A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 2 3.353 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-A-5-1 Pho1A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -0.80196 5.7793 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-A-7A-6 Pho3A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -1.4218 9.0001 Alarm x x ASPIRATED-1-A-0-7 Asp1A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -1.3703 2.6251 Alarm Burn Room Bedroom (B) x x ION-1-BE-3-4 Ion1BE volt TCB_1 0 0 0 1.66 Alarm x x ION-3-BE-4-6 Ion3B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 0 1.421 Alarm x x x ION-4-BE-7B-5 Ion4B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 2 1.806 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-BE-5-2 Pho1B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 -2.1855 5.7859 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-BE-7A-5 Pho3B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 -2.0966 11.563 Alarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x ION-1-C-3-7 Ion1C volt TCC_1 0 0 0 1.685 Alarm x x x ION-3-C-4-13 Ion3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 0 1.147 Alarm xxxx ION-4-C-7B-3 Ion4C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 2 1.463 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-C-5-4 Pho1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.5233 8.5698 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-C-7C-3 Pho3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.7342 10.833 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-C-0-8 Asp1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.3285 1.9378 Alarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x ION-1-D-3-11 Ion1D volt TCD_1 0 0 0 2.093 Alarm x x x ION-3-D-4-9 Ion3D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 0 1.144 Alarm xxxx ION-4-D-7B-10 Ion4D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 2 2.642 #Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-D-5-5 Pho1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.9634 6.8817Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-D-7D-310 Pho3D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.3008 9.2233 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-D-0-5 Asp1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.5123 2.5683 key postion level level + br all dual name label units Dalarm Living Room (E) x PHOTO-2-E-DISP DiPho2 volt Dalarm x ION-2-E-DISP DiIon2 volt Dalarm x ION-4-E-DISP DiIon4 volt Sprinkler x Pres_1 millivolt key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 COalarm Master Bedroom (A) x x CO-1-A-1-4 CO1A millivolt 0 0 0 -4.283 129.73 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-5 CO2A millivolt 0 0 0 -48.823 113.74 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-4 CO3A millivolt 0 0 0 -3.6044 156.98 COalarm Burn Room Bedroom (B) x x CO-1-A-1-9 CO1B millivolt 0 0 0 -22.577 180.93 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-12 CO2B millivolt 0 0 0 -45.376 93.597 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-10 CO3B millivolt 0 0 0 -2.9346 165.71 COalarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x CO-1-C-1-8 CO1C millivolt 0 0 0 -33.43 192.31 COalarm x x x CO-2-C-2-1 CO2C millivolt 0 0 0 -45.93 109.43 COalarm x x x CO-3-C-3-8 CO3C millivolt 0 0 0 -2.534 165.5 COalarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x CO-1-D-1-5 CO1D millivolt 0 0 0 -43.62 233.28 COalarm x x x CO-2-D-2-2 CO2D millivolt 0 0 0 -45.107 92.96 COalarm x x x CO-3-D-3-5 CO3D millivolt 0 0 0 -3.4431 165.47 
Test SDC12 Vegetable Oil on Kitchen Stove 

Time 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Alarm Master Bedroom (A) x x ION-1-A-3-1 Ion1A volt TCA_1 0 0 0 2.151 Alarm x x ION-3-A-4-10 Ion3A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 0 0.984 Alarm x x x ION-4-A-7B-6 Ion4A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 2 3.353 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-A-5-1 Pho1A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -0.80196 5.7793 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-A-7A-6 Pho3A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -1.4218 9.0001 Alarm x x ASPIRATED-1-A-0-7 Asp1A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -1.3703 2.6251 Alarm Burn Room Bedroom (B) x x ION-1-BE-3-4 Ion1BE volt TCB_1 0 0 0 1.66 Alarm x x ION-3-BE-4-6 Ion3B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 0 1.421 Alarm x x x ION-4-BE-7B-5 Ion4B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 2 1.806 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-BE-5-2 Pho1B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 -2.1855 5.7859 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-BE-7A-5 Pho3B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 -2.0966 11.563 Alarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x ION-1-D-3-11 Ion1D volt TCD_1 0 0 0 2.093 Alarm x x x ION-3-D-4-9 Ion3D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 0 1.144 Alarm xxxx ION-4-D-7B-10 Ion4D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 2 2.642 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-D-5-5 Pho1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.9634 6.8817 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-D-7D-310 Pho3D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.3008 9.2233 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-D-0-5 Asp1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.5123 2.5683 key postion level level + br all dual name label units Dalarm Living Room (E) x PHOTO-2-E-DISP DiPho2 volt Dalarm x ION-2-E-DISP DiIon2 volt Dalarm x ION-4-E-DISP DiIon4 volt Sprinkler x Pres_1 millivolt key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 COalarm Master Bedroom (A) x x CO-1-A-1-4 CO1A millivolt 0 0 0 -4.283 129.73 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-5 CO2A millivolt 0 0 0 -48.823 113.74 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-4 CO3A millivolt 0 0 0 -3.6044 156.98 COalarm Burn Room Bedroom (B) x x CO-1-A-1-9 CO1B millivolt 0 0 0 -22.577 180.93 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-12 CO2B millivolt 0 0 0 -45.376 93.597 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-10 CO3B millivolt 0 0 0 -2.9346 165.71 COalarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x CO-1-D-1-5 CO1D millivolt 0 0 0 -43.62 233.28 COalarm x x x CO-2-D-2-2 CO2D millivolt 0 0 0 -45.107 92.96 COalarm x x x CO-3-D-3-5 CO3D millivolt 0 0 0 -3.4431 165.47 
Test SDC13 Vegetable Oil on Kitchen Stove

Time 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Alarm Master Bedroom (A) x x ION-1-A-3-1 Ion1A volt TCA_1 0 0 0 2.151 Alarm x x ION-3-A-4-10 Ion3A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 0 0.984 Alarm x x x ION-4-A-7B-6 Ion4A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 2 3.353 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-A-5-1 Pho1A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -0.80196 5.7793 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-A-7A-6 Pho3A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -1.4218 9.0001 Alarm x x ASPIRATED-1-A-0-7 Asp1A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -1.3703 2.6251 Alarm Burn Room Bedroom (B) x x ION-1-BE-3-4 Ion1BE volt TCB_1 0 0 0 1.66 Alarm x x ION-3-BE-4-6 Ion3B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 0 1.421 Alarm x x x ION-4-BE-7B-5 Ion4B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 2 1.806 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-BE-5-2 Pho1B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 -2.1855 5.7859 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-BE-7A-5 Pho3B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 -2.0966 11.563 Alarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x ION-1-D-3-11 Ion1D volt TCD_1 0 0 0 2.093 Alarm x x x ION-3-D-4-9 Ion3D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 0 1.144 Alarm xxxx ION-4-D-7B-10 Ion4D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 2 2.642 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-D-5-5 Pho1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.9634 6.8817 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-D-7D-310 Pho3D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.3008 9.2233 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-D-0-5 Asp1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.5123 2.5683 key postion level level + br all dual name label units Dalarm Living Room (E) x PHOTO-2-E-DISP DiPho2 volt Dalarm x ION-2-E-DISP DiIon2 volt Dalarm x ION-4-E-DISP DiIon4 volt Sprinkler x Pres_1 millivolt key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 COalarm Master Bedroom (A) x x CO-1-A-1-4 CO1A millivolt 0 0 0 -4.283 129.73 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-5 CO2A millivolt 0 0 0 -48.823 113.74 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-4 CO3A millivolt 0 0 0 -3.6044 156.98 COalarm Burn Room Bedroom (B) x x CO-1-A-1-9 CO1B millivolt 0 0 0 -22.577 180.93 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-12 CO2B millivolt 0 0 0 -45.376 93.597 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-10 CO3B millivolt 0 0 0 -2.9346 165.71 COalarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x CO-1-D-1-5 CO1D millivolt 0 0 0 -43.62 233.28 COalarm x x x CO-2-D-2-2 CO2D millivolt 0 0 0 -45.107 92.96 COalarm x x x CO-3-D-3-5 CO3D millivolt 0 0 0 -3.4431 165.47 
Test SDC14 Smoldering Mattress in Bedroom (Burn Room Door Closed)

Time 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Alarm Master Bedroom (A) x x ION-1-A-3-1 Ion1A volt TCA_1 0 0 0 2.151 Alarm x x ION-3-A-4-10 Ion3A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 0 0.984 Alarm x x x ION-4-A-7B-6 Ion4A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 2 3.353 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-A-5-1 Pho1A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -0.80196 5.7793 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-A-7A-6 Pho3A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -1.4218 9.0001 Alarm x x ASPIRATED-1-A-0-7 Asp1A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -1.3703 2.6251 Alarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x ION-1-C-3-7 Ion1C volt TCC_1 0 0 0 1.685 Alarm x x x ION-3-C-4-13 Ion3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 0 1.147 Alarm xxxx ION-4-C-7B-3 Ion4C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 2 1.463 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-C-5-4 Pho1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.5233 8.5698 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-C-7C-3 Pho3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.7342 10.833 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-C-0-8 Asp1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.3285 1.9378 Alarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x ION-1-D-3-11 Ion1D volt TCD_1 0 0 0 2.093 Alarm x x x ION-3-D-4-9 Ion3D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 0 1.144 Alarm xxxx ION-4-D-7B-10 Ion4D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 2 2.642 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-D-5-5 Pho1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.9634 6.8817 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-D-7D-310 Pho3D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.3008 9.2233 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-D-0-12 Asp1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.4838 1.988 key postion level level + br all dual name label units Dalarm Burn Room Bedroom (B) x x PHOTO-2-B-DISP DiPho2 volt Dalarm x x ION-2-B-DISP DiIon2 volt Dalarm x x ION-4-B-DISP DiIon4 volt Sprinkler x Pres_1 millivolt key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 COalarm Master Bedroom (A) x x CO-1-A-1-4 CO1A millivolt 0 0 0 -4.283 129.73 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-5 CO2A millivolt 0 0 0 -48.823 113.74 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-4 CO3A millivolt 0 0 0 -3.6044 156.98 COalarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x CO-1-A-1-8 CO1C millivolt 0 0 0 -33.43 192.31 COalarm x x x CO-2-A-2-1 CO2C millivolt 0 0 0 -45.93 109.43 COalarm x x x CO-3-A-3-8 CO3C millivolt 0 0 0 -2.534 165.5 COalarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x CO-1-D-1-5 CO1D millivolt 0 0 0 -43.62 233.28 COalarm x x x CO-2-D-2-2 CO2D millivolt 0 0 0 -45.107 92.96 COalarm x x x CO-3-D-3-5 CO3D millivolt 0 0 0 -3.4431 165.47 
Test SDC15 Flaming Chair Living Room

Time 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Alarm Master Bedroom (A) x x ION-1-A-3-1 Ion1A volt TCA_1 0 0 0 2.151 Alarm x x ION-3-A-4-10 Ion3A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 0 0.984 Alarm x x x ION-4-A-7B-6 Ion4A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 2 3.353 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-A-5-1 Pho1A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -0.80196 5.7793 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-A-7A-6 Pho3A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -1.4218 9.0001 Alarm x x ASPIRATED-1-A-0-7 Asp1A millivolt TCA_1 0 0 -1.3703 2.6251 Alarm Burn Room Bedroom (B) x x ION-1-BE-3-4 Ion1BE volt TCB_1 0 0 0 1.66 Alarm x x ION-3-BE-4-6 Ion3B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 0 1.421 Alarm x x x ION-4-BE-7B-5 Ion4B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 2 1.806 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-BE-5-2 Pho1B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 -2.1855 5.7859 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-BE-7A-5 Pho3B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 -2.0966 11.563 Alarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x ION-1-C-3-7 Ion1C volt TCC_1 0 0 0 1.685 Alarm x x x ION-3-C-4-13 Ion3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 0 1.147 Alarm xxxx ION-4-C-7B-3 Ion4C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 2 1.463 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-C-5-4 Pho1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.5233 8.5698 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-C-7C-3 Pho3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.7342 10.833 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-C-0-8 Asp1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.3285 1.9378 Alarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x ION-1-D-3-11 Ion1D volt TCD_1 0 0 0 2.093 Alarm x x x ION-3-D-4-9 Ion3D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 0 1.144 Alarm xxxx ION-4-D-7B-10 Ion4D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 2 2.642 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-D-5-5 Pho1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.9634 6.8817 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-D-7D-310 Pho3D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.3008 9.2233 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-D-0-12 Asp1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.4838 1.988 key postion level level + br all dual name label units Dalarm Living Room (E) x PHOTO-2-E-DISP DiPho2 volt Dalarm x ION-2-E-DISP DiIon2 volt Dalarm x ION-4-E-DISP DiIon4 volt Sprinkler x Pres_1 millivolt key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 COalarm Master Bedroom (A) x x CO-1-A-1-4 CO1A millivolt 0 0 0 -4.283 129.73 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-5 CO2A millivolt 0 0 0 -48.823 113.74 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-4 CO3A millivolt 0 0 0 -3.6044 156.98 COalarm Burn Room Bedroom (B) x x CO-1-A-1-9 CO1B millivolt 0 0 0 -22.577 180.93 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-12 CO2B millivolt 0 0 0 -45.376 93.597 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-10 CO3B millivolt 0 0 0 -2.9346 165.71 COalarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x CO-1-A-1-8 CO1C millivolt 0 0 0 -33.43 192.31 COalarm x x x CO-2-A-2-1 CO2C millivolt 0 0 0 -45.93 109.43 COalarm x x x CO-3-A-3-8 CO3C millivolt 0 0 0 -2.534 165.5 COalarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x CO-1-D-1-5 CO1D millivolt 0 0 0 -43.62 233.28 COalarm x x x CO-2-D-2-2 CO2D millivolt 0 0 0 -45.107 92.96 COalarm x x x CO-3-D-3-5 CO3D millivolt 0 0 0 -3.4431 165.47 
Series ..\Kinston Series\

Test SDC20 Flaming Mattress in Bedroom (Burn Room Door Closed)Time 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Alarm Bedroom 1 (A) x x ION-1-A-3-5 Ion1A volt TCB11 0 0 0 2.164 Alarm x x ION-3-A-1-4-11 Ion3A millivolts TCB11 0 0 0 1.184 Alarm x x x ION-4-A-7B-11 Ion4A millivolts TCB11 0 0 2 1.832 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-A-5-6 Pho1A millivolts TCB11 0 0 -2.1957 11.829 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-A-7A-11 Pho3A millivolts TCB11 0 0 -2.3587 12.79 Alarm x x ASPIRATED-1-A-0-13 Asp1A millivolts TCB11 0000 

Alarm Foyer (B) x x x ION-1-BE-3-6 Ion1B volt TCF1 0 0 0 2.27 Alarm x x x ION-3-BE-4-4 Ion3B millivolt TCF1 0 0 0 1.558 Alarm xxxx ION-4-BE-7B-9 Ion4B millivolt TCF1 0 0 2 1.35 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-BE-5-3 Pho1B millivolt TCF1 0 0 -1.499 6.7174 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-BE-7A-9 Pho3B millivolt TCF1 0 0 -1.2893 9.3236 Alarm Upstairs Hallway (C ) x x x ION-1-C-3-3 Ion1C volt TCH1 0 0 0 1.789 Alarm x x x ION-3-C-4-7 Ion3C millivolt TCH1 0 0 0 1.001 Alarm xxxx ION-4-C-7B-2 Ion4C millivolt TCH1 0 0 2 2.374 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-C-5-5 Pho1C millivolt TCH1 0 0 -1.9634 6.8817 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-C-7C-2 Pho3C millivolt TCH1 0 0 -1.701 9.4736 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-C-0-7 Asp1C millivolt TCH1 0 0 -1.5989 3.0219 Alarm Den (D) x ION-1-D-3-9 Ion1D volt TCD1 0 0 0 1.93 Alarm x ION-3-D-4-17 Ion3D millivolt TCD1 0 0 0 1.066 Alarm x x ION-4-D-7B-12 Ion4D millivolt TCD1 0 0 2 3.202 Alarm x PHOTO-1-D-5-1 Pho1D millivolt TCD1 0 0 -1.7975 7.0015 Alarm x x PHOTO-3-D-7D-12 Pho3D millivolt TCD1 0 0 -1.1931 8.9327 Alarm x ASPIRATED-1-D-0-6 Asp1D millivolt TCD1 0 0 -1.714 2.3248 Sprinkler Sprinkler telltale pressure 1. Bedroom 1 x dual Pres_1 millivolt key postion level level + br all name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 COalarm Bedroom 1 (A) x x CO-1-A-1-10 CO1A millivolt 0 0 0 73.89 61.28 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-8 CO2A millivolt 0 0 0 -52.2 120 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-2 CO3A millivolt 0 0 0 -1.352 163.6 COalarm Foyer (B) x x x CO-1-A-1-1 CO1B millivolt 0 0 0 5.307 150.7 COalarm x x x CO-2-A-2-9 CO2B millivolt 0 0 0 -58.97 138 COalarm x x x CO-3-A-3-7 CO3B millivolt 0 0 0 -2.483 171.3 COalarm Upstairs Hallway (C ) x x x CO-1-A-1-3 CO1C millivolt 0 0 0 25.91 127.5 COalarm x x x CO-2-A-2-6 CO2C millivolt 0 0 0 -57.93 115.3 COalarm x x x CO-3-A-3-1 CO3C millivolt 0 0 0 -3.809 159 COalarm Den (D) x CO-1-D-1-2 CO1D millivolt 0 0 0 2.508 148.2 COalarm x CO-2-D-2-13 CO2D millivolt 0 0 0 -44.04 103.4 COalarm x CO-3-D-3-3 CO3D millivolt 0 0 0 -5.261 161.6 
Test SDC21 Smoldering Mattress in Bedroom

Time 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Alarm Bedroom 1 (A) x x ION-1-A-3-5 Ion1A volt TCB11 0 0 0 2.164 Alarm x x ION-3-A-1-4-11 Ion3A millivolts TCB11 0 0 0 1.184 Alarm x x x ION-4-A-7B-1 Ion4A millivolts TCB11 0 0 2 1.462 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-A-5-6 Pho1A millivolts TCB11 0 0 -2.1957 11.829 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-A-7A-11 Pho3A millivolts TCB11 0 0 -2.3587 12.79 Alarm x x ASPIRATED-1-A-0-13 Asp1A millivolts TCB11 0000 Alarm Foyer (B) x x x ION-1-BE-3-6 Ion1B volt TCF1 0 0 0 2.27 Alarm x x x ION-3-BE-4-4 Ion3B millivolt TCF1 0 0 0 1.558 Alarm xxxx ION-4-BE-7B-9 Ion4B millivolt TCF1 0 0 2 1.35 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-BE-5-3 Pho1B millivolt TCF1 0 0 -1.499 6.7174 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-BE-7A-9 Pho3B millivolt TCF1 0 0 -1.2893 9.3236 Alarm Hallway (C ) x x x ION-1-C-3-3 Ion1C volt TCH1 0 0 0 1.789 Alarm x x x ION-3-C-4-7 Ion3C millivolt TCH1 0 0 0 1.001 Alarm xxxx ION-4-C-7B-2 Ion4C millivolt TCH1 0 0 2 2.374 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-C-5-5 Pho1C millivolt TCH1 0 0 -1.9634 6.8817 #Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-C-7C-2 Pho3C millivolt TCH1 0 0 -1.701 9.4736Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-C-0-7 Asp1C millivolt TCH1 0 0 -1.5989 3.0219 Alarm Den (D) x ION-1-D-3-9 Ion1D volt TCD1 0 0 0 1.93 Alarm x ION-3-D-4-17 Ion3D millivolt TCD1 0 0 0 1.066 Alarm x x ION-4-D-7B-12 Ion4D millivolt TCD1 0 0 2 3.202 Alarm x PHOTO-1-D-5-1 Pho1D millivolt TCD1 0 0 -1.7975 7.0015 #Alarm x x PHOTO-3-D-7D-12 Pho3D millivolt TCD1 0 0 -1.1931 8.9327Alarm x ASPIRATED-1-D-0-6 Asp1D millivolt TCD1 0 0 -1.714 2.3248 Sprinkler Sprinkler telltale pressure 1. Bedroom 1 x dual Pres_1 millivolt key postion level level + br all name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 #COalarm Bedroom 1 (A) x x CO-1-A-1-10 CO1A millivolt 0 0 0 73.89 61.28COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-8 CO2A millivolt 0 0 0 -52.2 120 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-2 CO3A millivolt 0 0 0 -1.352 163.6 COalarm Foyer (B) x x x CO-1-A-1-1 CO1B millivolt 0 0 0 5.307 150.7 COalarm x x x CO-2-A-2-9 CO2B millivolt 0 0 0 -58.97 138 COalarm x x x CO-3-A-3-7 CO3B millivolt 0 0 0 -2.483 171.3 COalarm Upstairs Hallway (C ) x x x CO-2-A-2-6 CO2C millivolt 0 0 0 -57.93 115.3 COalarm x x x CO-3-A-3-1 CO3C millivolt 0 0 0 -3.809 159 COalarm Den (D) x CO-2-D-2-13 CO2D millivolt 0 0 0 -44.04 103.4 COalarm x CO-3-D-3-3 CO3D millivolt 0 0 0 -5.261 161.6 
Test SDC22 Flaming Mattress in Bedroom

