Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Fire Safety Science

Edited by:

Prof Bart Merci, Ghent University - Faculty of Engineering and

Architecture

Dr Georgios Boustras, Center for Risk, Safety and the Environment

(CERISE), European University Cyprus

EUC Cultural Center, Nicosia June 16th – 18th 2015

Acknowledgements

The editors would like to thank the organizing committee, the program committee and all those

that worked to bring this symposium to success. In particular we would like to thank Mr Chris

Bachtsetzis for the valuable help throughout and for helping us enormously with the

proceedings.

Nicosia, June 2015.

ISBN 978-9963-2177-0-0

Table of Contexts

Keynote Lectures

“Fire hazards with new energy carriers”, G.Marlair, A. Lecocq, B. Truchot, ………………p.1

“Fire Extinguishment in Large Facilities – A Case Study from Research to Engineering

Application”, Hong-Zeng Yu ………………………………………………………………...p. 10

“Fire Research for the Fire Service”, Stefan Svensson ……………………………………p. 18

“Forest Fire Safety Research”, D. X. Viegas ……………………………………………....p. 26

Papers submitted and accepted for presentation

“A comprehensive approach for the fire safety design of tall automated warehouses”, P.

Lhotsky, C. Mastroberardino, G. Hadjisophocleous …………………………………………..p. 31

“Experimental Study of Upward and Lateral Flame Spread on MDF Boards in Corner

Configurations”, D. Zeinali, T. Beji, G. Maragkos, J. Degroote, B. Merci

………………………………………………………………………………………………….p. 35

“Application of FDS to an Under-Ventilated Enclosure Fire with External Flaming”, G.

Zhao, T. Beji, and B. Merci ………………………………………………………………...…p. 41

“Numerical Simulation on Mass Flow across the Smoke Layer Interface in a Room Fire

under Mechanical Extraction”, L. Yi, Y.Z. Li, R. Huo and W.K. Chow

………………………………………………………………………………………………….p. 47

“A Study on Building-Integrated Photovoltaic System Fire with Double-Skin Façade by

Scale Modeling Experiment”, Nadia C.L. Chow, S.S. Han ………………………………...p. 52

“Full-scale Experiments to Investigate the use of a Water Curtain over Openings to

Prevent Fire Spread to Adjacent Properties”, Matt Turco, Paul Lhotsky, and George

Hadjisophocleous ……………………………………………………………………………...p. 57

“Geographic Reasoning on Multi-Sensor Smoke Spread Data”, F. Vandecasteele1, T. Beji, B.

Merci, S. Verstockt …………………………………………………………………………………p. 63

“Fire Exposure Assessment Inside Large Buildings”, M. Chaos …………………...……p. 69

“Model for Estimating Property Loss Risk in Building Fires”, A.Paajanen, T.

Hakkarainen, K. Tillander ……………………………………………………………………..p. 75

“Large eddy simulations of a one meter diameter methane fire plume”, G. Maragkos, B.

Merci …………………………………………………………………………………………..p. 80

“The assessment of meteorological risk for wildfires in the Adriatic region of Croatia”,

Tomislav Kozarić, Marija Mokorić, Lovro Kalin …………………………………………….p. 86

“Large Eddy Simulations of a Ceiling-Jet Induced by the Impingement of a Turbulent Hot

Air Plume on a Horizontal Ceiling”, S. Ebrahim Zadeh, G. Maragkos, T. Beji, B. Merci

………………………………………………………………………………………….……....p. 91

“Modeling of thermal events in Lithium-ion batteries”, P. Andersson, J. Anderson, F.

Larsson, B-E. Mellander ………………………………………………………………….…...p. 97

“Fire risks with Lithium-ion batteries – Measurements of gas emissions”, Petra Andersson,

Per Blomqvist, Fredrik Larsson, Anders Lorén ……………………………………………...p. 102

“Experimental Study on the Two-Dimensional Spread of Smoldering Peat Fires”, Xinyan

Huang, Francesco Restuccia, Michela Gramola, Guillermo Rein

………………………………………………………………………………………..p. 107

“Flame Spread Monitoring and Estimation of the Heat Release Rate from a

Cable Tray Fire using Video Fire Analysis (VFA)”, T. Beji, S. Verstockt, P. Zavaleta, B.

