Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Fire Technology
Published in: Fire Technology 4/2019

21-06-2018

The Need for Hierarchies of Acceptance Criteria for Probabilistic Risk Assessments in Fire Engineering

Published in: Fire Technology | Issue 4/2019

Log in

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

search-config
loading …

Abstract

A probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) is commonly accepted as a tool for performance based design in fire safety engineering, but the position of PRA in the design process, the relationship between different acceptance concepts (absolute, comparative, ALARP), and the responsibilities of the designer remain unclear. Aiming to clarify these aspects, the safety foundation of fire safety solutions is investigated, indicating that PRA is necessary for demonstrating adequate safety when no appeal can be made to the collective experience of the profession. It is suggested that PRA is not a methodology for ‘future fire safety engineering’, but rather a necessary methodology to provide an objective safety foundation for uncommon fire safety designs. Acknowledging that what constitutes ‘acceptable safety’ is subjective and may change over time, an objective proxy of ‘adequate safety’ is defined and proposed as a benchmark against which to assess the adequacy of fire safety designs. In order to clarify the PRA process, a hierarchy of different acceptance concepts is presented. Finally, it is shown how, depending on the applied acceptance concepts, the designer takes responsibility for different implicit assumptions regarding the safety performance of the final design.
previous article Guest Editorial: Probabilistic Methods in Fire Safety Engineering
next article Severity Measures and Stripe Analysis for Probabilistic Structural Fire Engineering

