The Effect of Frequency, Intensity, Tube Length, and Distance on the Effectiveness of

Sound-Based Fire Suppression

Brian Nackoud and Matthew Polgar
Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center
Physics
11B
Mr. McMillan / Mrs. Cybulski / Mrs. Tallman
5 June 2015

The Effect of Frequency, Intensity, Tube Length, and Distance on the Effectiveness
of Sound-Based Fire Suppression
Research conducted in 2012 by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) concluded that sound waves have the ability to suppress flames in a contained
environment. Since sound waves are essentially disturbances passing through a medium,
they can disperse the particles involved in the combustion process, effectively
extinguishing a flame. Students at George Mason University have since designed a
sound-based fire extinguisher; perfecting a method for sound-based fire suppression
could aide in the design of such extinguishers.
This experiment was designed to determine what effect, if any, the frequency and
intensity of a sound wave, in addition to the length of a focusing tube and the distance
between the tube and a flame, have on the effectiveness of sound-based fire suppression.
To test these factors, a subwoofer was used to produce sound waves, which were directed
at an ordinary candle flame. It was determined that frequency is the most influential
factor when considering the effectiveness of sound-based fire suppression, with lower
frequencies being most effective. Intensity, distance, and the interaction between
frequency and intensity were also significant factors; higher intensities increased
effectiveness and larger distances decreased effectiveness.

Table of Contents
Introduction..........................................................................................................................1
Review of Literature............................................................................................................3
Problem Statement...............................................................................................................7
Experimental Design............................................................................................................8
Data and Observations.......................................................................................................11
Data Analysis and Interpretation........................................................................................15
Conclusion.........................................................................................................................28
Appendix A: Pipe Mount Construction..............................................................................32
Works Cited........................................................................................................................34

Nackoud Polgar
Introduction
Fire has aided humanity in countless ways for many centuries, but it has also been
notorious for spreading quickly and becoming uncontrollable. These uncontrollable
flames then become the cause of large-scale destruction and may result in many
casualties. To prevent this, humans have developed many different ways of stopping fire
before it reaches this point. Fire extinguishers are used to chemically put out small to
medium sized fires by covering the source of the fire and preventing oxygen from getting
to it. Sprinklers are used in the same way but are spread throughout a building to
automatically take out any fires inside. These methods are very effective in squelching
the fires, but what if the fire is in an area that that does not have the luxury of a water
sprinkler system, such as an airplane? The use of chemicals in such a confined area is not
ideal either, as most types of chemical based fire extinguishers leave a coating of dry
chemicals everywhere in the process. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) has found a simple method that can be used to contain fires in such a way that
it leaves nothing behind except the fires destruction. This simple method happens to be
the use of nothing but sound.
Being longitudinal pressure waves, sound waves have the ability to displace the
molecules involved in the combustion process when passing through a flame, thus
interrupting the flame. In this experiment, a subwoofer was used to generate sound waves
which were focused on the flame of a candle. By varying the frequency and intensity of
the sound waves, the length of the focusing tube, and the distance between the flame and
the end of the tube, the optimal combination for fire extinction was found. By focusing

Nackoud Polgar
the sound waves directly at the flames and with the right frequency, the sound waves
were quite effective at extinguishing the flames.
Testing this method of fire extinction helps determine what would be optimal for
use in real-life situations. By using sound waves to extinguish fire, the surrounding area
would not be affected at all, unlike with water or chemical-based fire extinguishers which
require cleanup of their respective chemicals. Sound waves can be generated with
electricity alone, meaning that sound-based extinguishing systems could be easier to
implement than conventional ones. With such beneficial applications, researching soundbased fire suppression is a promising endeavor.

Nackoud Polgar
Review of Literature
Sound is the disturbance of the molecules in a medium. Be it is gas, liquid, or
solid, sound waves need something to pass through ("The Physical Principles of Sound").
There are many factors which affect what is interpreted as a sound wave, including
frequency and intensity. The intensity is how loud the sound is when it is first created.
The frequency of a sound wave refers to how often the particles of the medium vibrate
when a wave passes through them (Henderson, Sound Waves). Note that the range of
frequencies which the human ear can detect is 20 to 20,000 Hz, or 20 to 20,000 periods of
oscillation per second.
In order for a person to be able to hear a sound, the sound waves must be able to
reach the persons eardrums. Sound is just a string of different sound waves, all with
different frequencies and intensities, caused by the vibrations of some body. These
vibrations cause the particles in the air (or other medium) to move around, and each of
these particles transfers its movements to the particles in its immediate vicinity, and so
on. Each time the particles move, they move back to their original position afterwards.
The movements of each particle gradually decrease, while the amount of particles being
moved increase as the wave gets further away from its source (Lees). It is the vibration of
these particles hitting the eardrum that allows a person to hear.