Merci ………………………………………………………………………………...p. 113

“Modeling the Bench-Scale Fire Experiments of Medium Density Fiberboard”, Kaiyuan

Li, Xinyan Huang, Jie Ji …………………………………………………………………....p. 119

“Probabilistic Study of the Resistance of a Generic Concrete Structure according to

Eurocode Natural Fire”, Mohammad Heidari, Fabienne Robert, Guillermo Rein

…………………………………………………………………………………………..…….p. 125

“Numerical simulation of cable tunnel fire suppression with water mist”, K. Laakkonen, J.

Vaari ……………………………………………………………………………………...…..p. 131

“Experimental study of soot deposition during an enclosed pool fire”, Louis Decoster, Axel

Bellivier, Olivier Vauquelin, Fabien Candelier, Herve Bazin

……………………………………………………………………………………………...…p. 137

“The Effect of Wind on Burning Rate”, S. McAllister, M. Finney ……………………....p. 142

“Evaluate efficiency of water mist suppression of Class A fire by ISO room and bench

scale tests”, Qiang XU, Cong JIN, Greg GRIFFIN, Yong JIANG ………………………....p. 148

“A preliminary thermal and mechanical simulation study of load-bearing cold-formed steel

drywall systems exposed to fire”, Ilias D. Thanasoulas, Iason K. Vardakoulias, Dionysios I.

Kolaitis, Charis J. Gantes, Maria A. Founti ……………………………………………….....p. 154

“Experimental investigation of Externally Venting Flames using a medium-scale

compartment-façade configuration”, Eleni K. Asimakopoulou, Dionysios I. Kolaitis and

Maria A. Founti ……………………………………………………………………………....p. 160

“Design Tool for the Definition of Thermal Barriers for Combustible Insulation

Materials”, J. P. Hidalgo, Welch, S., J. L. Torero ………………………………………..…p. 166

“Experimental characterization of the water density pattern from sprinkler nozzles

arrangement in a confined and mechanically ventilated compartment”, H. Pretrel and L.

Audouin ……………………………………………………………………………………....p. 171

“Comprehensive Aerial System Coupled with Sensor Network for Early Fire Detection,

Prevention, Monitoring, Prediction and Fighting”, I.Gkotsis, P. Michalis, G. Leventakis,

L.Georgaklis, K.Votis, S.Rogotis, D.Tzovaras

……………………………………………………………………………………..…p. 177

“Radiative heat flux in a pre-flashover compartment fire”, N. Johansson & J. Wahlqvist

………………………………………………………………………………………..p. 178

“Development of a CFD Model for Large-Scale Rack-Storage Fires of Cartoned

Unexpanded Plastic Commodity”, Ankur Gupta , Karl Meredith, Gaurav Agarwal, Sai

Thumuluru, Yibing Xin, Marcos Chaos and Yi Wang ………………………………………p. 183

“Parametric CFD study of an air curtain for smoke confinement”, L.-X. Yu, T. Beji, S.

Ebrahim Zadeh, F. Liu, B. Merci …………………………………………………………….p. 189

“A framework for evaluating the thermal behavior of carbon fiber composite materials”,

J.P. Hidalgo, P. Pironi, R.M. Hadden, S. Welch ………………………………………...…p. 195

“Fire Safe Design of Concrete – For or Against Spalling?”, C. Maluk and L. Bisby

………………………………………………………………………………………………...p. 201

“Experimental Study on the Thermal Decomposition of C6F-ketone”, Renming Pan, Kuang

Qin, Liying Cao, Qiang Xu, Pin Zhang ……………………………………………………...p. 207

“Improvement of the Firefighters' Training: Assessment of the Constraints During

Compartment Fire Behavior Trainings in Shipping Container”, S. Roblin, B. Batiot, T.

Rogaume, F. Richard, J. Baillargeat, M. Poisson , A. Collin, Z. Acem, A. Marchand, M.

Lepelletier …………………………………………………………………………………....p. 213

“Modeling the fire behavior of polymer composites for transport applications”, A.Matala,

A. Paajanen, T. Korhonen, S. Hostikka ………………………………………….….p. 219

“An experimental investigation of improvised incendiary devices used in urban riots: The

‘Molotov cocktail’ ”, Dionysios I. Kolaitis ……………………………….………….p. 224

“Determination of the moisture content of Nordic spruce wood with an integral model”, P.

