IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT, VOL. 49, NO.

1, FEBRUARY 2000 37

Minimization of the Optical Smoke Detector False

Alarm Probability by Optimizing its Frequency
Characteristic
Željko J. Aleksić

Abstract—The exclusive use of the time domain analysis in the
design tuning to lower the probability of false alarms is caused by
the output signal binary nature prevailing in the optical smoke de-
tector designs. However, the characteristic of a standard detector
circuit is fairly linear up to the output comparator. On the basis
of the generalized functional block scheme, for this linear depen-
dence the Laplace transform is derived in this paper. The transfer
function obtained is optimized with respect to false alarm proba-
bility minimization, for the second and the fourth order cases. Ex-
ploiting the optimization results presented, the improvement of the
detector design to obtain lower probability of false alarm reduces
to the calculation of element parameters from the coefficients of the
optimized transfer function. If the requests for detector time re-
sponse behavior are different from those adopted here, this paper
presents a systematic set of design steps that have to be performed
to obtain the optimal performance.
Index Terms—Circuit optimization, detectors, monitoring, reli-
ability, safety, transfer functions.
I. INTRODUCTION
A BSORPTION index [1]–[4] is a fire parameter used in
the threshold sensitivity tests of the optical smoke detec-
tors. To avoid false alarms, caused by fluctuations of the normal
ambient smoke and dust concentrations, or by small deteriora-
tion of the detector characteristics, the minimal value of the ab-
sorption index threshold level is prescribed by the standards. On
the other hand, detectors are classified according to the maximal
attained values of the fire parameters initiating the alarm in the
fire sensitivity tests.
Lower false alarm probability is usually achieved, among
others, by the detector dynamic characteristics limitation.
Acceptable limits depend on the possible values of the ab-
sorption index rate of change. From the analysis and the data
on the spatial and time distribution characteristics of the fire
parameters [3], [5], it stems out that 1 s and 1 h are the rough
limits of the equivalent time constant. Hence, the amplitude
characteristic of the detector sensitivity should be of a bandpass
type, with the orders of magnitude of the edge frequencies of
1/3600 and 1 rad/s.
The sources of detector malfunctioning can be grouped into
two separate classes. Stochastic impulse interferences, having a
wide power spectrum, belong to the first group. The items of the
other group are slowly varying parasitic influences like an active
Manuscript received March 15, 1997; revised November 12, 1998.
The author is with the Department of Electronics, Faculty of Electrical Engi-
neering, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Yugoslavia.
Publisher Item Identifier S 0018-9456(00)02857-6.
0018–9456/00$10.00 © 2000 IEEE
area contamination of optical components, temperature changes
and corresponding variations of optical component parameters,
the aging of the components, moisture, etc.
False alarms caused by the sources from the first group are
suppressed by the application of various pulse timing schemes
[6], [7], by modulation [3], integration, i.e., averaging of the
output pulses during several detection periods [8], etc.
Detector sensitivity dependence on the slowly varying para-
sitic influences is often suppressed by compensation techniques
[9] including a calibration as a common practice. The regular
service procedure assumes the cleaning of optical components
to cope with their contamination. Another method for attenu-
ating slowly varying factors relies upon blocking the dc compo-
nent in the optical receiver output signal, and monitoring only
its dynamic component [10].
It is evident that techniques mentioned above are intended to
stabilize the gain, the dc operating point, or to limit the detector
sensitivity passband. However, there is no any eligible analysis
in the current literature directed toward the evaluation and ap-
propriate optimization of the transfer function.
It has to be noticed that some novel reports [11]–[14] disclose
great efforts to reach the optimal performance in an alternative
way. They are based on another approach relying upon the bene-
fits of the modern digital technology. Owing to the implementa-
tion of the low power analog-to-digital (A/D) converters and mi-
crocontrollers in the “smart” detectors that often monitor several
fire parameters, the algorithms developed by the neuro fuzzy
logic are used to detect fire. Fire detection is based on the time
dependence of the signals that are processed by these algorithms
[11]. In some designs the decision task is transferred to the host
unit, whereas detectors, with their output A/D converters, act as
linear meters. Nevertheless, these novel techniques do not mini-
mize the importance of the evaluation of the optimum character-
istic. In the “smart” fire detectors monitoring several fire param-
eters, this characteristic has to be used for the filter processing
the smoke sensor output. Also, it can be used in the smoke de-
tector realizations for one of the filters extracting specific fea-
tures from the input signal [11]. In the low cost analog smoke
detectors, the optimal characteristic is the only solution for min-
imal false alarm probability.
The transfer characteristic of the typical smoke detector cir-
cuit is approximately linear, except for the output comparator
(which is omitted in some realizations). Hence, assuming the
absorption index at the input, and the electrical signal at the
output of this linear detector part, the transfer function can be de-
rived for their ratio. The magnitude characteristic of this transfer
38 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT, VOL. 49, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2000