Figure 1. Sound Wave Visualization (Wikipedia)

3

Nackoud Polgar
As shown in Figure 1, sound waves disturb gasses in such a way that it
compresses the gas slightly, and these pressure shifts cause particles move back to their
equilibrium positions immediately after a wave passes (Pain). With a lower frequency, the
particles move larger distances, causing greater disturbances, while a higher frequency
causes the particles to move shorter distances with less of a shift from their equilibrium
state (Hansen). In other words, the frequency and wavelength of a wave are inversely
proportional to one another, as shown in Figure 2, and lower frequencies cause a greater
displacement of particles in the medium, and thus a greater pressure shift.

Figure 2. Correlation between Frequency and Wavelength (Wave-Frequency)

On an atomic level, fire is a rapid chemical reaction. When the air surrounding a
material is heated to a certain threshold temperature, oxygen atoms in the air begin to
collide with hydrogen and carbon atoms in the material with enough energy to form new
compounds this is known as oxidization ("How Does Fire Work?"). Being an
exothermic reaction, oxidization releases energy which facilitates more atomic
interactions in a chain reaction. Excess energy is released as light and heat, and these
combine with newly formed gasses to produce the characteristic flame of a fire.
Four elements must always be present for fire to persist: combustible fuel, an
oxidizing agent, heat, and a chemical chain reaction. Together, these elements form the
fire tetrahedron; if any one becomes absent, the fire is extinguished (Madrzykowski).
Conventional fire extinguishing systems work by removing oxygen and/or heat from the

Nackoud Polgar
system. Water, with its high specific heat, drains heat from a fires surroundings and
dilutes oxygen in the air with water vapor, thus reducing two of the required elements in
the fire tetrahedron. Similarly, chemical foam from fire extinguishers smothers flames,
depriving the fire of the surrounding oxygen.
Sound waves, on the other hand, interact differently with fire. Since sound waves
are merely vibrations traveling through the air, they lack the ability to cool or smother a
flame in the conventional sense. However, they can disrupt the chemical chain reaction
by dispersing heat and thinning the flame boundary (where combustion occurs).
Scattering reacting atoms over a larger area reduces their interactions and interrupts the
combustion process. At the right frequency, the pressure of a sound wave will also
separate the surrounding oxygen from a fires fuel, thus preventing it from reigniting
(Jackman).
In 2012, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) evaluated
the use of acoustic fields for flame suppression. The agency found that, when blasting
sound at specific frequencies, two speakers are capable of extinguishing an oil fire
positioned between them. The sound waves thinned the flame boundary and increased
fuel vaporization, thus disrupting the flames ("To Extinguish a Hot Flame . . .). From
DARPAs demonstration, it appears that close proximity is essential when extinguishing
flames with sound waves; this was consequently tested in this experiment. Furthermore,
since DARPA only evaluated suppression of flames with liquid fuel, this experiment was
designed to test suppression of flames with solid fuel which could not be vaporized as
effectively (candles specifically).

Nackoud Polgar
More recently, two engineering majors at George Mason University (GMU)
developed a sound wave fire extinguisher prototype for their senior research project.
Similar to DARPAs setup, their contraption has succeeded in extinguishing liquid-fuelled
fires, though the students plan to continue testing on solid-fuelled fires (Jackman). The
students found low-frequency waves in the range of 30 to 60 hertz to be most
effective in extinguishing the flames, reinforcing the idea that greater disturbance in a
medium is beneficial to flame suppression. To focus the sound waves emanating from
their device, the GMU researchers attached a large can with a hole in the bottom to their
sound generator. To emulate this, varying tube lengths were tested in this experiment; it
was hypothesized that lengths of tubing would focus sound waves similarly to the GMU
researchers device.

Nackoud Polgar
Problem Statement
Problem:
To determine the effect that frequency and intensity of a sound wave, in addition
to the length of the wave focus and the distance between the wave focus and flame, have
on the suppression of a flame.

Hypothesis:
When using the lowest frequency, largest intensity, longest wave focus, and
shortest distance for the sound wave, the flame will be suppressed in the shortest amount
of time.

Data:
For each trial of the experiment, the time it took for sound waves to extinguish a
candle flame was recorded in seconds (s) in response to various factors. These factors
included frequency of the wave, intensity of the wave, tube length, and distance between
the end of the tube and the flame. Waves were computer-generated, and their frequencies
were measured in hertz (Hz). In addition, intensities were measured in terms of computer
volume, tube lengths were measured in centimeters, and distances were measured in
centimeters (m). Twenty-one trials (including five standards) were executed per iteration
of the experiment, and three iterations were run in total. Since the purpose was to
determine the effect of four factors, a Four-Factor Design of Experiment was utilized to
analyze the data.

