JULIE

According to the research, Automatic Fire detection and alarm system is primarily a life

safety system meant for detecting the fire at the early stages and alarm the occupants.

The fire detection system are also used for automatic activation of fire extinguishing

systems such as spray systems, water mist systems and gas suppression systems. The

control relay modules in the advanced addressable detection systems enable the

integration and operation of ancillary services such as electrical systems, fire dampers,

access control systems, video surveillance, emergency lighting systems, emergency

communication systems etc. to activate/deactivate in case of emergencies.

researchgate.net/publication/280620907 stated that “the primary purpose of fire

alarm system is to provide an early warning of fire so that people can be evacuated &

immediate action can be taken to stop or eliminate of the fire effect as soon as possible.

Alarm can be triggered by using detectors or by manual call point (Remotely). To

alert/evacuate the occupants siren are used. With the Intelligent Building of the rapid

development of technology applications, commercial fire alarm market demand growth,

the key is to use the bus system intelligent distributed computer system fire alarm

system, although installation in the system much easier than in the past but still cannot

meet the modern needs, the installation costs of equipment costs about 33% ~ 70. The

suggested technique in Fire alarm system used the addressable detectors units besides

using the wireless connection between the detector in zones as a slave units and the

main control unit as the master unit. The system shall include a control panel, alarm

initiating devices, notification appliances, and the accessory equipment necessary for a
complete functioning fire alarm system. In the wireless fire alarm, individual units are

powered by primary & secondary batteries for the communication.”

Over the past decade, a relatively significant amount of research has been published on

the effectiveness of smoke detectors in alerting sleeping individuals with and without

hearing loss. These studies were designed to compare the efficacy of signal type (i.e.

auditory versus vibro tactile versus visual) in waking sleeping individuals with varying

degrees of hearing loss. The following is a summary of some of the research conducted

by Dorothy Bruck and her colleagues of the Centre for Environmental Safety and Risk

Engineering (CESARE) at Victoria University (Australia) as compiled by

Bankaitis.2 While other studies are available, the investigations from CESARE

consistently and carefully controlled for variables such as method of stimulus

presentation and sleep stages of subjects.

MAXENE

Based on the number of studies published over the past two decades, adults with

normal hearing wake up fairly quickly to an activated residential smoke detector. 3,4 As

illustrated by the green bar in the bar graph below, 100% of adults with normal hearing

woke to a standard smoke detector signal alarm within 32 seconds of alarm initiation.

While this research summary is focusing on adults with varying degrees of hearing loss,

the same study also looked at how well normal hearing children (11-16 years of age)

responded to an active smoke detector while sleeping. Whereas 100% of normal

hearing adults awoke within 32 seconds of alarm activation, as indicated by the purple
bar in the same figure, only 17% of children awoke to a smoke detector within that same

32 second time period.

Smoke alarms have saved thousands of lives in the United States since their

introduction and widespread use during the past 2 decades. The good news is that

more than 90% of homes in the United States now have at least 1 smoke alarm. 1 The

bad news is that a substantial proportion of those smoke alarms do not work. In on-site

surveys of homes with smoke alarms, about 25% to 30% of the alarms did not function

when tested.2 Some failures are due to malfunction of the alarm itself, some are due to

a dead battery, and some do not function because the battery has been removed. 2,3The

study by Fazzini and colleagues is particularly relevant for the last group.

The authors compared the rate of false alarms (or “nuisancealarms”) between

ionization-type and photoelectric-type smoke alarms that had been installed in low-

income homes in 4 small villages in Alaska. Six months after installation, more than

90% of the homes with ionization-type alarms had experienced false alarms, mostly

from cooking, and 19% had been disconnected, presumably because of the nuisance

alarms. The comparison group with photoelectric alarms had low rates of nuisance

alarms (11%) and battery removal (4%). Whereas these differences are statistically

significant and important, the data should be interpreted with caution because of the

unique nature of the population studied. The rates of nuisance alarms and battery

removal found in Alaska are several fold higher than previously seen4 and may be due

to several unusual characteristics of this population in Alaska and the methods used in

the study.
IAN

The homes in the study were small, averaging less than 1,000 sq ft of living space. As a

result, the distance between the kitchen and the alarm was short, a factor known to

increase the chance of a nuisance alarm from cooking. 5,6In addition, most of the

nuisance alarms were due to frying, which results in more smoke than other forms of

cooking. If the practice of frying food was more prevalent in the villages with ionization-

type alarms, this could have accounted for much of the difference between the 2

groups, with the difference being magnified by the proximity of the alarm to the kitchen.

In addition, differences in the presence of effective exhaust fans may have influenced

the rate of false alarms.

Another unusual finding from the study is the high proportion of the homes in which the

alarm battery had been removed, even though the incidence of nuisance alarms

appears to have been an average of only slightly more than 1per home (69 nuisance

alarms in 54 homes, with at least 1 nuisance alarm). The authors report that the alarms

had silence buttons that disable the alarm for10 minutes, allowing the smoke to be

cleared; yet, the batteries were remove.theis raises the question of whether the people

in the homes with these alarms knew how to silence them. In our experience, some

alarms are difficult to silence without specific knowledge of where to press on them and

how long to press to silence them. Perhaps better instruction about the method of

silencing the alarm would decrease the chance of battery removal for nuisance alarms

in this setting.
These issues are important because photoelectric alarms cost almost twice what

ionization alarms cost, so only half as many homes can be protected within a given

budget. The findings of Fazzini and colleagues need to be confirmed and replicated in

other populations to weigh the relative costs and benefits of ionization against

photoelectric alarms.

According to (Ananthram, et al , 2007), Most victims of fire succumb to the smoke and

toxic gases and not to burns. Fire produces poisonous gases that can spread rapidly

and far from the fire itself to claim victims who are asleep and not even aware of the fire.

Even if residents awaken, the effects of exposure to these gases can cloud their

thinking and slow their reactions so that they cannot make their escape. This is why it is

so crucial for you and your family to have sufficient warning so that you can all escape

before your ability to think and move is impaired. In addition, more than half of fatal fires

in homes occur when people are asleep.

According to the research, the central purpose of fire alarm system is to provide an

early deterrent of fire so that people can be evacuated and immediate action can be

taken to stop or remove of the fire effect as soon as possible. Over the past decade, a

relatively significant amount of research has been published on the effectiveness of

smoke detectors in alerting sleeping individuals with and without hearing loss.