Fire Safety Journal 39 (2004) 191215

Establishing heat detectors thermal sensitivity

index through bench-scale tests
Soonil Nam
a,
*, Leo P. Donovan
b
, Jieon Grace Kim
c
a
FM Global Research, 1151 Boston-Providence Turnpike, Norwood, MA 02062, USA
b
FM Global Engineering Hazards, 1151 Boston-Providence Turnpike, Norwood, MA 02062, USA
c
Summer Intern Student, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute,
100 Institute Road, Worcester, MA, 02062, USA
Received 10 June 2003; received in revised form 18 September 2003; accepted 3 November 2003
Abstract
The current study has established a means of quantifying heat detectors thermal response
sensitivities through the use of plunge-tunnel tests, so that a re safety engineer can estimate
the detector response times with an acceptable accuracy. Eleven samples of xed temperature-
type detectors were chosen and the response times of the detector under varying test
conditions were measured. An analyses of the collected data showed that response time index
(RTI) provided the most consistent thermal sensitivity index throughout the different test
conditions, among other possible candidates of the indices. In order to check the practical
applicability of the RTI values assigned to each detector type, full-scale re tests were
conducted with heptane pan res under a 3-m high ceiling. The matches between the measured
and the estimated response times were excellent for all the detectors, except a rate-
compensated high-temperature rating detector. Full-scale test results show that the RTI
values, which were obtained through the bench-scale tests established with this study, will
provide a very practical means of predicting detector-response times with an acceptable
precision to re safety engineers.
r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Heat detectors; Thermal sensitivity index; Prediction of response time
ARTICLE IN PRESS
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-781-255-4964; fax: +1-781-255-4024.
E-mail address: soonil.nam@fmglobal.com (S. Nam).
0379-7112/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.resaf.2003.11.001
1. Introduction
It is essential for a re safety engineer to have a reliable means of predicting heat
detector activation times associated with a re growth rate, in order to design proper
re protection systems. Our current knowledge of heat detectors, however, is so
limited that no one can perform this task with an acceptable precision.
The set point temperature and the maximum coverage spacing, which are specied
by listing organizations, currently characterize the performance of heat detectors.
The listed spacing values can be used as a tool, following the procedure given in
NFPA 72, to estimate a re size at detector activation. However, the uncertainties
associated with this practice are too great for the estimated re size to be used in any
reliable manner. The confusion created by the leading listing organizations, such as
UL or FM Approvals, by assigning the independent spacing values that may not
agree for the identical type of detectors, does not alleviate the situation.
These issues, among other concerns, prompted the NFPA 72 Committee to
introduce paragraph 2-2.1.3 of NFPA 72 [1]: Heat-sensing re detectors shall be
marked with their operating temperature and thermal response coefcienty . The
requirement for the marking of the thermal response coefcient shall have an
effective date of July 1, 2002. As of today, the issue regarding the thermal-response
coefcient (TRC) still remains unresolved.
The following two sub-tasks were performed in this study in order to answer the
concerns mentioned above:
(1) The rst task was establishing a bench-scale test that would assign a detector
response sensitivity index for each xed temperature heat detector. The theory
behind the test, as well as a method for practical implementation of the theory,
was developed by utilizing the plunge-tunnel [2], which has been used to assign
response time index (RTI) of automatic sprinklers. The RTI principles were rst
applied to predicting response of heat detectors by Heskestad and Delichatsios
[3] in the late 1970s. Following the same principles, Bissell [4] measured the RTI
values of several heat detectors in the late 1980s. However, somehow these early
contributions had not been fully materialized and the RTI values in heat
detectors have not been adopted yet as a part of industry standards.
(2) The second task was conducting full-scale re tests in order to validate the
methodology developed in the rst task.
2. Theory
The plunge tunnel tests used in this study rely on the following three basic
assumptions: (1) the temperature at the heat sensing element of a heat detector is
raised solely by forced convection; thus, any contribution from radiation heat
transfer is negligible; (2) any heat losses from the heat sensing element to connecting
elements are negligible, i.e., conduction heat loss is negligible; (3) any latent heat
associated with the melting of eutectic metal in a heat detector, if there is any, is
negligible.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Nam et al. / Fire Safety Journal 39 (2004) 191215 192
Using these assumptions, the energy balance equation on the heat sensing element
becomes
mc
dT
e
dt
hAT
g
T
e
; 1
where m is the mass of the heat sensing element, c is the specic heat of the element,
T
e
is the element temperature, t is the time, h is the convective heat transfer
coefcient, A is the element surface area, and T
g
is the surrounding hot air
temperature.
Eq. (1) is transformed to
dT
e
dt