Nackoud Polgar
Experimental Design
Materials:
TI-Nspire Calculator
GNT-5000 Subwoofer
Candle
Computer (with Internet access)
Pipe mount (see Appendix A)
Duct tape

3 2 ID PVC Pipes (Lengths 25 cm,

30 cm, 35 cm)
Grill lighter
Meter stick
Stopwatch

Procedure:
1.

Using the TI-Nspire Calculator (or other randomization device), randomize the
order of the 16 DOE trials with respect to the high/low values of the 4 factors
(frequency, intensity, tube length, and distance from tube).

2.

Connect the subwoofer to the computer.

3.

On the computer, connect to http://plasticity.szynalski.com/tone-generator.htm (or

another appropriate frequency generator).

4.

Secure the subwoofer horizontally to the tabletop with the duct tape, such that the
opening is in the upper right corner when viewed from the front.

5.

Position the pipe mount (assembly instructions in Appendix A) 2.5 cm away from
the subwoofer.

6.

Place the appropriate length of PVC pipe on the mount.

7.

Adjust the settings of the frequency generator to the appropriate frequency for the
trial, as well as the intensity (volume) on the computer.

8.

Position the candle the appropriate distance away from the end of the pipe for the
trial.

9.

Light the candle using the grill lighter.

10.

Simultaneously press the play button on the online frequency generator to

generate sound waves and start the stopwatch.

11.

When the candle flame is completely extinguished, or after 60 seconds has

passed, stop the stopwatch and record the time.

12.

Repeat Steps 6 11 for the remaining trials.

Diagrams:

Figure 3. Collection of Materials

Figure 3 shows the materials that were used in order to conduct the experiment. It
is advised to have spare grill lighters and candles in case either of the two are depleted.

Figure 4. Diagram of Experiment Setup

Figure 4 shows the general setup of the experiment. The PVC pipe was laid on top
of the pipe mount 2.5 cm away from the subwoofer in order to minimize the intensity of
the wind that the subwoofer releases. Markers were set on the pipe mount to show the
appropriate distances from the end of each pipe.

Data and Observations

A four-factor design of experiment (DOE) was utilized to analyze the effects of
frequency, intensity, tube length, and distance on the time it takes for sound waves to
extinguish a candle flame. The low, standard, and high values for these factors are given
in Table 1 below.
Table 1
DOE Factor Values
Factor
Frequency (Hz)
Intensity (vol.)
Tube Length
(cm)
Distance (cm)

Low ()
40
40

Standard
50
50

High (+)
60
60

25

30

35

10

15

20

The standard frequency of 50 Hz was selected because George Mason University

researchers found frequencies between 30 and 60 Hz to be most effective in extinguishing
flames, and especially effective near 50 Hz (Jackman). The standards for intensity, tube
length, and distance were all selected after being deemed appropriate in pre-trials.
Table 2
Four-Factor DOE Trial Results
Trial
Standard
++++
+++
+++
++
Standard
+++
++
++
+
Standard
+++
++
++
+
Trial

Time (s)
Run 1
Run 2
4.68
8.15
17.64
47.05
22.29
33.32
31.50
59.35
12.76
26.69
5.30
8.86
60.00
60.00
13.75
60.00
60.00
60.00
4.79
60.00
5.11
6.84
6.87
10.71
5.82
8.53
8.02
8.89
5.22
6.49
Time (s)
Run 1
Run 2

Average
Time (s)
32.35
27.81
45.43
19.73
60.00
36.88
60.00
32.40
8.79
7.18
8.46
5.86
Average
Time (s)

Standard
++
+
+

Standard

4.78
6.33
6.16
8.01
4.13
6.97

8.50
7.88
8.32
11.91
7.20
6.65

7.11
7.24
9.96
5.67

Table 2 displays the data from the two runs of the four-factor DOE. The trial
symbols represent the high/low values for frequency, intensity, tube length, and distance,
in that order. Note that if the candle was not extinguished after 60 seconds elapsed, the
trial was terminated and 60 seconds was recorded. This occurred for six of the trials.
The average time for each trial was found by averaging the two times for Run 1 and Run
2; these averages are used for further data analysis.
As a general rule, it appears that the times from the second DOE run are slightly
longer than those from the first; this is especially noticeable in longer times. The two
runs were executed on different days, and subtle differences in setup could easily account
for this variance (especially candle height and wick length). The only trial that was
severely incongruous with the general trend was the (+ ) trial, which was among the
shortest trials in the first run but among the longest trials in the second run.
Table 3
DOE Observations
Trial
Standard
++++
+++
+++
++
Standard
+++
++
++
Trial
+
Standard

