Stopping Unwanted Fire Alarms, By Design

Until I did some research recently, I hadn’t realized that NFPA 72 breaks out different definitions for Unwanted Alarms by fire alarm systems.

In a way, as an FPE I always kind of shuttered and turned a blind eye to the reality of how much of the rest of the world views fire alarm systems – as a nuisance.

Imagine yourself flipping through a book that you’ve pulled off the shelf at the library. It’s quiet; the librarian shushers are about and keeping the noise down. Then suddenly the fire alarm system activates – it’s loud, startling, What is the first thing that comes to mind when this happens?

As a fire person, I jump into detective investigator mode. I understand what kind of inputs would trigger an alarm, so I’m naturally very curious on what might have happened.

But what about the ‘Average Joe?’

If it’s a calm library on a quiet afternoon, are they in a rush to leave? Or is their first thought “it’s probably a false alarm?”

I can tell you by experience that unless there is another signal, like the smell of smoke, sight of smoke, or others moving quickly – most will pay attention and mostly ignore the alarm. They assume it’s a false alarm until they have evidence that suggests otherwise.

FALSE ALARMS DON'T REFLECT WELL 
This is really bad for our industry. The prevalence of false (unwanted) alarms makes people apathetic to the alarm in the first place, and it reflects poorly on us.

Is the reduction of false alarms more important than detecting an actual fire event? Of course not. We need these systems to detect and alert us that something is up.

But as a downstream effect or a lesser-priority, we also should pay attention to finding ways to reduce unwanted alarms. We want our systems to be trusted and we want people to react when they someday do activate.

WE JUST TALKING IT&M? 
Much can be said about regular inspection, testing, and maintenance of the system. Old and dirty smoke detectors can certainly cause alarm when there isn’t a hazardous condition.

But from the very beginning, we can help prevent unwanted alarms by design. That’s something that designers, engineers, plan reviewers and inspectors can help prevent from the very beginning.
 
BRAINSTORMING IDEAS
I don’t have all the answers here, but I would like to start the dialogue and open discussion on clever ideas that help reduce unwanted alarm.

NFPA 72 has a list of terms that fall under Unwanted Alarm, which is any alarm that is not the result of a potentially hazardous condition.

It lists Malicious Alarm (person acting will ill-intent), Nuisance Alarm (alarm by a non-hazardous condition), Unintentional Alarm (person triggers but by accident), and Unknown (no known cause).
 
My gut says that Malicious and Nuisance are the most preventable. How can we discourage someone from activating an alarm as a prank (Malicious), and how can we reduce Nuisance Alarms where there is no actual threat?
 
Here is my shortlist – I am very interested in your tips and takes on additional ideas to avoid Unwanted Alarms by design.
 
#1 REMOVE MANUAL PULL STATIONS (WHERE ALLOWED)
The most-accessible method for an occupant to activate a fire alarm system is with a manual pull station. The IBC (most commonly-adopted model code in the US) has exceptions to remove manual pull stations for fully-sprinklered buildings.

When this exception is offered, it’s worth considering.

Many new construction projects require fully-sprinklered buildings anyways, so eliminating the exposure for a pull station in a highly populated area would reduce the potential for pranks.
 
That being said, always consider the alternative. Are we talking about a middle or high school situation, or a hospital? Is it a dormitory, which is all-but-guaranteed to have a 2am alarm activation during Finals week? Or is it a critical care facility where there are multiple patients who cannot self evacuate?

Manual Pull Stations do have their purpose and place in the industry; so we still want to consider the context and purpose for them.

One important note that’s often missed – using the exception to remove manual pull stations doesn’t remove all of them in a building. One pull station must still be installed “at an approved location,” just not at all exits.
 
#2 USE DUAL-ACTION PULL STATIONS
If we can’t, or don’t want, to eliminate manual pull stations at all exits – then let’s think about securing them.

Can we make the pull stations a little more involved to activate?

Would going from a single-action (just pull down) to dual-action (push in and pull down) help prevent accidental activations?

It’s possible, though I personally haven’t seen data to suggest it. I can’t imagine a teenager being discouraged by a minor additional action if they already plan to activate a system.

But could it prevent a tall and curious five year old from activating the system? Possibly.

Going from single-action to dual-action isn’t a notable cost difference, so this would be fairly easy to execute.

If you have data on this – be sure to chime in in the comments.
 
