Top

Fire Technology

Published in:

02-04-2021

Risk Tolerability Limits for Fire Engineering Design: Methodology and Reference Case Study

Authors: Ayyappa Thejus Mohan, Ruben Van Coile, Danny Hopkin, Grunde Jomaas, Robby Caspeele

Published in: Fire Technology | Issue 5/2021

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

A simple framework for setting risk tolerability limits is proposed following a literature review of risk acceptance in fire safety engineering and a feedback round with international fire safety professionals. The framework provides practical guidance for the application of international fire safety guidance, such as the recently published UK guidance document on probabilistic risk assessment for the fire design of buildings, PD 7974-7:2019, which provides a state-of-the-art framework to assess adequate safety for complex fire engineering designs. However, the application of this guidance document is hindered by two main constraints: (1) PD7974-7:2019 requires risk tolerability limits to be set, but lacks guidance on defining them for a specific building project, and (2) no reference case studies are given that demonstrate the application of PRA methods to fire engineering design. In order to help fill this gap, a risk tolerability framework is developed and proposed herein. Finally, it is applied to a reference case study of a UK office building. Considering the developed framework, further research needs are identified. It is expected that the proposed risk tolerability framework and the presented reference case study can support the application of PRA to fire engineering design and ease stakeholder communication on setting risk tolerability limits.

previous article Experimental Investigation on Diesel Fire Toxicity in a Compartment Under Different Pool Locations

next article Analysis and Exploitation of Landforms for Improved Optimisation of Camera-Based Wildfire Detection Systems

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Van Coile R, Hopkin D, Lange D, Jomaas G, Bisby L (2018) The need for hierarchies of acceptance criteria for probabilistic risk assessments in fire engineering. Fire Technol 55(4):1111–1146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-018-0746-7CrossRef

Hopkin D, Van Coile R, Lange D (2017) Certain Uncertainty – Demonstrating safety in fire engineering design and the need for safety targets. SFPE Europe, Issue

Spinardi G, Bisby L, Torero J (2017) A Review of Sociological Issues in Fire Safety Regulation. Fire Technol 53:1011–1037. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-016-0615-1CrossRef

Bjelland H, Njå O, Heskestad AW, Braut GS (2015) The Concepts of Safety Level and Safety Margin: Framework for Fire Safety Design of Novel Buildings. Fire Technol 51:409–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-014-0400-yCrossRef

Paté-Cornell E (2011) An Introduction to Probabilistic Risk Analysis for Engineered Systems. In: Wiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA

Mosleh A (2014) PRA: A perspective on strengths, current limitations, and possible improvements. Nucl Eng Technol 46:1–10. https://doi.org/10.5516/NET.03.2014.700CrossRef

CEN (2002) EN 1990:2002 Basis of Structural Design. European Standard

Cadena JE, Hidalgo J, Maluk C, Lange D, Torero J, Osorio A (2019) Overcoming risk assessment limitations for potential fires in a multi-occupancy building. Chem Eng Trans 77:463–468. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1977078CrossRef

Hopkin D, Coile R Van, Hopkin C, Fu I, Spearpoint M (2018). Transient reliability evaluation of a stochastic structural system in fire. In: Proceedings of the 16th international probabilistic workshop (16 IPW), 12–14/09, Vienna, Austria

10.

Manes M, Rush D (2019) A critical evaluation of BS PD 7974–7 structural fire response data based on USA fire statistics. Fire Technol 55:1243–1293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-018-0775-2CrossRef

11.

Meacham BJ (2004) Understanding risk: quantification, perceptions, and characterization. J Fire Prot Eng 14:199–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042391504042454CrossRef

12.

Olsson F (1999) Tolerable fire risk criteria for hospitals. Report 3101, Department of Fire Safety Engineering, Lund University, Lund

13.

Hopkin D, Ballantyne A, O'Loughlin E, McColl B (2016) Design goals—fire resistance demands for tall residential buildings. In: Proceedings of the Interflam 2016

14.

BSI (2003), Published Document PD 7974–7:2003, application of fire safety engineering principles to the design of buildings—Part 7: probabilistic risk assessment. BSI Standards Publication

15.

Nystedt F (2018) On the use of risk concepts in fire safety engineering. J Phys: Conf Ser 1107:042034. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1107/4/042034CrossRef

16.

Wolski A, Dembsey NA, Meacham BJ (2000) Accommodating perceptions of risk in performance-based building fire safety code development. Fire Saf J 34:297–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0379-7112(00)00003-5CrossRef

17.

BSI (2019), Published Document PD 7974–7:2019, application of fire safety engineering principles to the design of buildings—Part 7: probabilistic risk assessment. BSI Standards Publication

18.

Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S (1980) Societal risk assessment. Springer, US, Boston, MA

19.

Enander A, Lajksjö Ö (2003) Risk aversion: the term and the phenomena related to complex risk issues. R&D Report, Swedish Rescue Services Agency (SRSA), Karlstad

20.

Faber M, Schubert M, Baker J (2007) Decision making subject to aversion of low frequency high consequence events. In: Special Workshop on Risk Acceptance and Risk Communication, 26–27/07, Stanford, USA.

21.

Chan S, Castle S (2017) After London Fire, 11 More High-Rises Found With Combustible Material. In: New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/22/world/europe/uk-grenfell-tower-london-fire.html. Accessed 04 March 2021

22.

Förster J, Liberman N (2007) Knowledge activation. In: Kruglanski AW, Higgins ET (eds) Social psychology: handbook of basic principles, 2nd edn. The Guilford Press, New York, pp 201–231

23.

Ryu Y, Kim S, Kim S (2018) Does trust matter? Analyzing the impact of trust on the perceived risk and acceptance of nuclear power energy. Sustainability 10:758. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030758CrossRef

24.

Wachinger G, Renn O, Begg C, Kuhlicke C (2013) The risk perception paradox-implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Anal 33:1049–1065. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01942.xCrossRef

25.

Starr C (1969) Social benefit versus technological risk. Science 165:1232–1238CrossRef

26.

SFPE (2006) SFPE engineering guide: fire risk assessment. SFPE Engineering Guide: Fire Risk Assessment SFPE, Bethesda

27.

Society of Fire Protection Engineers (2019) Population characteristics. SFPE guide to human behavior in fire. Springer, Cham, pp 15–19CrossRef

28.

Sime JD (1985) Movement toward the familiar. Environ Behav 17:697–724. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916585176003CrossRef

29.

Forssberg M, Kjellström J, Frantzich H, Mossberg A, Nilsson D (2019) The variation of pre-movement time in building evacuation. Fire Technol 55:2491–2513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-019-00881-1CrossRef

30.

Barnfield J, Foolkes A (2010) Means of escape and human factors. In: CIBSE Guide E, Fire safety engineering. The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers

31.

Proulx G (1995) Evacuation time and movement in apartment buildings. Fire Saf J 24:229–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/0379-7112(95)00023-MCrossRef

32.

Proulx G (2001) High-rise evacuation: a questionable concept. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international symposium on human behaviour in fire. Interscience Communication Ltd, Boston, MA, pp 221–230

33.

Kinateder MT, Kuligowski ED, Reneke PK, Peacock RD (2014) A review of risk perception in building fire evacuation. NIST Technical Note 1840. National Institute of Standards and Technology

34.

Choi M, Lee S, Hwang S, Park M, Lee HS (2019) Comparison of emergency response abilities and evacuation performance involving vulnerable occupants in building fire situations. Sustainability 12:87. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010087CrossRef

35.

Bisby L (2019) Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 1 - Recommendations. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

36.

Ronchi E, Nilsson D (2013) Fire evacuation in high-rise buildings: a review of human behaviour and modelling research. Fire Sci Rev 2:7. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-0414-2-7CrossRef

37.

Torero JL (2019) Fire safety of historical buildings: principles and methodological approach. Int Journal of Archit Heritage 13:926–940. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2019.1612484CrossRef

38.

Sjöberg L (2007) Emotions and risk perception. Risk Manag 9:223–237. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.rm.8250038CrossRef

39.

Mohan AT (2019) Risk acceptance in fire safety engineering: development of reference case studies. Dissertation, Ghent University

40.

Berlinger J, Charner F, Gast P (2018) Brazil museum fire: police and protesters clash after historical monument goes up in flames. In: CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/03/americas/brazil-national-museum-fire-investigation-intl/index.html. Accessed 04 March 2021

41.

The Art Newspaper (2019) Around the world, the Notre Dame fire inspires sadness, solidarity and anger. In: The Art Newspaper. https://www.theartnewspaper.com/comment/around-the-world-the-notre-dame-fire-inspires-sadness-solidarity-prayer-advice-and-anger. Accessed 04 March 2021

42.

Jonathan Gornall (2019) Grenfell and Notre-Dame: two fires with startlingly different responses—The National. In: The National. https://www.thenational.ae/opinion/comment/grenfell-and-notre-dame-two-fires-with-startlingly-different-responses-1.852708. Accessed 04 March 2021

43.

Hindustan Times (2018) Defective wiring suspected cause of South Korea hospital fire: Police. In: Hindustan Times. https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/defective-wiring-suspected-cause-of-south-korea-hospital-fire-police/story-yMUAwVTPVrefKlTYD03OgP.html. Accessed 04 March 2021

44.