Observation
Orange out quickly, sputtered a bit
Orange lingered but then went out quickly
Orange went out quick, but blue lingered
Flame lingered a long time before reducing
Orange stayed a long time
Orange was coming back and going out
Orange lingered at back of flame
Orange out relatively quick, but blue lingered
Orange came back after going out a bit
Observation
Unusually quick extinction, flame seemed too small
Relatively quick extinction

+++
++
++
+
Standard
++
+
+

Standard

Relatively quick extinction

Orange out longer, blue lingered
Quick extinction
Sputtered before going out
Orange came back momentarily
Orange out instantly, blue lingered a bit
Orange came back momentarily
Quick extinction
Quick extinction
Relatively quick extinction

Table 3 contains the observations from the first run of the DOE. Typically, the
orange part of the flame would disappear first, then the blue part would linger until full
extinction. The orange flame tended to linger longer for the higher-frequency trials as
opposed to the lower-frequency and standard trials. Once again, the (+ ) stands out;
the flame was noted as being somewhat small at the beginning of the trial, which is
probably the cause of the extremely short extinction time in Table 2. Therefore, in further
data analysis, the (+ ) trial of Run 1 will be omitted.

Figure 5. Stages of Candle Extinction

Figure 5 shows the stages observed in the extinction of the candles for all trials
(from left to right). Each candle began with a large, bright flame at the beginning of the
trial. Once the subwoofer was enabled, the flame was dispersed away from the source of
sound as shown in the second image. The sound waves disrupting combustion, coupled
with a slight gust emanating from the subwoofer, caused this immediate suppression of
flame.

After the initial blast of sound waves, the flame came to rest in a more stable
state, as shown in the third image. In this stage, a small orange flame collected near the
back of the wick (away from the subwoofer), and slowly shrunk. Once the orange flame
shrunk substantially enough, all that remained was a tiny blue flame near the back of the
wick (shown in the fourth image). The flame usually lingered in this stage for the
majority of the trial, and would occasionally jump back to stage three (as noted in Table
3) before moving to the final stage. Once the blue flame was extinguished, a puff of
smoke was released and the trial was terminated.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

As mentioned previously, a four-factor design of experiment (DOE) was used to
determine the effect of frequency, intensity, tube length, and distance on the effectiveness
of sound wave fire suppression. To ensure that no external trends affected the data, the
sixteen trials for each DOE run were executed in random order. This, in addition to the
extra run of the DOE, increases the reliability of the data. Also, a standard trial was run
after every four factor trials, ensuring that any external trends could be recognized.

Figure 6. Standard Box Plots

In Figure 6, the results of the standard trials are given in order. The vertical line
marks the division between Run 1 and Run 2 of the DOE. As previously mentioned, the
extinction times from Run 2 are generally longer than the extinction times from Run 1;
this difference is unimportant, as the averages from both runs were used in further data
analysis.
Note that the final standard from Run 1 is noticeably greater than the other
standards from Run 1. Though this variance seems great, it is no greater than the

variance in the standards from Run 2. It is therefore probable that this standard was
obtained by chance alone, and not as the result of some external trend. The range of
standards is relatively large: 4.18 seconds. As a result, only factors with relatively large
effects will be deemed significant.
Table 4
Values for Frequency
()
(+)

8.79
32.3
5

7.18
27.8
1

8.46
45.4
3

Values
5.86 7.11
19.7 60.0
3
0

7.24
36.8
8

9.96
60.0
0

5.67
60.0
0

Average
7.53
42.77

To calculate the effect of a factor on extinction time, the averages when the factor
is held high and when the factor is held low must be calculated. The difference between
these two averages is the factor effect. Table 4 contains the values necessary for
calculating the high and low averages for Frequency, which were obtained from Table 2.
The averages for the low () and high (+) values were calculated to be 7.53 seconds and
42.77 seconds respectively. The difference between these averages is 35.24 seconds.
60.00
50.00

42.77

40.00
30.00

Extinction Time (s)

20.00

7.53

10.00
0.00

-1

Frequency

Figure 7. Effect of Frequency

Figure 7 above shows that, on average, as frequency increases from low to high,
extinction time increases by 35.24 seconds. In other words, the effect of Frequency on
extinction time is 35.24 seconds.
Table 5
Values for Intensity
()
(+)

60.0
0
32.3
5

36.8
8
27.8
1

Values
60.0
7.1
0
1
19.7
8.7
3
9

60.0
0
45.4
3

Average
7.2
4
7.1
8

9.9
6
8.4
6

5.6
7
5.8
6

30.86
19.45

Table 5 displays all of the values necessary to calculate the high and low averages
for Intensity. The averages for the low () and high (+) values were calculated to be
30.86 seconds and 19.45 seconds respectively. The difference between these averages is
-11.41 seconds.
60.00
50.00
40.00

30.86
30.00

Extinction Time (s)

19.45

20.00
10.00

0.00

-1

Intensity

Figure 8. Effect of Intensity

In Figure 8 above, it is shown that, on average, as intensity increases from low to
high, extinction time decreases by 11.41 seconds. In other words, the effect of Intensity
on extinction time is -11.41 seconds.