T
g
T
e
t
2
by introducing the time constant t mc=hA . As the Nusselt number for a blunt
body involved in a cross ow convection heat transfer can generally be expressed as
proportional to Re
n
, where Re is Reynolds number and n is a power index depending
on the shape of the blunt body. The time constant can be expressed as
t t
0
u
0
u

n
k
0
k

n
n
0

n
; 3
where u is the velocity, k is the thermal conductivity, and v is the kinematic viscosity
of the surrounding air. The subscript
0
represents a reference state. Then Eq. (2) can
be expressed as
dT
e
dt

u
n
C
0
T; n
TRC
T
g
T
e
: 4
Here TRC t
0
u
n
0
and C
0
T; n k
0
=kn=n
0

n
; which is generally a weak function
of temperature. When nE0:5; C
0
T; n is very close to 1. Thus TRC becomes
identical to RTI, which is a sprinkler property describing the thermal sensitivity.
Like the RTI, the TRC is an index showing the sensitivity of a heat detector. The
TRC can be a function of (1) the shape of a heat detectors sensing element and (2)
unlike the RTI, the choice of reference temperature. In order to reduce any potential
inuence of n and C
0
T; n on the determination of the TRC of each detector,
the reference temperature should be close to the median point of the detectors
operating temperature range. The TRC values of the heat detectors can be obtained
in a manner similar to the way in which the RTI values are obtained for the
sprinklers [2].
3. Plunge-tunnel tests to obtain TRC
3.1. Test sample preparation
Various types of xed temperature heat detectors were chosen for test samples.
Figs. 1a and b show the photos of the 11 types of the test samples mounted on the
test plates. They are denoted as Types AK. Among them, seven types, Types AG,
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Nam et al. / Fire Safety Journal 39 (2004) 191215 193
were restorable, the rest were non-restorable detectors. The rating temperatures of
the detectors are given in parentheses as follows: A (57

C); B (77

C); C (57

C); D
(93

C); E (88

C); F (71

C); G (88

C); H (57

C); I (90

C); J (57

C); K (93

C).
In order to minimize the possible heat conduction effects to each detector sample
through the plates, marinite was chosen as the test plate material. Each mounted
detector sample was plunged into the tunnel, which is shown in Fig. 2, until the
sample activated.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 1. (a) Detector samples Type A through Type F used in the tests. (b) Detector samples Type GType
K used in the tests.
S. Nam et al. / Fire Safety Journal 39 (2004) 191215 194
3.2. Test conditions
In order for the TRC values to be acceptable for practical applications, the
following characteristics are desirable:
(1) The measured TRC values should be applicable to a wide range of conditions
that can be imposed by re. Thus, tests under various temperatures and
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 1 (continued).
S. Nam et al. / Fire Safety Journal 39 (2004) 191215 195
velocities should be conducted and the TRC values obtained through these
conditions should be reasonably consistent.
(2) Once condition (1) is met, one test condition should be picked as a
representative of all the test conditions. The ideal qualications for the newly
picked condition are: (1) the TRC value measured under the condition should be
close to the average of the TRC values measured across the various test
conditions, and (2) the reproducibility of the tests under the condition should be
excellent.
(3) Different test samples from an identical model should provide reasonably
consistent TRC values. This condition (3), however, is more relevant with a
quality control issue at a manufacturers production site than with the validity
of a test method.
A multiple series of plunge tests were carried out to see if the test results would
satisfy all the above requirements. In order to check item (1) mentioned above, eight
different plunge test conditions were used as shown in Table 1. In order to minimize
the ratio of the radiational heat loss by a test sample to tunnel walls to the convective
heat gain by the test sample through the air ow in the tunnel, the air temperatures
were set high, 197

