NEW RESEARCH aimed at reducing the huge number of false fire alarms and restoring faith in the technology was the focus of this workshop.
Setting the scene, FPA technical director Dr Jim Glockling described the system as ‘broken’, where coping strategies were now the norm.
More than 95% of alarms are false, and some fire and rescue services are penalising businesses that call them out to an incident that turns out to be false – leading to some owners turning their systems off and creating a life safety issue. There have been stories, too, of owners feeling pressurised to re-enter a building after evacuation to check if there is an actual fire.
Fixing the problem
The solution, said Dr Glockling, was to accept that the smoke detector ‘lies at the heart of the problem’. Advocating a move to modern triple-species systems – which activate on detection of several elements – he argued that there exists the potential to change a 95% disbelief into an 80% belief.
Raman Chagger, from the Loss Prevention Certification Board, then went on to explain how a new research project could provide the evidential data to push through the necessary changes described by Dr Glockling.
Although challenged at the outset by the severe paucity of data on false alarms and the reasons they occur, Mr Chagger nevertheless identified two contributors of data – Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Fire and Rescue Service, and Kings College London.
Using the example of the latter, he described how, since 2007, the college had taken a proactive approach to reducing false alarms on its estate of more than 70 buildings. A package of measures, including efficient incident reporting, follow-up investigations carried out by suitably qualified persons, and control of contractors, led to a 34% drop in false alarms over three years.
The college provided Mr Chagger with data on 699 cases from 2010 to 2013, a figure later reduced to 432 valid false alarm incidents. These were then classified into 110 activation categories, with the frequency of activation noted.
Multi-sensor detectors
Six physical interventions were then identified as proposed solutions. With the potential to reduce false alarms by 69.2% and 43.5%, respectively, the most significant interventions were to replace the alarm units with multi-sensor detectors and to use appropriately approved detectors in the correct location. The cost of a multi-sensor detector is about £5-10 more than an optical smoke detector, but given that the cost per false alarm to fire and rescue services and businesses is about £3,200, the financial savings gained from replacing old kit with new multi-sensor devices are significant.
Further work with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service Board and other interested parties is now imminent. This research will use a fire detection specialist on standby to attend all incidents and accurately diagnose the causes of false alarms. Comparative data will be gathered on the age of problem systems and devices, and the complexity of false-alarm causes, with proposals for suitable training identified.
The desired outcome of the project, said Mr Chagger, will be a reduction in false alarms and an upsurge in confidence in the technology for better business protection, reduced costs and improved life safety.