Showing papers on "Occupancy published in 1986"

Evaluation Of The Risk Problem And The Selection Of The Optimum Risk Management Solution

Abstract: The determination of optimum fire protection engineering solutions at present is a predominantly subjective based process. An analytical technique is offered to evaluate risk and the manager's aversion toward risk to better employ the risk management options of loss transfer, loss absorption, and loss reduction. An engineering method presently exists for numerically evaluating a relative level of risk in any building. The flame movement part of the method involves the determination of the probability of success in terminating a fire within each space of a building. The effectiveness of each barrier surrounding the space, also can be evaluated whether it be a floor, ceiling, wall, or an empty void. An illustrative case study has been offered to demonstrate the incorporation of the engineering method into a decision analysis of possible alternatives based on the risk attitude of the decision maker. This case study illustrates how the three risk management options can be considered rationally and quantitatively. THE ENGINEERING METHOD AND RISK MANAGEMENT There exists today a detailed engineering method (1) which, regardless of size or occupancy, can evaluate in a consistent manner any building. Through the application of this engineering method, a COPE (*) evaluation is performed which yields relative assessments of risk. Once the fire risk of a particular building is quantified, the appropriate parties can analyze possible risk management solutions. The evaluation of these components yields a probability value in the form of an L-curve. The L-curve is a graphical representaion of the cumulative probability (from 0.0 to 1.0) that a fire will be limited to the space being considered. limited, in this sense, means that the fire will not propagate beyond the area which has been evaluated. Figure 1 shows typical L-curves. This paper will concentrate its use of the engineering method on the Flame Movement Analysis. We wish to evaluate the likelihood that a fire will be limited to an area of a building. This likelihood is based on four engineering method parameters which evaluate COPE: an evaluation of the hazard present --the I curve; the automatic suppression system--the A-curve; manual fire fighting--the M~curve, and barrier effectiveness; either physical or spatial. (*) COPE is acronym for the class of construction, occupancy, installed fire protection systems, and external exposures of a building. FIRE SAFETY SCIENCE-PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM 627 Copyright © International Association for Fire Safety Science An evaluation of a barrier is dependent on the sPecific type of fire that will attack the barrier, and of course barrier construction. A barrier can either be physical, or a space separation. A fire must penetrate the barrier to cause ignition in the next space. RISK MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS By simply inserting a zero value for any L-curve component (1-, A-, M-,& B) into a network calculation, the effect that that component has in the L-curve can be negated. The ease of this "what if" situation capability is ideal for an effective comparison of various loss prevention alternatives and the resources required to implement them. The extent of loss under different risk management situations is of primary importance if risk decisions are to be made. Loss estimates of the various risk management parameters can be easily assessed with the aid of the final product of the engineering method: the L-curve. This paper will address NLE and MFL risk management parameters using the L-curve.. NLE and MFL CURVES The risk management parameters commonly used are Normal Loss expectancy (NLE) and Maximum Foreseeable Loss (MFL). Though these terms are used widely by those professionals dealing with risk management, definitions of each parameter are not Widely consistent. Therefore, definitions of the risk management parameters as used in this paper will be given.