Risk Index Method—A Tool for Building Fire Safety Assessments
Abstract
:Featured Application
Abstract
1. Introduction
1.1. Fire Safety Engineering and the Use of A Performance-Based Approach
1.2. Issues Surrounding Reality in the Application of a Performance-Based Approach
1.3. Fire Strategy Evaluation and Fire Risk Assessment
- What fire scenarios could be possible?
- What could be the consequences of the fire event?
- What is the likelihood of such an event (or events)?
2. Materials and Methods
- scoring of eight separate fire safety factors;
- presentation of the results at the fire strategy value grid;
- calculation of the fire risk index (FRI), which is used as the final factor for evaluation.
2.1. Fire Strategy Evaluation Methodology
2.2. Risk Profile
2.3. Scoring of Fire Safety Factors
2.4. Baseline Fire Strategy
2.5. Actual Fire Strategy
2.6. Fire Strategy Value Grid
2.7. Fire Risk Index Calculation
- Ei: EORG, ELIM, EPAS, EDET, ESUP, ESC, EMAI, EFB–score of each fire safety factor,
- Wi: WORG, WLIM, WPAS, WDET, WSUP, WSC, WMAI, WFB-weighting factors from Table 5.
- FHI—fire hazard index,
- PH—potential hazard,
- PM—protective measures.
- FRI—fire risk index,
- FHI—fire hazard index,
- Fi—Frequency of ignition (Table 7).
- Baseline strategy: PM = 490.6
- Actual strategy 1: PM = 470.4
- Actual strategy 2: PM = 498.8
- PH (in all cases) = 345.2/100 = 4.906
- Actual strategy 1: FHI = PH/PM × 100 = (4.906/470.4) × 100 = 1.04
- Actual strategy 2: FHI = PH/PM × 100 = (4.906/498.8) × 100 = 0.98
- (Note that for the baseline strategy: FHI = 1).
- Baseline strategy: FSRI = FHI·Fi = 1 × 1.8 × 10−2 = 1.8 × 10−2
- Actual strategy 1: FSRI = FHI·Fi = 1.04× 1.8 × 10−2 = 1.97 × 10−2
- Actual strategy 2: FSRI = FHI·Fi = 0.98 × 1.8 × 10−2 = 1.86 ×10−2.
2.8. Strengths and Limitations of the Presented Methodology and A Future Research
- a structured process which motivates the fire strategist to take a closer look at the fire protection measures included in the building’s fire strategy and their systematic presentation;
- a transparent and simultaneous form of presentation of all the fire measures,
- independent of failure statistics, which traditionally are deemed to not be entirely credible;
- a focus on the real objectives which the fire strategy should cover;
- a better understanding of the holistic approach to fire strategies;
- an ability to identify the fire risk index and verify the actual fire strategy against the baseline fire strategy.
- Limitations include:
- the requirement to identify a frequency of ignition factor, which is typically unreliable because of lack of data;
- the subjectivity of the baseline fire strategy default scores, as well as the potential hazard factors and weighting factors values;
- the evaluation factors are limited.
3. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Bryant, P. Fire Strategies-Strategic Thinking; Kingfell: London, UK, 2013; p. 186. [Google Scholar]
- British Standard BS 5588-1. 1990, Fire Precautions in the Design, Construction and Use of Buildings. Code of Practice for Residential Buildings (Withdrawn); British Standard: London, UK, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- British Standard DD 240-1. 1997, Fire Safety Engineering in Buildings. Guide to the Application of Fire Safety Engineering Principles (Withdrawn); British Standard: London, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- British Standard DD 240-2. 1997, Fire Safety Engineering in Buildings. Commentary on the Equations Given in Part 1 (withdrawn); British Standard: London, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- British Standard BS 7974. 2019, Application of Fire Safety Engineering Principles to the Design of Buildings. Code of Practice; British Standard: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- British Standard PD 7974-0. 2002, Guide to Design Framework and Fire Safety Engineering Procedures; British Standard: London, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- British Standard PD 7974-1. 2019, Application of Fire Safety Engineering Principles to the Design of Buildings. Initiation and Development of Fire within the Enclosure of Origin; British Standard: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- British Standard PD 7974-2. 2019, Application of Fire Safety Engineering Principles to the Design of Buildings. Spread of Smoke and Toxic Gases within and Beyond the Enclosure of Origin; British Standard: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- British Standard PD 7974-3. 2019, Application of Fire Safety Engineering Principles to the Design of Buildings. Structural Response and Fire Spread Beyond the Enclosure of Origin; British Standard: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- British Standard PD 7974-4. 2003, Application of Fire Safety Engineering Principles to the Design of Buildings. Detection of Fire and Activation of Fire Protection Systems; British Standard: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- British Standard PD 7974-5. 2019, Application of Fire Safety Engineering Principles to the Design of Buildings. Fire and Rescue Service Intervention; British Standard: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- British Standard PD 7974-6. 