Mindykowski, M. Jørgensen, S. Svensson, G. Jomaas …………………………………………….p. 230

“Fire performance of plasterboard containing Phase Change Materials”, M. S.

McLaggan, R. M. Hadden, M. Gillie ………………………………………………...………p. 234

“Predictions of external radiative heat flux using various modeling approaches vs.

experimental data”, Piotr Tofilo, Vladimir Mozer ………………………………….……...p. 240

“Study of Fumes Cooling Efficiency with the 3D Firefighting Method”, S. Brohez, C.

Delvosalle, C. Fourneau …………………………………………………………………..….p. 245

“Developing and Post-Flashover Fires in a Full Scale Room. Thermal Environment, Toxic

Emissions and Effects of Fire-fighting Tactics”, Abdulaziz A. Alarifi, Herodotos N.

Phylaktou, Gordon E. Andrews, Jim Dave2 and Omar A. Aljumaiah

………………………………………………………………………………………..p. 251

“Modeling of large-scale syngas jet fires”, Z.S. Saldi, J.X. Wen …………….……...p. 257

“Developing and Managing a System for Prevention, Detection and Control of Forest

Fires”, George Papageorgiou, Kostas Papageorgiou, George Hadjisophocleous

………………………………………………………………………………………………...p. 263

“Characterization of water mist systems using full-scale tests and computer modeling”, D.

Alvear, M. Lázaro, J.I. Melgosa, F. Arnáiz ………………………………………………….p. 272

“Predicting the heat release rate of liquid pool fires using CFD”, T. Sikanen, S. Hostikka

………………………………………………………………………………………………...p. 278

“Threat level assessment of smoke emissions from compartment boundaries”, Vladimir

Mozer, Miroslav Smolka, Piotr Tofilo ……………………………………………...………..p. 284

“On the possibility of assessing fire protection levels”, Vladimir Mozer ………………p. 289

“Uncertainties in material thermal modeling of fire resistance tests”, K. Livkiss, B. Andres,

N. Johansson, P. van Hees ………………………………………………………….……..…p. 294

“Numerical Study of the Thermal Behavior of a Thermo-Structural Aeronautical

Composite under Fire Stress”, N.Grange, K. Chetehouna, N. Gascoin , S. Senave

…………………………………………………………………………………...…...p. 300

“Consensus decision making and group cohesion in evacuees”, A.Cuesta, M. Lázaro, O.

Abreu and D. Alvear ………………………………………………………………...p. 306

“Experimental and numerical simulation of the Fire Spread across a Fuel Break in a

Ridge”, Raposo, J.R., Viegas, D. X., Almeida, M., Crissantu, I., Salis, M ; Oliveira, R

…………………………………………………………………………………………..…….p. 311

“The Fire Destroying 3 Historic and 37 Modern Buildings in Lærdalsøyri January 2014”,

T. Log ……………………………………………………………………………………...…p. 315

“Examination and Modeling of Thermal Runaway Issues Pertaining to New and Aged Li-

ion Batteries”, Sara Abada, Martin Petit, Amandine Lecocq, Guy Marlair, Valérie Sauvant-

Moynot, François Huet ………………………………………………………………………p. 321

“Analysis of current investigation protocols to identify whether improved data collection

and sharing provides a better understanding of the circumstances surrounding fire

fatalities”, Iain S. Gavin ……………………………………………………………….……p. 327

“Stereo PIV investigation of the bidirectional natural convection flow at a

horizontal vent”, K. Varralla, H. Pretrela, S. Vauxa, O. Vauquelin ……………………..…p. 334

“Sensitivity of Structural Fire Safety Design according to Eurocode 1-1-2 Localised Fire”,

Mohammad Heidari, Fabienne Robert, Guillermo Rein ……………………………………..p. 340

“Failure of Shear Walls in Fire Condition”, A.T. Kassem ………………………...……p. 346

“Mathematical modeling of the impact of crown forest fire on buildings and structures”,

V. Perminov ……………………………………………………………………………….…p. 352

“Experimental Study of the Effect of Ceiling Vent on Fuel Mass Loss Rate”, A.Chang

Liu, B. Qiang Li, C. Yang Jiang ………………………………………………….…p. 357

“Fire risk assessment of Ethylene storage tanks using Dow Fire and Explosion Index