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
Literature
1.
Ale B (2005) Tolerable or acceptable: a comparison of risk regulation in the United Kingdom and in the Netherlands. Risk Anal 25:231–241CrossRef
2.
Anderson DR, Sweeney DJ, Williams TA, Camm JD, Cochran JJ, Fry MJ, Ohlmann JW (2013) Quantitative methods for business, 12 edn. Cengage Learning, Mason
3.
Balogh T, Vigh LG (2016) Complex and comprehensive method for reliability calculation of structures under fire exposure. Fire Saf J 86:41–52CrossRef
4.
BSI (2001) BS 7974:2001, application of fire safety engineering principles to the design of buildings. Code of practice. British Standard
5.
BSI (2003) PD 7974-7:2003, application of fire safety engineering principles to the design of buildings—part 7: probabilistic risk assessment. British Standards Published Document.
6.
7.
Camerer CF, Kunreuther H (1989) Decision processes for low probability events: policy implications. J Policy Anal Manag 8:565–592CrossRef
8.
CCPS, Frank W, Farquharson J (2009) Guidelines for developing quantitative safety risk criteria. Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York
9.
CEN (2002) EN 1990: Eurocode 0: basis of structural design. European Standard
10.
CEN (2002) EN 1991-1-2: Eurocode 1: actions on structure—part 1-2: General actions—actions on structures exposed to fire. European Standard
11.
Commission of the European Communities (2000) Communication from the commission on the precautionary principle. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
12.
Communities and Local Government (2013) Approved Document B (fire safety)—buildings other than dwellinghouses. The Building Regulations 2010. CLG, London
13.
Croce PA, Grosshandler WL, Bukowski RW, Gritzo LA (2008) The international FORUM of fire research directors. A position paper on performance-based design for fire code applications. Fire Saf J 43:234–236CrossRef
14.
De Sanctis G, Fontana M (2016) Risk-based optimisation of fire safety egress provisions based on the LQI acceptance criterion. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 152:339–350CrossRef
15.
Doron C-O (2016) The experience of ‘risk’: genealogy and transformations. In: Burgess A, Alemanno A, Zinn JO (eds) Routledge handbook of risk studies. Routledge, New York
16.
Edwards v. national coal board (1949) All England Law Reports, 1, 743
17.
Elms DG (1992) Consistent crudeness in system construction. In: Topping BHV (ed) Optimisation and artificial intelligence in civil engineering, vol 1. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 61–70
18.
EU (2011) Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonized conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC. Official Journal of the European Union. L88/5-43
19.
Farmer FR (1967) Siting criteria—a new approach. Atom 128:152–179
20.
Fetherstonhaugh D, Slovic P, Johnson S, Friedrich J (1997) Insensitivity to the value of human life: a study of psychophysical numbing. J Risk Uncertain 14:283–300CrossRef
21.
Fischer K, Virguez E, Sánchez-Silva M, Faber MH (2013) On the assessment of marginal life saving costs for risk acceptance criteria. Struct Saf 44:37–46CrossRef
22.
Fischer K (2014) Societal decision-making for optimal fire safety. Doctoral dissertation. ETH Zurich, Switzerland
23.
Fischoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci 9:127–152CrossRef
24.
Gernay T, Elhami Khorasani N, Garlock M (2016) Fire fragility curves for steel buildings in a community context: a methodology. Eng Struct 113:259–276CrossRef
25.
Gulvanessian H, Calgaro J-A, Holický M (2002) Designer’s guide to EN 1990: Eurocode 0: Basis for structural design. Thomas Telford, London
26.
Health and Safety Executive (2001) Reducing risks, protecting people. TSO, London
27.
Health and Safety Executive (2002) Guidance on ‘as low as reasonably practicable’ (ALARP) decisions in control of major accident hazards (COMAH) (SPC/Permissioning/12)
28.
Hansen N, Steffensen F, Valkvist M, Jomaas G, Van Coile R (2018) A fire risk assessment model for residential high-rises with a single stairwell. Fire Saf J 95:160–169CrossRef
29.
Hede MB, Valkvist MB, Steffensen FB, Jomaas G (2011) Comparative evaluation of prescriptive, performance-based and risk-based fire safety in an office building. Poster session presented at 10th international symposium on fire safety science, MD, USA
30.
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
31.
Hopkin D, Van Coile R, Lange D (2017) Certain uncertainty—demonstrating safety in fire engineering and the need for safety targets. SFPE Europe, 07
32.
Hopkin D, Anastasov S, Swinburne K, Lay S, Rush D, Van Coile R (2017) Applicability of ambient temperature reliability targets for appraising structures exposed to fire. In: Proceedings of the CONFAB 2017, 10-12/09, London, UK
33.
Hopkin D, Van Coile R, 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
34.
Hopkin D, Spearpoint M, Van Coile R (2018) The J-value and its role in evaluating investments in fire safety schemes. Fire Technology (in press)
35.
House of Lords (2005) Government response to the management of risk. 7th report of session 2005–2006. TSO, London
36.
ISO (2015) ISO 2394:2015, general principles on reliability of structures. International Standard
37.
ISO (2015) ISO 16733-1:2015, fire safety engineering—selection of design fire scenarios and design fires—part 1: selection of design fire scenarios. International Standard
38.
39.
Jones-Lee M, Aven T (2011) ALARP—What does it really mean? Reliab Eng Syst Saf 96:877–882CrossRef
40.
Jonkman SN (2007) Loss of life estimation in flood risk assessment: theory and applications. Doctoral dissertation. TU Delft, the Netherlands
41.