BBC News (2018) Kemerovo fire: Russia crowd condemns officials over disaster. In: BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43552165. Accessed 04 March 2021

45.

Grierson J, Gayle D (2017) ‘We want justice’: Grenfell Tower protests spill on to streets. In: Guard. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/16/we-want-justice-grenfell-tower-protest-spills-into-town-hall. Accessed 04 March 2021

46.

Webster P (1999) Tunnel fire sparks anger as President visits site. In: The Irish Times. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/tunnel-fire-sparks-anger-as-president-visits-site-1.169973. Accessed 04 March 2021

47.

Stoica I (2015) Public anger mounts in Romania after nightclub fire. In: Independent Balkan News Agency. News Agency. https://balkaneu.com/public-anger-mounts-romania-nightclub-fire/. Accessed 04 March 2021

48.

Uenuma F (2018) The Iroquois theater disaster killed hundreds and changed fire safety forever. In: Smithsonian Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-theater-blaze-killed-hundreds-forever-changed-way-we-approach-fire-safety-180969315/. Accessed 04 March 2021

49.

Mirkhah A O (2010) Lessons from the past: MGM grand fire. In: Firehouse. https://www.firehouse.com/prevention-investigation/article/10465399/lessons-from-the-past-mgm-grand-fire. Accessed 04 March 2021

50.

Arax M (1985) MGM Grand to Get $76 Million for Fire Claims—Los Angeles Times. In: Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-04-01-mn-28246-story.html. Accessed 04 March 2021

51.

Van Coile R, Hopkin D, Lange D (2019) Guest editorial: probabilistic methods in fire safety engineering. Fire Technol 55:1107–1109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-019-00874-0CrossRef

52.

Standards Norway (2019) SN-INSTA/TR 951:2019, Fire safety engineering guidance for probabilistic analysis for verifying fire safety design in buildings. Standards Norway

53.

Weller M, Kirby R (2019) Application of risk assessment to fire engineering designs. In: Fire safety engineering, CIBSE Guide E. The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers

54.

Van Coile R, Jomaas G, Bisby L (2019) Defining ALARP for fire safety engineering design via the Life Quality Index. Fire Saf J 107:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2019.04.015CrossRef

55.

Health and Safety Executive (HSE) (2001) Reducing risks, protecting people. Health and Safety Executive (HSE), London

56.

Aven T, Vinnem JE (2005) On the use of risk acceptance criteria in the offshore oil and gas industry. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 90:15–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2004.10.009CrossRef

57.

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) (2018) NFPA 101 life safety code. NFPA , Quincy

58.

British Standards Institution (2019) BS 7974:2019, Application of fire safety engineering principles to the design of buildings—code of practice. British Standards Institution, London, UK

59.

Liptrott S, Perry J (2019) Building designation. In: Fire safety engineering, CIBSE Guide E, Fourth. The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, London, pp 3–1;3–12

60.

Renn O (2015) Stakeholder and public involvement in risk governance. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 6:8–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-015-0037-6CrossRef

61.

Frank W, Farquharson J (2009) Guidelines for developing quantitative safety risk criteria. Guidelines for Developing Quantitative Safety Risk Criteria American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York

62.

Wang F, Lu S, Li C (2005) analysis of fire statistics of China: fire frequency and fatalities in fires. Fire Saf Sci 8:353–362. https://doi.org/10.3801/IAFSS.FSS.8-353CrossRef

63.

Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S et al (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci 9:127–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143739CrossRef

64.

Lundin J (2019) Quantification of a safety target for an underground CNG bus terminal in Stockholm. Fire Saf J 104:57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2019.01.005CrossRef

65.

Litai D (1980) A risk comparison methodology for the assessment of acceptable Risk. Ph.D. Thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA

66.

Mossberg A, McNamee R, Nyman H, Olander M (2020) A review of the Swedish fire safety regulation: from the industry’s perspective. Fire Mater. https://doi.org/10.1002/fam.2818CrossRef

67.

HM Government (2019) The building regulations 2010 approved document B (Fire Safety) Volume 2: Buildings Other Than Dwellinghouses (2006 Edition incorporating 2007, 2010, 2013, November 2018, December 2018 and April 2019 amendments). HM Government, London

68.

Haastrup P, Rasmussen K (1994) A study of F-N curves for accidents involving highly flammable gases and some toxic gases. Trans Inst Chem Eng 72:205–210

69.

Sunstein CR (2005) Laws of fear: beyond the precautionary principle. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef

70.

Niehaus F (1989) Prospects for use of probabilistic safety criteria. Nucl Eng Des 115:181–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-5493(89)90269-0CrossRef

71.