(a)

(b)

Ms
Fig. 1. (a) Generalized block scheme of the optical smoke detector; ( ) is the Laplace transform of the absorption index and T (s) is the transfer function of
the whole circuit. (b) Combined principal scheme of the optical chamber for transmission and reflective type detector.

function determines the detector smoke sensitivity frequency the optical chamber for both transmission and the reflective type
response, i.e., the sensitivity threshold has the reciprocal fre- detector is shown in Fig. 1(b). If is the optical flux intensity
quency dependence. The passband gain depends on the desired at the output of the collimated light beam source, and is the
absorption index threshold and on the output threshold level, optical flux intensity at the light receiver input of the transmis-
i.e., the comparator reference signal value. The evaluation and sion type smoke detector, in the absence of the smoke .
optimization of the transfer function of the detector (assuming The chamber static characteristic is a function of the smoke
its linear part) are discussed in the following sections. absorption index

II. GENERALIZED BLOCK SCHEME AND THE TRANSFER

FUNCTION OF THE OPTICAL SMOKE DETECTOR
(1)
Essential parts of the detector generalized block scheme are
a light source, optical chamber with smoke entrance capability where is the length of the light beam where the smoke enters.
and a light receiver, in a cascade connection. Besides these op- If is the optical flux intensity at the light receiver input of
toelectronic blocks, it is necessary to include a filter for the the reflective type smoke detector, in the absence of the smoke
transfer function frequency shaping. The filter can be connected , where is the constant
serially after the light receiver block, and/or between the light depending on the light receiver position in the chamber of the
receiver output and the light source control input, to form the reflective type detector. In this case the chamber static charac-
feedback loop. The later topology has not been considered yet in teristic is
the accessible literature. Transfer functions of these filter blocks
are designated as and , respectively. Generalized
block scheme consisting of the aforementioned blocks is shown
(2)
in Fig. 1(a).
The transfer functions (gain constants) of the light source From (1) and (2), the expressions can be evaluated for and
and light receiver are determined by the slope of their corre- , respectively, as functions of and , and then, in
sponding static characteristics in the quiescent operating points. the usual way [15], the Laplace transform of the light receiver
Transfer functions and of the two-input block repre- input signal. For both cases it can be written in the form
senting optical characteristics of the chamber where the smoke
enters are evaluated in a similar way. The principal scheme of (3)
ALEKSIĆ: MINIMIZATION OF OPTICAL SMOKE DETECTOR FALSE ALARM PROBABILITY 39

where , and are transforms of the cor- For the second order bandpass function with one finite zero
responding signals. Of course, the expressions for the optical it can be shown that
chamber block transfer functions (gain constants) and
for the transmission type detector differ from the respective ex-
pressions for the reflective type. (8)
With block transfer functions evaluated as above, overall
transfer function, , is given as
where is the pole product of the pole pair having the quality
factor .
(4) For the fourth order function with a pair of double poles and
two finite real zeros, the integration yields
For the transmission type detector it is

(9)
(5)
and for the reflective type
where
product of the poles;
quality factor;
and transfer function zeros.
If the pole pairs are not equal, the expression is more complex,
(6) and it can be written in the form

Assuming in (5) that has positive value, product

has to be negative to give a negative value for the
loop gain constant.
The factor in the parentheses in (6) is approximately zero, (10)
because for the reflective type detectors it is usually
. Thus, for this kind of detectors the loop
gain is zero, and therefore where and are pole products of the corresponding pole
pairs, and and are their quality factors. Coefficients ,
, , and , as functions of , , , , , and are
(7)

(11)
The above expressions determine overall transfer functions,
i.e., frequency characteristics of the detector sensitivity of the
analyzed circuits. where