Kahneman D (2011) Thinking fast and slow. Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, New York
42.
Kaplan S, Garrick BJ (1981) On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Anal 1:11–27CrossRef
43.
Lange D, Boström L, Schmid J (2016) Reliability of timber elements exposed to fire. In: Proceedings of the world conference on timber engineering WCTE; 22–25/8, Vienna, Austria
44.
45.
Lichtenstein S, Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Layman M, Combs B (1978) Judged frequency of lethal events. J Exp Psychol Hum Learn Mem 4:551–578CrossRef
46.
Maes MA, Faber MH (2007) Preferences, utility and risk perception in engineering decision making. Int J Risk Assess Manag 7:813–827CrossRef
47.
Meacham BJ, Charters D, Johnson P, Salisbury M (2016) Building fire risk analysis. In: SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering, 5th edn. Springer, New York
48.
Melchers RE (2001) On the ALARP approach to risk management. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 71:201–208CrossRef
49.
Nathwani J, Lind NC, Pandey MD (1997) Affordable safety by choice: the life quality method. University of Waterloo, Waterloo
50.
Pitblado R, Bardy M, Nalpanis P, Crossthwaite P, Molazemi K, Bekaert M, Raghunathan V (2012) International comparison on the application of societal risk criteria. Process Saf Prog 31(4):363–368CrossRef
51.
Proske D, Van Gelder P, Vrijling H (2008) Some remarks on perceived safety with regards to the optimal safety of structures. Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 103:65–71CrossRef
52.
Rackwitz R (2002) Optimization and risk acceptability based on the Life Quality Index. Struct Saf 24:297–331CrossRef
53.
Rush D, Lange D (2017) Towards a fragility assessment of a concrete column exposed to a real fire—Tisova Fire Test. Eng Struct 150:537–549CrossRef
54.
Saw JL, Wardman M, Wilday J, McGillivray A, Balmforth H, McManus H, Reston S, Rushton A (2009) Societal risk: initial briefing to societal risk technical advisory group. Research Report (RR 703). Health and Safety Laboratory and the Health and Safety Executive of the UK
55.
SFPE (2007) SFPE engineering guide to performance-based fire protection, 2nd edn
56.
Sleich JB, Cajot LG, Pierre M, Joyeux D, Aurtenetxe G, Unanua J, Pustorino S, Heise F-J, Salomon R, Twilt L, Van Oerle J (2002) Competitive steel buildings through natural fire safety concepts. EUR 20360:1–740
57.
Spinardi G, Bisby L, Torero J (2017) A review of sociological issues in fire safety regulation. Fire Technol 53:1011–1037CrossRef
58.
Sunstein CR (2005) Laws of fear. Beyond the precautionary principle. Cambridge University Press. CambridgeCrossRef
59.
The Stationery Office (2010) Schedule 1, part 2 of building and buildings. The Building Regulations, England and Wales
60.
The Stationery Office (2008) Guide to safety at sports grounds, 5th edn. UK
61.
Taleb NN (2007) The Black Swan: the impact of the highly improbable. Random House, New York
62.
Van Coile R, Caspeele R, Taerwe L (2014) Lifetime cost optimization for the structural fire resistance of concrete slabs. Fire Technol 50:1201–1227CrossRef
63.
Van Coile R, Pandey MD (2017) Investments in structural safety: the compatibility between the economic and societal optimum solutions. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on structural safety and reliability (ICOSSAR2017). 6-10/08, Vienna, Austria
64.
Van Coile R, Hopkin D, Bisby L, Caspeele R (2017) The meaning of Beta: background and applicability of the target reliability index for normal conditions to structural fire engineering. In: Proceedings of the PROTECT2017, 11-12/12, Guangzhou, China
65.
Van Coile R, Jomaas G, Bisby L (2018) Defining ALARP for fire safety engineering design via the Life Quality Index. Fire Safety Journal (unpublished manuscript)
66.
Van Weyenberge B, Deckers X, Merci B, Caspeele R (2016) Development of a risk assessment method for life safety in case of fire in rail tunnels. Fire Technol 52(5):1465–1479CrossRef
67.
Vrijling JK, van Gelder PHAJM (1997) Societal risk and the concept of risk aversion. In: Advances in safety and reliability (proceedings of the international conference on safety and reliability—ESREL’97), 17–20/06, Lisbon, Portugal, pp 45–52
68.
Weyman A, Barnett J (2016) Heuristics and biases in decision making about risk. In: Burgess A, Alemanno A, Zinn JO (eds) Routledge handbook of risk studies. Routledge, London
69.
Wolski A, Dembsey NA, Meacham BJ (2000) Accommodating perceptions of risk in performance-based building fire safety code development. Fire Saf J 34:297–309CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The Need for Hierarchies of Acceptance Criteria for Probabilistic Risk Assessments in Fire Engineering
Publication date
21-06-2018
Published in
Fire Technology / Issue 4/2019
Print ISSN: 0015-2684
Electronic ISSN: 1572-8099
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-018-0746-7

Other articles of this Issue 4/2019

Fire Technology 4/2019 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

A Monte Carlo-Based Probabilistic Barrier Failure Model for Arbitrary Fire Environment

OriginalPaper

Severity Measures and Stripe Analysis for Probasbilistic Structural Fire Engineering

OriginalPaper

Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Life Safety for a Six-Storey Commercial Building with an Open Stair Interconnecting Four Storeys: A Case Study

OriginalPaper

Probabilistic Analysis of Building Fire Severity Based on Fire Load Density Models

OriginalPaper

Probabilistic Study of the Resistance of a Simply-Supported Reinforced Concrete Slab According to Eurocode Parametric Fire

OriginalPaper

Fire Fragility Functions for Steel Frame Buildings: Sensitivity Analysis and Reliability Framework