Table 6
Values for Tube Length
()
(+)

45.4
3
32.3
5

19.7
3
27.8
1

Values
60.0
8.4
0
6
36.8
8.7
8
9

60.0
0
60.0
0

Average
5.8
6
7.1
8

9.9
6
7.1
1

5.6
7
7.2
4

26.89
23.42

In Table 6, the values necessary for calculating the high and low averages for
Tube Length are given. The averages for the low () and high (+) values were calculated
to be 26.89 seconds and 23.42 seconds respectively. The difference between these
averages is -3.47 seconds.
60.00
50.00
40.00

26.89

30.00

Extinction Time (s)

23.42

20.00
10.00
0.00

-1

Tube Length

Figure 9. Effect of Tube Length

Figure 9 above shows that, on average, as tube length increases from low to high,
extinction time decreases by 3.47 seconds. In other words, the effect of Tube Length on
extinction time is -3.47 seconds.
Table 7
Values for Distance
()
(+)

27.8
1
32.3

19.7
3
45.4

36.8
8
60.0

Values
60.0
7.1
0
8
60.0
8.7

Average
5.8
6
8.4

7.2
4
7.1

5.6
7
9.9

21.29
29.01

Table 7 gives the values necessary for calculating the high and low averages for
Distance. The averages for the low () and high (+) values were calculated to be 21.29
seconds and 29.01 seconds respectively. The difference between these averages is 7.72
seconds.
60.00
50.00
40.00

29.01

30.00

Extinction Time (s)

21.29
20.00
10.00
0.00

-1

Distance

Figure 10. Effect of Distance

In Figure 10 above, it is shown that, on average, as distance increases from low to
high, extinction time increases by 7.72 seconds. In other words, the effect of Intensity on
extinction time is 7.72 seconds.
Table 8
Averages for the Interaction between Frequency and Intensity
I (+)
I ()

F ()
7.57
7.49

F (+)
31.33
54.22

Table 8 displays the average values of extinction time for the appropriate values
of Frequency and Intensity. As with the previous effects, these averages are averages of
all trials for which the values of Frequency and Intensity were set appropriately. To

calculate the interaction effect between these two factors, one must subtract the slopes of
the high and low Intensity lines, which are graphed below in Figure 7.
60.00
54.22
50.00
40.00
30.00 31.33

Extinction Time (s)

Intensity (+)

Intensity ()
20.00

7.49

10.00

7.57

0.00

-1

Frequency

Figure 11. Effect of Interaction between Frequency and Intensity

In Figure 11, Frequency is represented by the x-axis and Intensity is represented
by the two line segments, solid and dashed. The slope of the high Intensity line is 11.88
and the slope of the low Intensity line is 23.36. The difference between these is the
interaction effect on extinction time, which is -11.49. This is a relatively large value, and
the line segments in Figure 7 are clearly nonparallel, so there is a strong possibility of an
interaction.
Table 9
Averages for the Interaction between Frequency and Tube Length
T (+)
T ()

F ()
7.58
7.48

F (+)
39.26
46.29

Table 9 displays the average values of extinction time for the appropriate values
of Frequency and Tube Length.

60.00
50.00
46.29

39.26

40.00
30.00

Extinction Time (s)

Tube Length (+)

Tube Length ()
20.00

7.48

10.00

7.58

0.00

-1

Frequency

Figure 12. Effect of Interaction between Frequency and Tube Length

In Figure 12, Frequency is represented by the x-axis and Tube Length is
represented by the two line segments, solid and dashed. The slope of the high Tube
Length line is 15.84 and the slope of the low Tube Length line is 19.40. The difference
between these is the interaction effect on extinction time, which is -3.56. Since the slopes
are so close, there is not a high possibility of an interaction.
Table 10
Averages for the Interaction between Frequency and Distance
D (+)
D ()

F ()
8.58
6.48

F (+)
49.44
36.10

Table 10 displays the average values of extinction time for the appropriate values
of Frequency and Distance.