Time 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Alarm Bedroom 1 (A) x x ION-1-A-3-5 Ion1A volt TCB11 0 0 0 2.164 Alarm x x ION-3-A-1-4-11 Ion3A millivolts TCB11 0 0 0 1.184 Alarm x x x ION-4-A-7B-1 Ion4A millivolts TCB11 0 0 2 1.462 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-A-5-6 Pho1A millivolts TCB11 0 0 -2.1957 11.829 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-A-7A-11 Pho3A millivolts TCB11 0 0 -2.3587 12.79 Alarm x x ASPIRATED-1-A-0-13 Asp1A millivolts TCB11 0000 Alarm Foyer (B) x x x ION-1-BE-3-6 Ion1B volt TCF1 0 0 0 2.27 Alarm x x x ION-3-BE-4-4 Ion3B millivolt TCF1 0 0 0 1.558 Alarm xxxx ION-4-BE-7B-9 Ion4B millivolt TCF1 0 0 2 1.35 #Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-BE-5-3 Pho1B millivolt TCF1 0 0 -1.499 6.7174Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-BE-7A-9 Pho3B millivolt TCF1 0 0 -1.2893 9.3236 Alarm Den (D) x ION-1-D-3-9 Ion1D volt TCD1 0 0 0 1.93 Alarm x ION-3-D-4-17 Ion3D millivolt TCD1 0 0 0 1.066 Alarm x PHOTO-1-D-5-1 Pho1D millivolt TCD1 0 0 -1.7975 7.0015 Alarm x ASPIRATED-1-D-0-6 Asp1D millivolt TCD1 0 0 -1.714 2.3248 key postion level level + br all dual name label units Dalarm Hallway (C ) x x x PHOTO-2-C-DISP DiPh2B volt Dalarm x x x ION-2-C-DISP DiIo2B volt Dalarm x x x ION-4-C-DISP DiIo4B volt Sprinkler Sprinkler telltale pressure 1. Bedroom 1 x Pres_1 millivolt key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 #COalarm Bedroom 1 (A) x x CO-1-A-1-10 CO1A millivolt 0 0 0 73.89 61.28COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-8 CO2A millivolt 0 0 0 -52.2 120 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-2 CO3A millivolt 0 0 0 -1.352 163.6 COalarm Upstairs Hallway (C ) x x x CO-2-A-2-6 CO2C millivolt 0 0 0 -57.93 115.3 COalarm x x x CO-3-A-3-1 CO3C millivolt 0 0 0 -3.809 159 COalarm Den (D) x CO-2-D-2-13 CO2D millivolt 0 0 0 -44.04 103.4 COalarm x CO-3-D-3-3 CO3D millivolt 0 0 0 -5.261 161.6 
Test SDC23 Smoldering Chair in Living Room

Time 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Alarm Bedroom 1 (A) x x ION-1-A-3-5 Ion1A volt TCB11 0 0 0 2.164 Alarm x x ION-3-A-1-4-11 Ion3A millivolts TCB11 0 0 0 1.184 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-A-5-6 Pho1A millivolts TCB11 0 0 -2.1957 11.829 Alarm x x ASPIRATED-1-A-0-13 Asp1A millivolts TCB11 0000 

Alarm Foyer (B) x x x ION-1-BE-3-6 Ion1B volt TCF1 0 0 0 2.27 Alarm x x x ION-3-BE-4-4 Ion3B millivolt TCF1 0 0 0 1.558 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-BE-5-3 Pho1B millivolt TCF1 0 0 -1.499 6.7174 Alarm Upstairs Hallway (C ) x x x ION-1-C-3-3 Ion1C volt TCH1 0 0 0 1.789 Alarm x x x ION-3-C-4-7 Ion3C millivolt TCH1 0 0 0 1.001 Alarm xxxx ION-4-C-7B-2 Ion4C millivolt TCH1 0 0 2 2.374 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-C-5-2 Pho1C millivolt TCH1 0 0 -3.7613 8.3831 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-C-7C-2 Pho3C millivolt TCH1 0 0 -1.701 9.4736 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-C-0-7 Asp1C millivolt TCH1 0 0 -1.5989 3.0219 Alarm Den (D) x ION-1-D-3-9 Ion1D volt TCD1 0 0 0 1.93 Alarm x ION-3-D-4-17 Ion3D millivolt TCD1 0 0 0 1.066 Alarm x x ION-4-D-7B-12 Ion4D millivolt TCD1 0 0 2 3.202 Alarm x PHOTO-1-D-5-1 Pho1D millivolt TCD1 0 0 -1.7975 7.0015 Alarm x x PHOTO-3-D-7D-12 Pho3D millivolt TCD1 0 0 -1.1931 8.9327 Alarm x ASPIRATED-1-D-0-6 Asp1D millivolt TCD1 0 0 -1.714 2.3248 Sprinkler Sprinkler telltale pressure 2. Living Room x Pres_2 millivolt key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 COalarm Bedroom 1 (A) x x CO-1-A-1-16 CO1A millivolt 0 0 0 27.47 132.3 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-8 CO2A millivolt 0 0 0 -52.2 120 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-2 CO3A millivolt 0 0 0 -1.352 163.6 COalarm Foyer (B) x x x CO-1-A-1-17 CO1B millivolt 0 0 0 34.37 140.1 COalarm x x x CO-2-A-2-9 CO2B millivolt 0 0 0 -58.97 138 COalarm x x x CO-3-A-3-7 CO3B millivolt 0 0 0 -2.483 171.3 COalarm Upstairs Hallway (C ) x x x CO-1-A-1-3 CO1C millivolt 0 0 0 25.91 127.5 COalarm x x x CO-2-A-2-6 CO2C millivolt 0 0 0 -57.93 115.3 COalarm x x x CO-3-A-3-1 CO3C millivolt 0 0 0 -3.809 159 COalarm Den (D) x CO-1-D-1-2 CO1D millivolt 0 0 0 2.508 148.2 COalarm x CO-2-D-2-13 CO2D millivolt 0 0 0 -44.04 103.4 COalarm x CO-3-D-3-3 CO3D millivolt 0 0 0 -5.261 161.6 
Test SDC24 Vegetable Oil on Kitchen Stove

Time 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Alarm Bedroom 1 (A) x x ION-1-A-3-5 Ion1A volt TCB11 0 0 0 2.164 Alarm x x ION-3-A-1-4-11 Ion3A millivolts TCB11 0 0 0 1.184 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-A-5-6 Pho1A millivolts TCB11 0 0 -2.1957 11.829 Alarm x x ASPIRATED-1-A-0-13 Asp1A millivolts TCB11 0000 Alarm Foyer (B) x x x ION-1-BE-3-6 Ion1B volt TCF1 0 0 0 2.27 Alarm x x x ION-3-BE-4-4 Ion3B millivolt TCF1 0 0 0 1.558 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-BE-5-3 Pho1B millivolt TCF1 0 0 -1.499 6.7174 Alarm Upstairs Hallway (C ) x x x ION-1-C-3-3 Ion1C volt TCH1 0 0 0 1.789 Alarm x x x ION-3-C-4-7 Ion3C millivolt TCH1 0 0 0 1.001 Alarm xxxx ION-4-C-7B-2 Ion4C millivolt TCH1 0 0 2 2.374 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-C-5-2 Pho1C millivolt TCH1 0 0 -3.7613 8.3831 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-C-7C-2 Pho3C millivolt TCH1 0 0 -1.701 9.4736 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-C-0-7 Asp1C millivolt TCH1 0 0 -1.5989 3.0219 Alarm Den (D) x ION-1-D-3-9 Ion1D volt TCD1 0 0 0 1.93 Alarm x ION-3-D-4-17 Ion3D millivolt TCD1 0 0 0 1.066 Alarm x x ION-4-D-7B-12 Ion4D millivolt TCD1 0 0 2 3.202 Alarm x PHOTO-1-D-5-1 Pho1D millivolt TCD1 0 0 -1.7975 7.0015 Alarm x x PHOTO-3-D-7D-12 Pho3D millivolt TCD1 0 0 -1.1931 8.9327 Alarm x ASPIRATED-1-D-0-6 Asp1D millivolt TCD1 0 0 -1.714 2.3248 Sprinkler Sprinkler telltale pressure 3. Kitchen x Pres_3 millivolt key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 COalarm Bedroom 1 (A) x x CO-1-A-1-16 CO1A millivolt 0 0 0 27.47 132.3 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-8 CO2A millivolt 0 0 0 -52.2 120 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-2 CO3A millivolt 0 0 0 -1.352 163.6 COalarm Foyer (B) x x x CO-1-A-1-17 CO1B millivolt 0 0 0 34.37 140.1 COalarm x x x CO-2-A-2-9 CO2B millivolt 0 0 0 -58.97 138 COalarm x x x CO-3-A-3-7 CO3B millivolt 0 0 0 -2.483 171.3 COalarm Upstairs Hallway (C ) x x x CO-1-A-1-3 CO1C millivolt 0 0 0 25.91 127.5 COalarm x x x CO-2-A-2-6 CO2C millivolt 0 0 0 -57.93 115.3 COalarm x x x CO-3-A-3-1 CO3C millivolt 0 0 0 -3.809 159 COalarm Den (D) x CO-1-D-1-2 CO1D millivolt 0 0 0 2.508 148.2 COalarm x CO-2-D-2-13 CO2D millivolt 0 0 0 -44.04 103.4 COalarm x CO-3-D-3-3 CO3D millivolt 0 0 0 -5.261 161.6 
Test SDC25 Flaming Chair in Living Room

Time 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Alarm Bedroom 1 (A) x x ION-1-A-3-5 Ion1A volt TCB11 0 0 0 2.164 Alarm x x ION-3-A-1-4-11 Ion3A millivolts TCB11 0 0 0 1.184 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-A-5-6 Pho1A millivolts TCB11 0 0 -2.1957 11.829 Alarm x x ASPIRATED-1-A-0-13 Asp1A millivolts TCB11 0000 

Alarm Den (D) x ION-1-D-3-9 Ion1D volt TCD1 0 0 0 1.93 Alarm x ION-3-D-4-17 Ion3D millivolt TCD1 0 0 0 1.066 Alarm x x ION-4-D-7B-12 Ion4D millivolt TCD1 0 0 2 3.202 Alarm x PHOTO-1-D-5-1 Pho1D millivolt TCD1 0 0 -1.7975 7.0015 Alarm x x PHOTO-3-D-7D-12 Pho3D millivolt TCD1 0 0 -1.1931 8.9327 Alarm x ASPIRATED-1-D-0-6 Asp1D millivolt TCD1 0 0 -1.714 2.3248 key postion level level + br all dual name label units Dalarm Hallway (C ) x x x PHOTO-2-C-DISP DiPh2B volt Dalarm x x x ION-2-C-DISP DiIo2B volt Dalarm x x x ION-4-C-DISP DiIo4B volt Dalarm Foyer (B) x x x PHOTO-2-B-DISP DiPh2C volt Dalarm x x x ION-2-B-DISP DiIo2C volt Dalarm x x x ION-4-B-DISP DiIo4C volt Sprinkler Sprinkler telltale pressure 2. Living Room x Pres_2 millivolt key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 COalarm Bedroom 1 (A) x x CO-1-A-1-16 CO1A millivolt 0 0 0 27.47 132.3 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-8 CO2A millivolt 0 0 0 -52.2 120 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-2 CO3A millivolt 0 0 0 -1.352 163.6 COalarm Den (D) x CO-1-D-1-2 CO1D millivolt 0 0 0 2.508 148.2 COalarm x CO-2-D-2-13 CO2D millivolt 0 0 0 -44.04 103.4 COalarm x CO-3-D-3-3 CO3D millivolt 0 0 0 -5.261 161.6 
Test SDC26 Flaming Chair in Living Room

Time 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Alarm Bedroom 1 (A) x x ION-1-A-3-5 Ion1A volt TCB11 0 0 0 2.164 Alarm x x ION-3-A-1-4-11 Ion3A millivolts TCB11 0 0 0 1.184 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-A-5-6 Pho1A millivolts TCB11 0 0 -2.1957 11.829 Alarm x x ASPIRATED-1-A-0-13 Asp1A millivolts TCB11 0000 

Alarm Den (D) x ION-1-D-3-9 Ion1D volt TCD1 0 0 0 1.93 Alarm x ION-3-D-4-17 Ion3D millivolt TCD1 0 0 0 1.066 Alarm x x ION-4-D-7B-12 Ion4D millivolt TCD1 0 0 2 3.202 Alarm x PHOTO-1-D-5-1 Pho1D millivolt TCD1 0 0 -1.7975 7.0015 Alarm x x PHOTO-3-D-7D-12 Pho3D millivolt TCD1 0 0 -1.1931 8.9327 Alarm x ASPIRATED-1-D-0-6 Asp1D millivolt TCD1 0 0 -1.714 2.3248 key postion level level + br all dual name label units Dalarm Hallway (C ) x x x PHOTO-2-C-DISP DiPh2B volt Dalarm x x x ION-2-C-DISP DiIo2B volt Dalarm x x x ION-4-C-DISP DiIo4B volt Dalarm Foyer (B) x x x PHOTO-2-B-DISP DiPh2C volt Dalarm x x x ION-2-B-DISP DiIo2C volt Dalarm x x x ION-4-B-DISP DiIo4C volt Sprinkler Sprinkler telltale pressure 2. Living Room x Pres_2 millivolt key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 COalarm Bedroom 1 (A) x x CO-1-A-1-16 CO1A millivolt 0 0 0 27.47 132.3 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-8 CO2A millivolt 0 0 0 -52.2 120 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-2 CO3A millivolt 0 0 0 -1.352 163.6 COalarm Den (D) x CO-1-D-1-2 CO1D millivolt 0 0 0 2.508 148.2 COalarm x CO-2-D-2-13 CO2D millivolt 0 0 0 -44.04 103.4 COalarm x CO-3-D-3-3 CO3D millivolt 0 0 0 -5.261 161.6 
Test SDC27 Smoldering Chair in Living Room (Air Conditioning Upstairs)

Time 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Alarm Bedroom 1 (A) x x ION-1-A-3-5 Ion1A volt TCB11 0 0 0 2.164 Alarm x x ION-3-A-1-4-11 Ion3A millivolts TCB11 0 0 0 1.184 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-A-5-6 Pho1A millivolts TCB11 0 0 -2.1957 11.829 Alarm x x ASPIRATED-1-A-0-13 Asp1A millivolts TCB11 0000 Alarm Foyer (B) x x x ION-1-BE-3-6 Ion1B volt TCF1 0 0 0 2.27 Alarm x x x ION-3-BE-4-4 Ion3B millivolt TCF1 0 0 0 1.558 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-BE-5-3 Pho1B millivolt TCF1 0 0 -1.499 6.7174 Alarm Upstairs Hallway (C ) x x x ION-1-C-3-3 Ion1C volt TCH1 0 0 0 1.789 Alarm x x x ION-3-C-4-7 Ion3C millivolt TCH1 0 0 0 1.001 Alarm xxxx ION-4-C-7B-9 Ion4C millivolt TCH1 0 0 2 1.35 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-C-5-2 Pho1C millivolt TCH1 0 0 -3.7613 8.3831 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-C-7C-9 Pho3C millivolt TCH1 0 0 -1.2893 9.3236 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-C-0-7 Asp1C millivolt TCH1 0 0 -1.5989 3.0219 Alarm Den (D) x ION-1-D-3-9 Ion1D volt TCD1 0 0 0 1.93 Alarm x ION-3-D-4-17 Ion3D millivolt TCD1 0 0 0 1.066 Alarm x x ION-4-D-7B-2 Ion4D millivolt TCD1 0 0 2 2.374 Alarm x PHOTO-1-D-5-1 Pho1D millivolt TCD1 0 0 -1.7975 7.0015 Alarm x x PHOTO-3-D-7D-12 Pho3D millivolt TCD1 0 0 -1.1931 8.9327 Alarm x ASPIRATED-1-D-0-6 Asp1D millivolt TCD1 0 0 -1.714 2.3248 Sprinkler Sprinkler telltale pressure 2. Living Room x Pres_2 millivolt key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 COalarm Bedroom 1 (A) x x CO-1-A-1-16 CO1A millivolt TCB11 0 0 27.47 132.3 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-8 CO2A millivolt TCB11 0 0 -52.2 120 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-2 CO3A millivolt TCB11 0 0 -1.352 163.6 COalarm Foyer (B) x x x CO-1-A-1-17 CO1B millivolt TCF1 0 0 34.37 140.1 COalarm x x x CO-2-A-2-9 CO2B millivolt TCF1 0 0 -58.97 138 COalarm x x x CO-3-A-3-7 CO3B millivolt TCF1 0 0 -2.483 171.3 COalarm Upstairs Hallway (C ) x x x CO-1-A-1-3 CO1C millivolt TCH1 0 0 25.91 127.5 COalarm x x x CO-2-A-2-6 CO2C millivolt TCH1 0 0 -57.93 115.3 COalarm x x x CO-3-A-3-1 CO3C millivolt TCH1 0 0 -3.809 159 COalarm Den (D) x CO-1-D-1-2 CO1D millivolt TCD1 0 0 2.508 148.2 COalarm x CO-2-D-2-13 CO2D millivolt TCD1 0 0 -44.04 103.4 COalarm x CO-3-D-3-3 CO3D millivolt TCD1 0 0 -5.261 161.6 
Test SDC28 Fully-Furnished Living Room

Time 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 key postion level level + br all dual name label units Dalarm Hallway (C ) x x x PHOTO-2-C-DISP DiPh2B volt Dalarm x x x ION-2-C-DISP DiIo2B volt Dalarm x x x ION-4-C-DISP DiIo4B volt Dalarm Foyer (B) x x x PHOTO-2-B-DISP DiPh2C volt Dalarm x x x ION-2-B-DISP DiIo2C volt Dalarm x x x ION-4-B-DISP DiIo4C volt Sprinkler Sprinkler telltale pressure 2. Living Room x Pres_2 millivolt 
Series ..\Manufactured Home Series #2\