(F&EI)”, Nihal Anwar Siddiqui, Prasenjit Mondal, Bikrama Prasad Yadav and Junim Akthar

……………………………………………………………………………………………..….p. 362

“Seasonal forecast maps of meteorological fire danger (FWI): Case study for the

municipality of Eastern Attika-Greece”, Athanasios Sfetsos, Vassiliki Varela, Diamando

Vlahogianni , Nikolaos Gounaris …………………………………………………….………p. 367

On the possibility of assessing fire protection levels

Vladimir Mozer

Faculty of Security Engineering, University of Zilina, 1. maja 32, Zilina 010 26, Slovak republic

Abstract The possibility of direct comparison of fire safety levels achieved through the implementation of various fire

protection measures and systems has long been a topic of interest in the field of fire engineering. The difficulty

usually lies with the selection of a comparability factor which would allow for a direct quantitative comparison. This

paper deals with one aspect of the problem – comparing the economic impact of a fire based on the area damaged.

By the utility of probabilistic fire modelling, a set of fire scenarios are evaluated with 16 different levels of fire

protection. The fire safety measures considered are fire alarm system, portable fire extinguishers, sprinkler

protection and compartmentation. Firstly, the area damaged by the fire was established the impact was evaluated in

relation to the expected occurrence of fire, i.e. what yearly fire-related damage may be expected for each fire

scenario/level of fire protection. Subsequently, mathematical relationships for fire protection system justification

based on yearly cost of fire protection and fire loss reduction were established.

Corresponding author: vladimir.mozer@fbi.uniza.sk

Proceedings of the 2nd

IAFSS European Symposium of Fire Safety Science

1. Introduction

In the process of fire safety design of a building a

number of fire protection options may arise. Although

the minimum required level is usually set in legislation

and standards, there may be various approaches in

addressing them or stakeholder(s) place an additional

performance objective. This often includes property

protection, business continuity and heritage protection.

The fire safety engineer is then faced with a task of

finding such a combination of fire protection systems

which minimise potential fire loss and threat to life. The

second selection criterion in the process is the cost of

such a combination.

The economic justification of a fire safety design

alternative may be a relatively complicated task which

depends on an array of input parameters, some of which

are not readily available [1]. Having said that, there are

approaches which can be utilized to establish, on a

probabilistic basis, how a given set of fire protection

measures is expected to perform. Most often the event

tree analysis (ETA) is applied to this type of problem as

it is relatively simple and useful when little data is

available on the outcomes of concern [2].

This paper will examine the utility of probabilistic

fire modelling, namely the aforementioned ETA, in

ranking fire safety levels for various fire protection

alternatives.

2. Calculation approach

The modelled situation is represented in a series of

nodal events ordered in a sequence. From the initiating

event the nodal events are “branching” towards the

individual outcomes, each representing a specific

scenario.

A general form of an event tree is shown in Figure 1.

The frequency of each of the outcomes Fx is then

expressed as:

xx PFF . (1)

where F is the frequency of the initiating event – a fire

starting in a given type of occupancy, and Px represent

the probabilities of nodal events occurring.

Figure 1 General form of an event tree [3]

The problem with this type of analysis, however, is

the limited availability of statistical data of required

detail and structure, confirmed by recent studies of

Slovak fire statistics [4] [5]. Whereas the data for

deterministic fire models may be acquired via various

methods of testing in relatively shorts periods of time

(e.g. [6] [7]), gathering the necessary statistical data is a

long-term process. Engineering judgement and

approximation have therefore often to be used.

3. Outcome interpretation

Since an event tree results in a number of potential

outcomes it is very important how these results are

interpreted and accounted for in the final analysis. There

are two alternatives:

1. selecting the most probable outcome and its

occurrence interval as the representative value;

2. accounting for each of the outcomes identified

with respect to their occurrence intervals.

289

The first alternative appears to be applicable only for

cases when one of the outcomes has a significantly

higher occurrence frequency compared to the others.

If fire damaged area is used as representative of an

outcome, then it is possible to express the second

alternative simply as:

n

i i

i

F

SS

1

F,d

d (2)

where Sd is the average expected fire damage

representative of a particular set of fire protection

measures (nodal events) [m2.yr

-1], Sd,Fi is fire damaged

area associated with the i-th outcome [m2], and Fi

represent the frequencies of the individual outcomes

[1.yr-1

].