2019, Application of Fire Safety Engineering Principles to the Design of Buildings. Human Factors. Life Safety Strategies. Occupant Evacuation, Behaviour and Condition; British Standard: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- British Standard PD 7974-7. 2019, Application of Fire Safety Engineering Principles to the Design of Buildings. Probabilistic Risk Assessment; British Standard: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- British Standard PD 7974-8. 2012, Application of Fire Safety Engineering Principles to the Design of Buildings. Property Protection, Business and Mission Continuity, and Resilience; British Standard: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- The UK Building Regulations. Volume 1: Dwelling houses. In Approved Document B (Fire Safety); (2006 edition incorporating 2010 and 2013 amendments); The UK Building Regulation: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- The UK Building Regulations. Volume 2: Buildings other than dwelling houses. In Approved Document B (Fire Safety); (2006 edition incorporating 2010 and 2013 amendments); The UK Building Regulations: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- British Standard BS 9999. Fire Safety in the Design, Management and Use of Buildings. Code of Practice; British Standard: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- British Standard PAS 911. Fire Strategies-Guidance And Framework for Their Formulation; British Standard: London, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- NFPA 101A. Guide on Alternative Approaches to Life Safety; National Fire Protection Association: Quincy, MA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Nelson, H.E.; Shibe, A.J.A. System for Fire Safety Evaluation of Health Care Facilities NBSIR 78-1555-1; National Bureau of Standards: Washington, DC, USA, 1978.
- NFPA 101. Life Safety Code; National Fire Protection Association: Quincy, MA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- New Zealand Building Code. Clauses C1-C6 Protection from Fire, C/VM2 Verification Method: Framework for Fire Safety Design; The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment: Wellington, New Zealand, 2014.
- The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. UAE Fire and Life Safety Code of Practice–DCD; The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment: Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 2018.
- Hasofer, A.M.; Thomas, I.R. Cost Benefit Analysis of a Fire Safety System Based on the Life Quality Index. Fire Saf. Sci. 2008, 9, 969–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albrech, C. Quantifying life safety Part II: Quantification of fire protection systems. Fire Saf. J. 2014, 64, 81–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weyenberge, B.; Deckers, X.; Caspeele, R.; Merci, B. Development of a Risk Assessment Method for Life Safety in Case of Fire in Rail Tunnels. Fire Technol. 2016, 52, 1465–1479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Messerschmidt, B.; Lamont, S. Fire Risk Assessment of High Rise Buildings With Combustible Exterior Wall Assemblies: NFPA’s EFFECT® Tool. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Fire Science and Engineering, Interflam 2019, Royal Holloway College—University of London, London, UK, 1–3 July 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Park, H.; Meacham, B.; Dembsey, N.; Goulthorpe, M. Conceptual Model Development for Holistic Building Fire Safety Performance Analysis. Fire Technol. 2015, 51, 173–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xin, J.; Huang, C. Fire risk analysis of residential buildings based on scenario clusters and its application in fire risk management. Fire Saf. J. 2013, 62, 72–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meacham, B. An Holistic Framework for Risk-Informed Performance-Based Building Regulation. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Fire Science and Engineering, Interflam 2019, Royal Holloway College—University of London, Lodon, UK, 1–3 July 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Van Hees, P.; Stromgren, M.; Meacham, B. An Holistic Approach for Fire Safety Requirements and Design of Facade Systems. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Fire Science and Engineering, Interflam 2019, Royal Holloway College—University of, London, UK, 1–3 July 2019. [Google Scholar]
- NFPA 550. Guide to the Fire Safety Concepts Tree; National Fire Protection Association: Quincy: MA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- NFPA 551. Guide for the Evaluation of Fire Risk Assessments; National Fire Protection Association: Quincy, MA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Van Coile, R.; Hopkin, D.; Lange, D.; Jomaas, G.; Bisby, L. The Need for Hierarchies of Acceptance Criteria for Probabilistic Risk Assessments in Fire Engineering. Fire Technol. 2019, 55, 1111–1146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISO 31000. Risk Management–Guidelines; International Organization for Standardization: Geneve, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- British Standard PAS 79. Fire Risk Assessment. Guidance and a Recommended Methodology; British Standard: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- De Smet, E. Fire Risk Assessment Method for Engineering–FRAME. 2008. Available online: http://www.framemethod.net/ (accessed on 15 April 2021).