Test SDC30 Smoldering Chair in Living Room (test aborted due to power failure)Time 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Alarm Master Bedroom (A) x x ION-1-A-3-2 Ion1A volt TCA_1 0 0 0 2.07 Alarm x x ION-3-A-1-4-1 Ion3A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 0 1.247 Alarm x x x ION-4-A-7B-10 Ion4A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 2 2.498 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-A-5-3 Pho1A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 -1.5661 7.8556 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-A-7A-10 Pho3A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 -3.5051 15.301 Alarm x x ASPIRATED-1-A-0-3 Asp1A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 -1.393 2.0647 Alarm Burn Room Bedroom (B) x x ION-1-BE-3-9 Ion1B volt TCB_1 0 0 0 1.863 Alarm x x ION-3-BE-4-11 Ion3B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 0 1.299 Alarm x x x ION-4-BE-7B-1 Ion4B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 2 1.506 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-BE-5-4 Pho1B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 -3.9055 10.005 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-BE-7A-1 Pho3B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 -2.4159 12.874 Alarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x ION-1-C-3-11 Ion1C volt TCC_1 0 0 0 2.095 Alarm x x x ION-3-C-4-10 Ion3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 0 0.984 Alarm xxxx ION-4-C-7B-6 Ion4C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 2 2.624 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-C-5-1 Pho1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -2.2747 8.1775 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-C-7C-6 Pho3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.8254 12.032 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-C-0-5 Asp1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.6726 2.1444 Alarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x ION-1-D-3-8 Ion1D volt TCD_1 0 0 0 1.823 Alarm x x x ION-3-D-4-7 Ion3D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 0 1.007 Alarm xxxx ION-4-D-7B-4 Ion4D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 2 2.926 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-D-5-5 Pho1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.9634 6.8817 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-D-7D-4 Pho3D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -2.408 11.2 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-D-0-7 Asp1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.7326 3.265 key postion level level + br all dual name label units Dalarm Bedroom #3 (E) x x PHOTO-2-DISP DiPh2D volt Dalarm x x ION-2-DISP DiIo2D volt Dalarm x x ION-4-DISP DiIo4D volt Sprinkler x Pres_2 millivolt key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 COalarm Master Bedroom (A) x x CO-1-A-1-6 CO1A millivolt 0 0 0 -18.99 100.6 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-8 CO2A millivolt 0 0 0 -52.2 120 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-3 CO3A millivolt 0 0 0 -5.261 161.6 COalarm Burn Room Bedroom (B) x x CO-1-A-1-17 CO1B millivolt 0 0 0 34.37 140.1 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-3 CO2B millivolt 0 0 0 -47.77 99.59 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-12 CO3B millivolt 0 0 0 -2.072 169.1 COalarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x CO-1-A-1-9 CO1C millivolt 0 0 0 -22.58 180.9 COalarm x x x CO-2-A-2-12 CO2C millivolt 0 0 0 -45.38 93.6 COalarm x x x CO-3-A-3-6 CO3C millivolt 0 0 0 -0.872 172.9 COalarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x CO-1-D-1-14 CO1D millivolt 0 0 0 56.17 110.1 COalarm x x x CO-2-D-2-9 CO2D millivolt 0 0 0 -58.97 138 COalarm x x x CO-3-D-3-7 CO3D millivolt 0 0 0 -2.483 171.3 
Test SDC31 Smoldering Chair in Living Room

Time 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Alarm Master Bedroom (A) x x ION-1-A-3-2 Ion1A volt TCA_1 0 0 0 2.07 Alarm x x ION-3-A-1-4-1 Ion3A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 0 1.247 Alarm x x x ION-4-A-7B-10 Ion4A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 2 2.498 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-A-5-3 Pho1A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 -1.5661 7.8556 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-A-7A-10 Pho3A millivolts TCA_1 0 1 -3.5051 15.301 Alarm x x ASPIRATED-1-A-0-3 Asp1A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 -1.393 2.0647 Alarm Burn Room Bedroom (B) x x ION-1-BE-3-9 Ion1B volt TCB_1 0 0 0 1.863 Alarm x x ION-3-BE-4-11 Ion3B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 0 1.299 Alarm x x x ION-4-BE-7B-1 Ion4B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 2 1.506 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-BE-5-4 Pho1B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 -3.9055 10.005 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-BE-7A-1 Pho3B millivolt TCB_1 0 1 -2.4159 12.874 Alarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x ION-1-C-3-11 Ion1C volt TCC_1 0 0 0 2.095 Alarm x x x ION-3-C-4-10 Ion3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 0 0.984 Alarm xxxx ION-4-C-7B-6 Ion4C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 2 2.624 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-C-5-1 Pho1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -2.2747 8.1775 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-C-7C-6 Pho3C millivolt TCC_1 0 1 -1.8254 12.032 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-C-0-5 Asp1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.6726 2.1444 Alarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x ION-1-D-3-8 Ion1D volt TCD_1 0 0 0 1.823 Alarm x x x ION-3-D-4-7 Ion3D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 0 1.007 Alarm xxxx ION-4-D-7B-4 Ion4D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 2 2.926 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-D-5-5 Pho1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.9634 6.8817 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-D-7D-4 Pho3D millivolt TCD_1 0 1 -2.408 11.2 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-D-0-7 Asp1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.7326 3.265 key postion level level + br all dual name label units Dalarm Bedroom #3 (E) x x PHOTO-2-DISP DiPh2D volt Dalarm x x ION-2-DISP DiIo2D volt Dalarm x x ION-4-DISP DiIo4D volt Sprinkler x Pres_2 millivolt key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 COalarm Master Bedroom (A) x x CO-1-A-1-6 CO1A millivolt 0 0 0 -18.99 100.6 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-8 CO2A millivolt 0 0 0 -52.2 120 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-3 CO3A millivolt 0 0 0 -5.261 161.6 COalarm Burn Room Bedroom (B) x x CO-1-A-1-17 CO1B millivolt 0 0 0 34.37 140.1 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-3 CO2B millivolt 0 0 0 -47.77 99.59 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-12 CO3B millivolt 0 0 0 -2.072 169.1 COalarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x CO-1-A-1-9 CO1C millivolt 0 0 0 -22.58 180.9 COalarm x x x CO-2-A-2-12 CO2C millivolt 0 0 0 -45.38 93.6 COalarm x x x CO-3-A-3-6 CO3C millivolt 0 0 0 -0.872 172.9 #COalarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x CO-1-D-1-14 CO1D millivolt 0 0 0 56.17 110.1COalarm x x x CO-2-D-2-9 CO2D millivolt 0 0 0 -58.97 138 COalarm x x x CO-3-D-3-7 CO3D millivolt 0 0 0 -2.483 171.3 
Test SDC32 Flaming Chair in Living Room (test aborted)

Time 1key postion dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Test SDC33 Flaming ChTime 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Alarm Master Bedroom (A) x x ION-1-A-3-2 Ion1A volt TCA_1 0 0 0 2.07 Alarm x x ION-3-A-1-4-1 Ion3A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 0 1.247 Alarm x x x ION-4-A-7B-10 Ion4A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 2 2.498 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-A-5-3 Pho1A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 -1.5661 7.8556 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-A-7A-10 Pho3A millivolts TCA_1 0 1 -3.5051 15.301 Alarm x x ASPIRATED-1-A-0-3 Asp1A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 -1.393 2.0647 Alarm Burn Room Bedroom (B) x x ION-1-BE-3-9 Ion1B volt TCB_1 0 0 0 1.863 Alarm x x ION-3-BE-4-11 Ion3B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 0 1.299 Alarm x x x ION-4-BE-7B-1 Ion4B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 2 1.506 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-BE-5-4 Pho1B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 -3.9055 10.005 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-BE-7A-1 Pho3B millivolt TCB_1 0 1 -2.4159 12.874 Alarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x ION-1-C-3-11 Ion1C volt TCC_1 0 0 0 2.095 Alarm x x x ION-3-C-4-10 Ion3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 0 0.984 Alarm xxxx ION-4-C-7B-6 Ion4C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 2 2.624 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-C-5-1 Pho1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -2.2747 8.1775 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-C-7C-6 Pho3C millivolt TCC_1 0 1 -1.8254 12.032 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-C-0-5 Asp1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.6726 2.1444 Alarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x ION-1-D-3-8 Ion1D volt TCD_1 0 0 0 1.823 Alarm x x x ION-3-D-4-7 Ion3D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 0 1.007 Alarm xxxx ION-4-D-7B-4 Ion4D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 2 2.926 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-D-5-5 Pho1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.9634 6.8817 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-D-7D-4 Pho3D millivolt TCD_1 0 1 -2.408 11.2 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-D-0-7 Asp1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.7326 3.265 key postion level level + br all dual name label units Dalarm Living Room (E) x PHOTO-2-DISP DiPh2D volt Dalarm x ION-2-DISP DiIo2D volt 

Dalarm x ION-4-DISP DiIo4D volt 

Sprinkler x Pres_2 millivolt key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 COalarm Master Bedroom (A) x x CO-1-A-1-6 CO1A millivolt 0 0 0 -18.99 100.6 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-8 CO2A millivolt 0 0 0 -52.2 120 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-3 CO3A millivolt 0 0 0 -5.261 161.6 COalarm Burn Room Bedroom (B) x x CO-1-A-1-17 CO1B millivolt 0 0 0 34.37 140.1 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-3 CO2B millivolt 0 0 0 -47.77 99.59 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-12 CO3B millivolt 0 0 0 -2.072 169.1 COalarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x CO-1-A-1-9 CO1C millivolt 0 0 0 -22.58 180.9 COalarm x x x CO-2-A-2-12 CO2C millivolt 0 0 1 -45.38 93.6 COalarm x x x CO-3-A-3-6 CO3C millivolt 0 0 0 -0.872 172.9 #COalarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x CO-1-D-1-14 CO1D millivolt 0 0 0 56.17 110.1COalarm x x x CO-2-D-2-9 CO2D millivolt 0 0 1 -58.97 138 COalarm x x x CO-3-D-3-7 CO3D millivolt 0 0 0 -2.483 171.3 
Test SDC34 Smoldering Chair in Living Room

Time 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Alarm Master Bedroom (A) x x ION-1-A-3-2 Ion1A volt TCA_1 0 0 0 2.07 Alarm x x ION-3-A-1-4-1 Ion3A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 0 1.247 Alarm x x x ION-4-A-7B-10 Ion4A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 2 2.498 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-A-5-3 Pho1A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 -1.5661 7.8556 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-A-7A-10 Pho3A millivolts TCA_1 0 1 -3.5051 15.301 Alarm x x ASPIRATED-1-A-0-3 Asp1A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 -1.393 2.0647 Alarm Burn Room Bedroom (B) x x ION-1-BE-3-9 Ion1B volt TCB_1 0 0 0 1.863 Alarm x x ION-3-BE-4-11 Ion3B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 0 1.299 Alarm x x x ION-4-BE-7B-1 Ion4B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 2 1.506 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-BE-5-4 Pho1B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 -3.9055 10.005 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-BE-7A-1 Pho3B millivolt TCB_1 0 1 -2.4159 12.874 Alarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x ION-1-C-3-11 Ion1C volt TCC_1 0 0 0 2.095 Alarm x x x ION-3-C-4-10 Ion3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 0 0.984 Alarm xxxx ION-4-C-7B-6 Ion4C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 2 2.624 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-C-5-1 Pho1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -2.2747 8.1775 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-C-7C-6 Pho3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.8254 12.032 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-C-0-5 Asp1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.6726 2.1444 Alarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x ION-1-D-3-8 Ion1D volt TCD_1 0 0 0 1.823 Alarm x x x ION-3-D-4-7 Ion3D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 0 1.007 Alarm xxxx ION-4-D-7B-4 Ion4D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 2 2.926 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-D-5-5 Pho1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.9634 6.8817 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-D-7D-4 Pho3D millivolt TCD_1 0 1 -2.408 11.2 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-D-0-7 Asp1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.7326 3.265 key postion level level + br all dual name label units Dalarm Bedroom #3 (E) x x PHOTO-2-DISP DiPh2D volt Dalarm x x ION-2-DISP DiIo2D volt Dalarm x x ION-4-DISP DiIo4D volt Sprinkler x Pres_2 millivolt key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 COalarm Master Bedroom (A) x x CO-1-A-1-6 CO1A millivolt 0 0 0 -18.99 100.6 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-8 CO2A millivolt 0 0 0 -52.2 120 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-3 CO3A millivolt 0 0 0 -5.261 161.6 COalarm Burn Room Bedroom (B) x x CO-1-A-1-17 CO1B millivolt 0 0 0 34.37 140.1 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-3 CO2B millivolt 0 0 0 -47.77 99.59 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-12 CO3B millivolt 0 0 0 -2.072 169.1 COalarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x CO-1-A-1-9 CO1C millivolt 0 0 0 -22.58 180.9 COalarm x x x CO-2-A-2-12 CO2C millivolt 0 0 0 -45.38 93.6 COalarm x x x CO-3-A-3-6 CO3C millivolt 0 0 0 -0.872 172.9 COalarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x CO-1-D-1-14 CO1D millivolt 0 0 0 56.17 110.1 COalarm x x x CO-2-D-2-9 CO2D millivolt 0 0 1 -58.97 138 COalarm x x x CO-3-D-3-7 CO3D millivolt 0 0 0 -2.483 171.3 
Test SDC35 Flaming Chair in Living Room

Time 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Alarm Master Bedroom (A) x x ION-1-A-3-2 Ion1A volt TCA_1 0 0 0 2.07 Alarm x x ION-3-A-1-4-1 Ion3A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 0 1.247 Alarm x x x ION-4-A-7B-10 Ion4A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 2 2.498 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-A-5-3 Pho1A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 -1.5661 7.8556 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-A-7A-10 Pho3A millivolts TCA_1 0 1 -3.5051 15.301 Alarm x x ASPIRATED-1-A-0-3 Asp1A millivolts TCA_1 0 1 -1.393 2.0647 Alarm Burn Room Bedroom (B) x x ION-1-BE-3-9 Ion1B volt TCB_1 0 0 0 1.863 Alarm x x ION-3-BE-4-11 Ion3B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 0 1.299 Alarm x x x ION-4-BE-7B-1 Ion4B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 2 1.506 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-BE-5-4 Pho1B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 -3.9055 10.005 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-BE-7A-1 Pho3B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 -2.4159 12.874 Alarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x ION-1-C-3-11 Ion1C volt TCC_1 0 0 0 2.095 Alarm x x x ION-3-C-4-10 Ion3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 0 0.984 Alarm xxxx ION-4-C-7B-6 Ion4C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 2 2.624 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-C-5-1 Pho1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -2.2747 8.1775 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-C-7C-6 Pho3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.8254 12.032 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-C-0-5 Asp1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.6726 2.1444 Alarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x ION-1-D-3-8 Ion1D volt TCD_1 0 0 0 1.823 Alarm x x x ION-3-D-4-7 Ion3D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 0 1.007 Alarm xxxx ION-4-D-7B-4 Ion4D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 2 2.926 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-D-5-5 Pho1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.9634 6.8817 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-D-7D-4 Pho3D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -2.408 11.2 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-D-0-7 Asp1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.7326 3.265 key postion level level + br all dual name label units Dalarm Bedroom #3 (E) x x PHOTO-2-DISP DiPh2D volt Dalarm x x ION-2-DISP DiIo2D volt Dalarm x x ION-4-DISP DiIo4D volt Sprinkler x Pres_2 millivolt key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 COalarm Master Bedroom (A) x x CO-1-A-1-6 CO1A millivolt 0 0 0 -18.99 100.6 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-8 CO2A millivolt 0 0 0 -52.2 120 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-3 CO3A millivolt 0 0 0 -5.261 161.6 COalarm Burn Room Bedroom (B) x x CO-1-A-1-17 CO1B millivolt 0 0 0 34.37 140.1 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-3 CO2B millivolt 0 0 0 -47.77 99.59 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-12 CO3B millivolt 0 0 0 -2.072 169.1 COalarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x CO-1-A-1-9 CO1C millivolt 0 0 0 -22.58 180.9 COalarm x x x CO-2-A-2-12 CO2C millivolt 0 0 1 -45.38 93.6 COalarm x x x CO-3-A-3-6 CO3C millivolt 0 0 0 -0.872 172.9 COalarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x CO-1-D-1-14 CO1D millivolt 0 0 0 56.17 110.1 COalarm x x x CO-2-D-2-9 CO2D millivolt 0 0 1 -58.97 138 COalarm x x x CO-3-D-3-7 CO3D millivolt 0 0 0 -2.483 171.3 
Test SDC36 Flaming Mattress in Bedroom (Burn Room Door Closed)

Time 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Alarm Master Bedroom (A) x x ION-1-A-3-2 Ion1A volt TCA_1 0 0 0 2.07 Alarm x x ION-3-A-1-4-1 Ion3A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 0 1.247 Alarm x x x ION-4-A-7B-10 Ion4A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 2 2.498 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-A-5-3 Pho1A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 -1.5661 7.8556 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-A-7A-10 Pho3A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 -3.5051 15.301 Alarm x x ASPIRATED-1-A-0-3 Asp1A millivolts TCA_1 0 1 -1.393 2.0647 Alarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x ION-1-C-3-11 Ion1C volt TCC_1 0 0 0 2.095 Alarm x x x ION-3-C-4-10 Ion3C millivolt TCC_1 0 1 0 0.984 Alarm xxxx ION-4-C-7B-6 Ion4C millivolt TCC_1 0 1 2 2.624 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-C-5-1 Pho1C millivolt TCC_1 0 1 -2.2747 8.1775 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-C-7C-6 Pho3C millivolt TCC_1 0 1 -1.8254 12.032 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-C-0-5 Asp1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.6726 2.1444 Alarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x ION-1-D-3-8 Ion1D volt TCD_1 0 0 0 1.823 Alarm x x x ION-3-D-4-7 Ion3D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 0 1.007 Alarm xxxx ION-4-D-7B-4 Ion4D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 2 2.926 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-D-5-5 Pho1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.9634 6.8817 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-D-7D-4 Pho3D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -2.408 11.2 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-D-0-7 Asp1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.7326 3.265 Alarm Living Room (E) x ION-1-BE-3-5 Ion1E volt TCE_1 0 0 0 1.827 Alarm x ION-3-BE-4-2 Ion3E millivolt TCE_1 0 0 0 1.197 *Alarm x x *ION-4-BE-7B-9 Ion4E millivolt TCE_1 0 0 2 1.222Alarm x PHOTO-1-BE-5-6 Pho1E millivolt TCE_1 0 0 -2.1548 12.679 *Alarm x x *PHOTO-3-BE-7A-9 Pho3E millivolt TCE_1 0 0 -1.5329 10.124Alarm x ASPIRATED-1-E-0-13 Asp1E millivolt TCE_1 0000 

key postion level level + br all dual name label units Dalarm Front Bedroom (B) x x PHOTO-2-DISP DiPh2B volt Dalarm x x ION-2-DISP DiIo2B volt Dalarm x x ION-4-DISP DiIo4B volt Sprinkler x Pres_1 millivolt key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 COalarm Master Bedroom (A) x x CO-1-A-1-6 CO1A millivolt 0 0 0 -18.99 100.6 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-8 CO2A millivolt 0 0 0 -52.2 120 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-3 CO3A millivolt 0 0 0 -5.261 161.6 COalarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x CO-1-A-1-9 CO1C millivolt 0 0 0 -22.58 180.9 COalarm x x x CO-2-A-2-12 CO2C millivolt 0 0 0 -45.38 93.6 COalarm x x x CO-3-A-3-6 CO3C millivolt 0 0 0 -0.872 172.9 COalarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x CO-1-D-1-14 CO1D millivolt 0 0 1 56.17 110.1 COalarm x x x CO-2-D-2-9 CO2D millivolt 0 0 1 -58.97 138 COalarm x x x CO-3-D-3-7 CO3D millivolt 0 0 1 -2.483 171.3 *COalarm Living Room (E) x CO-1-E-1-16 CO1E millivolt 0 0 0 56.17 110.1COalarm x CO-2-E-2-6 CO2E millivolt 0 0 1 -58.97 138 COalarm x CO-3-E-3-11 CO3E millivolt 0 0 0 -2.483 171.3 *note Alarm not in data
Test SDC37 Smoldering Mattress in Bedroom