The outcome is therefore expressed in m2 of fire

damaged area of the building per year for the purposes

of this paper. It is also possible to express the outcome

as a probability of a fire fatality or injury etc.

4. Model scenario definition

Lets consider a fabricated building which has a total

floor area of 4000 m2 and is divided into four identical

fire compartments, each having a floor area of 1000m2.

There are four fire protection measures available for

this particular building: compartmentation, fire alarm

system, fire extinguishers and sprinkler protection.

These measures yield 16 potential alternatives of fire

protection as listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Fire protection alternatives considered

No. Fire alarm Fire exting. Sprinklers Compartment

1 N N N N

2 Y N N N

3 N Y N N

4 N N Y N

5 N N N Y

6 N Y N Y

7 Y N Y N

8 N Y Y N

9 Y Y N N

10 Y N N Y

11 N N Y Y

12 Y Y Y N

13 Y Y N Y

14 Y N Y Y

15 N Y Y Y

16 Y Y Y Y

Obviously, for a real building the minimum

requirement for each of the above measures would be

set in legislation or standards, depending on the building

type, size etc. This would lead to rejection of certain

combinations from Table 1, however, for demonstration

purposes they are all considered in our example.

5. Specification of nodal events and interactions

Having specified the building and fire protection

levels an event tree was constructed; please, refer to

Figure 1 at the end of the paper. The individual nodal

events and associated probabilities are discussed below.

It should be pointed out that the probabilities and

other data included are for demonstration purposes only,

despite being extracted mostly from peer-reviewed or

official sources. The purpose of their inclusion was

avoidance of full use of fabricated values which could

lead to skewed results.

Because the development of a fire is not solely

driven by fire protection measures in place but also by

fuel and ignition source configuration and other

parameters the first nodal event after ignition was

specified as spread beyond the first item ignited.

Various sources [3] [8] [9] indicate that a relatively

large proportion, approx. 40%, of fires actually never

grow beyond the first item ignited. To err on the side of

safety, due to high variability, the probability of fire

spread from the first item ignited was selected to be 0.8,

i.e. twice as probable as the studies indicate.

The second nodal event was automatic fire detection

(Fire alarm), i.e. what is the probability that the

detectors will activate and raise alarm to building

occupants. Successful detection was assigned a

probability of 0.85, from the interval of 0.8 – 0.9, as

indicated in [3] [10] [11], and is representative of smoke

detectors.

No automatic notification of the fire brigade was

assumed, however, if the fire alarm system was not

considered, the delay in discovering a fire was

translated into a lower probability of successful fire

suppression by portable fire extinguishers and a higher

probability of a fire involving the entire compartment

due to delayed fire brigade attendance (called by

occupants).

The third nodal event was manual fire suppression

by portable fire extinguishers (Fire exting.). The rate of

successful fire suppression varies significantly from

25% to 95% [12]. The discussion provided in [12],

which reviews a number of sources, led to a decision to

discard the extreme values, leaving a range of 40 – 85%.

From this the probability of successful suppression by

fire extinguishers was taken as 0.6 when automatic

detection was present and activated. When there was no

detection or its activation failed, the suppression success

probability was decreased by 50% to 0.3 due to the

likely delay in discovering the fire resulting in a

prolonged growth period.

The fourth nodal even was specified as sprinkler

suppression. Sprinkler systems are well documented and

the data available from various sources [3][11][13][14]

indicate that the probability of successful fire

extinguishment is approximately 0.9. This value is used

in the event tree for cases where sprinkler protection is

assumed.

The penultimate nodal event represents the

capability of fire compartmentation to contain the fire

within the compartment of origin for fire-fighting

purposes. There is also an alternative of burnout, which

was considered as an alternative fire extinction for when

the fire brigade failed to extinguish the fire. The

290

probability that compartment boundaries will contain

the fire inside the compartment of origin was taken to be

0.8, deriving it from the values of 0.7 – 0.9 indicated in

[3][15][16].

The final nodal event represents the success of fire-

fighting operations performed by the fire brigade. There

are four alternative probabilities specified, arbitrarily

adjusted basing on [2][3][12][17][18]. These are 0.8,

0.6, 0.6 and 0.5, depending on the performance of fire

detection and compartmentation.