C and 291

C. Each test sample was plunged into the hot air

owing through the tunnel and the time required for a detector sample to activate
was measured. Every sample was tested 6 times each under conditions 16, ve times
each under conditions 7 and 8.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 2. The plunge tunnel used in the project to measure the detector response times. A sample is
immersed in hot air while the air ows from left to right in the gure. A test plate with an extruded silver
handle is seen next to the instrument panel.
S. Nam et al. / Fire Safety Journal 39 (2004) 191215 196
3.3. Computing TRC using the test data
A fourth-order RungeKutta numerical scheme was adopted to solve Eq. (4) in
conjunction with the response time and the initial detector temperature. The shapes
of the thermal sensing part of the tested detector samples indicate that the most likely
value of n in Eq. (4) would be 0.5. However, n was varied between 0.4 and 0.6 in
order to see the inuence of n on the nal TRC values at each detector.
Table 2 shows how the different n values affect the TRC values of each detector
sample in the tests. % x is the average of the 46 TRC values obtained from the 46 tests
throughout the eight test conditions. s is the standard deviation of the 46 TRC
values across the eight test conditions and s= % x is the standard deviation normalized
by the average TRC value. The degree of the scattering of the TRC values among the
different test conditions was judged by the normalized standard deviations. Note
that only restorable detector samples could be participated in the comparison.
Table 2 shows the following:
(1) The degree of the scattering of TRC values is lowest with n=0.5 for detectors A
and B; with n=0.4 for detectors C and D; and with n=0.6 for detectors E, F,
and G.
(2) The degree of the scattering of the TRC values is substantially higher for
detectors C and D with n=0.6, compared with the degree of the scattering of the
TRC values with n=0.4 or n=0.5.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 1
Plunge test tunnel conditions
Condition
number
Air temperature (

C)/
air velocity (m/s)
Condition
number
Air temperature (

C)/
air velocity (m/s)
1 197/0.51 5 291/0.49
2 197/0.91 6 291/0.91
3 197/1.55 7 291/1.57
4 197/2.56 8 291/2.54
Table 2
Effects of n to the average of the TRC values across the eight plunge test conditions
Detector ID n=0.4 n=0.5 n=0.6
% x s s= % x % x s s= % x % x s s= % x
A 118 12.8 0.11 124 9.2 0.08 130 11.0 0.09
B 110 7.9 0.07 114 4.6 0.04 119 9.2 0.08
C 34 6.5 0.19 36 9.0 0.25 39 11.6 0.30
D 25 2.0 0.08 26 3.3 0.13 27 5.1 0.19
E 18 2.1 0.12 18 1.5 0.08 19 1.5 0.08
F 23 2.5 0.11 24 1.4 0.06 25 1.2 0.05
G 25 2.9 0.12 26 2.2 0.08 26 1.9 0.07
S. Nam et al. / Fire Safety Journal 39 (2004) 191215 197
(3) The degree of the scattering of the TRC values is substantially higher for
detectors E, F, and G when n=0.4 is used, compared with the degree of the
scattering of the TRC values with n=0.5 or n=0.6.
(4) Although the degree of the scattering of the TRC values is lower for detectors E,
F, and G with n=0.6 than the degree of the scattering of the TRC values with
n=0.5, the difference in the degrees of the scatterings at each detector sample is
insignicant.
Thus, it was decided that the computation of the TRC values for all the detectors
to be conducted with n=0.5. Once n=0.5 was chosen for all the detector samples,
Eq. (4) could be further simplied by assuming that C
0
T; n 1:0 . Then TRC
values are the same as RTI values. Thus, the term RTI was used hereafter as a
thermal sensitivity index of heat detectors.
Figs. 39 show the average RTI value with error bars at each test condition and
the average RTI value across all the test conditions of test sample AG. The error
bars correspond to the highest and the lowest RTI values measured under each test
condition. The gures indicate that the average of the RTI values of each detector
sample across all the test conditions seemed to be an acceptable representation of the
detector samples RTI value. The normalized standard deviations of all the test
samples, except detector samples C and D, were not greater than 8%. The RTI
values of detectors C and D under the higher temperature with high velocities (i.e.,
conditions 7 and 8) were considerably higher than their corresponding average RTI
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
R
T
I