60.00

49.44

50.00

40.00
36.10
30.00

Extinction Time (s)

Distance (+)

Distance ()
20.00

8.58
6.48

10.00
0.00

-1

Frequency

Figure 13. Effect of Interaction between Frequency and Distance

In Figure 13, Frequency is represented by the x-axis and Distance is represented
by the two line segments, solid and dashed. The slope of the high Distance line is 20.43
and the slope of the low Distance line is 14.81. The difference between these is the
interaction effect on extinction time, which is 5.62. Since this is a relatively low value,
there does not appear to be a strong interaction.
Table 11
Averages for the Interaction between Intensity and Tube Length
T (+)
T ()

I ()
27.81
33.91

I (+)
19.03
19.87

Table 11 displays the average values of extinction time for the appropriate values
of Intensity and Tube Length.

60.00
50.00
40.00

33.91
27.81

30.00

Extinction Time (s)

Tube Length (+)

19.03
Tube Length ()19.87
20.00
10.00
0.00

-1

Intensity

Figure 14. Effect of Interaction between Intensity and Tube Length

In Figure 14, Intensity is represented by the x-axis and Tube Length is represented
by the two line segments, solid and dashed. The slope of the high Tube Length line is
-4.39 and the slope of the low Tube Length line is -7.02. The difference between these is
the interaction effect on extinction time, which is 2.63. Since the slopes are so close to
one another, the possibility of an interaction seems slim.
Table 12
Averages for the Interaction between Intensity and Distance
D (+)
D ()

I ()
34.27
27.45

I (+)
23.75
15.14

Table 12 displays the average values of extinction time for the appropriate values
of Intensity and Distance.

60.00
50.00
40.00

34.27
27.45

30.00

Extinction Time (s)

Distance (+)

23.75

Distance ()
20.00
15.14
10.00
0.00

-1

Intensity

Figure 15. Effect of Interaction between Intensity and Distance

In Figure 15, Intensity is represented by the x-axis and Distance is represented by
the two line segments, solid and dashed. The slope of the high Distance line is -5.26 and
the slope of the low Distance line is -6.15. The difference between these is the
interaction effect on extinction time, which is 0.90. Since the segments in Figure 11 are
nearly parallel, there is probably no interaction.
Table 13
Averages for the Interaction between Tube Length and Distance
D (+)
D ()

T ()
30.96
22.81

T (+)
27.06
19.77

Table 13 displays the average values of extinction time for the appropriate values
of Tube Length and Distance.

60.00
50.00
40.00

30.96

Extinction Time (s)22.81

Distance (+)

27.06
30.00
Distance () 19.77
20.00
10.00
0.00

-1

Tube Length

Figure 16. Effect of Interaction between Tube Length and Distance

In Figure 16, Tube Length is represented by the x-axis and Distance is represented
by the two line segments, solid and dashed. The slope of the high Distance line is -1.95
and the slope of the low Distance line is -1.52. The difference between these is the
interaction effect on extinction time, which is -0.43. Since the segments in Figure 12 are
nearly parallel, there is probably no interaction.
Table 14
Summary of Effects
Factor
Frequency
Intensity
Tube Length
Distance
Frequency - Intensity
Frequency - Tube Length
Frequency - Distance
Intensity - Tube Length
Intensity - Distance
Tube Length - Distance

Symbol
F
A
T
D
FA
FT
FD
AT
AD
TD

Effect on Extinction Time (s)

35.24
-11.41
-3.47
7.72
-11.49
-3.56
5.62
2.63
0.90
-0.43

Table 14 gives a summary of the effects of all the factors and interactions.
Interestingly, the effect of Intensity and the effect of the interaction between Frequency

and Intensity are nearly equal to one another. Also, the most influential factor, having an
effect three times greater than the next influential (Intensity) is Frequency.

35.24
11.41
3.47
7.72
11.49
3.56
5.62
2.63
0.90
0.4
Y^ =25.15+
F
I
T+
D
FI
FT +
FD +
IT +
ID
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Figure 17. Prediction Equation
The prediction equation can be used to predict the extinction time of a trial given
certain values for frequency, intensity, tube length, and distance. The equation is
composed of the grand average of the trial results plus half of each of the factor effects
times the appropriate variables. To determine which factors had a significant effect on
the extinction time, a test of significance was performed.

Figure 18. Dot Plot of Effects

Figure 18 plots all of the effects on a number line for comparison. An effect is
considered significant if its absolute value is greater than twice the range of standards; the
boundaries for this range (8.36 s) are outlined with solid vertical lines. Using this test, it
appears that Frequency, Intensity, and the interaction between Frequency and Intensity
are all significant when considering their effect on the extinction time of a candle flame.
Most of the other factors are clustered closer to zero, but the Distance effect is close to
the edge of the range of standards boundary. Considering the fact that sound waves
disperse over distance, it can be tentatively concluded that Distance also has an effect on
the extinction time of a flame.
35.24
11.41 7.72
11.49
Y^ =25.15+
F
I+
D
FI +noise
2
2
2
2