Time 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Alarm Master Bedroom (A) x x ION-1-A-3-2 Ion1A volt TCA_1 0 0 0 2.07 Alarm x x ION-3-A-1-4-1 Ion3A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 0 1.247 Alarm x x x ION-4-A-7B-10 Ion4A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 2 2.498 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-A-5-3 Pho1A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 -1.5661 7.8556 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-A-7A-10 Pho3A millivolts TCA_1 0 1 -3.5051 15.301 Alarm x x ASPIRATED-1-A-0-3 Asp1A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 -1.393 2.0647 Alarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x ION-1-C-3-11 Ion1C volt TCC_1 0 0 0 2.095 Alarm x x x ION-3-C-4-10 Ion3C millivolt TCC_1 0 1 0 0.984 Alarm xxxx ION-4-C-7B-6 Ion4C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 2 2.624 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-C-5-1 Pho1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -2.2747 8.1775 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-C-7C-6 Pho3C millivolt TCC_1 0 1 -1.8254 12.032 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-C-0-5 Asp1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.6726 2.1444 Alarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x ION-1-D-3-8 Ion1D volt TCD_1 0 0 0 1.823 Alarm x x x ION-3-D-4-7 Ion3D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 0 1.007 Alarm xxxx ION-4-D-7B-4 Ion4D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 2 2.926 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-D-5-5 Pho1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.9634 6.8817 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-D-7D-4 Pho3D millivolt TCD_1 0 1 -2.408 11.2 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-D-0-7 Asp1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.7326 3.265 Alarm Living Room (E) x ION-1-BE-3-5 Ion1E volt TCE_1 0 0 0 1.827 Alarm x ION-3-BE-4-2 Ion3E millivolt TCE_1 0 0 0 1.197 *Alarm x x *ION-4-BE-7B-9 Ion4E millivolt TCE_1 0 0 2 1.222Alarm x PHOTO-1-BE-5-6 Pho1E millivolt TCE_1 0 0 -2.1548 12.679 *Alarm x x *PHOTO-3-BE-7A-9 Pho3E millivolt TCE_1 0 0 -1.5329 10.124Alarm x ASPIRATED-1-E-0-13 Asp1E millivolt TCE_1 0000 key postion level level + br all dual name label units Dalarm Front Bedroom (B) x x PHOTO-2-DISP DiPh2B volt Dalarm x x ION-2-DISP DiIo2B volt Dalarm x x ION-4-DISP DiIo4B volt Sprinkler x Pres_1 millivolt key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 COalarm Master Bedroom (A) x x CO-1-A-1-6 CO1A millivolt 0 0 0 -18.99 100.6 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-8 CO2A millivolt 0 0 0 -52.2 120 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-3 CO3A millivolt 0 0 0 -5.261 161.6 COalarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x CO-1-A-1-9 CO1C millivolt 0 0 0 -22.58 180.9 COalarm x x x CO-2-A-2-12 CO2C millivolt 0 0 0 -45.38 93.6 COalarm x x x CO-3-A-3-6 CO3C millivolt 0 0 0 -0.872 172.9 #COalarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x CO-1-D-1-14 CO1D millivolt 0 0 0 56.17 110.1COalarm x x x CO-2-D-2-9 CO2D millivolt 0 0 1 -58.97 138 COalarm x x x CO-3-D-3-7 CO3D millivolt 0 0 0 -2.483 171.3 *COalarm Living Room (E) x CO-1-E-1-16 CO1E millivolt 0 0 0 56.17 110.1COalarm x CO-2-E-2-6 CO2E millivolt 0 0 1 -58.97 138 COalarm x CO-3-E-3-11 CO3E millivolt 0 0 0 -2.483 171.3 *note Alarm not in data
Test SDC38 Flaming Mattress in Bedroom

Time 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Alarm Master Bedroom (A) x x ION-1-A-3-2 Ion1A volt TCA_1 0 0 0 2.07 Alarm x x ION-3-A-1-4-1 Ion3A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 0 1.247 Alarm x x x ION-4-A-7B-10 Ion4A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 2 2.498 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-A-5-3 Pho1A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 -1.5661 7.8556 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-A-7A-10 Pho3A millivolts TCA_1 0 1 -3.5051 15.301 Alarm x x ASPIRATED-1-A-0-3 Asp1A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 -1.393 2.0647 Alarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x ION-1-C-3-11 Ion1C volt TCC_1 0 0 0 2.095 Alarm x x x ION-3-C-4-10 Ion3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 0 0.984 Alarm xxxx ION-4-C-7B-6 Ion4C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 2 2.624 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-C-5-1 Pho1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -2.2747 8.1775 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-C-7C-6 Pho3C millivolt TCC_1 0 1 -1.8254 12.032 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-C-0-5 Asp1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.6726 2.1444 Alarm Living Room (E) x ION-1-BE-3-5 Ion1E volt TCE_1 0 0 0 1.827 Alarm x ION-3-BE-4-2 Ion3E millivolt TCE_1 0 1 0 1.197 *Alarm x x *ION-4-BE-7B-9 Ion4E millivolt TCE_1 0 0 2 1.222Alarm x PHOTO-1-BE-5-6 Pho1E millivolt TCE_1 0 0 -2.1548 12.679 *Alarm x x *PHOTO-3-BE-7A-9 Pho3E millivolt TCE_1 0 0 -1.5329 10.124Alarm x ASPIRATED-1-E-0-13 Asp1E millivolt TCE_1 0000 

key postion level level + br all dual name label units Dalarm Front Bedroom (B) x x PHOTO-2-B-DISP DiPh2B volt Dalarm x x ION-2-B-DISP DiIo2B volt Dalarm x x ION-4-B-DISP DiIo4B volt Dalarm Hallway Outside Front Bedroom (D) x x x PHOTO-2-D-DISP DiPh2D volt Dalarm x x x ION-2-D-DISP DiIo2D volt Dalarm x x x ION-4-D-DISP DiIo4D volt Sprinkler x Pres_1 millivolt key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 COalarm Master Bedroom (A) x x CO-1-A-1-6 CO1A millivolt 0 0 0 -18.99 100.6 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-8 CO2A millivolt 0 0 0 -52.2 120 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-3 CO3A millivolt 0 0 0 -5.261 161.6 COalarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x CO-1-A-1-9 CO1C millivolt 0 0 0 -22.58 180.9 COalarm x x x CO-2-A-2-12 CO2C millivolt 0 0 1 -45.38 93.6 COalarm x x x CO-3-A-3-6 CO3C millivolt 0 0 0 -0.872 172.9 *COalarm Living Room (E) x CO-1-E-1-16 CO1E millivolt 0 0 0 56.17 110.1COalarm x CO-2-E-2-6 CO2E millivolt 0 0 1 -58.97 138 COalarm x CO-3-E-3-11 CO3E millivolt 0 0 0 -2.483 171.3 *note Alarm not in data
Test SDC39 Flaming Mattress in Bedroom

Time 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Alarm Master Bedroom (A) x x ION-1-A-3-2 Ion1A volt TCA_1 0 0 0 2.07 Alarm x x ION-3-A-1-4-1 Ion3A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 0 1.247 Alarm x x x ION-4-A-7B-10 Ion4A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 2 2.498 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-A-5-3 Pho1A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 -1.5661 7.8556 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-A-7A-10 Pho3A millivolts TCA_1 0 1 -3.5051 15.301 Alarm x x ASPIRATED-1-A-0-3 Asp1A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 -1.393 2.0647 Alarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x ION-1-C-3-11 Ion1C volt TCC_1 0 0 0 2.095 Alarm x x x ION-3-C-4-10 Ion3C millivolt TCC_1 0 1 0 0.984 Alarm xxxx ION-4-C-7B-6 Ion4C millivolt TCC_1 0 1 2 2.624 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-C-5-1 Pho1C millivolt TCC_1 0 1 -2.2747 8.1775 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-C-7C-6 Pho3C millivolt TCC_1 0 1 -1.8254 12.032 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-C-0-5 Asp1C millivolt TCC_1 0 1 -1.6726 2.1444 Alarm Living Room (E) x ION-1-BE-3-5 Ion1E volt TCE_1 0 1 0 1.827 Alarm x ION-3-BE-4-2 Ion3E millivolt TCE_1 0 1 0 1.197 *Alarm x x *ION-4-BE-7B-9 Ion4E millivolt TCE_1 0 0 2 1.222Alarm x PHOTO-1-BE-5-6 Pho1E millivolt TCE_1 0 1 -2.1548 12.679 *Alarm x x *PHOTO-3-BE-7A-9 Pho3E millivolt TCE_1 0 0 -1.5329 10.124Alarm x ASPIRATED-1-E-0-13 Asp1E millivolt TCE_1 0000 key postion level level + br all dual name label units Dalarm Front Bedroom (B) x x PHOTO-2-B-DISP DiPh2B volt Dalarm x x ION-2-B-DISP DiIo2B volt Dalarm x x ION-4-B-DISP DiIo4B volt Dalarm Hallway Outside Front Bedroom (D) x x x PHOTO-2-D-DISP DiPh2D volt Dalarm x x x ION-2-D-DISP DiIo2D volt Dalarm x x x ION-4-D-DISP DiIo4D volt Sprinkler x Pres_1 millivolt key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 COalarm Master Bedroom (A) x x CO-1-A-1-6 CO1A millivolt 0 0 0 -18.99 100.6 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-8 CO2A millivolt 0 0 0 -52.2 120 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-3 CO3A millivolt 0 0 0 -5.261 161.6 COalarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x CO-1-A-1-9 CO1C millivolt 0 0 0 -22.58 180.9 COalarm x x x CO-2-A-2-12 CO2C millivolt 0 0 0 -45.38 93.6 COalarm x x x CO-3-A-3-6 CO3C millivolt 0 0 0 -0.872 172.9 *COalarm Living Room (E) x CO-1-E-1-16 CO1E millivolt 0 0 0 56.17 110.1COalarm x CO-2-E-2-6 CO2E millivolt 0 0 0 -58.97 138 COalarm x CO-3-E-3-11 CO3E millivolt 0 0 0 -2.483 171.3 *note Alarm not in data
Test SDC40 Smoldering Mattress in Bedroom

Time 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Alarm Master Bedroom (A) x x ION-1-A-3-2 Ion1A volt TCA_1 0 0 0 2.07 Alarm x x ION-3-A-1-4-1 Ion3A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 0 1.247 Alarm x x x ION-4-A-7B-10 Ion4A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 2 2.498 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-A-5-3 Pho1A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 -1.5661 7.8556 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-A-7A-10 Pho3A millivolts TCA_1 0 1 -3.5051 15.301 Alarm x x ASPIRATED-1-A-0-3 Asp1A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 -1.393 2.0647 Alarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x ION-1-C-3-11 Ion1C volt TCC_1 0 0 0 2.095 Alarm x x x ION-3-C-4-10 Ion3C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 0 0.984 Alarm xxxx ION-4-C-7B-6 Ion4C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 2 2.624 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-C-5-1 Pho1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -2.2747 8.1775 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-C-7C-6 Pho3C millivolt TCC_1 0 1 -1.8254 12.032 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-C-0-5 Asp1C millivolt TCC_1 0 0 -1.6726 2.1444 Alarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x ION-1-D-3-8 Ion1D volt TCD_1 0 0 0 1.823 Alarm x x x ION-3-D-4-7 Ion3D millivolt TCD_1 0 1 0 1.007 Alarm xxxx ION-4-D-7B-4 Ion4D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 2 2.926 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-D-5-5 Pho1D millivolt TCD_1 0 0 -1.9634 6.8817 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-D-7D-4 Pho3D millivolt TCD_1 0 1 -2.408 11.2 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-D-0-7 Asp1D millivolt TCD_1 0 1 -1.7326 3.265 Alarm Living Room (E) x ION-1-BE-3-5 Ion1E volt TCE_1 0 0 0 1.827 Alarm x ION-3-BE-4-2 Ion3E millivolt TCE_1 0 0 0 1.197 *Alarm x x *ION-4-BE-7B-9 Ion4E millivolt TCE_1 0 0 2 1.222Alarm x PHOTO-1-BE-5-6 Pho1E millivolt TCE_1 0 0 -2.1548 12.679 *Alarm x x *PHOTO-3-BE-7A-9 Pho3E millivolt TCE_1 0 0 -1.5329 10.124Alarm x ASPIRATED-1-E-0-13 Asp1E millivolt TCE_1 0000 

key postion level level + br all dual name label units Dalarm Front Bedroom (B) x x PHOTO-2-B-DISP DiPh2B volt Dalarm x x ION-2-B-DISP DiIo2B volt Dalarm x x ION-4-B-DISP DiIo4B volt Sprinkler x Pres_1 millivolt key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 COalarm Master Bedroom (A) x x CO-1-A-1-6 CO1A millivolt 0 0 0 -18.99 100.6 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-8 CO2A millivolt 0 0 0 -52.2 120 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-3 CO3A millivolt 0 0 0 -5.261 161.6 COalarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x CO-1-A-1-9 CO1C millivolt 0 0 0 -22.58 180.9 COalarm x x x CO-2-A-2-12 CO2C millivolt 0 0 0 -45.38 93.6 COalarm x x x CO-3-A-3-6 CO3C millivolt 0 0 0 -0.872 172.9 #Coalarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x CO-1-D-1-14 CO1D millivolt 0 0 0 56.17 110.1COalarm x x x CO-2-D-2-9 CO2D millivolt 0 0 0 -58.97 138 #COalarm x x x CO-3-D-3-7 CO3D millivolt 0 0 0 -2.483 171.3*COalarm Living Room (E) x CO-1-E-1-16 CO1E millivolt 0 0 0 56.17 110.1COalarm x CO-2-E-2-6 CO2E millivolt 0 0 0 -58.97 138 COalarm x CO-3-E-3-11 CO3E millivolt 0 0 0 -2.483 171.3 *note Alarm not in data
Test SDC41 Vegetable Oil on Kitchen Stove

Time 1key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 m2 Alarm Master Bedroom (A) x x ION-1-A-3-2 Ion1A volt TCA_1 0 0 0 2.07 Alarm x x ION-3-A-1-4-1 Ion3A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 0 1.247 Alarm x x x ION-4-A-7B-10 Ion4A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 2 2.498 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-A-5-3 Pho1A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 -1.5661 7.8556 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-A-7A-10 Pho3A millivolts TCA_1 0 1 -3.5051 15.301 Alarm x x ASPIRATED-1-A-0-3 Asp1A millivolts TCA_1 0 0 -1.393 2.0647 Alarm Burn Room Bedroom (B) x x ION-1-BE-3-9 Ion1B volt TCB_1 0 0 0 1.863 Alarm x x ION-3-BE-4-11 Ion3B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 0 1.299 Alarm x x x ION-4-BE-7B-1 Ion4B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 2 1.506 Alarm x x PHOTO-1-BE-5-4 Pho1B millivolt TCB_1 0 0 -3.9055 10.005 Alarm x x x PHOTO-3-BE-7A-1 Pho3B millivolt TCB_1 0 1 -2.4159 12.874 Alarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x ION-1-D-3-8 Ion1D volt TCE_1 0 0 0 1.823 Alarm x x x ION-3-D-4-7 Ion3D millivolt TCE_1 0 0 0 1.007 Alarm xxxx ION-4-D-7B-4 Ion4D millivolt TCE_1 0 0 2 2.926 Alarm x x x PHOTO-1-D-5-5 Pho1D millivolt TCE_1 0 0 -1.9634 6.8817 Alarm xxxx PHOTO-3-D-7D-4 Pho3D millivolt TCE_1 0 0 -2.408 11.2 Alarm x x x ASPIRATED-1-D-0-7 Asp1D millivolt TCE_1 0 0 -1.7326 3.265 key postion level level + br all dual name label units Dalarm Back Door Hallway (C ) x x x PHOTO-2-C-DISP DiPh2C volt Dalarm x x x ION-2-C-DISP DiIo2C volt Dalarm x x x ION-4-C-DISP DiIo4C volt Dalarm Bedroom #3 (E) x x PHOTO-2-E-DISP DiPh2D volt Dalarm x x ION-2-E-DISP DiIo2D volt Dalarm x x ION-4-E-DISP DiIo4D volt Sprinkler x Pres_3 millivolt key postion level level + br all dual name label units find zero zero data smooth m0 m1 COalarm Master Bedroom (A) x x CO-1-A-1-6 CO1A millivolt 0 0 0 -18.99 100.6 COalarm x x CO-2-A-2-8 CO2A millivolt 0 0 0 -52.2 120 COalarm x x CO-3-A-3-3 CO3A millivolt 0 0 0 -5.261 161.6 COalarm Burn Room Bedroom (B) x x CO-1-B-1-17 CO1B millivolt 0 0 0 34.37 140.1 COalarm x x CO-2-B-2-3 CO2B millivolt 0 0 0 -47.77 99.59 COalarm x x CO-3-B-3-12 CO3B millivolt 0 0 0 -2.072 169.1 COalarm Utility Hallway (C) x x x CO-1-C-1-9 CO1C millivolt 0 0 0 -22.58 180.9 COalarm x x x CO-2-C-2-12 CO2C millivolt 0 0 0 -45.38 93.6 #COalarm x x x CO-3-C-3-6 CO3C millivolt 0 0 0 -0.872 172.9#COalarm Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) x x x CO-1-D-1-14 CO1D millivolt 0 0 0 56.17 110.1COalarm x x x CO-2-D-2-9 CO2D millivolt 0 0 0 -58.97 138 COalarm x x x CO-3-D-3-7 CO3D millivolt 0 0 0 -2.483 171.3 STOP
Calculated Times to Untenable Conditions
1

23456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142

A B C DEF G H I J

12 3456 7

Series ..\Manufactured Home Series #1\Test SDC01 Smoldering Chair in Living RoomTime 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum Outsi

Master Bedroom (A) FEDG GASA_3 GASA_1 - 6172 0.301 5397 (Smoke) Utility Hallway (C) FEDG GASC_3 GASC_1 - 0.269Front Door Hallway (F) FEDG GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.065Burn Room (BEK) FEDG GASB_3 GASB_1 - 6172 0.301NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDGN GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.000 7272Utility Hallway (C) FEDGN GASC_3 GASC_1 - 0.000Front Door Hallway (F) FEDGN GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.000Burn Room (BEK) FEDGN GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.000ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDH TCA_4 0.145Burn Room Bedroom (B) FEDH TCB_4 0.177Utility Hallway (C) FEDH TCC_4 0.155Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) FEDH TCD_4 0.156Living Room (E) FEDH TCE_4 0.172Front Door Hallway (F) FEDH TCF_4 0.171Closed Bedroom (G) FEDH TCG 0.114Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) Smoke SMA_4 6277 0.255Burn Room Bedroom (B) Smoke SMB_4 0.127Utility Hallway (C) Smoke SMC_4 5397 0.250Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) Smoke SMD_4 0.078Living Room (E) Smoke SME_4 6172 0.267Front Door Hallway (F) Smoke SMF_4 6012 0.257Closed Bedroom (G) Smoke SMG 0.000
43

44454647484950515253545556575859606162636465666768697071727374757677787980

A B C DEF G H I J

Test SDC02 Flaming Chair in Living RoomTime 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum Outsi

Master Bedroom (A) FEDG GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.003 178 (Smoke) Utility Hallway (C) FEDG GASC_3 GASC_1 - 0.007Front Door Hallway (F) FEDG GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.124Burn Room (BEK) FEDG GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.029NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDGN GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.000Utility Hallway (C) FEDGN GASC_3 GASC_1 - 0.000Front Door Hallway (F) FEDGN GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.000Burn Room (BEK) FEDGN GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.000ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDH TCA_4 0.012Burn Room Bedroom (B) FEDH TCB_4 0.014Utility Hallway (C) FEDH TCC_4 0.021Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) FEDH TCD_4 0.011Living Room (E) FEDH TCE_4 0.041Front Door Hallway (F) FEDH TCF_4 0.040Closed Bedroom (G) FEDH TCG 0.003Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) Smoke SMA_4 196 0.280Burn Room Bedroom (B) Smoke SMB_4 220 0.254Utility Hallway (C) Smoke SMC_4 186 0.255Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) Smoke SMD_4 178 0.277Living Room (E) Smoke SME_4 0.007Front Door Hallway (F) Smoke SMF_4 230 0.261Closed Bedroom (G) Smoke SMG 0.007
81

828384858687888990919293949596979899

100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118

A B C DEF G H I J

Test SDC03 Smoldering Mattress in Bedroom (Test aborted due to ignition failure)Time 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum Outsi

Master Bedroom (A) FEDG GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.175Utility Hallway (C) FEDG GASC_3 GASC_1 - 0.006Front Door Hallway (F) FEDG GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.000Burn Room (BEK) FEDG GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.002NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDGN GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.000Utility Hallway (C) FEDGN GASC_3 GASC_1 - 0.000Front Door Hallway (F) FEDGN GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.000Burn Room (BEK) FEDGN GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.000ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDH TCA_4 0.092Burn Room Bedroom (B) FEDH TCB_4 0.085Utility Hallway (C) FEDH TCC_4 0.081Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) FEDH TCD_4 0.075Living Room (E) FEDH TCE_4 0.080Front Door Hallway (F) FEDH TCF_4 0.079Closed Bedroom (G) FEDH TCG 0.052Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) Smoke SMA_4 0.047Burn Room Bedroom (B) Smoke SMB_4 0.051Utility Hallway (C) Smoke SMC_4 0.073Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) Smoke SMD_4 0.098Living Room (E) Smoke SME_4 0.141Front Door Hallway (F) Smoke SMF_4 0.066Closed Bedroom (G) Smoke SMG 0.025
119