(
m
.
s
)
1
/
2
Test Condition Number
Average RTI at the given test condition
Average RTI over all the test conditions
Fig. 3. Average RTI values of detector sample A.
S. Nam et al. / Fire Safety Journal 39 (2004) 191215 198
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Test Condition Number
Average RTI at the given test condition
Average RTI ovel all the test conditions
R
T
I

(
m
.
s
)
1
/
2
Fig. 4. Average RTI values of detector sample B.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Test Condition Number
Average RTI at the given Test Condition
Average RTI over all the Test Conditions
R
T
I

(
m
.
s
)
1
/
2
Fig. 5. Average RTI values of detector sample C.
S. Nam et al. / Fire Safety Journal 39 (2004) 191215 199
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0
10
20
30
40
Test Condition Number
Average RTI at the given test condition
Average RTI over all the test conditions
R
T
I

(
m
.
s
)
1
/
2
Fig. 6. Average RTI values of detector sample D.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0
10
20
30
Test Condition Number
Average RTI at the given test condition
Average RTI over all the test conditions
R
T
I

(
m
.
s
)
1
/
2
Fig. 7. Average RTI values of detector sample E.
S. Nam et al. / Fire Safety Journal 39 (2004) 191215 200
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0
10
20
30
Test Condition Number
Average RTI at the given test condition
Average RTI over all the test conditions
R
T
I

(
m
.
s
)
1
/
2
Fig. 8. Average RTI values of detector sample F.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0
10
20
30
40
Test Condition Number
Average RTI at the given test condition
Average RTI over all the test conditions
R
T
I

(
m
.
s
)
1
/
2
Fig. 9. Average RTI values of detector sample G.
S. Nam et al. / Fire Safety Journal 39 (2004) 191215 201
values, which resulted in noticeably higher normalized standard deviations than
those of the other detector samples. Although the case of detectors C and D calls for
more study to nd out the cause of the large deviation of RTI values under condition
7 and 8, the overall average RTI values of detectors C and D were also deemed
acceptable. The detectors are likely to respond well before the surrounding
environments ever reach the conditions resembling condition 7 or 8, should a re
break out.
The next step is nding a test condition among the eight conditions that would
serve as the standard test condition. The RTI values of detector samples will be
measured only under this condition and the average RTI value will be assigned as the
RTI value of the given detector type. The ideal qualities of the condition are: (1) the
RTI value measured under the condition should be close to the average of the RTI
values measured under all the eight test conditions, and (2) the measured RTI values
obtained through multiple tests under the condition should exhibit a low degree of
uctuations, i.e., a good reproducibility of tests.
The test data showed that the best test condition that meets the above
qualications varies depending on the test samples. Although there is no outstanding
test condition that can be equally applicable to all the samples, either condition 3 or
4 seemed to be an equally acceptable choice. The test condition 3 was chosen for the
standard test condition for future tests because the detector response time under the
condition would be longer than that under condition 4. That would reduce the
magnitude of a potential error associated with the time required to plunge the test
samples into the tunnel.
3.4. RTI measurements of multiple samples of the same model
For any practical usefulness, the RTI values should be reasonably consistent
among detectors of the same model. In order to assess the consistency of the RTI
values among the detectors of the same model, seven sets of restorable detectors
(Types AG) and four sets of non-restorable detectors (Types HK) were tested
under test condition 3. For the restorable detectors, 10 series of tests were conducted.
Figs. 1016 show the average RTI value of each sample and the average RTI value
obtained through all the ve samples for each restorable detector type, Types AG.
The average RTI value of each sample is the average of 10 RTI values measured
through the 10 tests and the overall average of the ve samples is thus the average of
50 RTI values.
The gures show that the normalized standard deviations associated with the
different samples of the same model are reasonably low except the samples from
Types D and E. As this is an issue more relevant to quality control of the products
than to the concept associated with RTI, the high degree of deviation seemed to
warrant more caution when we need to test these products. Overall, the normalized
standard deviations associated with the different samples of the same model are
within the boundary established by the normalized standard deviations associated
with a sample of the same model under the different test conditions. Thus, assigning
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Nam et al. / Fire Safety Journal 39 (2004) 191215 202
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Sample ID Number
Average RTI of each sample
Average RTI of all five samples
R
T
I