Figure 19. Parsimonious Prediction Equation

The parsimonious prediction equation serves the same purpose as the prediction
equation; the only difference is that all insignificant factors are not included. Most of the
effects were removed; only Frequency, Intensity, Distance, and the interaction between
Frequency and Intensity are included in the parsimonious equation.
Frequency, Intensity, and the interaction between Frequency and Intensity
significantly affect the extinction time of a candle flame. Frequency is by far the most
significant, with an effect of 35.24 seconds. The effect of Intensity and the effect of the
interaction between Frequency and Intensity have very similar effects: -11.41 and
-11.49 seconds respectively. All of these factors stand apart from the other effects and lie
beyond twice the range of standards.
Distance also has a somewhat significant effect on the extinction time of a candle
flame. Though it is not greater than twice the range of standards, it is right on the cusp,
and its effect stands out when compared to the effect of Tube Length specifically.

Conclusion
The purpose of this experiment was to determine the effect that frequency and
intensity of a sound wave, in addition to the length of a tube and the distance between the
tube and flame, have on a sound waves ability to extinguish a candle flame. It was
theorized that the lowest frequency, highest intensity, longest tube, and shortest distance
would result in the lowest extinction time, and that all of the factors would have a
significant effect on the extinction time. This hypothesis was partially accepted; the
lowest frequency, highest intensity, and shortest distance did result in the lowest
extinction time, but the tube length had no noticeable effect.
Fire requires a continuous chemical reaction to continue burning, and combustion
will cease if this reaction is interrupted. At the right frequencies, sound waves can
disperse the particles in a flames reaction, thinning the flame boundary and effectively
extinguishing it. At the same time, the areas of pressure created by the movement of the
sound waves can separate the surrounding oxygen from the flames fuel, preventing it
from reigniting (Jackman).

Figure 20. Relationship between Frequency and Extinction Time

It was determined that frequency has the greatest effect on a sound waves ability
to extinguish a candle flame; extinction time increases an average of 35.24 seconds when
transitioning from 40 Hz to 60 Hz. However, lower frequencies are not always superior
to higher frequencies. As shown in Figure 20, the standard trials, at 50 Hz, had extinction
times averaging 1 second shorter than the 40 Hz trials. Since frequency is the most
significant factor by far, it is reasonable to assume that this difference was due to the
differing frequency. This suggests that the relationship between frequency and extinction
time is not linear; perhaps it is parabolic, as shown in Figure 20. More research is
necessary to determine the best frequency for flame extinction to find the extinction
sweet spot.
Intensity and distance also had noticeable, though smaller, effects on a sound
waves ability to extinguish a candle flame. The extinction time of a candle flame
decreases an average of 11.41 seconds when increasing the intensity of the sound from
computer volume 40 to 60, and it increases an average of 7.72 seconds when the candle is
repositioned from 10 cm to 20 cm from the end of the tube. The effects of both of these
factors are to be expected; high-intensity waves cause greater disturbances in the air
which are more capable of disrupting combustion in the flame boundary. In addition, the
intensity of a sound wave is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from its
source, so less effective fire extinction is reasonable to expect at greater distances.
In addition to the previous factors, it was discovered that the interaction between
frequency and intensity has a significant effect on the extinction time of a flame: -11.49
seconds. This interaction is explained by the formula for the intensity of a sound wave,
I

(W/m2), which is equal to the energy of the wave,

E (J), times the frequency of

the wave, f

(Hz), all divided by the cross-sectional area covered by the wave,

(m2):
I=

Ef
IA
E=
A
f
When a sound wave has higher energy, it is more capable of shifting particles

involved in combustion and extinguishing a flame. In the above equation, it is shown

that the energy of a wave depends on both the intensity and frequency of the wave
(Henderson, Intensity). Since energy is directly related to the quotient between
intensity and frequency, increasing or decreasing intensity and frequency simultaneously
will have a marginal effect on the energy of the wave and, thus, the waves ability to
extinguish a flame. Increasing either frequency or intensity while decreasing the other
will have a more noticeable effect on the energy of the wave, and, by extension, its ability
to extinguish a flame.
The formula for sound wave intensity also provides insight into why the
frequency of a wave is the most significant factor when determining its extinction ability.
The equation suggests that, at constant intensity, increasing frequency will decrease the
energy of the wave, thus increasing extinction time, and vice versa. This conclusion is
validated by the results of the experiment. However, there is most likely a limit to the
effectiveness of decreasing the frequency of the sound waves. Large quantities of energy
(creating large disturbances) transmitted infrequently may eventually become less
effective at extinguishing a flame than slightly smaller quantities of energy transmitted
more frequently. The results of the experiment suggest that the sweet spot for
frequency is near 40 or 50 Hz, which agrees with the research conducted by students at
George Mason University (GMU) (Jackman).

