The wider benefits of collaborative fire-safety research
Introduction
How can collaborative research into today’s fire-safety issues lead to impactful insights or solutions? This article details a collaborative framework that has successfully been used for multiple research projects, resulting in benefits for partners, the fire industry and for the general public.
Background
Whilst investigative research performed for a client may address a specific problem or identify solutions for them, it generally can have less impact for the wider industry than collaborative efforts. The approach of working collaboratively demonstrates commitment of partners to invest in something that is beneficial to them and the wider industry as well as being in the public interest. The associated costs are shared, the knowledge is combined and the research is performed rigorously to the satisfaction of all partners. The findings and publicised outputs will be open to scrutiny, so they have to be robust and presented in a way that is evidenced and clear.
The framework used to perform collaborative research work is detailed in the next section. This is followed by examples of past projects with practical outcomes, as well as projects currently in progress.
Framework for collaborative research
The framework for collaborative research shown in Figure 1 has successfully been used at BRE Global for many years. Essentially it begins with a group of stakeholders, that have a vested interest in a fire-safety issue, that come together to agree what work needs to be performed. Between them they agree on cash and in-kind contributions (e.g. data, equipment, time). BRE Global manage and lead the research work, regularly updating stakeholders with findings.
Inevitably research will lead to new knowledge and stakeholders agree how to maximise findings to ensure they are practical and impactful. Often the findings lead to the development of new standards and codes or revision of them. BRE Global are perfectly positioned to be able to offer testing and certification services to new standards ensuring that compliant products are fit for purpose. Stakeholders often benefit, identifying ways to improve processes or understanding how they can improve their products.
A key objective of collaborative work is to promote and encourage adoption of findings in the wider community. BRE Global produce freely available briefing papers and sometimes videos, in which the key findings and messages are promoted with less technical content and supporting data. These are aimed at the layperson to ensure that they understand what was done and how the findings can be applied. Shorter articles are produced for the trade press. Sometimes the findings lead to more questions and indicate the need for further research.
How to reduce false alarms?
Two research projects sought to investigate why false alarms were occurring (leading to losses in the UK of ~£1bn/year) and what could be done to reduce them. The first research project highlighted some key solutions and proposed that a fire-detection technical expert should accompany fire and rescue service crews whilst they attended false alarms to identify the root causes.
With a group of stakeholders having much broader backgrounds, the second study resulted in 35 recommendations to reduce false alarms. One of those, for Manual Call Points, led to a recommendation in BS 5839-1 (Code of practice for non-domestic premises) for protective covers to be fitted, making accidental operation of the call point less likely. A simple but effective solution. Furthermore, some detectors over 30 years old were observed to still be in service in the field and this led a recommendation to investigate how often smoke detectors should be replaced.
This work informed Fire and Rescue Services of what they could do to reduce false alarms, which in the UK have since continued to decrease.
When should fire alarms and detectors be replaced?
The responses of a number of old, used smoke detectors (commercial) and smoke alarms (domestic) were tested in-situ using the Trutest smoke sensitivity measurement equipment. The values were compared against 10 brand-new smoke detectors and alarms, which were measured in the lab using the same equipment to identify pass/fail performance criteria.
In total 107 commercial detectors (20 different models) and 85 domestic alarms (23 different models) were tested. Both smoke alarms and detectors demonstrated a slight increase in sensitivity with time.
It was recommended that all smoke alarms should be replaced no later than 12 years after their date of manufacture. The proposed maximum replacement period for smoke detectors without drift compensation was 25 years, and for detectors with drift compensation it was 30 years.
During this study, dust and oil particulate build-up was observed on the thermal element of heat alarms located in kitchens. This build-up may reduce the sensitivity of heat alarms so a research programme investigating this was recommended and is currently in progress. Any organisations interested in collaborating with this work should contact BRE Global directly.
Are multi-sensors less likely to false alarm?
The two research studies into test fires and false alarms naturally led to an investigation into the performance capabilities of multi-sensor detectors. The first study sought to understand whether the test fires (developed in the 1980s), used to assess smoke detectors/alarms, were still applicable today. Modern materials containing flame retardants, plastics and foams in smouldering and flaming conditions were used to perform a series of 29 different test fires. Of the 12 smoke detectors and alarms tested, which were a mixture of ionisation and optical types, 98% passed, evidencing that modern smoke-detection responds to a broad range of smouldering and flaming fires.
