| Literature DB >> 31319600 |
Barera Sarwar1, Imran Sarwar Bajwa2, Noreen Jamil3, Shabana Ramzan4, Nadeem Sarwar5.
Abstract
In the recent past, a few fire warning and alarm systems have been presented based on a combination of a smoke sensor and an alarm device to design a life-safety system. However, such fire alarm systems are sometimes error-prone and can react to non-actual indicators of fire presence classified as false warnings. There is a need for high-quality and intelligent fire alarm systems that use multiple sensor values (such as a signal from a flame detector, humidity, heat, and smoke sensors, etc.) to detect true incidents of fire. An Adaptive neuro-fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) is used in this paper to calculate the maximum likelihood of the true presence of fire and generate fire alert. The novel idea proposed in this paper is to use ANFIS for the identification of a true fire incident by using change rate of smoke, the change rate of temperature, and humidity in the presence of fire. The model consists of sensors to collect vital data from sensor nodes where Fuzzy logic converts the raw data in a linguistic variable which is trained in ANFIS to get the probability of fire occurrence. The proposed idea also generates alerts with a message sent directly to the user's smartphone. Our system uses small size, cost-effective sensors and ensures that this solution is reproducible. MATLAB-based simulation is used for the experiments and the results show a satisfactory output.Entities:
Keywords: adaptive neuro-fuzzy interference system (ANFIS); fire detection and warning system; multi-sensor
Year: 2019 PMID: 31319600 PMCID: PMC6679255 DOI: 10.3390/s19143150
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Typical Adaptive neuro-fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) units.
Figure 2The architecture of the fire alarm system.
Figure 3Temperature and humidity sensor used in the proposed system.
Figure 4Flame sensor used in the proposed system.
Figure 5Smoke sensor used in the proposed system.
A sample of experimentally measured data in real-time.
| Time | Flame Presence | Smoke | Humidity | Temperature |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5:19:17 PM | No Flame | 3.04 ppm | 22.00% | 35.00 °C |
| 5:19:18 PM | No Flame | 3.04 ppm | 22.00% | 35.00 °C |
| 5:19:19 PM | No Flame | 3.04 ppm | 22.00% | 35.00 °C |
| 5:19:21 PM | No Flame | 3.04 ppm | 23.00% | 35.00 °C |
| 5:19:22 PM | No Flame | 3.04 ppm | 22.00% | 35.00 °C |
| 5:19:24 PM | No Flame | 3.04 ppm | 23.00% | 35.00 °C |
| 5:19:25 PM | No Flame | 3.04 ppm | 23.00% | 35.00 °C |
| 5:19:27 PM | No Flame | 3.04 ppm | 22.00% | 35.00 °C |
| 5:19:28 PM | No Flame | 3.04 ppm | 22.00% | 35.00 °C |
| 5:19:30 PM | No Flame | 3.04 ppm | 22.00% | 35.00 °C |
| 5:19:31 PM | No Flame | 3.04 ppm | 22.00% | 35.00 °C |
| 5:19:33 PM | No Flame | 3.04 ppm | 22.00% | 35.00 °C |
| 5:19:34 PM | No Flame | 3.04 ppm | 22.00% | 35.00 °C |
| 5:19:36 PM | No Flame | 3.08 ppm | 23.00% | 36.00 °C |
| 5:19:37 PM | Flame detected! | 3.12 ppm | 24.00% | 36.00 °C |
| 5:19:39 PM | Flame detected! | 3.31 ppm | 24.00% | 36.00 °C |
| 5:19:40 PM | Flame detected! | 3.38 ppm | 25.00% | 36.00 °C |
| 5:19:42 PM | Flame detected! | 3.34 ppm | 25.00% | 36.00 °C |
| 5:19:43 PM | Flame detected! | 3.31 ppm | 24.00% | 36.00 °C |
C-R-Temp, C-R-Temp, and time of fire detection with experiment 1.
| Experiment 1 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sr.no | Time Interval (Minute) | C-R Temp (°C) | C-R Humidity (%) | C-R Smoke (ppm) |
| 1 | 2.8 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 3 | 2 | −2.8 | 3.8 |
| 3 | 4.1 | 3.8 | −1.3 | 4 |
| 4 | 4 | 6.4 | 10.8 | 10.2 |
| 5 | 2 | 3 | 7.1 | 4.12 |
| 6 | 3.3 | 4.6 | 9.5 | 8.56 |
| 7 | 1.4 | 2 | 5 | 4 |
| 8 | 2.44 | 5 | 7.6 | 10 |
C-R-Temp, C-R-Temp, and time of fire detection with experiment 2.