III. TRANSFER FUNCTION OPTIMIZATION

A. Optimization Criterion
To optimize a transfer function of the detector, the statistics
of the input interferences have to be known. Generally, those
data are not available, since they depend on the surrounding
conditions in the operating ambient. However, it should be kept
(12)
in mind that the useful signal spectrum is in the extremely low
frequency range, so that every interference can be considered
as a Dirac pulse, when compared to the slowly varying input
signal. Hence, it is reasonable, and easier, to assume that the
power spectrum of the stochastic input interferences is constant
over the frequency range of interest. This reasoning relates to the
equivalent input generators representing electrical interferences
from power lines, too.
With constant power spectrum at the input, minimization
of the probability that stochastic output process attains the
(13)
threshold level is reduced to the minimization of the integral
of the squared amplitude characteristic, i.e., “noise equivalent (14)
bandwidth” (NEB) [16]. (15)
40 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT, VOL. 49, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2000
where
(16)
(17)
(18)
The detector is activated if the output signal of the linear part
rises over the comparator reference value. Besides the input
signal level, i.e., smoke density, its rate of change affects the
output signal, too. Transfer function coefficients have to be de-
termined so that the detector threshold level is within the pre-
scribed limits for all realistic rates of changes of the absorption
index. In other words, the following conditions have to be sat-
isfied:
1) When input signal, rising at any realistic rate of change,
reaches the upper sensitivity threshold limit, the response
at the output of the linear part has to exceed the com-
parator reference value.
2) The response at the output of the linear part has to be
lower than the comparator reference value, if the input
signal, rising at the maximal realistic rate of change, does
not surpass the lower sensitivity threshold limit.
The lower limit of the input threshold is taken to be
dB/m in the present numerical calculations. For the upper
limit 0.5 dB/m is selected, which corresponds to the class A
detectors in European standards [2].
Based upon the data presented in the literature [3], [5], [8]
0.5/10 dB/m/s is taken as a maximal absorption index rate of
change, and 0.5/3600 dB/m/s as a minimal. According to the
criterion adopted, condition 1 has to be fulfilled for these two
extreme values of the absorption index rate of change.
Concerning condition 2, the step function is the worst pos-
sible shape of the input signal, due to its infinite rate of change.
Therefore, with the amplitude equal to the lower limit of the
input threshold, it is accepted for the calculations presented.
NEB minimization under the time domain constraints
described above does not produce adequate attenuation of the
slowly varying influences. In fact, because the useful frequency
bandwidth is relatively wide, the value of the amplitude charac-
teristic below the passband is of negligible influence on NEB.
Attempting to fulfill the criterion and time domain constraints,
the optimization algorithm rises the low frequency gain to an
unfavorable level. Thus, it is necessary to include an additional
constraint for the attenuation of slowly varying influences. The
simplest way to do it is directly by accepting the value for
, as it has been done in this paper.
With the stated constraints the optimization algorithm tends
to move the transfer function zeros toward the origin, to sat-
isfy the condition. The resultant zero values can be unac-
ceptably low for analog realizations. Because of the capacitor
time constants, the minimal values of the critical frequencies in
Fig. 2. Minimal NEB as a function of the zero for a second order transfer
function of the detector, for three different values of the dc gain, T (0). Time
response constraints are not fulfilled above the dashed line. The data above
crosses designate respective values of T (0).
analog circuits are of the order of 10 rad/s. Due to this reason,
in the optimization presented, the zero values have been fixed,
too.
Obviously, the appropriate value of the passband gain is pro-
portional to the comparator reference signal value. According to
(8)–(10), the value for NEB is proportional to the squared value
of this signal. To normalize the transfer function, the comparator
reference signal was accepted to be unity. In this analysis it was
not necessary to specify the nature of the output signal, so
has been left without dimension, that would obviously be either
V/(dB/m) or A/(dB/m). Using the criterion described, the opti-
mization was performed and the minimal NEB was calculated
by the implementation of the SIMPLEX algorithm [17].
B. Optimization Results
To attain the constrained minimum of the NEB for the second