120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156

A B C DEF G H I J

Test SDC04 Smoldering Mattress in BedroomTime 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum Outsi

Master Bedroom (A) FEDG GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.221 3383 (Smoke) Utility Hallway (C) FEDG GASC_3 GASC_1 - 0.273Front Door Hallway (F) FEDG GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.000Burn Room (BEK) FEDG GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.034NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDGN GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.000Utility Hallway (C) FEDGN GASC_3 GASC_1 - 0.066Front Door Hallway (F) FEDGN GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.000Burn Room (BEK) FEDGN GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.000ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDH TCA_4 0.090Burn Room Bedroom (B) FEDH TCB_4 0.099Utility Hallway (C) FEDH TCC_4 0.078Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) FEDH TCD_4 0.074Living Room (E) FEDH TCE_4 0.079Front Door Hallway (F) FEDH TCF_4 0.077Closed Bedroom (G) FEDH TCG 0.052Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) Smoke SMA_4 3588 0.252Burn Room Bedroom (B) Smoke SMB_4 3383 0.251Utility Hallway (C) Smoke SMC_4 4013 3.356Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) Smoke SMD_4 3443 0.273Living Room (E) Smoke SME_4 3518 0.252Front Door Hallway (F) Smoke SMF_4 4053 2.384Closed Bedroom (G) Smoke SMG 4008 3.482
157

158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194

A B C DEF G H I J

Test SDC05 Flaming Mattress in BedroomTime 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum Outsi

Master Bedroom (A) FEDG GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.024 137 (Smoke) Utility Hallway (C) FEDG GASC_3 GASC_1 - 0.024Front Door Hallway (F) FEDG GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.029Burn Room (BEK) FEDG GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.080NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDGN GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.000Utility Hallway (C) FEDGN GASC_3 GASC_1 - 0.000Front Door Hallway (F) FEDGN GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.000Burn Room (BEK) FEDGN GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.000ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDH TCA_4 0.009Burn Room Bedroom (B) FEDH TCB_4 0.273Utility Hallway (C) FEDH TCC_4 0.016Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) FEDH TCD_4 0.013Living Room (E) FEDH TCE_4 0.020Front Door Hallway (F) FEDH TCF_4 0.022Closed Bedroom (G) FEDH TCG 0.004Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) Smoke SMA_4 197 0.276Burn Room Bedroom (B) Smoke SMB_4 137 0.329Utility Hallway (C) Smoke SMC_4 182 0.341Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) Smoke SMD_4 162 0.403Living Room (E) Smoke SME_4 177 0.260Front Door Hallway (F) Smoke SMF_4 217 0.291Closed Bedroom (G) Smoke SMG 0.006
195

196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232

A B C DEF G H I J

Test SDC06 Smoldering Mattress in BedroomTime 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum Outsi

Master Bedroom (A) FEDG GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.301 6008 (Smoke) Utility Hallway (C) FEDG GASC_3 GASC_1 - 0.067Front Door Hallway (F) FEDG GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.001Burn Room (BEK) FEDG GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.022NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDGN GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.000Utility Hallway (C) FEDGN GASC_3 GASC_1 - 0.000Front Door Hallway (F) FEDGN GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.000Burn Room (BEK) FEDGN GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.000ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDH TCA_4 0.106Burn Room Bedroom (B) FEDH TCB_4 0.122Utility Hallway (C) FEDH TCC_4 0.095Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) FEDH TCD_4 0.085Living Room (E) FEDH TCE_4 0.094Front Door Hallway (F) FEDH TCF_4 0.092Closed Bedroom (G) FEDH TCG 0.058Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) Smoke SMA_4 6098 0.279Burn Room Bedroom (B) Smoke SMB_4 6008 0.408Utility Hallway (C) Smoke SMC_4 6078 0.293Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) Smoke SMD_4 0.260Living Room (E) Smoke SME_4 6068 0.261Front Door Hallway (F) Smoke SMF_4 0.069Closed Bedroom (G) Smoke SMG 0.017
233

234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270

A B C DEF G H I J

Test SDC07 Flaming Mattress in BedroomTime 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum Outsi

Master Bedroom (A) FEDG GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.134 145 (Smoke) Utility Hallway (C) FEDG GASC_3 GASC_1 - 0.120Front Door Hallway (F) FEDG GASF_3 GASF_1 - 289 0.328Burn Room (BEK) FEDG GASB_3 GASB_1 - 217 0.307NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDGN GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.000Utility Hallway (C) FEDGN GASC_3 GASC_1 - 0.000Front Door Hallway (F) FEDGN GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.022Burn Room (BEK) FEDGN GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.067ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDH TCA_4 0.084Burn Room Bedroom (B) FEDH TCB_4 193 0.315Utility Hallway (C) FEDH TCC_4 0.217Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) FEDH TCD_4 295 0.305Living Room (E) FEDH TCE_4 387 0.300Front Door Hallway (F) FEDH TCF_4 283 0.305Closed Bedroom (G) FEDH TCG 0.005Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) Smoke SMA_4 191 0.256Burn Room Bedroom (B) Smoke SMB_4 145 0.253Utility Hallway (C) Smoke SMC_4 187 0.263Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) Smoke SMD_4 163 0.271Living Room (E) Smoke SME_4 181 0.265Front Door Hallway (F) Smoke SMF_4 199 0.379Closed Bedroom (G) Smoke SMG 219 3.599
271

272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306

A B C DEF G H I J

Test SDC08 Smoldering Mattress in BedroomTime 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum Outsi

Master Bedroom (A) FEDG GASA_3 GASA_1 - 3079 0.300 3079 (ISO Gas) Utility Hallway (C) FEDG GASC_3 GASC_1 - 0.078Front Door Hallway (F) FEDG GASF_3 GASF_1 - 3887 0.300Burn Room (BEK) FEDG GASB_3 GASB_1 - 3819 0.308NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDGN GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.000Utility Hallway (C) FEDGN GASC_3 GASC_1 - 0.000Front Door Hallway (F) FEDGN GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.178Burn Room (BEK) FEDGN GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.062ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDH TCA_4 0.104Burn Room Bedroom (B) FEDH TCB_4 3783 0.301Utility Hallway (C) FEDH TCC_4 0.148Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) FEDH TCD_4 0.170Living Room (E) FEDH TCE_4 0.172Front Door Hallway (F) FEDH TCF_4 0.206Closed Bedroom (G) FEDH TCG 0.046Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) Smoke SMA_4 3783 0.284Utility Hallway (C) Smoke SMC_4 3771 0.263Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) Smoke SMD_4 3801 0.279Living Room (E) Smoke SME_4 3779 0.259Front Door Hallway (F) Smoke SMF_4 3785 0.266
307

308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343

A B C DEF G H I J

Test SDC09 Flaming Mattress in Bedroom (Burn Room Door Closed)Time 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum Outsi

Master Bedroom (A) FEDG GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.134 163 (ISO Heat) Utility Hallway (C) FEDG GASC_3 GASC_1 - 0.019Front Door Hallway (F) FEDG GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.011Burn Room (BEK) FEDG GASB_3 GASB_1 - 187 0.337NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDGN GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.000Utility Hallway (C) FEDGN GASC_3 GASC_1 - 0.000Front Door Hallway (F) FEDGN GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.000Burn Room (BEK) FEDGN GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.100ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDH TCA_4 0.030Burn Room Bedroom (B) FEDH TCB_4 163 0.304Utility Hallway (C) FEDH TCC_4 0.028Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) FEDH TCD_4 0.028Living Room (E) FEDH TCE_4 0.029Front Door Hallway (F) FEDH TCF_4 0.029Closed Bedroom (G) FEDH TCG 0.021Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) Smoke SMA_4 0.189Utility Hallway (C) Smoke SMC_4 1113 0.307Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) Smoke SMD_4 1067 0.438Living Room (E) Smoke SME_4 1111 0.255Front Door Hallway (F) Smoke SMF_4 1073 0.818Closed Bedroom (G) Smoke SMG 0.004
344

345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380

A B C DEF G H I J

Test SDC10 Flaming Chair in Living RoomTime 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum Outsi

Master Bedroom (A) FEDG GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.050 160 (Smoke) Utility Hallway (C) FEDG GASC_3 GASC_1 - 0.040Front Door Hallway (F) FEDG GASF_3 GASF_1 - 272 0.300Burn Room (BEK) FEDG GASB_3 GASB_1 - 240 0.327NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDGN GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.000Utility Hallway (C) FEDGN GASC_3 GASC_1 - 0.000Front Door Hallway (F) FEDGN GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.015Burn Room (BEK) FEDGN GASB_3 GASB_1 - 342 0.309ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDH TCA_4 0.073Burn Room Bedroom (B) FEDH TCB_4 0.098Utility Hallway (C) FEDH TCC_4 0.181Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) FEDH TCD_4 0.064Living Room (E) FDEH TCE_4Front Door Hallway (F) FEDH TCF_4 232 0.305Closed Bedroom (G) FEDH TCG 0.007Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) Smoke SMA_4 212 0.277Burn Room Bedroom (B) Smoke SMB_4 214 0.260Utility Hallway (C) Smoke SMC_4 192 0.252Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) Smoke SMD_4 190 0.267Front Door Hallway (F) Smoke SMF_4 160 0.265Closed Bedroom (G) Smoke SMG 0.042
381

382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401402403404405406407408409410411412413414415416417418

A B C DEF G H I J

Test SDC11 Smoldering Chair in Living RoomTime 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum Outsi

Master Bedroom (A) FEDG GASA_3 GASA_1 - 3729 0.300 1633 (ISO Gas) Utility Hallway (C) FEDG GASC_3 GASC_1 - 0.115Front Door Hallway (F) FEDG GASF_3 GASF_1 - 4245 0.301Burn Room (BEK) FEDG GASB_3 GASB_1 - 1633 0.301NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDGN GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.000Utility Hallway (C) FEDGN GASC_3 GASC_1 - 0.000Front Door Hallway (F) FEDGN GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.008Burn Room (BEK) FEDGN GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.120ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDH TCA_4 0.179Burn Room Bedroom (B) FEDH TCB_4 0.187Utility Hallway (C) FEDH TCC_4 0.209Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) FEDH TCD_4 0.156Living Room (E) FEDH TCE_4 4407 0.302Front Door Hallway (F) FEDH TCF_4 0.261Closed Bedroom (G) FEDH TCG 0.096Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) Smoke SMA_4 4341 0.262Burn Room Bedroom (B) Smoke SMB_4 4345 0.252Utility Hallway (C) Smoke SMC_4 4297 0.255Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) Smoke SMD_4 4331 0.271Front Door Hallway (F) Smoke SMF_4 3993 0.253Closed Bedroom (G) Smoke SMG 0.033
419

420421422423424425426427428429430431432433434435436437438439440441442443444445446447448449450451452453454455

A B C DEF G H I J

Test SDC12 Vegetable Oil on Kitchen StoveTime 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum Outsi

Master Bedroom (A) FEDG GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.137 1115 (ISO Gas) Utility Hallway (C) FEDG GASC_3 GASC_1 - 1115 0.300Front Door Hallway (F) FEDG GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.000Burn Room (BEK) FEDG GASB_3 GASB_1 - 1535 0.307NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDGN GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.000Utility Hallway (C) FEDGN GASC_3 GASC_1 - 0.082Front Door Hallway (F) FEDGN GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.000Burn Room (BEK) FEDGN GASB_3 GASB_1 - 1609 0.375ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDH TCA_4 0.063Burn Room Bedroom (B) FEDH TCB_4 0.062Utility Hallway (C) FEDH TCC_4 0.064Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) FEDH TCD_4 0.057Living Room (E) FEDH TCE_4 0.066Front Door Hallway (F) FEDH TCF_4 0.068Closed Bedroom (G) FEDH TCG 0.036Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) Smoke SMA_4 1423 0.257Burn Room Bedroom (B) Smoke SMB_4 1453 0.266Utility Hallway (C) Smoke SMC_4 1315 0.257Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) Smoke SMD_4 1247 0.263Front Door Hallway (F) Smoke SMF_4 1377 0.251Closed Bedroom (G) Smoke SMG 0.041
456

457458459460461462463464465466467468469470471472473474475476477478479480481482483484485486487488489490491

A B C DEF G H I J

Test SDC13 Vegetable Oil on Kitchen StoveTime 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum Outsi

Master Bedroom (A) FEDG GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.188 1176 (Smoke) Utility Hallway (C) FEDG GASC_3 GASC_1 - 0.052Front Door Hallway (F) FEDG GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.000Burn Room (BEK) FEDG GASB_3 GASB_1 - 1618 0.303NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDGN GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.000Utility Hallway (C) FEDGN GASC_3 GASC_1 - 0.000Front Door Hallway (F) FEDGN GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.000Burn Room (BEK) FEDGN GASB_3 GASB_1 - 1644 0.314ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDH TCA_4 0.057Burn Room Bedroom (B) FEDH TCB_4 0.056Utility Hallway (C) FEDH TCC_4 0.059Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) FEDH TCD_4 0.046Living Room (E) FEDH TCE_4 0.063Front Door Hallway (F) FEDH TCF_4 0.067Closed Bedroom (G) FEDH TCG 0.025Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) Smoke SMA_4 1400 0.259Utility Hallway (C) Smoke SMC_4 1376 0.413Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) Smoke SMD_4 1176 0.252Front Door Hallway (F) Smoke SMF_4 1350 0.251Closed Bedroom (G) Smoke SMG 0.036
492

493494495496497498499500501502503504505506507508509510511512513514515516517518519520521522523524525526

A B C DEF G H I J

Test SDC14 Flaming Mattress in Bedroom (Burn Room Door Closed)Time 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum Outsi

Master Bedroom (A) FEDG GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.275 3438 (ISO Heat) Utility Hallway (C) FEDG GASC_3 GASC_1 - 0.077Front Door Hallway (F) FEDG GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.254Burn Room (BEK) FEDG GASB_3 GASB_1 - 3468 0.335NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDGN GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.000Utility Hallway (C) FEDGN GASC_3 GASC_1 - 0.000Front Door Hallway (F) FEDGN GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.105Burn Room (BEK) FEDGN GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.044ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDH TCA_4 0.122Burn Room Bedroom (B) FEDH TCB_4 3438 0.301Utility Hallway (C) FEDH TCC_4 0.110Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) FEDH TCD_4 0.106Living Room (E) FEDH TCE_4 0.113Front Door Hallway (F) FEDH TCF_4 0.114Closed Bedroom (G) FEDH TCG 0.078Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) Smoke SMA_4 0.247Utility Hallway (C) Smoke SMC_4 4058 0.448Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) Smoke SMD_4 3482 0.257Front Door Hallway (F) Smoke SMF_4 4032 0.433
527

528529530531532533534535536537538539540541542543544545546547548549550551552553554555556557558559560561

A B C DEF G H I J

Test SDC15 Flaming Chair in Living RoomTime 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum Outsi

Master Bedroom (A) FEDG GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.028 179 (Smoke) Utility Hallway (C) FEDG GASC_3 GASC_1 - 0.017Front Door Hallway (F) FEDG GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.100Burn Room (BEK) FEDG GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.302NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDGN GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.000Utility Hallway (C) FEDGN GASC_3 GASC_1 - 0.000Front Door Hallway (F) FEDGN GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.000Burn Room (BEK) FEDGN GASB_3 GASB_1 - 179 0.301ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDH TCA_4 0.040Burn Room Bedroom (B) FEDH TCB_4 0.055Utility Hallway (C) FEDH TCC_4 0.063Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) FEDH TCD_4 0.038Living Room (E) FEDH TCE_4 0.092Front Door Hallway (F) FEDH TCF_4 0.180Closed Bedroom (G) FEDH TCG 0.014Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) Smoke SMA_4 215 0.299Utility Hallway (C) Smoke SMC_4 189 0.273Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) Smoke SMD_4 191 0.266Front Door Hallway (F) Smoke SMF_4 179 0.293
562

563564565566567568569570571572573574575576577578579580581582583584585586587588589590591592593594595596597598599600601

A B C DEF G H I J

Series ..\Manufactured Home Series #2\Test SDC30 Smoldering Chair in Living Room (test aborted due to power failure)Time 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum

Master Bedroom (A) FEDG GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.001Utility Hallway (C) FEDG GASC_1 GASC_3 - 0.059Front Door Hallway (F) FEDG GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.015Burn Room (BEK) FEDG GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.000NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDGN GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.000Utility Hallway (C) FEDGN GASC_1 GASC_3 - 0.000Front Door Hallway (F) FEDGN GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.000Burn Room (BEK) FEDGN GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.000ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDH TCA_4 0.009Burn Room Bedroom (B) FEDH TCB_4 0.011Utility Hallway (C) FEDH TCC_4 0.006Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) FEDH TCD_4 0.009Living Room (E) FEDH TCE_4 0.008Front Door Hallway (F) FEDH TCF_4 0.007Closed Bedroom (G) FEDH TCG 0.009Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) Smoke SMA_3 0.037Burn Room Bedroom (B) Smoke SMB_3 0.008Utility Hallway (C) Smoke SMC_3 0.062Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) Smoke SMD_3 0.022Living Room (E) Smoke SME_3 0.015Front Door Hallway (F) Smoke SMF_3 0.050Closed Bedroom (G) Smoke SMG 0.008
602

603604605606607608609610611612613614615616617618619620621622623624625626627628629630631632633634635636637638639

A B C DEF G H I J

Test SDC31 Smoldering Chair in Living RoomTime 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum Outsi

Master Bedroom (A) FEDG GASA_3 GASA_1 - 6235 0.300 1841 (ISO Gas) Utility Hallway (C) FEDG GASC_1 GASC_3 - 1841 0.300Front Door Hallway (F) FEDG GASF_3 GASF_1 - 3159 0.300Burn Room (BEK) FEDG GASB_3 GASB_1 - 4057 0.300NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDGN GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.000Utility Hallway (C) FEDGN GASC_1 GASC_3 - 0.159Front Door Hallway (F) FEDGN GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.000Burn Room (BEK) FEDGN GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.000ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDH TCA_4 0.241Burn Room Bedroom (B) FEDH TCB_4 0.265Utility Hallway (C) FEDH TCC_4 0.240Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) FEDH TCD_4 0.249Living Room (E) FEDH TCE_4 0.261Front Door Hallway (F) FEDH TCF_4 0.257Closed Bedroom (G) FEDH TCG 0.180Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) Smoke SMA_3 5321 0.252Burn Room Bedroom (B) Smoke SMB_3 5673 0.257Utility Hallway (C) Smoke SMC_3 5085 0.283Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) Smoke SMD_3 5295 0.333Living Room (E) Smoke SME_3 5365 0.284Front Door Hallway (F) Smoke SMF_3 4963 0.259Closed Bedroom (G) Smoke SMG 8249 0.255
640

641642643644645646647648649650651652653654655656657658659660661662663664665666667668669670671672673674675676677

A B C DEF G H I J

Test SDC32 Flaming Chair in Living Room (Test Aborted due to Ignition Failure)Time 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum

Master Bedroom (A) FEDG GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.002Utility Hallway (C) FEDG GASC_1 GASC_3 - 0.023Front Door Hallway (F) FEDG GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.004Burn Room (BEK) FEDG GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.000NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDGN GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.000Utility Hallway (C) FEDGN GASC_1 GASC_3 - 0.000Front Door Hallway (F) FEDGN GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.000Burn Room (BEK) FEDGN GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.000ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDH TCA_4 0.004Burn Room Bedroom (B) FEDH TCB_4 0.004Utility Hallway (C) FEDH TCC_4 0.004Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) FEDH TCD_4 0.004Living Room (E) FEDH TCE_4 0.004Front Door Hallway (F) FEDH TCF_4 0.004Closed Bedroom (G) FEDH TCG 0.003Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) Smoke SMA_3 0.012Burn Room Bedroom (B) Smoke SMB_3 0.005Utility Hallway (C) Smoke SMC_3 0.017Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) Smoke SMD_3 0.023Living Room (E) Smoke SME_3 0.023Front Door Hallway (F) Smoke SMF_3 0.107Closed Bedroom (G) Smoke SMG 0.006
678

679680681682683684685686687688689690691692693694695696697698699700701702703704705706707708709710711712713714715

A B C DEF G H I J

Test SDC33 Flaming Chair in Living RoomTime 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum Outsi