- Watts, J.M., Jr. Fire Risk Indexing. In SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering; Hurley, J., Ed.; Society of Fire Protection Engineers: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2016; pp. 3158–3182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gretener, M. Evaluation of Fire Hazard and Determining Protective Measures; Association of Cantonal Institutions for Fire Insurance (VKF); Fire Prevention Service for Industry and Trade (BVD): Zurich, Switzerland, 1973. [Google Scholar]
- Brzezińska, D.; Bryant, P. Buildings Fire Protection Strategies; Lodz University of Technology: Lodz, Poland, 2018; p. 209. ISBN 978-83-7283-899-5. [Google Scholar]
- Brzezińska, D.; Bryant, P. New Anglo-Polish Methodology for Fire Strategies Evaluation. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Fire Science and Engineering, Interflam 2019, Royal Holloway College–University of London, London, UK, 1–3 July 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Brzezińska, D.; Bryant, P.; Markowski, A. Fire Risk Index Assessment as an Evaluation Method for Fire Strategies in the Process Industry. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2019, 77, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brzezińska, D.; Bryant, P.; Markowski, A. Fire Risk Index Assessment as an Evaluation Method for Fire Strategies in the Process Industry. In Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on Loss Prevention and Safety Promotion in the Process Industries and accompanying exhibition, Delft, The Netherlands, 16–19 June 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Brzezińska, D.; Bryant, P. Risk Index Method–A Tool for Sustainable, Holistic Building Fire Strategies. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brzezińska, D.; Bryant, P.; Markowski, A. An Alternative Evaluation and Indicating Methodology for Sustainable Fire Safety in the Process Industry. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Di Nardo, M.; Madonna, M.; Murino, T.; Castagna, F. Modelling a Safety Management System Using System Dynamics at the Bhopal Incident. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Di Nardo, M.; Gallo, M.; Murino, T.; Santillo, L.C. System Dynamics Simulation for Fire and Explosion Risk Analysis in Home Environment, International Review on Modelling and Simulations. IREMOS 2017, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryant, P. A Semi-Quantitative Method for the Evaluation of Holistic Fire Strategies for Non-Standard Public Buildings. Ph.D. Thesis, Lodz University of Technology, Lodz, Poland, January 2020. [Google Scholar]
Occupancy Characteristic | Fire Growth Rate | Risk Profile |
---|---|---|
A (Occupants who are awake and familiar with the building) | 1 Slow | A1 |
2 Medium | A2 | |
3 Fast | A3 | |
4 Ultrafast | A4 (A) | |
B (Occupants who are awake and unfamiliar with the building) | 1 Slow | B1 |
2 Medium | B2 | |
3 Fast | B3 | |
4 Ultrafast | B4 (A) | |
C (Occupants who are likely to be asleep) | 1 Slow | C1 (B) |
2 Medium | C2 (B) | |
3 Fast | C3 (B),(C) | |
4 Ultrafast | C4 (A),(B) |
Layer of Fire Protection | Fire safety Factor (FSF) | Symbol | Score |
---|---|---|---|
Fire prevention and fire spread limitation | 1. Organisation and Management [ORG] | ORG | 0–25 |
2. Control of ignition sources and combustible materials [LIM] | LIM | 0–25 | |
Fire protection measures | 3. Fire and smoke spread limitation-passive systems [PAS] | PAS | 0–25 |
4. Detection and alarm communication [DET] | DET | 0–25 | |
5. Fire suppression [SUP] | SUP | 0–25 | |
6. Smoke control and evacuation [SC] | SC | 0–25 | |
7. Maintenance of fire precautions and systems [MAI] | MAI | 0–25 | |
Fire fighting | 8. Fire services intervention [FB] | FB | 0–25 |
Objective | Life | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risk Profile/ Fire Safety Factor | A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | B1 | B2 | B3 | B4 | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 |
EORG | 3 | 3 | 10 | 20 | 6 | 8 | 12 | 17 | 4 | 3 | 9 | 16 |