(
m
.
s
)
1
/
2
Fig. 10. Average RTI values of detector samples A1A5.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Sample ID Number
Average RTI of each sample
Average RTI of all five samples
R
T
I

(
m
.
s
)
1
/
2
Fig. 11. Average RTI values of detector samples B1B5.
S. Nam et al. / Fire Safety Journal 39 (2004) 191215 203
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0
10
20
30
Sample ID Number
Average RTI of each sample
Average RTI of all five samples
R
T
I

(
m
.
s
)
1
/
2
Fig. 12. Average RTI values of detector samples C1C5.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0
10
20
30
Sample ID Number
Average RTI of each sample
Average RTI of all five samples
R
T
I

(
m
.
s
)
1
/
2
Fig. 13. Average RTI values of detector samples D1D5.
S. Nam et al. / Fire Safety Journal 39 (2004) 191215 204
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0
10
20
30
Sample ID Number
Average RTI of each sample
Average RTI of all five samples
R
T
I

(
m
.
s
)
1
/
2
Fig. 14. Average RTI values of detector samples E1E5.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0
10
20
30
Average RTI of each sample
Average RTI of all five samples
Sample ID Number
R
T
I

(
m
.
s
)
1
/
2
Fig. 15. Average RTI values of detector samples F1F5.
S. Nam et al. / Fire Safety Journal 39 (2004) 191215 205
a RTI value to a detector based on the measurements with a number of selected
samples under one test condition was deemed acceptable.
Multiple samples of non-restorable detectors were also tested under condition 3.
Twenty samples each from Types HK were mounted to the plates and plunged into
the tunnel. Some data points obtained with the samples of Types J and K were
deemed unreliablethe timer either did not trip at all or did take unreasonably a
long time before it tripped. In order to prevent the rest of data from being
contaminated, those data points were discarded. Eighteen data points for Type J
detectors and 17 data points for Type K were used in the analysis. Figs. 1720 show
the RTI value of each sample of the non-restorable detectors used in the test
program and the average RTI value of all the test samples per type. The gures show
that detector Types H and K have quite higher degrees of the standard deviations
compared with those of Types I and J.
4. Full-scale re tests to measure detector response times
4.1. Test description
In order to make a comparison between the detector-response times estimated by
using the RTI values obtained through the bench-scale tests and the real response
times, full-scale re tests were conducted. The detectors used in the tests were the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0
10
20
30
Sample ID Number
Average RTI of each sample
Average RTI of all the samples
R
T
I

(
m
.
s
)
1
/
2
Fig. 16. Average RTI values of detector samples G1G5.
S. Nam et al. / Fire Safety Journal 39 (2004) 191215 206
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0 5 10 15 20
0
10
20
30
40
50
Sample ID Number
RTI of each sample
Average RTI of all the samples
R
T
I