Master Bedroom (A) FEDG GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.004 182 (Smoke) Utility Hallway (C) FEDG GASC_1 GASC_3 - 0.089Front Door Hallway (F) FEDG GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.007Burn Room (BEK) FEDG GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.007NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDGN GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.000Utility Hallway (C) FEDGN GASC_1 GASC_3 - 0.004Front Door Hallway (F) FEDGN GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.000Burn Room (BEK) FEDGN GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.000ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDH TCA_4 0.007Burn Room Bedroom (B) FEDH TCB_4 0.008Utility Hallway (C) FEDH TCC_4 0.009Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) FEDH TCD_4 0.009Living Room (E) FEDH TCE_4 0.012Front Door Hallway (F) FEDH TCF_4 0.013Closed Bedroom (G) FEDH TCG 0.005Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) Smoke SMA_3 0.080Burn Room Bedroom (B) Smoke SMB_3 0.158Utility Hallway (C) Smoke SMC_3 0.117Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) Smoke SMD_3 0.034Living Room (E) Smoke SME_3 0.150Front Door Hallway (F) Smoke SMF_3 182 0.254Closed Bedroom (G) Smoke SMG 0.007
716

717718719720721722723724725726727728729730731732733734735736737738739740741742743744745746747748749750751752753

A B C DEF G H I J

Test SDC34 Smoldering Chair in Living RoomTime 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum Outsi

Master Bedroom (A) FEDG GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.013 2058 (ISO Gas) Utility Hallway (C) FEDG GASC_1 GASC_3 - 2058 0.300Front Door Hallway (F) FEDG GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.116Burn Room (BEK) FEDG GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.263NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDGN GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.000Utility Hallway (C) FEDGN GASC_1 GASC_3 - 0.000Front Door Hallway (F) FEDGN GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.000Burn Room (BEK) FEDGN GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.000ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDH TCA_4 0.103Burn Room Bedroom (B) FEDH TCB_4 0.110Utility Hallway (C) FEDH TCC_4 0.096Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) FEDH TCD_4 0.097Living Room (E) FEDH TCE_4 0.101Front Door Hallway (F) FEDH TCF_4 0.100Closed Bedroom (G) FEDH TCG 0.077Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) Smoke SMA_3 0.041Burn Room Bedroom (B) Smoke SMB_3 0.013Utility Hallway (C) Smoke SMC_3 3906 0.257Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) Smoke SMD_3 0.185Living Room (E) Smoke SME_3 0.011Front Door Hallway (F) Smoke SMF_3 3882 0.377Closed Bedroom (G) Smoke SMG 0.012
754

755756757758759760761762763764765766767768769770771772773774775776777778779780781782783784785786787788789790791

A B C DEF G H I J

Test SDC35 Flaming Chair in Living RoomTime 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum Outsi

Master Bedroom (A) FEDG GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.001 182 (Smoke) Utility Hallway (C) FEDG GASC_1 GASC_3 - 0.080Front Door Hallway (F) FEDG GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.001Burn Room (BEK) FEDG GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.007NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDGN GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.000Utility Hallway (C) FEDGN GASC_1 GASC_3 - 0.002Front Door Hallway (F) FEDGN GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.000Burn Room (BEK) FEDGN GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.000ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDH TCA_4 0.007Burn Room Bedroom (B) FEDH TCB_4 0.008Utility Hallway (C) FEDH TCC_4 0.008Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) FEDH TCD_4 0.009Living Room (E) FEDH TCE_4 0.012Front Door Hallway (F) FEDH TCF_4 0.011Closed Bedroom (G) FEDH TCG 0.005Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) Smoke SMA_3 0.060Burn Room Bedroom (B) Smoke SMB_3 0.101Utility Hallway (C) Smoke SMC_3 0.121Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) Smoke SMD_3 0.143Living Room (E) Smoke SME_3 0.232Front Door Hallway (F) Smoke SMF_3 182 0.251Closed Bedroom (G) Smoke SMG 0.014
792

793794795796797798799800801802803804805806807808809810811812813814815816817818819820821822823824825826827828829

A B C DEF G H I J

Test SDC36 Flaming Mattress in Bedroom (Burn Room Door Closed)Time 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum Outsi

Master Bedroom (A) FEDG GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.018 128 (Smoke) Utility Hallway (C) FEDG GASC_1 GASC_3 - 1072 0.301Front Door Hallway (F) FEDG GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.107Burn Room (BEK) FEDG GASB_3 GASB_1 - 480 0.300NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDGN GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.000Utility Hallway (C) FEDGN GASC_1 GASC_3 - 0.000Front Door Hallway (F) FEDGN GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.000Burn Room (BEK) FEDGN GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.133ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDH TCA_4 0.048Burn Room Bedroom (B) FEDH TCB_4 158 0.310Utility Hallway (C) FEDH TCC_4 0.044Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) FEDH TCD_4 0.048Living Room (E) FEDH TCE_4 0.046Front Door Hallway (F) FEDH TCF_4 0.046Closed Bedroom (G) FEDH TCG 0.041Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) Smoke SMA_3 0.053Burn Room Bedroom (B) Smoke SMB_3 128 0.324Utility Hallway (C) Smoke SMC_3 0.093Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) Smoke SMD_3 1922 0.251Living Room (E) Smoke SME_3 0.063Front Door Hallway (F) Smoke SMF_3 0.177Closed Bedroom (G) Smoke SMG 0.102
830

831832833834835836837838839840841842843844845846847848849850851852853854855856857858859860861862863864865866867

A B C DEF G H I J

Test SDC37 Smoldering Mattress in BedroomTime 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum Outsi

Master Bedroom (A) FEDG GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.000 1644 (Smoke) Utility Hallway (C) FEDG GASC_1 GASC_3 - 1910 0.300Front Door Hallway (F) FEDG GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.001Burn Room (BEK) FEDG GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.061NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDGN GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.000Utility Hallway (C) FEDGN GASC_1 GASC_3 - 0.000Front Door Hallway (F) FEDGN GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.000Burn Room (BEK) FEDGN GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.000ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDH TCA_4 0.050Burn Room Bedroom (B) FEDH TCB_4 0.059Utility Hallway (C) FEDH TCC_4 0.047Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) FEDH TCD_4 0.048Living Room (E) FEDH TCE_4 0.049Front Door Hallway (F) FEDH TCF_4 0.048Closed Bedroom (G) FEDH TCG 0.039Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) Smoke SMA_3 0.028Burn Room Bedroom (B) Smoke SMB_3 1644 0.258Utility Hallway (C) Smoke SMC_3 0.153Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) Smoke SMD_3 0.243Living Room (E) Smoke SME_3 0.062Front Door Hallway (F) Smoke SMF_3 0.134Closed Bedroom (G) Smoke SMG 0.015
868

869870871872873874875876877878879880881882883884885886887888889890891892893894895896897898899900901902903904905

A B C DEF G H I J

Test SDC38 Flaming Mattress in BedroomTime 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum Outsi

Master Bedroom (A) FEDG GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.000 143 (Smoke) Utility Hallway (C) FEDG GASC_1 GASC_3 - 0.222Front Door Hallway (F) FEDG GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.023Burn Room (BEK) FEDG GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.070NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDGN GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.000Utility Hallway (C) FEDGN GASC_1 GASC_3 - 0.000Front Door Hallway (F) FEDGN GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.000Burn Room (BEK) FEDGN GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.000ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDH TCA_4 0.021Burn Room Bedroom (B) FEDH TCB_4 0.087Utility Hallway (C) FEDH TCC_4 0.014Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) FEDH TCD_4 0.022Living Room (E) FEDH TCE_4 0.016Front Door Hallway (F) FEDH TCF_4 0.017Closed Bedroom (G) FEDH TCG 0.021Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) Smoke SMA_3 0.040Burn Room Bedroom (B) Smoke SMB_3 143 0.262Utility Hallway (C) Smoke SMC_3 0.069Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) Smoke SMD_3 159 0.271Living Room (E) Smoke SME_3 0.062Front Door Hallway (F) Smoke SMF_3 177 0.467Closed Bedroom (G) Smoke SMG 0.012
906

907908909910911912913914915916917918919920921922923924925926927928929930931932933934935936937938939940941942943

A B C DEF G H I J

Test SDC39 Flaming Mattress in BedroomTime 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum Outsi

Master Bedroom (A) FEDG GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.000 120 (Smoke) Utility Hallway (C) FEDG GASC_1 GASC_3 - 0.024Front Door Hallway (F) FEDG GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.000Burn Room (BEK) FEDG GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.002NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDGN GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.000Utility Hallway (C) FEDGN GASC_1 GASC_3 - 0.000Front Door Hallway (F) FEDGN GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.000Burn Room (BEK) FEDGN GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.000ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDH TCA_4 0.003Burn Room Bedroom (B) FEDH TCB_4 0.027Utility Hallway (C) FEDH TCC_4 0.002Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) FEDH TCD_4 0.003Living Room (E) FEDH TCE_4 0.002Front Door Hallway (F) FEDH TCF_4 0.002Closed Bedroom (G) FEDH TCG 0.002Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) Smoke SMA_3 0.017Burn Room Bedroom (B) Smoke SMB_3 120 0.266Utility Hallway (C) Smoke SMC_3 0.012Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) Smoke SMD_3 0.098Living Room (E) Smoke SME_3 0.011Front Door Hallway (F) Smoke SMF_3 0.041Closed Bedroom (G) Smoke SMG 0.005
944

945946947948949950951952953954955956957958959960961962963964965966967968969970971972973974975976977978979980981

A B C DEF G H I J

Test SDC40 Smoldering Mattress in BedroomTime 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum Outsi

Master Bedroom (A) FEDG GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.000 3372 (End of Tes 

Utility Hallway (C) FEDG GASC_1 GASC_3 - 0.300Front Door Hallway (F) FEDG GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.012Burn Room (BEK) FEDG GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.046NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDGN GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.000Utility Hallway (C) FEDGN GASC_1 GASC_3 - 0.000Front Door Hallway (F) FEDGN GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.000Burn Room (BEK) FEDGN GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.000ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDH TCA_4 0.075Burn Room Bedroom (B) FEDH TCB_4 0.078Utility Hallway (C) FEDH TCC_4 0.068Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) FEDH TCD_4 0.068Living Room (E) FEDH TCE_4 0.070Front Door Hallway (F) FEDH TCF_4 0.069Closed Bedroom (G) FEDH TCG 0.053Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) Smoke SMA_3 0.062Burn Room Bedroom (B) Smoke SMB_3 0.199Utility Hallway (C) Smoke SMC_3 0.182Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) Smoke SMD_3 0.005Living Room (E) Smoke SME_3 0.066Front Door Hallway (F) Smoke SMF_3 0.079Closed Bedroom (G) Smoke SMG 0.010
982

983984985986987988989990991992993994995996997998999

10001001100210031004100510061007100810091010101110121013101410151016101710181019

A B C DEF G H I J

Test SDC41 Vegetable Oil on Kitchen StoveTime 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum Outsi

Master Bedroom (A) FEDG GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.033 946 (ISO Gas) Utility Hallway (C) FEDG GASC_1 GASC_3 - 946 0.300Front Door Hallway (F) FEDG GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.020Burn Room (BEK) FEDG GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.090NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDGN GASA_3 GASA_1 - 0.000Utility Hallway (C) FEDGN GASC_1 GASC_3 - 0.260Front Door Hallway (F) FEDGN GASF_3 GASF_1 - 0.000Burn Room (BEK) FEDGN GASB_3 GASB_1 - 0.000ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) FEDH TCA_4 0.080Burn Room Bedroom (B) FEDH TCB_4 0.083Utility Hallway (C) FEDH TCC_4 0.089Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) FEDH TCD_4 0.093Living Room (E) FEDH TCE_4 0.095Front Door Hallway (F) FEDH TCF_4 0.094Closed Bedroom (G) FEDH TCG 0.037Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Master Bedroom (A) Smoke SMA_3 1312 0.254Burn Room Bedroom (B) Smoke SMB_3 1252 0.255Utility Hallway (C) Smoke SMC_3 1178 0.418Hallway Outside Burn Room Bedroom (D) Smoke SMD_3 1106 0.259Living Room (E) Smoke SME_3 1386 0.271Front Door Hallway (F) Smoke SMF_3 1168 0.257Closed Bedroom (G) Smoke SMG 0.064
1020

102110221023102410251026102710281029103010311032103310341035103610371038103910401041104210431044104510461047104810491050105110521053105410551056105710581059106010611062106310641065

A B C DEF G H I J

Series ..\Kinston Series\Test SDC20 Flaming Mattress in Bedroom (Burn Room Door Closed)Time 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum Outsi

Bedroom 1 (B1) FEDG GASB3 GASB1 - 0.107 210 (ISO Heat) Upstairs Hallway (H) FEDG GASF3 GASF1 - 0.032Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3)Living Room Burn Room (L)Foyer (F)Den (D)Kitchen(K)NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Bedroom 1 (B1) FEDGN GASB3 GASB1 - 0.000Upstairs Hallway (H) FEDGN GASF3 GASF1 - 0.000Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3)Living Room Burn Room (L)Foyer (F)Den (D)Kitchen(K)ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Bedroom 1 (B1) FEDH TCB14 0.120Upstairs Hallway (H) FEDH TCH4 0.121Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3) FEDH TCB34 210 0.315Living Room Burn Room (L) FEDH TCL4 0.098Foyer (F) FEDH TCF4 0.100Den (D) FEDH TCD4 0.094Kitchen(K) FEDH TCK4 0.094Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Bedroom 1 (B1) Smoke SMB12S 0.223Upstairs Hallway (H) Smoke SMH2S 0.145Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3)Living Room Burn Room (L)Foyer (F) Smoke SMF2S 0.083Den (D) Smoke SMD2S 0.036Kitchen(K)
1066

1067106810691070107110721073107410751076107710781079108010811082108310841085108610871088108910901091109210931094109510961097109810991100110111021103110411051106110711081109

A B C DEF G H I J

Test SDC21 Smoldering Mattress in BedroomTime 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum Outsi

Bedroom 1 (B1) FEDG GASB3 GASB1 - 0 0.000 1965 * end of tes 

Upstairs Hallway (H) FEDG GASF3 GASF1 - 0 0.010Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3)Living Room Burn Room (L)Foyer (F)Den (D)Kitchen(K)NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Bedroom 1 (B1) FEDGN GASB3 GASB1 - 0 0.000Upstairs Hallway (H) FEDGN GASF3 GASF1 - 0 0.000Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3)Living Room Burn Room (L)Foyer (F)Den (D)Kitchen(K)ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Bedroom 1 (B1) FEDH TCB14 0 0.055Upstairs Hallway (H) FEDH TCH4 0 0.064Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3) FEDH TCB34 0 0.067Living Room Burn Room (L) FEDH TCL4 0 0.049Foyer (F) FEDH TCF4 0 0.052Den (D) FEDH TCD4 0 0.049Kitchen(K) FEDH TCK4 0 0.049Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Bedroom 1 (B1) Smoke SMB12S 0 0.126Upstairs Hallway (H) Smoke SMH2S 0 0.241Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3)Living Room Burn Room (L)Foyer (F) Smoke SMF2S 0 0.048Den (D) Smoke SMD2S 0 0.027Kitchen(K)
1110

1111111211131114111511161117111811191120112111221123112411251126112711281129113011311132113311341135113611371138113911401141114211431144114511461147114811491150115111521153

A B C DEF G H I J

Test SDC22 Flaming Mattress in BedroomTime 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum Outsi

Bedroom 1 (B1) FEDG GASB3 GASB1 - 0.000 114 (Smoke) Upstairs Hallway (H) FEDG GASF3 GASF1 - 0.001Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3)Living Room Burn Room (L)Foyer (F)Den (D)Kitchen(K)NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Bedroom 1 (B1) FEDGN GASB3 GASB1 - 0.000Upstairs Hallway (H) FEDGN GASF3 GASF1 - 0.000Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3)Living Room Burn Room (L)Foyer (F)Den (D)Kitchen(K)ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Bedroom 1 (B1) FEDH TCB14 0.015Upstairs Hallway (H) FEDH TCH4 0.013Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3) FEDH TCB34 0.043Living Room Burn Room (L) FEDH TCL4 0.012Foyer (F) FEDH TCF4 0.011Den (D) FEDH TCD4 0.011Kitchen(K) FEDH TCK4 0.011Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Bedroom 1 (B1) Smoke SMB12S 114 0.295Upstairs Hallway (H) Smoke SMH2S 0.012Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3)Living Room Burn Room (L)Foyer (F) Smoke SMF2S 0.028Den (D) Smoke SMD2S 0.040Kitchen(K)
1154

1155115611571158115911601161116211631164116511661167116811691170117111721173117411751176117711781179118011811182118311841185118611871188118911901191119211931194119511961197

A B C DEF G H I J

Test SDC23 Smoldering Chair in Living RoomTime 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum Outsi

Bedroom 1 (B1) FEDG GASB3 GASB1 - 0.073 4672 (Smoke) Upstairs Hallway (H) FEDG GASF3 GASF1 - 0.062Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3)Living Room Burn Room (L)Foyer (F)Den (D)Kitchen(K)NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Bedroom 1 (B1) FEDGN GASB3 GASB1 - 0.000Upstairs Hallway (H) FEDGN GASF3 GASF1 - 0.000Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3)Living Room Burn Room (L)Foyer (F)Den (D)Kitchen(K)ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Bedroom 1 (B1) FEDH TCB14 0.077Upstairs Hallway (H) FEDH TCH4 0.076Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3) FEDH TCB34 0.073Living Room Burn Room (L) FEDH TCL4 0.074Foyer (F) FEDH TCF4 0.072Den (D) FEDH TCD4 0.065Kitchen(K) FEDH TCK4 0.066Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Bedroom 1 (B1) Smoke SMB12S 0.120Upstairs Hallway (H) Smoke SMH2S 4840 0.258Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3)Living Room Burn Room (L)Foyer (F) Smoke SMF2S 4672 0.273Den (D) Smoke SMD2S 0.111Kitchen(K)
1198

1199120012011202120312041205120612071208120912101211121212131214121512161217121812191220122112221223122412251226122712281229123012311232123312341235123612371238123912401241

A B C DEF G H I J

Test SDC24 Vegetable Oil on Kitchen StoveTime 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum Outsi

Bedroom 1 (B1) FEDG GASB3 GASB1 - 0.000 1696 (Smoke) Upstairs Hallway (H) FEDG GASF3 GASF1 - 0.007Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3)Living Room Burn Room (L)Foyer (F)Den (D)Kitchen(K)NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Bedroom 1 (B1) FEDGN GASB3 GASB1 - 0.000Upstairs Hallway (H) FEDGN GASF3 GASF1 - 0.000Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3)Living Room Burn Room (L)Foyer (F)Den (D)Kitchen(K)ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Bedroom 1 (B1) FEDH TCB14 0.031Upstairs Hallway (H) FEDH TCH4 0.031Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3) FEDH TCB34 0.027Living Room Burn Room (L) FEDH TCL4 0.032Foyer (F) FEDH TCF4 0.031Den (D) FEDH TCD4 0.036Kitchen(K) FEDH TCK4 0.037Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Bedroom 1 (B1) Smoke SMB12S 0.195Upstairs Hallway (H) Smoke SMH2S 0.162Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3)Living Room Burn Room (L)Foyer (F) Smoke SMF2S 0.150Den (D) Smoke SMD2S 1696 0.254Kitchen(K)
1242

1243124412451246124712481249125012511252125312541255125612571258125912601261126212631264126512661267126812691270127112721273127412751276127712781279128012811282128312841285

A B C DEF G H I J

Test SDC25 Flaming Chair in Living RoomTime 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum Outsi

Bedroom 1 (B1) FEDG GASB3 GASB1 - 0.009 202 (Smoke) Upstairs Hallway (H) FEDG GASF3 GASF1 - 0.014Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3)Living Room Burn Room (L)Foyer (F)Den (D)Kitchen(K)NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Bedroom 1 (B1) FEDGN GASB3 GASB1 - 0.000Upstairs Hallway (H) FEDGN GASF3 GASF1 - 0.000Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3)Living Room Burn Room (L)Foyer (F)Den (D)Kitchen(K)ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Bedroom 1 (B1) FEDH TCB14 0.039Upstairs Hallway (H) FEDH TCH4 0.249Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3) FEDH TCB34 0.038Living Room Burn Room (L) FEDH TCL4 0.104Foyer (F) FEDH TCF4 0.054Den (D) FEDH TCD4 0.007Kitchen(K) FEDH TCK4 0.011Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Bedroom 1 (B1) Smoke SMB12S 250 0.281Upstairs Hallway (H) Smoke SMH2S 220 0.254Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3)Living Room Burn Room (L)Foyer (F) Smoke SMF2S 202 0.255Den (D) Smoke SMD2S 250 0.301Kitchen(K)
1286