ELIM | 21 | 19 | 13 | 9 | 21 | 19 | 13 | 9 | 21 | 19 | 13 | 9 |
EPAS | 8 | 9 | 17 | 19 | 9 | 11 | 18 | 24 | 10 | 12 | 19 | 24 |
EDET | 1 | 5 | 13 | 23 | 1 | 7 | 16 | 25 | 5 | 10 | 18 | 25 |
ESUP | 1 | 1 | 14 | 21 | 1 | 3 | 18 | 23 | 3 | 3 | 19 | 25 |
ESC | 2 | 2 | 10 | 19 | 2 | 8 | 12 | 19 | 14 | 14 | 18 | 19 |
EMAI | 1 | 7 | 13 | 19 | 1 | 7 | 13 | 19 | 3 | 7 | 13 | 19 |
EFB | 1 | 3 | 14 | 23 | 1 | 6 | 14 | 23 | 4 | 7 | 14 | 23 |
Fire Safety Factor (FSF) | Fire Strategy Evaluation Form | ||
---|---|---|---|
Fire Safety Element | Maximum Score | ||
1. Organisation and Management (ORG) | 1 | Fire strategy: not developed (0)/has been developed for selected aspects (1)/has been developed and documented in all aspects necessary for the pre-defined strategy objectives (4) | 4 |
2 | Documented fire safety procedures for the building (1) + implementation of the procedures (1) + regularly controlled updates (1) + documented evacuation plans for all floors (1) | 4 | |
3 | Central building security personnel for the building (1) + trained fire wardens on all floors/in zones (3) + regular evacuation drills with specific staff participation (2)/regular evacuation drills involving all building occupants (3) | 7 | |
4 | Fire safety training: only key staff (2)/all staff (4) | 4 | |
5 | Independent certification and audit system for fire safety management: only mandatory checks (1) + full regular fire safety audits, undertaken by specialist bodies (1) | 2 | |
6 | Management commitment to fire safety including fire safety management review meetings and training of personnel in the key aspects of the management, operation and maintenance of fire protection systems and the principles of fire strategy, evacuation strategy awareness, etc. (0 to 4) | 4 | |
Total | 25 | ||
2. Control of ignition sources and combustible materials (LIM) | 1 | Fire load density [MJ/m2] (>4000) (0)/(>2000, ≤4000) (1)/(>1000, ≤2000) (2)/(>500, ≤1000) (4)/(≤500) (5) + High hazard ignition sources Y (0)/N (2) | 7 |
2 | Expected fire growth: ultrafast (0), fast (1), medium (4), slow (5) | 5 | |
3 | High-risk areas of the building are separated from other parts of the building by suitable fire-resisting construction Y (2)/N (0) + high levels of combustible materials stored in the building-Y (0)/N (2) | 4 | |
4 | Smoke production from construction products and fixed equipment (the worst case): s3 and products of reaction to fire class ≤E (0)/s2 (1)/s1 and products of reaction to fire class A1 (2) | 2 | |
5 | Reaction to fire class of construction products (claddings/coverings) (the worst case) ≤E (0)/D i C (1)/B (2) ≥A2 (3) | 3 | |
6 | Reaction to fire class of the building insulation products (external walls, roof) (the worst case): ≤E (0)/D i C (1)/B (2) ≥A2 (4) | 4 | |
Total maximum | 25 | ||
3. Fire and smoke spread limitation-passive systems (PAS) | 1 | Fire resistance of structural elements: <15 min (0), 15 min (1), 30 min (2), 60 min (3), 90 min (4), ≥120 min (6), | 6 |
2 | Maximum fire resistance of internal subdivisions: 30 min (1), 60 min (2), 120 min (3), 240 min (4) | 4 | |
3 | Fire resistance of doors and shutters: No resistance rating (0)/30 min (1), 60 min (2), 120 min (3), 240 min (4) | 4 | |
4 | Distance from neighbouring buildings: Not in accordance with regulations (0)/in accordance with regulations (2)/fire wall used as separation (2)/the heat flux density on adjacent object walls <12,5 kW/m2 (2) | 2 | |
5 | Compartmentation-fire zones [m2] (>20000) (0)/(>10000, ≤20000) (1)/(>5000, ≤10000) (2)/(>2000, ≤5000) (3)/(>1000, ≤2000) (4)/(≤1000) (5) | 5 | |
6 | Activation of fire shutters, doors, dampers etc. with fusible links (1), manual activation via control panel (2)/automatic after verification (3)/automatic (4) | 4 | |
Total maximum | 25 | ||
4. Detection and alarm communication (DET) | 1 | Full monitoring, i.e. detection in all risk areas (5)/partial monitoring (1) + detection in evacuation routes (1)/manual system (1)/no detection (0) | 5 |
2 | Expected detection response time (>420 s) (0)/(>300 s, ≤420 s) (2)/(>180 s, ≤300 s) (3)/(≤180 s) (5)? | 5 | |