(
m
.
s
)
1
/
2
Fig. 17. RTI values of detector samples H1H20.
0 5 10 15 20
0
10
20
30
Sample ID Number
RTI of each sample
Average RTI of all the samples
R
T
I

(
m
.
s
)
1
/
2
Fig. 18. Average RTI values of detector samples I1I20.
S. Nam et al. / Fire Safety Journal 39 (2004) 191215 207
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0 5 10 15 20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Sample ID Number
RTI of each sample
Average RTI of all the samples
R
T
I

(
m
.
s
)
1
/
2
Fig. 19. Average RTI values of detector samples J1J18.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Sample ID Number
RTI of each sample
Average RTI of all the samples
R
T
I

(
m
.
s
)
1
/
2
Fig. 20. Average RTI values of detector samples K1K17.
S. Nam et al. / Fire Safety Journal 39 (2004) 191215 208
same types of the detectors used in the plunge tests described earlier. The response
time of each detector was estimated by solving Eq. (4). The TRC value in the
equation was substituted with a RTI value, C
0
T; n 1 , and n=0.5 were used in the
computations.
Seven restorable detectors and a sprinkler were mounted on the ceiling. They were
arranged in such a way that each detector could maintain an approximately 3.4-m
radial distance from the center-axis of the plume that was generated by a 0.76-m-
diameter-heptane-pan re, as shown in Fig. 21. The dimensions of the test room were
18.3 m by 12.2 m by 4.6 m high. The detectors and the instruments attached on the
ceiling were: velocity probe 1, detectors AG, velocity probe 2, and a sprinkler,
respectively, from left to right in the gure, approximately 0.15 m apart each other.
The pan was placed on a 1.6-m high platform, so that the ceiling clearance from the
pan was 3.0 m. Temperatures and velocities of the ceiling jet ows from the re
plume were measured by the two velocity probes, which were equipped with pressure
transducers and thermocouples. Fig. 22 shows a comparison of the measured and the
computed response time of each detector and the sprinkler, which is represented as
Type S in the gure. The comparison of the detector response times showed the
following:
(1) In general, the matches between the computed and the measured response times
of the detectors were excellent.
(2) The discrepancies between the measured and the computed response times were
more pronounced with the high temperature rating detectors, i.e., detector types
D, E, and G, than the discrepancies with the low-temperature rating ones.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 21. The pan-re and the detectors used in the full-scale tests.
S. Nam et al. / Fire Safety Journal 39 (2004) 191215 209
(3) Detectors D and E took substantially longer times to activate than the times
estimated by the computations. Detector G, however, activated sooner than the
computation indicated; it responded even before the ceiling jet temperature
reached the xed rating temperature of the detector.
Additional tests with the identical settings also conrmed the same trend
mentioned above, i.e., excellent matches except the cases with detectors D, E, and G.
Detectors F and G were rate compensated xed temperature detectors. They
respond at a pre-set xed temperature when the surrounding temperature rises
relatively slowly. However, when the surrounding temperature rises fast, they tend to
activate sooner than the surrounding temperature reaches the pre-set xed
temperature. The temperature measurement indicated that detector F might have
activated at the pre-set temperature. But it was clear that detector G was activated by
the rate of temperature rise rather than by the xed temperature, which made the
estimated time using the RTI based on a xed temperature rating irrelevant.
In order to see the behavior of the high-temperature rating detectors more closely,
the re source was moved closer to the detectors. In the following tests, the center of
the pan was located 3.0 m away in the radial direction and 3.0 m away in the vertical
direction from the detectors. Figs. 23 and 24 show, respectively, the ceiling jet
temperatures and the ceiling jet velocities measured at velocity probes 1 and 2.
Fig. 25 shows a comparison of the measured and the computed response time of each
detector.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A B C D E F G S
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