order transfer function, and have been optimized, with the
assigned values for and . The selected values of
were 0.01, 0.1, and 1. Resultant NEB as a function of the zero
is shown in Fig. 2. It can be noticed that the minimal value for
NEB is 7.79 rad/s for , irrespective of the selected
value. At low values of the zero, the curve is horizontal up to its
knee, and then rises abruptly, reaching soon the border (dashed
line) above which the time response constraints are not fulfilled.
Optimization is performed at the dots marked on the curves.
In the optimization process, as mentioned above, the zeros are
made to move toward the origin, if they are not fixed. Hence,
in the case of the fourth order transfer function with two real
zeros, it has been rational to optimize only the function with
a double zero ( ). The optimization is performed for
and . From the curves shown
in Fig. 3, it can be seen that the increased order of the function
does not reduce minimal NEB, that is still equal to 7.79 rad/s.
In fact, the poles of the optimized transfer function are posi-
tioned so that two of them (with the zeros) determine the selec-
tivity at low frequencies, and other two the slope at high fre-
quencies. However, high frequency poles are real and mutually
distant. Hence, the slope of the amplitude characteristic above
passband edge up to the undominant pole is the same as in the
previous (second order) case, resulting in the same NEB value.
ALEKSIĆ: MINIMIZATION OF OPTICAL SMOKE DETECTOR FALSE ALARM PROBABILITY
Fig. 3. Minimal NEB as a function of the zeros for the fourth order transfer
function of the detector, for five different values of the dc gain T (0).
Obviously, this result is a consequence of the time domain con-
straints in the optimization criterion, not allowing higher selec-
tivity above the passband.
However, a comparison of the curves for the same value
shows that the knee of the higher order function occurs at much
greater zero values. In other words, for the same zero value and
the same minimal NEB, a higher order function allows for much
greater dc attenuation. Hence, it is especially attractive for the
design of the transmission type detectors. As a matter of fact,
due to the undominant high frequency pole of the fourth order
case, it could be presumed that the third order function would
provide the same results.
Although the curves in Fig. 3 are similar to those in Fig. 2,
they do not reach the border line. There is a pole pair at low
frequencies in this case, and the rise of the NEB above the knee
of the curves is associated with the abrupt increase of the pole
factor, in an attempt to maintain the given value for and
the necessary passband gain.
Selecting the optimized function corresponding to a point on
the horizontal part of the curve below the knee, introduces wider
margins in some of the time domain responses, with respect
to the corresponding constraints. This can be seen in Fig. 4,
which presents all three time responses included in the opti-
mization constraints, for the optimal fourth order function with
rad/s. Curve b, corresponding to
the lowest absorption index rate of change, at 3600 s surpasses
the unity output threshold value for more than 50%. Similarly,
curve c, for the step function dB/m at the input, has
maximal value of 0.17, which is far less than the unity output
threshold level.
It has to be pointed out that the time domain constraints have
been formulated to include limit situations which are not very
likely to occur. This has been done to preserve a correct detector
operation in all circumstances. In a typical situation [18] the
time response margin is even wider, i.e., the output alarm level
is reached at even smaller absorption index level than in Fig. 4
(curves a and b).
IV. CONCLUSION
Optical smoke detectors are basically linear circuits, except
for the output comparator. For the linear part of the circuit the
41
Fig. 4. Time responses for the fourth order transfer function of the detector;
T (0) = 0:1, s = s = 10 rad/s. Input signals for the responses shown
are: (a) linear function (0:5=10) 1 t 1 h(t) dB/m, (b) (0:5=3600) 1 t 1 h(t) dB/m,
and (c) step function 0:05 1 h(t) dB/m.
paper presents a generalized block scheme and transfer func-
tion derivation. After the detailed consideration of the detector
characteristics and behavior, the criterion for the false alarm
probability minimization is formulated, based upon the transfer
function derived and the time domain performances prescribed
by the standards. Using the established criterion, the parame-
ters of the second and the fourth order transfer functions are
optimized. Optimization results disclose that the circuit selec-
tivity enhancement at frequencies above the passband in order
to lower the false alarm probability, as used by some manu-
facturers, is unreasonable. Due to the specific time domain be-
havior requirements, the increased selectivity above the pass-
band enhances the edge frequency and the NEB and, hence, the