3 | All detection devices are appropriate for the risk (0 to 4) | 4 | |
4 | Sufficient and suitable control and indicating equipment in the building, including power supplies and cables (2) + certified systems (1) | 3 | |
5 | False alarms controlling procedures: No (0)/Yes (4) | 4 | |
6 | Alarm warning systems: sounders (1)/voice alarm (2)/Voice alarm with public address (3) + active visual support signage (1) | 4 | |
Total maximum | 25 | ||
5. Fire suppression (SUP) | 1 | Fire suppression systems covering all risk areas (3)/partial coverage only (2)/no suppression systems (0) + fast response sprinklers (1) | 4 |
2 | Fire suppression response time index (RTI): standard B (>200, ≤300) (1)/standard A (>80, ≤200) (2)/special (>50, ≤80) (3)/fast (≤50) (4)? | 4 | |
3 | Expected activation time: (s): >300 (0)/(>200, ≤300) (1)/(>150, ≤200) (2)/(>120, ≤150) (3)/(≤120) (4)? | 4 | |
4 | Fire suppression systems appropriate to the height of storage (2) + type of combustible material (2) + storage method (2) | 6 | |
5 | Reliability of suppression installation: system monitoring (1), independent power supply and water suppression systems (1) operation + dual water supply (1) + double source water supply (1) | 4 | |
6 | Hose reels covering all parts of the building Y (1)/N (0) + portable fire extinguishers (pfe) with rated extinguishing efficiency provided sited to standard accepted densities (1) or enhanced densities (2). | 3 | |
Total maximum | 25 | ||
6. Smoke control and evacuation (SC) | 1 | Stair core smoke control: Non-existent (0)/in place but effectiveness not specified (1)/assured protection of means of escape (2) + assured support for firefighting operations (1) + monitored for all system failures (1) | 4 |
2 | Horizontal evacuation routes smoke control system: Non-existent (0)/in place but effectiveness not specified (1)/assured protection of means of escape (2) + assured support for firefighting operations (1) + monitored for all system failures (1) | 4 | |
3 | Smoke enclosure control system: Non-existent (0)/in place but effectiveness not specified (1)/assured protection of means of escape (2) + assured support for firefighting operations (1) + monitored for all system failures (1) | 4 | |
4 | Aspects of the construction of the means of escape could potentially lead to uncontrolled smoke production (0)/Suitable control of combustible materials on horizontal evacuation routes (1) + vertical evacuation routes (2) | 3 | |
5 | Dimensions of stair cores and horizontal evacuation routes relevant to the amount and profile of occupants (0 to 2) + at least two stair cores (2) + at least two directions of travel from each area (2). | 6 | |
6 | Evacuation signage: Passive signage correctly selected and arranged (1)/illuminated signage systems (2)/dynamic illuminated signage systems to control movement of occupants (4) | 4 | |
Total maximum | 25 | ||
7. Maintenance of fire precautions and systems (MAI) | 1 | Has the design, installation and commissioning of firefighting and fire protection systems been carried out in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and standards? Y (2)/N (0) + by certified contractors Y (2)/partly (1)/N (0) | 4 |
2 | Is there a suitable inventory of firefighting and fire protection systems (1) + operation and maintenance information (2)? | 3 | |
3 | Maintenance procedures and inspections in accordance with minimum national regulations (1) + manufacturer’s instructions (2) + national standards (2)? | 5 | |
4 | Functional testing (over and above minimum requirements) of firefighting and fire protection systems to ensure maximum levels of availability and reliability: Y (6)/partly (3)/N (0)? | 6 | |
5 | Systems used to monitor in real-time the availability and reliability of firefighting and fire protection systems: Y (3)/partly (1)/N (0)? | 3 | |
6 | Modifications to firefighting and protection system recorded (1) + monitored (1) + audited (2) | 4 | |
Total maximum | 25 | ||