T
i
m
e

(
s
)
Detector Type
Measured
Computed
Fig. 22. Comparison of the measured and the computed detector response times where the test re was
3.4 m away.
S. Nam et al. / Fire Safety Journal 39 (2004) 191215 210
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
C
e
i
l
i
n
g

J
e
t

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(

C
)
Velocity Probe 1
Velocity Probe 2
Time (s)
Fig. 23. Ceiling jet temperatures measured at velocity probes 1 and 2 (R=3.0 m).
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
C
e
i
l
i
n
g

J
e
t

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
s
)
Time (s)
Velocity Probe 1
Velocity Probe 2
Fig. 24. Ceiling jet velocities measured at velocity probes 1 and 2 (R=3.0 m).
S. Nam et al. / Fire Safety Journal 39 (2004) 191215 211
The comparison showed the following:
(1) In general, the matches between the computed and the measured response times
of the detectors were excellent.
(2) Compared with the previous tests where the radial distance of the re source was
3.4 m away from the detectors, the match between the measured and the
computed response time of detector D was exceptionally good. The match in
detector E was also much improved compared with that in the previous tests.
detector G again activated much sooner than the estimate indicated.
(3) Detector Gs activation long before the surrounding temperature reached the
xed rating temperature invalidated the time estimate based on the RTI that was
assigned for a xed temperature rating detector.
Additional tests under the identical settings conrmed the same trend mentioned
above.
5. Summary and conclusions
A method to quantify heat detectors thermal response sensitivities that would
enable re safety engineers to estimate the response times of heat detectors with
reliable accuracy was established by this work. Multiple samples from 11 detector
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A B C D E F G S
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

T
i
m
e

(
s
)
Detector Type
Measured
Computed
Fig. 25. Comparison of the measured and the computed detector response times where the test re was
3.0 m away.
S. Nam et al. / Fire Safety Journal 39 (2004) 191215 212
types, all xed temperature rating ones, were used in the study. The project was
carried out with two subtasks: bench-scale tests measuring thermal response
sensitivities of the samples and full-scale tests validating the methodology developed
in the rst task.
A plunge-tunnel similar to what has been used to measure response time index
(RTI) of automatic sprinklers was utilized in the bench-scale tests. As a true thermal
response sensitivity index of a detector should be independent of surrounding
conditions that can be caused by different sets of res, eight different plunge test
conditions were used to measure the detector response times. The eight conditions
consisted of two set temperatures, 197

C and 291

C, with four velocities, ranging

from 0.5 to 2.5 m/s, at each set temperature. An ideal sensitivity index of each
detector obtained through these measurements should be an invariant. Multiple tests
across the eight test conditions were conducted with one sample per each restorable
detector type.
Among the several candidates of the proposed sensitivity index, which differed
mainly based on functional relationships between the Nusselt number and the
Reynolds number associated with the heating of the sensing elements of the
detectors, RTI turned out to be the most consistent value across the eight test
conditions for most of the tested detector samples. Thus, RTI was chosen as the
thermal response sensitivity index of heat detectors. In the second stage of the bench-
scale tests, the RTI values of ve samples from each restorable detector type were
measured under one test condition (T=197