| Experiment 2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Time Interval (Minutes) | CR-Temp (°C) | CR-Humidity (%) | CR-Smoke (ppm) |
| 1.5 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.9 |
| 1.16 | 2.2 | 1.9 | 3.3 |
| 56 s | 1.2 | 2.2 | 3 |
| 2.38 | 3 | 2.5 | 6 |
| 2.12 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| 1.56 | 3 | 6 | 5.5 |
| 2 | 2.8 | 8 | 6 |
| 2 | 3.2 | 6 | 6.73 |
The universe of discourse for each membership function.
| Variable | CR-Temp (°C) | CR-Humidity (%) | CR-Smoke (ppm) | Fire-Chances | Time (Min) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | 0–4 | 0–8 | 0–8 | 0–30 | - |
| Mid | 2.5–8.5 | 5–14 | 5–15 | 30–60 | - |
| High | 5.5–10 | 12–20 | 12–20 | 60–100 | - |
| Short | - | - | - | 0–5 | |
| Long | - | - | - | 4–9 |
Figure 6Training process.
Rules for FMWS (according to flame presence).
| Flame | Repeat First Step | Go to Next Step |
|---|---|---|
| Flame Detected | No | Yes |
| Flame is not detected | Yes | No |
Figure 7The ANFIS structure.
Figure 8ANFIS Sugeno engine.
Figure 9CR-Temp MF plot.
Figure 10MF plot for CR-Humidity.
Figure 11MF plot for TIME.
Figure 12MF plot for Smoke.
Figure 13ANFIS generated rules.
Figure 14Proteus simulation.
Experimental analysis of CR-Temp(C).
| Sr. No | CR-Temp (C) | Fire Chances | Condition |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0–2 | 0–20 | Normal |
| 2 | 2–5 | 20–40 | Critical |
| 3 | 5–10 | >60 | Severely critical |
Experimental analysis of CR-Humidity (%).
| Sr. No | CR-Humidity | Fire Chances | Condition |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0–8 | 0–20 | Normal |
| 2 | 4–14 | 20–40 | Critical |
| 3 | >15 | >60 | Severely critical |
Experimental analysis of Smoke (ppm).
| Sr. No | Smoke (ppm) | Fire Chances | Condition |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0–8 | 0–20 | Normal |
| 2 | 4–14 | 20–40 | Critical |
| 3 | 12–20 | >60 | Severely critical |
Figure 15ANFIS rules viewer.
Figure 16ANFIS output for different inputs.
Figure 17Fire-Chances with input variations.
Figure 18Average testing results.
Figure 19CR-Humidity v/s CR-Temp surface plot.
Figure 20Time vs. CR-Temp surface plot.
Figure 21CR-Smoke vs. CR-Temp surface plot.
Figure 22CR-smoke vs. CR-Humidity surface Plot.
Comparison of two related technologies FIS and ANFIS.
| Properties | Methods | |
|---|---|---|
| FIS | ANFIS | |
| Non-linear characterization | Yes | Yes |
| Automatic training | No | Yes |
| Knowledge needed for modeling biological phenomenon | A lot of human effort Requires | Do automatically from Datasets |
| Automatic Adaptation of output and membership functions | No | Yes |
Comparison of original case, ANFIS case, and FIS case.
| Sr. No. | CR-Temp (°C) | Flame Presence | CR-Humidity (%) | CR-Smoke (ppm) | Time (Min) | Chances of True Fire (%) | ANFIS Case | FIS Case | Original Case | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.53 | 1 | 7.85 | 2.1 | 2.53 | 8.4 | Low | Low | Low | 100% |
| 2 | 5.1 | 1 | 9.9 | 10.3 | 5 | 50 | Mid | Mid | Mid | 100% |
| 3 | 3.66 | 1 | 9.6 | 9.5 | 2.53 | 40 | Mid | Mid | Mid | 100% |
| 4 | 7.31 | 1 | 12.9 | 14.4 | 1.99 | 61.2 | High | High | High | 100% |
| 5 | 7.89 | 1 | 14.3 | 13.4 | 7.3 | 82.9 | High | High | High | 100% |
| 6 | 1.87 | 1 | 3.01 | 5 | 1.49 | 14.3 | Low | Low | Low | 100% |
| 7 | 2.71 | 1 | 5.18 | 5.2 | 2.51 | 45 | Mid | Mid | Mid | 100% |
| 8 | 8.1 | 1 | 7.35 | 14.2 | 1.39 | 67.7 | High | High | High | 100% |
| 9 | 6.69 | 1 | 17.2 | 12.9 | 2.35 | 83.4 | High | High | High | 100% |
| 10 | 1.27 | 1 | 14.8 | 2.4 | 2.35 | 45 | Low | Mid | Low | 100% |
| 11 | 5.48 | 1 | 10 | 10.3 | 1.39 | 65.9 | High | High | High | 100% |
| 12 | 8.9 | 1 | 16.1 | 15.2 | 4.04 | 83.9 | High | Mid | High | 100% |