1287128812891290129112921293129412951296129712981299130013011302130313041305130613071308130913101311131213131314131513161317131813191320132113221323132413251326132713281329

A B C DEF G H I J

Test SDC26 Flaming Chair in Living RoomTime 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum Outsi

Bedroom 1 (B1) FEDG GASB3 GASB1 - 0.001 226 (Smoke) Upstairs Hallway (H) FEDG GASF3 GASF1 - 0.010Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3)Living Room Burn Room (L)Foyer (F)Den (D)Kitchen(K)NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Bedroom 1 (B1) FEDGN GASB3 GASB1 - 0.000Upstairs Hallway (H) FEDGN GASF3 GASF1 - 0.000Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3)Living Room Burn Room (L)Foyer (F)Den (D)Kitchen(K)ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Bedroom 1 (B1) FEDH TCB14 0.018Upstairs Hallway (H) FEDH TCH4 0.102Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3) FEDH TCB34 0.015Living Room Burn Room (L) FEDH TCL4 0.028Foyer (F) FEDH TCF4 0.020Den (D) FEDH TCD4 0.005Kitchen(K) FEDH TCK4 0.007Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Bedroom 1 (B1) Smoke SMB12S 258 0.252Upstairs Hallway (H) Smoke SMH2S 236 0.260Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3)Living Room Burn Room (L)Foyer (F) Smoke SMF2S 226 0.264Den (D) Smoke SMD2S 266 0.274Kitchen(K)
1330

1331133213331334133513361337133813391340134113421343134413451346134713481349135013511352135313541355135613571358135913601361136213631364136513661367136813691370137113721373

A B C DEF G H I J

Test SDC27 Smoldering Chair in Living Room (Air Conditioning Upstairs)Time 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum Outsi

Bedroom 1 (B1) FEDG GASB3 GASB1 - 0.051 3246 (Smoke) Upstairs Hallway (H) FEDG GASF3 GASF1 - 0.013Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3)Living Room Burn Room (L)Foyer (F)Den (D)Kitchen(K)NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Bedroom 1 (B1) FEDGN GASB3 GASB1 - 0.000Upstairs Hallway (H) FEDGN GASF3 GASF1 - 0.000Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3)Living Room Burn Room (L)Foyer (F)Den (D)Kitchen(K)ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Bedroom 1 (B1) FEDH TCB14 0.017Upstairs Hallway (H) FEDH TCH4 0.025Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3) FEDH TCB34 0.019Living Room Burn Room (L) FEDH TCL4 0.029Foyer (F) FEDH TCF4 0.027Den (D) FEDH TCD4 0.030Kitchen(K) FEDH TCK4 0.030Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Bedroom 1 (B1) Smoke SMB12S 3246 0.251Upstairs Hallway (H) Smoke SMH2S 4138 0.254Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3)Living Room Burn Room (L)Foyer (F) Smoke SMF2S 4214 0.347Den (D) Smoke SMD2S 0.085Kitchen(K)
1374

137513761377137813791380138113821383138413851386138713881389139013911392139313941395139613971398139914001401140214031404140514061407140814091410141114121413141414151416

A B C DEF G H I J

Test SDC28 Fully-Furnished Living RoomTime 1ISO Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value Minimum Outsi

Bedroom 1 (B1) FEDG GASB3 GASB1 - 350 0.304 236 (Smoke) Upstairs Hallway (H) FEDG GASF3 GASF1 - 326 0.336Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3)Living Room Burn Room (L)Foyer (F)Den (D)Kitchen(K)NIST Gas FED = 0.3

CO2 CO HCN ASET Final Value

Bedroom 1 (B1) FEDGN GASB3 GASB1 - 0.094Upstairs Hallway (H) FEDGN GASF3 GASF1 - 0.093Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3)Living Room Burn Room (L)Foyer (F)Den (D)Kitchen(K)ISO Convected Heat = 0.3

Temperature ASET Final Value

Bedroom 1 (B1) FEDH TCB14 308 0.319Upstairs Hallway (H) FEDH TCH4 274 0.348Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3) FEDH TCB34 0.009Living Room Burn Room (L) FEDH TCL4 262 0.397Foyer (F) FEDH TCF4 266 0.364Den (D) FEDH TCD4 298 0.364Kitchen(K) FEDH TCK4 298 0.312Smoke Obscuration = 0.25 m-1

OD ASET Final Value

Bedroom 1 (B1) Smoke SMB12S 270 0.341Upstairs Hallway (H) Smoke SMH2S 250 0.266Bedroom 3 Burn Room (B3)Living Room Burn Room (L)Foyer (F) Smoke SMF2S 236 0.270Den (D) Smoke SMD2S 268 0.345Kitchen(K)
This appendix, reprinted with permission from the Institute for Research in Construction,

National Research Council of Canada, uses the International System of Units (metric units) but

not in full accordance with NIST style. The information is printed in its original format to

preserve its integrity.

B-1

Appendix B

FTIR Gas Measurement in Home Smoke Alarm Tests
FTIR Gas Measurement in

Home Smoke Alarm Tests

Research Report 107

Date of Issue: September 2002

Authors: Joseph Z. Su

Malgosia Kanabus-Kaminska

Published by

Institute for Research in Construction

National Research Council Canada

Ottawa, Canada

K1A 0R6
i

FTIR GAS MEASUREMENT IN HOME SMOKE ALARM TESTS

By

Joseph Z. Su and Malgosia Kanabus-Kaminska

Fire Risk Management Program

Institute for Research in Construction

National Research Council of Canada

ABSTRACT

The National Research Council of Canada performed Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR)

gas measurements during fire detection experiments (Tests 1–14) in a manufactured home, as

part of a joint study with several U.S. organisations and federal agencies to evaluate current

requirements and technology of residential smoke detectors. The objectives were to identify

toxic species (such as HCl, HCN, NOx, HBr and HF) produced from test fires and to quantify

their concentrations for use in determination of the onset of untenable conditions.

Fire scenarios included flaming and smouldering fires of a mattress in a bedroom,

upholstered chair in the living area and cooking oil fires. The size, growth rate and duration of

the test fires were closely controlled to create small, slow smouldering fires (1 to 2 hours) and

short flaming fires (3 minutes or less). While these test fires provided the greatest challenge for

smoke detectors to detect the fires early before becoming fully developed ones, the experiments

were terminated well before reaching conditions that would produce a significant amount of toxic

species.

FTIR spectra collected during all these tests show spectral features from CO, CO2 and

water vapour. FTIR spectra collected during the chair and mattress smouldering and cooking oil

fires also show absorption characteristic of volatile hydrocarbon compounds. There was no

apparent absorption from chemical species such as HCl, NOx, HBr and HF in the FTIR spectra.

These chemical species were below the minimum detection limit of the FTIR spectrometer in

this full-scale experimental set-up. HCN was only detected in Test 14 with an under-ventilated

condition and its maximum concentration was 60 ppm. Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide

were primary gas products produced in these fire detection tests.
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1

2.0 EXPERIMENTS................................................................................................................. 2

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .......................................................................................... 8

3.1 Smouldering Chair (Tests 1 and 11).......................................................................... 8

3.2 Flaming Chair (Tests 2 and 10)................................................................................. 8

3.3 Smouldering Mattress (Tests 3, 4, 6 and 8)............................................................... 9

3.4 Flaming Mattress (Tests 5, 7, 9 and 14).................................................................... 9

3.5 Cooking Oil Fire (Tests 12 and 13).......................................................................... 10

3.6 Primary Gas Products (CO and CO2)...................................................................... 11

3.7 Secondary Gas Products ........................................................................................ 11

4.0 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................. 25

5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................ 25

6.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 25

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Manufactured home and FTIR measurement system .............................................. 4

Figure 2. Plan view of a manufactured home, fire locations and

FTIR gas sampling locations.................................................................................... 5

Figure 3. Upholstered chairs before and after smouldering and flaming fire tests ................... 6

Figure 4. Twin-size mattresses before and after smouldering and flaming fire tests ............... 7

Figure 5. 4-min average of FTIR spectra for fire location after first smoke alarm (Test 1) ..... 12

Figure 6. 4-min average of FTIR spectra for fire location (Test 1)......................................... 12

Figure 7. 4-min average of FTIR spectra for the master bedroom (Test 1) ........................... 12

Figure 8. 4-min average of FTIR spectra for the master bedroom (Test 1) ........................... 13

Figure 9. 2-min average of spectra from fire location before water discharge in Test 2......... 13

Figure 10. 1-min average of spectra at peak smoke obscuration in the master bedroom

(Test 2).................................................................................................................. 13

Figure 11. Average of spectra for fire location in the last 4 minutes of mattress smouldering

(Test 4).................................................................................................................. 14

Figure 12. Average spectrum for the fire room during peak smoke obscuration in Test 6

with mattress smouldering ..................................................................................... 14

Figure 13. 1-min average of spectra for the fire room after first smoke alarm in Test 8

with mattress smouldering ..................................................................................... 14

Figure 14. Average of spectra for the fire room during the 50-s flaming in Test 4 ................... 15

Figure 15. Average of spectra for the fire room during the 60-s flaming in Test 6 ................... 15
iii

Figure 16. Average of spectra for the fire room during the 100-s flaming in Test 8 ................. 15

Figure 17. 1-min average of spectra for the fire room during suppression in Test 4................ 16

Figure 18. 4-min average of spectra for the master bedroom during/after suppression

(Test 4).................................................................................................................. 16

Figure 19. 2-min average of the spectra for the fire room during mattress flaming (Test 5)..... 16

Figure 20. 3-min average of the spectra for the fire room during mattress flaming (Test 7)..... 17

Figure 21. 2-min average of the spectra for the fire room during mattress flaming (Test 9)..... 17

Figure 22. 2-min average of the spectra for the fire room after fire extinguishment (Test 9).... 17

Figure 23. Average of the spectra for the fire room during the last 30 s of

mattress smouldering (Test 14) ............................................................................. 18

Figure 24. 30-s average of the spectra for the fire room after mattress flaming (Test 14) ....... 18

Figure 25. 90-s average of the spectra for the fire room after water spray (Test 14)............... 18

Figure 26. 60-s average of the spectra for the fire room after all doors opened (Test 14) ....... 19

Figure 27. Average of spectra for last 2 minutes of cooking-oil heating (Test 13) ................... 20

Figure 28. Average of spectra for last 2 minutes of cooking oil flaming (Test 13).................... 20

Figure 29. 2-min average of spectra after cooking-oil fire extinguishment (Test 13) ............... 20

Figure 30. Carbon dioxide concentration in master bedroom from FTIR and NDIR

measurements for flaming chair (Test 2)................................................................ 21

Figure 31. Carbon dioxide concentration in master bedroom from FTIR and NDIR

measurements for smouldering chair (Test 11)...................................................... 21

Figure 32. Carbon dioxide concentration in fire room from FTIR and NDIR measurements

for flaming mattress (Test 5).................................................................................. 22

Figure 33. Carbon dioxide concentration in fire room from FTIR and NDIR measurements

for smouldering mattress (Test 6) .......................................................................... 22

Figure 34. Carbon dioxide concentration in master bedroom from FTIR and NDIR

measurements for cooking oil fire (Test 12) ........................................................... 23

Figure 35. Carbon monoxide concentration in fire room from FTIR and NDIR

measurements for flaming mattress (Test 5).......................................................... 23

Figure 36. Carbon monoxide concentration in fire room from FTIR and NDIR

measurements for smouldering mattress (Test 6).................................................. 24

Figure 37. Carbon monoxide concentration in master bedroom from FTIR and NDIR

measurements for flaming chair (Test 10).............................................................. 24
1

FTIR GAS MEASUREMENT IN HOME SMOKE ALARM TESTS

by

Joseph Z. Su and Malgosia Kanabus-Kaminska

Fire Risk Management Program

Institute for Research in Construction

National Research Council of Canada

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Smoke alarms are important and cost-effective fire protection devices in residential

dwellings, providing fire detection and evacuation warnings for occupants in case of fires.

Between 1985 and 1995, Canada’s death rate in fires declined by more than 40 per cent, much

of this decline is attributed to the use of residential smoke alarms and the enforcement of

relevant codes and standards. This is also the case in the United States where the fire death

rate has declined by approximately 50% since 1975.

In spite of this, the fire protection community has an ongoing task to maximize the

benefit of current smoke detector technologies and develop new technologies in order to

improve residential fire safety. As a contributor, the National Research Council of Canada

(NRC) joined forces with several U.S. organizations and federal agencies to evaluate the

current state of residential smoke detector requirements (known as the Dunes II Tests). This

experimental program, commissioned by the U.S. Fire Administration and U.S. Consumer

Product Safety Commission and executed by the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST), are another systematic evaluation of residential smoke detector

technologies, 25 years after the first Indiana Dunes Tests [1].

The research involved 2 series of full-scale fire detection experiments. Series 1

experiments were conducted in a manufactured home at a NIST test site [2]. Series 2

experiments were conducted in a two-storey single house in Kinston, North Carolina [3]. The

research program began in October 2000 and is completed in September 2002. The research

aimed to determine the response of smoke, heat, and carbon monoxide detectors to modern

residential fires and the available egress time before the onset of untenable conditions. General

information on the research program is on the web site http://smokealarm.nist.gov/.

Inhalation of toxic smoke generated by fires has been the major cause of fire fatalities.

NRC's role in this important testing program has been to provide expertise in performing Fourier

Transform Infrared (FTIR) measurement and analysis of smoke and toxic gases (such as HCl,

HCN, NOx, HBr and HF) during fire detection experiments and to participate in the project

steering committee. The objectives were to identify and quantify the concentrations of harmful

species produced from test fires and to provide data for use in determination of the onset of

untenable conditions.

NRC participated in, and performed the FTIR gas measurement during Series 1

experiments in the manufactured home at the NIST site (Tests 1–14 in May and June 2001).

The results of the FTIR measurement and data analysis for toxic gases are documented in this

report.
2

2.0 EXPERIMENTS

Experimental details of detector placement, instrumentation for various measurements

(temperature, heat release rate, mass loss rate, smoke properties, response of various

detectors, etc.) and test conditions are described in the NIST report [2]. The following sections

only address matters that directly relate to the FTIR gas measurement.

Figure 1 shows a manufactured home and FTIR measurement system that were used in

full-scale fire detection experiments. This was a 900-square-foot one-storey house with 3

bedrooms, a bathroom, a kitchen, and a living area. Figure 2 shows a plan view of the test

house, fire locations, and FTIR measurement points.

Fire scenarios included flaming and smouldering fires of a twin-size mattress in the end

bedroom and an upholstered chair in the living area. Figures 3-4 shows chair and mattress fuel

packages and ignition sources used in the experiments. The flaming fire was started using an

electric match that was inserted into a fold of the upholstered chair or mattress. The

smouldering fire was started using an electric nichrome-wire loop (3.8-cm or 10-cm diameter)

that was inserted into the polyurethane foam of the chair or mattress. An autotransformer was

used to regulate the electric current to the smouldering loop in order to control the heat. Fire

scenarios also included cooking oil fires, ignited by heating corn oil (500 mL) on a gas burner.

These fuel packages were representative of common household items that were often first

ignited in real fire incidents. In each experiment, the electric power to the ignition source or the

gas burner was turned on 3 minutes after the start of the test.

NRC performed FTIR gas measurements during 14 full-scale fire detection experiments

(8 experiments with fire origin in the end bedroom, 4 experiments with fire origin in the living

area and 2 experiments with fire origin in the kitchen). Four gas sampling ports were located

along the centre line of the house as shown in Figure 2. These included a ceiling sampling port

(2.4 m above floor) in each of the 3 rooms of fire origin, and a target sampling port in the remote

master bedroom at 1.5 m above floor (0.6 m from the end wall).

Each experiment involved a ceiling sampling port in the room of fire origin and the target

sampling port for the gas measurement. Gas samples were drawn by pumps from the ceiling

sampling port in the room of fire origin and the target sampling port in the master bedroom

through two gas sampling lines to 2 FTIR spectrometers, respectively. Pyrex cylindrical gas

cells (one with 10-cm pathlength and 110-mL volume, the other with 100-cm pathlength and

120-mL volume) with KBr optics were used for the FTIR spectrometers. The gas samples

flowed through the gas cells at a flow rate of 9 L/min. To prevent the condensation of sample

gases, the sampling lines and gas cells were heated (the temperature setting was 93°C for the

line to the fire room and 121°C for the line to the master bedroom). The infrared light that

emitted from the spectrometer passed through the gas cell. The FTIR spectrometers scanned

the gas samples over a wide frequency range of 400 to 4500 cm-1 at a 1-cm-1 resolution.

Chemical compounds that give rise to a permanent or oscillating dipole moment can

absorb the infrared light at unique characteristic frequencies, which serve as their "fingerprints".

Species, such as HCl, HCN, NOx, HBr and HF, absorb the infrared light and leave "fingerprints"

at their characteristic frequencies in the infrared spectrum. The magnitude of the absorption of

each species at its characteristic frequencies is a function of its concentration. With calibration

of the FTIR spectrometers using standard gases at known concentrations, the concentration of

each species produced during fire experiments can be quantified.
3

Table 1 shows a matrix of the FTIR measurement during the fire experiments. The

bathroom window was partially open (33 cm x 20 cm opening) to make up air in the house. All

exterior doors and other windows were closed during each experiment. The master bedroom

door was always open. The doors of the smallest bedroom and the bathroom were always

closed. The end bedroom door was open unless otherwise specified.

TABLE 1

FTIR Measurement during Tests in Manufactured Home (May and June, 2001)

Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5

Fire Origin Living Area Living Area End Bedroom End Bedroom End Bedroom

Fuel Upholstered

Chair

Upholstered

Chair Mattress Mattress Mattress

Burning Mode Smouldering Flaming Smouldering Smouldering Flaming

Burst to

Flame at 2 h 8 min 3 min no flame 58 min 3 min

FTIR Gas

Sampling 2 h 11 min 15 min 1 h 33 min 1 h 10 min 14 min

Test 6 Test 7 Test 8 Test 9 Test 10

Fire Origin End Bedroom End Bedroom End Bedroom End Bedroom

(Door Closed) Living Area

Fuel Mattress Mattress Mattress Mattress Upholstered

Chair

Burning Mode Smouldering Flaming Smouldering Flaming Flaming

Burst to

Flame at 1 h 42 min 3 min 1 h 4 min 3 min 7 min

(2nd ignition)

FTIR Gas

Sampling 1 h 52 min 15 min 1 h 11 min 25 min 15 min

Test 11 Test 12 Test 13 Test 14

Fire Origin Living Area Kitchen Kitchen End Bedroom

(Door Closed)

Fuel Upholstered

Chair Cooking Oil Cooking Oil Mattress

Burning Mode Smouldering Flaming Flaming Smouldering /

Flaming

Burst to

Flame at 1 h 13 min 26 min 25 min 1 h

FTIR Gas

Sampling 1 h 20 min 33 min 36 min 1 h 14 min

Note: the electric power to the ignition source or the gas burner was turned on 3 min after start of a test.
4

Figure 1. Manufactured home and FTIR measurement system
5

Figure 2. Plan view of a manufactured home (floor plan courtesy of NIST), fire locations (chair, mattress, kitchegas sampling locations ()

Chair

  
6

Figure 3. Upholstered chairs before and after smoldering (1st row) and flaming (2nd row) fire te
7

Figure 4. Twin-size mattresses before and after smoldering (1st row) and flaming (2nd row) fire 
8

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 50,000 frames of FTIR spectra (approximately 2 gigabytes) was collected

during Tests 1-14 and analyzed in various ways to determine gas components in smoke. Final

analysis results are presented as follows along with representative spectroscopic information.

3.1 Smouldering Chair (Tests 1 and 11)

In Tests 1 and 11, an upholstered chair was used as the fuel package to create a

smouldering fire in the living area. The smouldering fire was controlled to develop very slowly.

The ceiling temperature rise at the living area was 3°C or less during the smouldering period.