From the study into false alarms, the most common false-alarm causes and the frequency of their occurrence were noted. This study proposed that multi-sensor detectors (which use a combination of sensors to detect the signatures of fire) may offer enhanced protection against false alarms but provide similar levels of fire detection.
Using the findings from the previous two studies, a comprehensive experimental test programme was developed to compare the performance of 35 multi-sensor and smoke devices to some of the new fires that had previously been used and to false-alarm tests. Attempts were made to develop false-alarm tests that could be used to assess, and potentially rate, the performance of devices. Five key tests resulted which were used to assess the resistance to toast smoke, cooking fumes, spray aerosols, watermist and dust. The results revealed that they had a similar response to the test fires; however, the multi-sensors, on average, responded much later to all five false-alarm tests (see Figure 3) than smoke devices.
This work confirmed that multi-sensors can offer greater resistance to false alarms and provided manufacturers with data to improve their products. BRE Global are now working with the industry to develop a Loss Prevention Standard that could be used to assess the false-alarm resistance of products. If you are interested in collaborating, contact BRE Global directly.
Developing a video fire-detector standard
Video fire detectors are increasingly being used to detect fires in areas where traditional detectors may not be suitable or when a quicker response is needed or where visual verification is required. These detectors use cameras to monitor large, protected spaces, and utilise sophisticated analytical algorithms to process the images obtained that recognise the presence of smoke and/or flame.
Such detectors have complex and variable functionality and there were no defined and robust methods of assessing the capabilities of these detectors for testing and certification purposes. A collaborative experimental research project investigated how this challenging technology could be tested on the bench and in full-scale applications with the aim of developing a test standard.
The partners presented the challenges of their technologies and collectively agreed on and developed suitable test methods that were verified. The Loss Prevention Standard LPS 1976 for Video Flame Detectors has now been written and is currently going through an approval process. Manufacturers will be in a position to assess their products to this standard, which has been written based on researched and tested methods ensuring that products are correctly tested and are fit for purpose.
How can fire fatalities and serious injuries be reduced?
This two-phased research study involved a review of statistics and investigation reports of fire fatalities and serious injuries, to propose ways to reduce them. The first phase focused on the fire statistics data from 19,645 incidents recorded by Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) over a four-year period. Analysis of this data revealed that the majority of fatalities and injuries related to vulnerable people, such as the elderly, disabled, smokers, those on medication or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. These groups require protecting in other ways that are more sophisticated than those used to date for people capable of responding to alarms. Fourteen recommendations, in terms of technologies and solutions, were proposed that, if implemented, could help to protect vulnerable people.
The second phase was a review of 126 fire-investigation reports from the fatal incidents observed over that same period. The recommendations, from the first phase, were assessed to identify their potential effectiveness during each incident. A qualitative analysis reviewed each fire-investigation report in its entirety, focusing on what interventions may prevent similar fatalities in the future. For the quantitative analysis, the data from all fire-investigation reports were collectively reviewed to address 23 key questions posed by the stakeholder group.
Whilst new and emerging technologies may provide additional protection in the future, this work identified that the greater use of existing technologies could be applied immediately and would be expected to save lives. Some of the recommendations were: providing inter-linked smoke alarms in bedrooms and living spaces, heat alarms in kitchens, the greater use of certified watermist systems and greater communication of agencies, neighbours and relatives with the SFRS. A concept strategy was proposed that scored each risk factor and the cumulative score could be used to identify the most suitable measures to protect vulnerable people.
A similar collaborative approach, in other countries, is being explored to identify what fire-safety measures may be most effective to reduce fire fatalities.
Other areas
BRE Global are also exploring collaborative research work to identify:
- how clothing and furnishings catch fire,
- what causes common electrical items to start fires,
- what can be done to reduce or control lithium-ion battery fires,
- how emollient creams affect flammability of textile materials,
- how fires involving reduced ignition propensity (RIP) cigarettes start,
- how drones can be used more effectively during fires.
Conclusions
In this article a framework for collaborative research was presented together with examples of outcomes of specific projects. If there are areas of research in fire safety that you would like to be involved in (including those explored in this article), then please contact BRE Global directly.
Briefing papers summarising the work from all of the research projects detailed, as well as some videos, can be accessed for free by following the link to the BRE website.
For more information, please go to https://www.bregroup.com/firesafetyresearch
About the Author
Principal Consultant (Fire Safety) at BRE.