false alarm probability. On the other hand, rising the order of the
transfer function allows for the higher attenuation of the slowly
varying parasitic influences. Optimization gave the same min-
imal NEB value of 7.79 rad/s for both considered functions, of
different orders, normalized to have threshold levels 0.5 dB/m
and one at the input and output, respectively.
The optimization results presented in this paper can be easily
implemented in the smoke detector design to yield the minimal
susceptibility to false alarms. The initial of the design steps re-
lates to the decision on the detector type, based upon the overall
design requirements. Depending on the type selected, attenu-
ation below the passband and, consequently, the order of the
overall circuit transfer function have to be determined. Based
on the general block scheme and the transfer function derived
in this paper, transfer function parameter values have to be de-
termined, with the help of Figs. 2 or 3. The calculation of the
element values for the filter and other blocks is then easily per-
formed, according to the particular block realizations.
The presented results can be easily incorporated in the ex-
isting designs. In some realizations, the redesign reduces to the
changes of the values of the time constants, to adjust the transfer
function according to the optimization results. Depending on the
particular circuit, addition of the dc blocking stage could be nec-
essary.
Detector performances and the stability of its characteristics
are strongly affected by the particular block realization. The de-
42 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT, VOL. 49, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2000
signs with the improved resistance to the characteristics deterio-
ration due to the parasitic influences (especially to the tempera-
ture and the optical component contamination) deserve maximal
attention, too.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author would like to thank Prof. D. Rabrenović for his
extensive help and encouragement throughout the research pre-
sented.
REFERENCES
[1] EN 54, “Components of automatic fire detection systems—Part 7: Point
type smoke detectors; Detectors using scattered light, transmitted light
or ionization,” in CEN, Brussels, Belgium, July 1982.
[2] EN 54, “Components of automatic fire detection systems—Part 9: Fire
sensitivity test,” in CEN, Brussels, Belgium, July 1982.
[3] Principles of the accomplishing of the automatic fire signaling devices
and systems, Stroiizdat, Moscow, 1983.
[4] ANSI/UL 217, “Single and multiple station smoke detectors,” Under-
writers Laboratories Inc., Oct. 4, 1978.
[5] ANSI/NFPA 72E, “Automatic fire detectors,” NFPA, Quincy, USA,
June 14, 1984.
[6] H. Tanaka, “Optical smoke detector,” U.S. Patent 4 199,755,, Apr. 22,
1980.
[7] H. Tagashira, “Optical smoke detector,” U.S. Patent 4 258 360,, Mar. 24,
1981.
[8] MS 9, “Automatic fire detectors,” Cerberus Ltd, Mannedorf, Sept. 83.
[9] J. Muggli, H. Guttinger, and Z. Horvath, “Optical smoke detector with
contamination detection circuitry,” U.S. Patent 4 555 634, Nov. 26, 1985.
[10] Y. Yamauchi and H. Homma, “Light decrease type smoke sensor,” U.S.
Patent 4 203 100, May 13, 1980.
[11] M. Thuillard, “The development of algorithms for a smoke detector with
neuro-fuzzy logic,” Fuzzy Sets and Syst., Jan. 29, 1996.
[12] H. C. Muller and A. Fischer, “A robust fire detection algorithm for tem-
perature and optical smoke density using fuzzy logic,” in Proc. IEEE
29th Annu. Int. Carnahan Conf. Security Technology, Sanderstead, U.K.,
Oct. 18–20, 1995.
[13] T. Jandeweith, “The use of an expert system to expand a multi sensor
fire detector to a robust fire detector,” in Proc.IEEE 29th Annu. Int. Car-
nahan Conf. Security Technology, Sanderstead, U.K., Oct. 18–20, 1995.
[14] P. Ryser and G. Pfister, “Optical fire and security technology: Sensor
principles and detection intelligence ,” in TRANSDUCERS ’91 Int.
Conf. Solid-State Sensors and Actuators, San Francisco, CA, USA,
June 24—27, 1991.
[15] J. Cadzow and H. Landingham, Signals, Systems, and Trans-
forms. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1985.
[16] A. Papoulis, Probability, Random Variables, and Stochastic Pro-
cesses. Tokyo: McGraw-Hill Kogakusha Ltd., 1965.
[17] J. Nelder and R. Mead, “A simplex method for function minimization,”
Computer J., vol. 7, no. 3, 1965.
[18] R. Dobriner, “Smoke detectors coming on strong—Look for ICs,” Elec-
tron. Design, no. 22, Oct. 25, 1977.
Željko J. Aleksić was born in Yugoslavia in 1950. He
received the Eng. and M.S. degrees in electrical en-
gineering from the Faculty of Electrical Engineering,
Belgrade, Yugoslavia, in 1974 and 1996, respectively.
Since 1975, he has been working in the Depart-
ment of Electronics of the Faculty of Electrical Engi-
neering, Belgrade. His research interests include low-
power detectors, embedded control, and test and mea-
surement instrumentation.