Figure 5 shows an FTIR spectrum after the first smoke alarm was actuated (57 min after

energizing the ignitor) during Test 1, which is a 4-min average of the spectra from 56 to 60 min

for the fire location. Figure 6 shows another average spectrum from the fire location and

Figure 7 shows an average spectrum for the master bedroom for the following 4 minutes.

In Test 1, most of other detectors were actuated at least 87 min after energizing the

ignitor. Figure 8 shows a 4-min average spectrum for the master bedroom (around 104 min)

when the smoke obscuration, concentrations of CO2 and CO and analog outputs of various

detectors in the master bedroom were at peak values.

These spectra are representative of all spectra collected in Tests 1 and 11 during the

smouldering chair fire, showing absorption from CO, CO2 and water vapour as well as an

absorption band around 3000 cm-1. This absorption band around 3000 cm-1 is characteristic of

C–H stretching of volatile hydrocarbon compounds.

3.2 Flaming Chair (Tests 2 and 10)

In Tests 2 and 10, an upholstered chair was used as the fuel package to create a

flaming fire in the living area. The first smoke alarm was actuated 24 s and 44 s after the

ignition in Test 2 and Test 10, respectively; activation of many other detectors followed.

Approximately 3 minutes after flaming, experimental conditions met the criteria for terminating

the test (set by NIST) and water was discharged on the fire. The tests were ended with fire

suppression and ventilation. Before the fire suppression, the ceiling temperature of the living

area reached 125°C in Test 2 and 500°C in Test 10.

Figure 9 shows a 2-min average of the spectra from the fire location before the water

discharge in Test 2. Figure 10 shows a 1-min average of the spectra from the master bedroom

when the smoke obscuration and CO2 concentration in the master bedroom were at peak values

in the same test.

These spectra are representative of all spectra collected in Tests 2 and 10 during the

flaming chair fire. The spectra show absorption only from CO, CO2 and water vapour.
9

3.3 Smouldering Mattress (Tests 3, 4, 6 and 8)

In Tests 3, 4, 6 and 8, a twin-size mattress was used as the fuel package to create a

smouldering fire in the end bedroom. During the smouldering period (90, 55, 99 and 61 min

long, respectively), the change of temperatures in the house was very small in these tests; the

maximum temperature rise was approximately 2°C in the room of fire origin.

Figures 11-13 are a few of representative spectra during mattress smouldering.

Figure 11 shows an FTIR spectrum in Test 4, which is an average of the spectra from the fire

location during the last 4 minutes (51 to 55 min from energizing the ignitor) of smouldering.

Figure 12 is an average of the spectra from the fire room during a peak period of smoke

obscuration when the first smoke alarm actuated (3443 s after energizing the ignitor) in Test 6.

Figure 13 is a 1-min average of the spectra from the fire room when the first smoke alarm

actuated (1950 s after energizing the ignitor) in Test 8. These spectra show absorption from

water vapour, CO, CO2 and an absorption band around 3000 cm-1 due to C–H stretching of

volatile hydrocarbon compounds.

The mattress smouldering changed to flaming 55, 99 and 61 minutes after energizing

the ignitor in Tests 4, 6 and 8, respectively. Figure 14 shows an average of the spectra from the

fire room during the 50-second-long flaming in Test 4. Figure 15 shows an average of the

spectra from the fire room during the 60-second-long flaming in Test 6. Figure 16 shows an

average of the spectra from the fire room during the 100-second-long flaming in Test 8. These

spectra also show CO and CO2 absorption as well as absorption from water vapour and C–H

stretching of volatile hydrocarbon compounds.

 Once the mattress started flaming, the ceiling temperature in the fire room rose quickly.

The transition from smouldering to flaming was the criterion for terminating the tests (set by

NIST). Water was discharged to suppress the fire (flaming only lasted for approximately

50-100 s in these mattress smouldering tests). Figure 17 shows a 1-min average of the spectra

from the fire room during the fire suppression in Test 4. Figure 18 shows a 4-min average of the

spectra from the master bedroom during and after the fire suppression in Test 4 when the

smoke obscuration and analog output of various detectors were at peak values in the master

bedroom.

The spectra shown in Figures 11-18 are representative of all spectra collected in Tests

3, 4, 6 and 8. Other than CO, CO2, water and C–H stretching of volatile hydrocarbon

compounds, there was no distinct absorption from any other chemical species in the FTIR

spectra.

3.4 Flaming Mattress (Tests 5, 7, 9 and 14)

In Tests 5, 7, 9 and 14, a twin-size mattress was used as the fuel package to create a

flaming fire in the end bedroom. Note that the fire-room door was closed in Tests 9 and 14.

In Tests 5 and 7, the first smoke alarm actuated 32 s and 43 s after the ignition,

respectively. Activation of many other detectors followed. Approximately 3 minutes after

ignition, experimental conditions met the criteria for terminating the tests (set by NIST) and

water was discharged to the fire. The test was ended with fire suppression and ventilation.

Before the fire suppression, the ceiling temperature of the fire room reached 180°C in Test 5
10

and 500°C in Test 7. Figure 19 shows a 2-min average of the spectra from the fire location

during the flaming period in Test 5. Figure 20 shows a 3-min average of the spectra from the

fire room during the flaming period in Test 7. The spectra show absorption pattern only from

CO, CO2 and water vapour.

Test 9 was similar to Tests 5 and 7. But, the fire room door was closed in Test 9. The

first smoke alarm actuated 30 s after the ignition. Experimental conditions met the criteria for

terminating the test approximately 3 minutes after ignition; water was discharged to extinguish

the fire. Before the fire suppression, the ceiling temperature of the fire room reached 340°C.

Figure 21 shows a 2-min average of the spectra from the fire room during mattress flaming.

Figure 22 shows a 2-min average of the spectra from the fire room after fire extinguishment.

The spectrum shows absorption only from CO2, CO and water vapour.

Test 14 was similar to Test 9 with the fire-room door being closed. However, the

mattress smouldered for 3400 s. The first smoke alarm in the fire room was actuated 2648 s

after energizing the ignitor. Figure 23 shows a 30-s average of the spectra from the fire room

during the last 30 seconds of mattress smouldering. The mattress fire became a flaming one

approximately 3400 s after energizing the ignitor. Figure 24 shows a 30-s average of the

spectra from the fire room during flaming. Approximately 1 minute after flaming, experimental

conditions met the criteria for terminating the test and water was discharged to extinguish the

fire (the ceiling temperature of the fire room reached 380°C before the fire suppression).

Figure 25 shows a 1.5-min average of the spectra from the fire room after water spray. The fire

room door was kept closed for another 9 minutes. Then, the doors of the fire room, front and

back entrances were opened to allow smoke moving from the fire room to other parts of the

house and outside. Figure 26 shows a 1-min average of the spectra from the fire room after all

the doors were opened.

Figures 19-26 are representative of all spectra collected in Tests 5, 7, 9 and 14 during

the flaming mattress fire. These spectra show absorption mainly from CO, CO2 and water

vapour. Prior to mattress flaming in Test 14, the spectra indicate weak absorption band around

3000 cm-1 due to C-H stretching of volatile hydrocarbon compounds released during pyrolysis of

the mattress. Since this test was conducted with an under-ventilated condition, the spectra did

show absorption from HCN. The HCN concentration was at a maximum of 60 ppm, which was

determined from the 1-min average spectra immediately after spraying water on the fire.

3.5 Cooking Oil Fire (Tests 12 and 13)

In Tests 12 and 13, corn oil (500 mL) in a cooking pan was heated on a gas burner until

flaming. The propane stove was turned on 3 minutes after the start of the test. Smoke started

to be produced (smouldering mode). The first smoke alarm actuated 9 to 10 minutes after

heating the oil in these two tests. The cooking oil reached 382-387°C and auto-ignited 22-23

minutes after being heated in these two tests. In Test 12, the cooking oil flamed for 2.5 minutes

and was manually extinguished. In Test 13, the cooking oil flamed for 5 minutes and then selfextinguished. Before the fire extinguishment, the ceiling temperature in the living area was

121°C in Test 12 and 118°C in Test 13; the ceiling temperature in the master bedroom was

59°C in Test 12 and 55°C in Test 13.

Figures 27-29 show 2-min average of the spectra from the kitchen area at different

stages of Test 13. Figure 27 shows a 2-min average of the spectra from the kitchen area during

the last 2 minutes of heating (before flaming). Figure 28 shows a 2-min average of the spectra
11

from the kitchen area during the last 2 minutes of flaming. Figure 29 shows a 2-min average of

the spectra from the kitchen area after fire self-extinguishment. The spectra show absorption

from CO, CO2, water vapour and an absorption band around 3000 cm-1 due to C–H stretching of

volatile hydrocarbon compounds. These spectral features are representative of all spectra

collected in Tests 12 and 13 with the cooking oil fire.

3.6 Primary Gas Products (CO and CO2)

CO and CO2 are primary gas products produced in the fire detection tests. The FTIR

spectrometer was calibrated on site for CO2 at concentrations of 1089 ppm, 5123 ppm and

2.01% and for CO at concentrations of 216 ppm and 1031 ppm. The transport time of the gas

sample in the sampling lines was 10  2 s, which was determined by aspirating the 2.01% CO2

calibration gas through the sampling lines.

Figures 30-37 show typical CO and CO2 concentrations from the FTIR analysis. Results

from the FTIR measurement are consistent with those measured by NIST using the

nondispersive infrared (NDIR) gas analyzers. For smouldering fires, most of the concentration

rise happened after transition to flaming, similar to other parameters measured by NIST.

3.7 Secondary Gas Products

The main objectives of the FTIR measurement were to identify secondary gas products

from the test fires. In addition to CO and CO2, the FTIR measurement showed absorption

around 3000 cm-1, characteristic of C–H stretching of volatile hydrocarbon compounds from the

chair and mattress smouldering as well as cooking oil fires. There was no apparent absorption

from chemical species such as HCl, NOx, HBr and HF in the FTIR spectra. In other words,

these chemical species were below the minimum detection limit (MDL) of the FTIR spectrometer

in this full-scale experimental set-up. HCN was only detected in Test 14 with an underventilated condition and its maximum concentration was 60 ppm.

The MDL depended not only on the quality of FTIR spectrometer's infrared

source/detector and optical stability but also on operation parameters such as gas cell, number

of scans and spectral resolution, as well as gas sampling systems used in the experiments.

The MDL under this full-scale experimental set-up and operation conditions was estimated to be

30 ppm for HCN and HF, 50 ppm for HCl and NO2, and 100 ppm for NO and HBr, based on

previous calibration and data from similar gas sampling tests at NRC as well as library data from

the FTIR spectrometer manufacturer.
12

-.01

0

.01

.02

.03

.04

.05

Absorbance

 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 

Wavenumber (cm-1)

Figure 5. 4-min average of FTIR spectra for fire location after first smoke alarm 

H2O H2O

CO2

CO2

C-H CO

(Test 1)

-.01

0

.01

.02

.03

.04

.05

Absorbance

 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 

Wavenumber (cm-1)

Figure 6. 4-min average of FTIR spectra (at 60 min) for fire location (Test 1)

H2O

H2O

CO2

CO2

C-H CO

-.01

0

.01

.02

.03

.04

.05

Absorbance

 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 

Wavenumber (cm-1)

Figure 7. 4-min average of FTIR spectra (at 60 min) for master bedroom (Test 1)

H2O H2O CO2 CO2

C-H CO
13

-.01

0

.01

.02

.03

.04

.05

Absorbance

 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 

Wavenumber (cm-1)

Figure 8. 4-min average of FTIR spectra (at 104 min) for master bedroom (Test 1)

H2O H2O

CO2 CO2

C-H CO

0

.05

.1

.15

.2

.25

.3

.35

Absorbance

 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 

Wavenumber (cm-1)

Figure 9. 2-min average of spectra from fire location before water discharge

H2O H2O

CO2 CO2

CO

in Test 2

0

.05

.1

.15

.2

.25

.3

.35

Absorbance

 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 

Wavenumber (cm-1)

Figure 10. 1-min average of spectra at peak smoke obscuration in master bedroom

H2O H2O

CO2 CO2

(Test 2)
14

-.01

0

.01

.02

.03

.04

.05

Absorbance

 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 

Wavenumber (cm-1)

Figure 11. Average of spectra for fire location in last 4 minutes of mattress

H2O

H2O

CO2

CO2

C-H CO

smouldering

(Test 4)

-.01

0

.01

.02

.03

.04

.05

Absorbance

 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 

Wavenumber (cm-1)

Figure 12. Average spectrum for fire room during peak smoke obscuration in Test 6 

H2O

H2O

CO2 CO2

C-H CO

with mattress smouldering

-.01

0

.01

.02

.03

.04

.05

Absorbance

 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 

Wavenumber (cm-1)

Figure 13. 1-min average of spectra for fire room after first smoke alarm in 

H2O H2O

CO2

CO2

C-H CO

Test 8 with mattress smouldering
15

-.01

0

.01

.02

.03

.04

.05

Absorbance

 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 

Wavenumber (cm-1)

Figure 14. Average of spectra for fire room during the 50-s flaming in Test 4 

H2O

H2O

CO2

CO2

C-H CO

-.01

0

.01

.02

.03

.04

.05

Absorbance

 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 

Wavenumber (cm-1)

Figure 15. Average of spectra for fire room during the 60-s flaming in Test 6 

H2O

H2O

CO2

CO2

CO C-H

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

Absorbance

 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 

Wavenumber (cm-1)

Figure 16. Average of spectra for fire room during the 100-s flaming in Test 8 

H2O H2O

CO2

CO2

CO
16

0

.05

.1

.15

.2

Absorbance

 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 

Wavenumber (cm-1)

Figure 17. 1-min average of spectra for fire room during suppression in Test 4 

H2O

H2O

CO2

CO2

CO

-.01

0

.01

.02

.03

.04

.05

Absorbance

 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 

Wavenumber (cm-1)

Figure 18. 4-min average of spectra for master bedroom during/after suppression 

H2O

CO2 H2O

CO2

CO

(Test 4)

C-H

0

.05

.1

.15

.2

.25

Absorbance

 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 

Wavenumber (cm-1)

Figure 19. 2-min average of spectra for fire room during mattress flaming (Test 5)

H2O H2O

CO2 CO2

CO
17

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

1.2

Absorbance

 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 

Wavenumber (cm-1)

Figure 20. 3-min average of spectra for fire room during mattress flaming (Test 7)

H2O H2O

CO2

CO2

CO

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

Absorbance

 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 

Wavenumber (cm-1)

Figure 21. 2-min average of spectra for fire room during mattress flaming (Test 9)

H2O H2O

CO2

CO2

CO

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

1.2

Absorbance

 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 

Wavenumber (cm-1)

Figure 22. 2-min average of spectra for fire room after fire extinguishment

H2O H2O

CO2

CO2

CO

(Test 9)
18

0

.02

.04

.06

.08

.1

Absorbance

 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 

Wavenumber (cm-1)

Figure 23. Average of spectra for fire room during the last 30 s of

-.05

0

.05

 720 700 

H2O

H2O CO2

CO2

CO

C-H

mattress smouldering

(Test 14)

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

1.2

Absorbance

 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 

Wavenumber (cm-1)

Figure 24. 30-s average of spectra for fire room after mattress flaming (Test 14)

0

.1

.2

 720 700 

H2O H2O

CO2

CO2

C-H CO

CO2 CO2

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

1.2

Absorbance

 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 

Wavenumber (cm-1)

Figure 25. 90-s average of spectra for fire room after water spray (Test 14)

0

.1

.2

 720 700 

H2O

H2O

CO2

CO2

CO

C-H

HCN

CO2 CO2
19

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

Absorbance

 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 

Wavenumber (cm-1)

Figure 26. 60-s average of spectra for fire room after all doors opened (Test 14)

0

.05

.1

 720 700 

H2O H2O

CO2

CO2

C-H CO

HCN

CO2 CO2
20

-.02

0

.02

.04

.06

.08

.1

.12

.14

Absorbance

 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 

Wavenumber (cm-1)

Figure 27. Average of spectra for last 2 minutes of cooking-oil heating (Test 13)

H2O H2O

CO2

CO2

C-H CO

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

Absorbance

 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 

Wavenumber (cm-1)

Figure 28. Average of spectra for last 2 minutes of cooking-oil flaming (Test 13)

H2O H2O

CO2

CO2

C-H CO

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

Absorbance

 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 

Wavenumber (cm-1)

Figure 29. 2-min average of spectra after cooking-oil fire extinguishment

H2O H2O

CO2

CO2

C-H CO

(Test 13)
21

Time [s]

0 200 400 600 800

CO2 [%]

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

NDIR 

FTIR 

Figure 30. Carbon dioxide concentration in master bedroom from FTIR and

 NDIR measurements for flaming chair (Test 2)

FTIR disconnected from fire location

and took ambient air samples before

switching to the master bedroom

Time [s]

3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600

CO2 [%]

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

NDIR

FTIR

Figure 31. Carbon dioxide concentration in master bedroom from FTIR and

 NDIR measurements for smouldering chair (Test 11)
22

Time [s]

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

CO2 [%]

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

NDIR

FTIR

Figure 32. Carbon dioxide concentration in fire room from FTIR and NDIR

 measurements for flaming mattress (Test 5)

Time [s]

3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500

CO2 [%]

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0 NDIR

FTIR

Figure 33. Carbon dioxide concentration in fire room from FTIR and NDIR

 measurements for smouldering mattress (Test 6)
23

Time [s]

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

CO [%]

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

NDIR

FTIR

Figure 35. Carbon monoxide concentration in fire room from FTIR and NDIR

 measurements for flaming mattress (Test 5)

Time [s]

0 500 1000 1500 2000

CO2 [%]

-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

NDIR

FTIR

Figure 34. Carbon dioxide concentration in master bedroom from FTIR and

 NDIR measurements for cooking oil fire (Test 12)
24

Time [s]

3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500

CO [%]

-0.01

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

NDIR

FTIR

Figure 36. Carbon monoxide concentration in fire room from FTIR and NDIR

 measurements for smouldering mattress (Test 6)

Time [s]

0 100 200 300 400 500

CO [%]

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

NDIR

FTIR

Figure 37. Carbon monoxide concentration in master bedroom from FTIR 

 and NDIR measurements for flaming chair (Test 10)
25

4.0 CONCLUSIONS

The small, slow smouldering fires and short flaming fires provided the greatest challenge

for the smoke detectors to detect the fires early before becoming fully developed ones.

However, the experiments were terminated well before reaching conditions that would produce

a significant amount of chemical species, such as HCl, HCN, NOx, HBr and HF, above the

minimum detection limit of the FTIR spectrometer in this full-scale experimental set-up. Carbon

monoxide and carbon dioxide were primary gas products produced in Tests 1-14. There was no

apparent absorption from chemical species such as HCl, NOx, HBr and HF in the FTIR spectra.

FTIR spectra collected during the chair and mattress smouldering and cooking oil fires show

absorption in region characteristic of volatile hydrocarbon compounds. The FTIR measurement

only detected absorption from HCN (60 ppm at maximum) during Test 14 with an

under-ventilated condition.

5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

NRC acknowledges financial contributions from the Canadian Fire Alarm Association

and Health Canada. NRC also acknowledges supports from NIST, in particular, Mr. Richard W.

Bukowski, Mr. Nelson P. Bryner, Dr. Marc R. Nyden and the testing crew for logistic and

experimental support.

6.0 REFERENCES

1. Bukowski, R. W., Waterman, T. E., and Christian, W. J., “Detector Sensitivity and Siting

Requirements for Dwellings: A Report of the NBS ‘Indiana Dunes Tests.’” NFPA No. SPP43. Nat. Fire Prot. Assn., Quincy, MA, 1975.

2. Peacock, R.D., Averill, J.D., Bukowski, R.W., and Reneke, P.A., "Home Smoke Alarm

Project, Manufactured Home Tests," NIST Report of Test FR 4016, Fire Research Division,

Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology,

Gaithersburg, MD, June, 2002.

3. Averill, J.D., Peacock, R.D., Bukowski, R.W., and Reneke, P.A., "Home Smoke Alarm

Project, Two-Story Home Tests," NIST Report of Test FR 4017, Fire Research Division,

Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology,

Gaithersburg, MD, June, 2002.