Frank W, Jones D (2010) Choosing appropriate quantitative safety risk criteria: applications from the new CCPS guidelines. Process Saf Prog 29:293–298. https://doi.org/10.1002/prs.10404CrossRef

72.

Ale BJM (2005) Living with risk: a management question. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 90:196–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2004.10.015CrossRef

73.

Farmer FR (1967) Siting Criteria - A New Approach. In: Containment and siting of nuclear power plants: proceedings of a symposium Vienna. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, pp 303–324

74.

Aven T, Renn O (2010) Risk characterization and evaluation. Risk management and governance. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 107–120CrossRef

75.

BSI (2008) BS 9999:2008 Fire safety in the design, management and use of buildings—Code of practice. BSI Standards Publication, London

76.

Hurley MJ, Rosenbaum ER (2015) Performance-based fire safety design. CRC Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, FLCrossRef

77.

SFPE (2007) SFPE engineering guide to performance-based fire protection. Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), Quincy

78.

Weng P (2011) Tenability criteria for design of smoke hazard management systems. Ecolibrium 7:32–37

79.

NatCen Social Research (2017) Health survey for England 2016: adult health trends. NHS Digital, Leeds

80.

Wade C (2013) Technical Recommendation TR17. Room size limits when using a fire zone model for smoke-filling calculations. Judgeford, New Zealand

81.

Harrison R, Daniels G, Hallam C (2019) Fire dynamics. In: Fire safety engineering, CIBSE Guide E. The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers

82.

CEN (2002) EN 1991–1–2: Eurocode 1: actions on structures - part 1–2: General actions—actions on structures exposed to fires. European Standard

83.

Gwynne SMV, Rosenbaum ER (2016) Employing the hydraulic model in assessing emergency movement. In: Hurley MJ et al (eds) SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering, 5th edn. Springer, New York, pp 2115–2151

84.

BSI (2019), Published Document PD 7974–6:2019, Application of fire safety engineering principles to the design of buildings—Part 6: Human factors: Life safety strategies—occupant evacuation, behaviour and condition (Sub-system 6). BSI Standards Publication

85.

Campbell R (2013) U.S structure fires in office properties, NFPA fire analysis and research, Quincy, MA

86.

Manes M, Rush D (2020) Assessing fire frequency and structural fire behaviour of England statistics according to BS PD 7974–7. Fire Saf J. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2020.103030CrossRef

87.

FETA, IFEDA (2003) Report on a survey into portable fire extinguishers and their use in the United Kingdom and other member countries of Eurofeu. Fire Extinguishing Trades Association (FETA) and Independent Fire Engineering & Distributors Association (IFEDA)

88.

New Zealand Fire Service Commission. Marsh (2008) Effectiveness of fire safety systems for use in quantitative risk assessments. Research Report Number 89, New Zealand Fire Service Commission Research.

89.

Holborn PG, Nolan PF, Golt J (2004) An analysis of fire sizes, fire growth rates and times between events using data from fire investigations. Fire Saf J 39:481–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2004.05.002CrossRef

90.

Proulx G, Kaufman A, Pineau J (1996) Evacuation times and movement in office buildings. National Research Council Canada, Ottawa

91.

BSI (2017) BS 9999:2017, Fire safety in the design, management and use of buildings - Code of practice. BSI Standards Publication

92.

CFOA (2013) Business case for sprinklers. CFOA Publications Ltd. Chief Fire Officers Association, London

93.

Aven T (2010) Misconceptions of risk. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRef

94.

Williamson J, Weyman A (2005) Review of the public perception of risk, and stakeholder engagement. Health and safety laboratory report HSL/2005/16. Buxton, UK

95.

Renn O (1992) Concepts of risk: a classification. In: Krimsky S, Golding D (eds) Social theories of risk. Praeger, Westport , pp 53–79

Title: Risk Tolerability Limits for Fire Engineering Design: Methodology and Reference Case Study
Authors: Ayyappa Thejus Mohan
Ruben Van Coile
Danny Hopkin
Grunde Jomaas
Robby Caspeele
Publication date: 02-04-2021
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Fire Technology / Issue 5/2021
Print ISSN: 0015-2684
Electronic ISSN: 1572-8099
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-021-01118-w

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Other articles of this Issue 5/2021

Effect of Creep on Shear Tab Connections under Fire Temperatures

Fire Zone Diagram of Flame-retardant Cables: Ignition and Upward Flame Spread

Fire Hazard Analysis of Modern Vehicles in Parking Facilities

Fire Detection Based on Fractal Analysis and Spatio-Temporal Features

Barriers and Facilitators for Implementation of Individualized Fire Safety (IFS) in Sweden

Flammability Limits of Flat Materials with Moderate Thickness in Microgravity