The biggest issues with the experimental design were inconsistencies in candle
height and wick length. Obviously, a candle becomes shorter with continued use, and the
length of its wick can vary greatly, producing flames of different sizes. Such
inconsistencies caused one particular trial to be omitted from data analysis, and could
have subtly altered the results of the experiment. Were this experiment to be repeated,
more stable, premixed flames would be more appropriate for consistent trials (flames
from a Bunsen burner, for example). Another flaw was the method of timekeeping; a
human timekeeper depends on good, consistent reflexes, and unnecessary variability
could have crept into the data as a result of human inconsistencies. For more accurate
time measurement, a high-speed camera could be implemented to determine the exact
extinction time for each trial.
A closer look into the parabolic relationship between frequency and extinction
time would be appropriate for further research. Pinpointing the optimal frequency for fire
suppression would be valuable in the design of sound-based suppression systems. Also,
better methods of focusing sound waves could be developed. By altering material,
diameter, or even shape of a focuser, one could further optimize the effectiveness of
suppression.
Despite the few flaws in design, the results of the experiment stand strong.
Frequency is the most influential factor when considering the effectiveness of
suppressing fire with sound waves, but intensity and distance are also notable factors.
When extinguishing a flame with sound waves, one should use a lower frequency with a
higher intensity at the shortest possible distance. The interaction between frequency and
intensity should certainly be considered in the design of sound-based fire extinguishers,

as prototyped by DARPA and GMU researchers. With additional research, sound-based

systems may prove to be a practical alternative to conventional fire suppression
techniques.

Appendix A: Pipe Mount Construction

Materials:
2 Boxes (0.5 m x 0.25 m x 0.1 m)
2 Rods (Length 1 m, Diameter 4.5 cm)
Duct tape
Procedure:
1. Places the boxes parallel to one another with 70 cm in between.
2.
Lay the two rods on top of the two boxes with 4.5 cm in between the center of the
rods.
3.

Secure the rods to the boxes with duct tape.

Diagram:

Figure 21. Materials for Pipe Mount

Figure 21 shows the materials that were used in to construct the pipe mount. Note
that, although boxes were used for this experiment, any appropriate 0.1 m tall objects can
be used as bases for the mount.

Figure 22. Constructed Pipe Mount

In Figure 22, the fully constructed pipe mount is displayed.

Works Cited
Hansen, Colin H. Fundamental of Acoustics. Adelaide: University of Adelaide, 6 June
2006. PDF.
Henderson, Tom. "Intensity and the Decibel Scale." The Physics Classroom. The
Compadre Digital Library, 2015. Web. 14 May 2015.
<http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/sound/Lesson-2/Intensity-and-theDecibel-Scale>.
Henderson, Tom. "Sound Waves and Music." The Physics Classroom. The Compadre
Digital Library, 23 Mar. 2015. Web. 23 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/sound>.
"How Does Fire Work?" Energy Quest. California Energy Commission, 22 Apr. 2002.
Web. 15 Apr. 2015. <http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/how_it_works/fire.html>.
Jackman, Tom. "When It Comes to Putting out Fire, GMU Students Show It's All about
That Bass." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 22 Mar. 2015. Web. 15 Apr.
2015. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/when-it-comes-to-putting-out-firegmu-students-show-its-all-about-that-bass/2015/03/22/47a7f8e8-cf1a-11e4-a2a79517a3a70506_story.html>.
Lees, William. Elements of Acoustics, Light, and Heat. London, England: William
Collins, Sons, 1873. Print.
Madrzykowski, Dan. "Fire Dynamics." National Institute of Standards and Technology.
U.S. Department of Commerce, 16 July 2013. Web. 23 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.nist.gov/fire/fire_behavior.cfm>.
Pain, H. J. The Physics of Vibrations and Waves. 6th ed. West Sussex, England: John
Wiley & Sons, 2005. Print.
"The Physical Principles of Sound." Jisc Digital Media. Jisc, 2015. Web. 24 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.jiscdigitalmedia.ac.uk/guide/the-physical-principles-of-sound>.
"To Extinguish a Hot Flame, DARPA Studied Cold Plasma." DARPA. Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency, 12 July 2012. Web. 23 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.darpa.mil/newsevents/releases/2012/07/12.aspx>.
Wave-Frequency. Digital image. Astronomy 2201. Cornell University, 24 Dec. 2008.
Web. 18 May 2015. <http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/
images/wave-freq.gif>.

Wikipedia. Sound Physical Manifestation. Digital image. Wikipedia. Wikipedia

Foundation, Inc, 29 Oct. 2013. Web. 18 May 2015. <http://upload.wikimedia.org/
wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/CPT-sound-physical-manifestation.svg/2000pxCPT-sound-physical-manifestation.svg.png>.