C , u=1.5 m/s), and then the average

value was assigned as the RTI value of the given detector type. For non-restorable
detectors, RTI of 20 samples/detector type were measured under the same test
condition.
Although there were various degrees of scattering of the RTI values per detector
sample across the eight test conditions, the RTI values of each sample were
reasonably consistent. The scattering of RTI values of multiple samples of the same
model measured under one condition were also within an acceptable range.
However, the data indicated that the quality control among the different types
of the detectors was by no means uniform, and some detector types may require
much closer attention than the others when they come for the product approval
testing.
In order to assess the usefulness of the measured RTI values in real eld
applications, full-scale re tests were conducted. Seven detector samples that were
randomly chosen from the seven types of the restorable detectors used in the bench-
scale tests were installed on a ceiling in such a way that they can maintain the same
radial distance from a test re source. A 0.76-m-diameter heptane pan re under a
3.0-m high ceiling was used as the re source.
In the rst set of tests, the center of the pan was placed a 3.4-m-radial distance
away from the detectors. The response time of each detector was estimated by
utilizing the measured temperatures and velocities of the ceiling jet in conjunction
with the RTI value of the detector assigned through the bench-scale tests. The
computed response time of each detector was compared with the measured response
time. The comparison showed excellent matches between the measured and the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Nam et al. / Fire Safety Journal 39 (2004) 191215 213
computed response times for the low-temperature rating detector samples, but less
than the excellent matches for the high-temperature rating ones. When tests were
repeated with the re source closer to the detectors by maintaining the radial
distance of 3.0 m, the matches between the measured and the computed response
times for all the detector samples were excellent except for one detector sample, a
rate-compensated high-temperature-rating detector. The detector activated much
sooner than the surrounding temperature reached the xed rating temperature. It
was clear that the detector was activated not because of the sensing element having
reached the xed rating temperature but because of another activation mechanism
associated with a rate of temperature rise, which invalidated the prediction using the
RTI values based on the xed-temperature activation.
With the exception of that particular detector, the full-scale test results showed
that the RTI values obtained through the bench-scale tests will provide re safety
engineers a truly reliable means of predicting detector response times with an
acceptable precision.
Some additional observations were as follows:
(1) When the shape of the detectors were relatively simple, such as that of detector
types A, B, F, and G, the measured RTI values showed substantially lower
degree of scattering per test conditions as well as per different detector
samples of the same type, compared with the degree of scattering of RTI
values of detectors with more complicated geometry, such as detector types C, D,
and E.
(2) The relatively high degree of scattering of the measured RTI values from
detector C, D, and E, as mentioned in item 1, could be related to (i) the
sensitivity associated with the detector orientation with respect to the oncoming
plunge-tunnel air ow, and or (ii) the boundary layer effect associated with the
detector frame. Detector Types C, D, and E all have frames, and some detectors
heat sensing parts were very close to the center cover of the frames.
(3) The measured RTI value of detectors in conjunction with the detectors
temperature ratings can provide re safety engineers a valuable means to choose
the most appropriate type of detector at a given occupancy.
(4) The simple bench-scale tests introduced in this work can be utilized by
manufacturers as a tool for improving detector performance. The bench-scale
tests also can be used as a tool for quality control of the products.
(5) The simple bench-scale tests can be used as a screening device to weed out some
less desirable detectors.
6. Future work
The heat detectors investigated in this project were all xed temperature rating
detectors. Although the line-type detectors can be grouped as a xed temperature
rating detector, they were not included in this study due to their unconventional
shapes. They should be analyzed in the next phase of work because they are being
used in many locations.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Nam et al. / Fire Safety Journal 39 (2004) 191215 214
A way of assigning the RTI values to the detectors that are activated by a rate of
temperature rise rather than a xed rating temperature also should be developed in
the next phase of the work. A detailed study should be conducted for the rate-
compensated xed temperature detectors, too. Depending on the rate of temperature
rise, a set of dual RTI values can be used for the estimation of the response times.
References
[1] NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm Code, 1999 ed., National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch
Park, Quincy, MA, USA, 1999.
[2] Heskestad G, Bill RG. Quantication of thermal responsiveness of automatic sprinklers including
conduction effects. Fire Safety J 1988;14:11325.
[3] Heskestad G, Delichatsios MA, Environments of re detectorsphase I: effects of re size, ceiling
height and material, vol. IIanalysis. NBS-GRC-77-95, National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg,
MD, USA, 1977.
[4] Bissell WG, An investigation into the use of the factory mutual plunge tunnel and the resulting RTI for
xed temperature re detectors. Master thesis, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA,
1988.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Nam et al. / Fire Safety Journal 39 (2004) 191215 215