#3 PIEZO COVER FOR MANUAL PULL STATIONS
Now “Prank” isn’t a formal term here, or at least not yet.

But many of my personal experiences with false alarms was during college in the dormitories.

How can we make activating a pull station troublesome for someone who is actively looking to empty a 1,000-person dormitory as a “prank”?

One way is to put covers with a piezo alarm on the pull station itself. The piezo buzzes as soon as the cover is lifted, which draws attention to the location.

If someone is activating the system during an actual fire, the logic is that they shouldn’t be deterred by a buzzer.

​But someone who’s trying to “get away” with something? Maybe the attention is a deterrent.

Can using a Lift Cover with local Piezo alarm discourage malicious alarms?

#4 VIDEO MONITOR PULL STATIONS AT EXITS
Perhaps a better long-term solution isn’t a buzzer but a security camera at the location. If exits are already being monitored for security in that area, why not get a camera placed to include the pull station?

If it’s much harder to avoid discipline, perhaps the security camera acts as a deterrent.

While this might sound expensive – just imagine how many malicious alarms happen in some occupancies?

The cost, time and effort of fire departments responding to calls that should have never been placed in the first place?

It’s extremely disruptive and very well could lead to fines too. Addressing some of this upfront, when the building is being designed or renovated, could have lasting financial benefit to the owner.
 
#5 SIGNAGE AT MANUAL PULL STATIONS
Along the line of logic for security cameras – what about the threat of security cameras?

Even just basic and clear signage right above the pull station of “SMILE, YOU’RE ON CAMERA” would be an inexpensive but potentially effective way of deterring bad players.

Having a reminder for consequences may just be as effective even if a camera is not actively recording.

If you’re a graduate student and looking for a research paper – maybe test this out and let us know.
 
#6 SMOKE DETECTOR LOCATION
Thus far we’ve focused on manual pull stations, and that’s because they’re the most easily-recognized way for anyone to activate the system.

But what about the nuisance alarm?

Perhaps the most front-of-mind false alarm is burned popcorn activating a nearby smoke alarm.

Why is that smoke alarm there in the first place?

Can locating required floor-level smoke alarms further away from cooking appliances help prevent nuisance alarms?

Well, typically in homes, smoke alarms are required within sleeping areas, just outside of sleeping areas, and on each floor level. Similar requirements are found for residential occupancies. The IBC is explicit in the areas that need smoke detectors or smoke alarms in Section 907.2.

If a smoke detector is required in the area, how can we improve the situation?

Can we shift the location to be as far-away from cooking sources as possible, but still be along the path of egress that we’re seeking to satisfy the IBC and NFPA 72?

Many times it seems that during design, the smoke detector is just a hex with an “S” on it. It’s just a symbol that gets popped wherever there’s blank space on the CAD plan (I’m guilty of this).

We need to be better than that.

If a smoke alarm or smoke detector is anywhere near cooking appliances (stoves, microwaves, ovens) – then let’s get those detectors further away but still meet code.

That extra distance means that normal cooking exhaust is going to diffuse and be less likely to trigger the smoke alarm.

Here again – think about context, what we’re monitoring, and what we’re trying to achieve with the detection in the area.
 
#7 USE THE UL 268 7TH EDITION
One of my favorite improvements concerning smoke detection is that the UL 268 Standard for Smoke Detectors for Fire Alarm Systems, recently added a specific test, informally called the “Hamburger Test,” that requires a smoke detector or smoke alarm to not activate under specific cooking conditions.

On a side note, the 7th Edition also includes a test for correctly responding to burning foam, which better matches modern furniture padding material. 

These additional requirements have come into play with the 7th Edition, which is now mandated for newly manufactured smoke alarm and smoke detectors.

This is a huge step in the right direction to trigger less nuisance alarms.

If we have the opportunity to install or specify UL 268 7th Edition detectors, that might be a major value-add for the owner. I don’t know the current status of availability or whether the manufacturers have caught up to the requirement yet, but the 7th Edition of the standard is currently mandated for new devices.
 
YOUR EXPERIENCE
​What tips do you have?

What are some practical considerations you make when designing or reviewing fire alarm systems?

If you’re an AHJ, consider kindly advising owners or designers to consider these things by passing along the “lessons learned” can have a tremendous value to the owner. They can say no where it’s not code-required, but having been in the consulting space I’m incredibly appreciative of tips to consider that is in the interest of the owner.

Comment below with your tips or ideas that you like.
 
As always, thanks for being part of the community here!