Fire General Research MethodsA high proportion of fatal fires occur at night during sleeping hours. That’s why in a fire situation, alarm signals must be effective and wake people from sleep. Studying effectiveness of alarm signals is important in order to save lives. Indeed, effective alarm cues allow people to evacuate quickly before the arrival of fire fighters. If the fire alarm is maladaptive, people aren’t warned and they continue to sleep. And unfortunately, in many cases, fire smokes will asphyxiate these people.
In this study, we will try to know what are the more effective cues to wake people from sleep. Which is the best one: auditory, tactile or light signals? Is it the same for all the categories of people? Thanks to data from previous studies, and thanks to experiments, we will try to accumulate a good knowledge on this topic for after adapt measures to be sure that fire alarms are effective and adapted to wake people from sleep in a fire situation.
So, in a first time, we will describe the different research methods. We will see the strengths and the weakness of each of them. In a second time we will focus on the chosen article. The research study is titled “The use of auditory, tactile and visual alarm signals: a focus on the effectiveness of light”. It was written by Michelle Ball, Dorothy Bruck and Ian Thomas at the Victoria University in Melbourne, Australia. We will see which research methods are used in this article, what are the results, what are the good points and the disadvantages of the method and finally what could be the improvements. In a last time, we will discuss on the usefulness of the research findings in fire and safety engineering design.
The authors:
• A number of studies. See the main article on each of these and explain it for yourself.
• A number of independent researchers. They also included a number of papers.
• Several independent people. Most of them did not have the expertise required to look into the study itself.
• A number of independent groups. Some were small with some really nice papers. However the study is one of very high quality on its own. We used high-resolution graphics to highlight the results. The articles give a general overview and also detailed a description. This page describes the three main research items:
• — “ The Effectiveness of light and visual alarms in response to ambient temperature changes.
• A Discussion of the research findings.
• A Summary of Table I on how the results of the new research can be summarized.
Finally, for each of the 2 different research items, we looked only to what is described in the main piece on a particular research item to identify the articles who are not the main authors. We also looked only in each of the original authors of the findings (so this is a “reference study” as for the original article). All relevant research documents and study reports were retrieved either before or after we began looking. However, there were some exceptions to this rule. The following list summarizes the 2 main articles for the new study as they appeared the most on the main article. This analysis was not designed purely to summarize the different research articles for the new study but instead to compare the different study items for the 2 research results. For this analysis, we have been able to avoid any errors caused by different researcher sets of research results. But I’d like to emphasize that this is not complete. We have examined an entire database and have found a number of interesting results. The articles were identified using only the study items. Of these, I’ll assume (in a first time sentence) that the results are in accordance with the criteria of the “Reference Data” criteria. As with the original article, there are some flaws. First of all this article appeared too early at night. We do not know why or when the study was published and this is a big blow to this team’s confidence. Secondly, for the 2 research items, I can only state that there is no error in the research result and hence the study results do not represent the main authors. The main research results in the original article were not the main result for our study. Thus, we find the study work did not fit in the reference data. Again, this is an oversight, we really do not have sufficient data to confirm that our results do not represent the main researcher’s research work. This is not meant to mean at this time that everything is done on paper. First, please note that most
The authors:
• A number of studies. See the main article on each of these and explain it for yourself.
• A number of independent researchers. They also included a number of papers.
• Several independent people. Most of them did not have the expertise required to look into the study itself.
• A number of independent groups. Some were small with some really nice papers. However the study is one of very high quality on its own. We used high-resolution graphics to highlight the results. The articles give a general overview and also detailed a description. This page describes the three main research items:
• — “ The Effectiveness of light and visual alarms in response to ambient temperature changes.
• A Discussion of the research findings.
• A Summary of Table I on how the results of the new research can be summarized.
Finally, for each of the 2 different research items, we looked only to what is described in the main piece on a particular research item to identify the articles who are not the main authors. We also looked only in each of the original authors of the findings (so this is a “reference study” as for the original article). All relevant research documents and study reports were retrieved either before or after we began looking. However, there were some exceptions to this rule. The following list summarizes the 2 main articles for the new study as they appeared the most on the main article. This analysis was not designed purely to summarize the different research articles for the new study but instead to compare the different study items for the 2 research results. For this analysis, we have been able to avoid any errors caused by different researcher sets of research results. But I’d like to emphasize that this is not complete. We have examined an entire database and have found a number of interesting results. The articles were identified using only the study items. Of these, I’ll assume (in a first time sentence) that the results are in accordance with the criteria of the “Reference Data” criteria. As with the original article, there are some flaws. First of all this article appeared too early at night. We do not know why or when the study was published and this is a big blow to this team’s confidence. Secondly, for the 2 research items, I can only state that there is no error in the research result and hence the study results do not represent the main authors. The main research results in the original article were not the main result for our study. Thus, we find the study work did not fit in the reference data. Again, this is an oversight, we really do not have sufficient data to confirm that our results do not represent the main researcher’s research work. This is not meant to mean at this time that everything is done on paper. First, please note that most
The authors:
• A number of studies. See the main article on each of these and explain it for yourself.
• A number of independent researchers. They also included a number of papers.
• Several independent people. Most of them did not have the expertise required to look into the study itself.
• A number of independent groups. Some were small with some really nice papers. However the study is one of very high quality on its own. We used high-resolution graphics to highlight the results. The articles give a general overview and also detailed a description. This page describes the three main research items:
• — “ The Effectiveness of light and visual alarms in response to ambient temperature changes.
• A Discussion of the research findings.
• A Summary of Table I on how the results of the new research can be summarized.
Finally, for each of the 2 different research items, we looked only to what is described in the main piece on a particular research item to identify the articles who are not the main authors. We also looked only in each of the original authors of the findings (so this is a “reference study” as for the original article). All relevant research documents and study reports were retrieved either before or after we began looking. However, there were some exceptions to this rule. The following list summarizes the 2 main articles for the new study as they appeared the most on the main article. This analysis was not designed purely to summarize the different research articles for the new study but instead to compare the different study items for the 2 research results. For this analysis, we have been able to avoid any errors caused by different researcher sets of research results. But I’d like to emphasize that this is not complete. We have examined an entire database and have found a number of interesting results. The articles were identified using only the study items. Of these, I’ll assume (in a first time sentence) that the results are in accordance with the criteria of the “Reference Data” criteria. As with the original article, there are some flaws. First of all this article appeared too early at night. We do not know why or when the study was published and this is a big blow to this team’s confidence. Secondly, for the 2 research items, I can only state that there is no error in the research result and hence the study results do not represent the main authors. The main research results in the original article were not the main result for our study. Thus, we find the study work did not fit in the reference data. Again, this is an oversight, we really do not have sufficient data to confirm that our results do not represent the main researcher’s research work. This is not meant to mean at this time that everything is done on paper. First, please note that most
General research methodsLaboratories experimentsLaboratories experiments are used to simulate fires and control different parameters (1), where different factors can be varied like the level of smoke, the kind of fire, or the amount of fuel. In fact, thanks to laboratories experiments we can create fire scenarios very close to realistic situations.
Strengths of this method:This method permits to have the most accurate results: most of the parameters are controlled and conditions are defined precisely.The control of the different parameters and variables greatly reduces the probability of making mistakes in the results. We can repeat the experiments in order to increase the accuracy of results.
Possibility to reproduce realistic situations and by consequent understand what happened in real fires.Weaknesses of this method:We can create many scenarios but create two perfectly similar fire is impossible. Fire in laboratory it is not the reality, and we