8. Fire services intervention (FB) | 1 | Method of communication with fire-fighters: Manual means by building user (e.g., no automatic fire detection) (0)/manual means by building user in the case of fire detection operation (1)/automatic, via alarm receiving center with alarm confirmed by external staff (2)/automatic, via alarm receiving center with alarm confirmed by staff on site (4). | 4 |
2 | Availability of on-site fire safety personnel to assist (2)/nominal or part time availability (1)/no availability (0) | 2 | |
3 | Fire brigade arrival time [s] (>900) (0)/(>600, ≤900) (2)/(>300, ≤600) (4)/(≤300) (6) | 6 | |
4 | Access to the building: No direct access (0)/limited access to the building (1)/direct access to at least 50% or two sides of a building (2)/direct access to all parts of building perimeter (3) | 3 | |
5 | Internal communication for fire-fighting purposes within the building: difficult (0)/easy (1) + easy access to the fire control panel (1) + graphic display showing fire locations (1) + lighting of evacuation routes suitable for firefighting effort (1) + at least 2 staircases (1) + fire-fighters lifts with lobbies (1) | 6 | |
6 | Fire service facilities: No firefighting facilities (0)/suitable fire-fighting hose reels or dry/wet risers on each level (2) + smoke ventilation controls available (1) + fire pump provisions on site (1) | 4 | |
Total maximum | 25 |
Objective | Life | Property | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risk Profile/ Weighting Factor | A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | B1 | B2 | B3 | B4 | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 |
WORG | 0.6 | 0.6 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 1.2 | 1.6 | 2.4 | 3.4 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 1.8 | 3.2 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 2.8 | 3.6 |
WLIM | 4.2 | 3.8 | 2.6 | 1.8 | 4.2 | 3.8 | 2.6 | 1.8 | 4.2 | 3.8 | 2.6 | 1.8 | 2.4 | 2.0 | 1.2 | 0.4 |
WPAS | 1.6 | 1.8 | 3.4 | 3.8 | 1.8 | 2.2 | 3.6 | 4.8 | 2.0 | 2.4 | 3.8 | 4.8 | 1.8 | 2.2 | 3.8 | 4.8 |
WDET | 0.2 | 1.0 | 2.6 | 4.6 | 0.2 | 1.4 | 3.2 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.6 | 5.0 | 0.2 | 1.4 | 3.2 | 4.4 |
WSUP | 0.2 | 0.2 | 2.8 | 4.2 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 3.6 | 4.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 3.8 | 5.0 | 0.6 | 2.8 | 3.8 | 4.8 |
WSC | 0.4 | 0.4 | 2.0 | 3.8 | 0.4 | 1.6 | 2.4 | 3.8 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 3.6 | 3.8 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 1.4 | 1.4 |
WMAI | 0.2 | 1.4 | 2.6 | 3.8 | 0.2 | 1.4 | 2.6 | 3.8 | 0.6 | 1.4 | 2.6 | 3.8 | 0.8 | 2.4 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
WFB | 0.2 | 0.6 | 2.8 | 4.6 | 0.2 | 1.2 | 2.8 | 4.6 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 2.8 | 4.6 | 0.8 | 1.8 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
Objective | Risk Profile | Potential Hazard Factor (PH) * |
---|---|---|
Life | A1 | 1.04 |
A2 | 1.08 | |
A3 | 2.78 | |
A4 | 6.13 | |
B1 | 1.13 | |
B2 | 1.51 | |
B3 | 3.45 | |
B4 | 6.70 | |
C1 | 1.62 | |
C2 | 1.83 | |
C3 | 3.97 | |
C4 | 6.83 | |
Property | A/B/C1 | 0.58 |
A/B/C2 | 1.43 | |
A/B/C3 | 3.82 | |
A/B/C4 | 6.14 |
Occupancy | Probability of Fire (y−1) |
---|---|
Industrial | 0.9·10−2 |
Offices | 0.4·10−2 |
Assembly entertainment | 0.7·10−2 |
Hospitals | 2.6·10−2 |
Schools | 1.4·10−2 |
Dwellings | 0.13·10−2 |
Food and drinks premises, hotels, hostels, communal living | 4.6·10−2 |
Other public buildings and services | 1.8·10−2 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Brzezińska, D.; Bryant, P. Risk Index Method—A Tool for Building Fire Safety Assessments. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3566. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11083566
Brzezińska D, Bryant P. Risk Index Method—A Tool for Building Fire Safety Assessments. Applied Sciences. 2021; 11(8):3566. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11083566
Chicago/Turabian StyleBrzezińska, Dorota, and Paul Bryant. 2021. "Risk Index Method—A Tool for Building Fire Safety Assessments" Applied Sciences 11, no. 8: 3566. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11083566