When any of the fire protection means were not

assumed in the calculation their probability of

successful operation was set to 0.

The following areas were specified for the individual

outcomes, mainly deriving from[2] [3][11]:

1 m2 – fire contained to 1

st item ignited

2.5 m2 – fire suppressed by fire extinguisher

10 m2 – fire suppressed by sprinkler system

500 m2 – compartment and fire-brigade successful

1000 m2 – compartment burnout

2000 m2 – compartment failed / fire-brigade successful

4000 m2 – complete burnout

The above difference between 10 m2 and 500 m

2

may seem rather large, however, it would be difficult to

specify further segmentation as no specific compartment

layout – rooms – is considered in this study.

Following a review [19] of various sources of fire

occurrence probabilities it was decided a value of 0.005

as the probability of the initiating event. The selected

value represents an average absolute probability of a fire

starting derived from 10 building occupancy types.

6. Results and discussion

The results of the above described ETA calculations

are summarised in Table 2. For each level of fire

protection an expected fire damage per year was

determined. The yearly expected fire damage ranges

from 0.2 m2 for full protection to 12m

2 for no fire

protection.

The results are divided into two groups sprinklered

and nonsprinklered. For this particular case the yearly

fire damage would indicate that having the building

protected with a sprinkler system offers a very similar

level of protection than having the building divided into

fire compartments, fitted with a fire alarm system and

portable fire extinguishers. Of course this result must

not be generalised as it is valid only for the particular

fabricated case.

It may be also concluded that without

compartmentation the expected damage remains high;

this is of course relative to the value density discussed

below. This conclusion also correlates with the fact that

sprinkler protection is often required in large

uncompartmented buildings.

For the scenarios with sprinkler protection the

decrease of fire damaged area achieved through the

provision of additional fire protection measure is less

pronounced. In relative terms, the fire damage for the

case with all the fire protection measures in place is six

times lower than for sprinkler protection alone,

however, in absolute terms, the difference is about 1 m2.

Table 2. Results of ETA calculations – fire damage for

various levels of fire protection No. Fire alarm Fire exting. Sprinklers Compartment Damage

[m2/year]

1 N N N N 12

2 Y N N N 11.28

3 N Y N N 8.4

9 Y Y N N 4.88

5 N N N Y 4.64

10 Y N N Y 4.21

6 N Y N Y 3.25

13 Y Y N Y 1.83

4 N N Y N 1.24

7 Y N Y N 1.17

8 N Y Y N 0.87

12 Y Y Y N 0.51

11 N N Y Y 0.5

14 Y N Y Y 0.46

15 N Y Y Y 0.35

16 Y Y Y Y 0.2

One of the factors which affects the installation of

any particular fire protection measure or their

combination is the average value of protected property

per unit of area; value density – Vd [€.m-2

].

Furthermore it is not just the direct loss, expressed

as the product of Vd and Sd, but also an array of losses

which could be for the purposes of this paper summed

as indirect loss - Li [€.yr-1

]. These would include

business interruption, cost of fire brigade operation,

environmental impact, etc.

The final factor is the cost of fire protection per year

– Cp [€.yr-1

]. Considering solely the property protection

objective, the increase in the yearly cost of fire

protection measures should never exceed the expected

reduction in yearly loss associated with fire. The

justification criterion for the inclusion of a particular

fire protection measure could be expressed through an

efficiency factor ce:

).().().( p1p2ei2d2d2i1d1d1 CCcLVSLVS (3)

From Equation (3) the efficiency factor ce can be

expressed as:

)(

).().(

p1p2

i2d2d2i1d1d1e

CC

LVSLVSc

(4)

ce ≤ 1 inclusion not justified

ce > 1 inclusion justified

Where the subscript 1 indicates a design

configuration without a particular fire safety measure

and the subscript 2 indicates a design configuration in

which the fire safety measure has been included.

The economic efficiency of a fire protection measure

grows proportionally with ce.

291

For selection of an appropriate level of fire

protection, when a number of systems or measures are

being considered in a particular building design, the

combination with the highest value ce of should be

adopted, from the property protection point of view.

Such a combination of fire protection systems has the

highest economic efficiency of funds invested.

It should be reminded again, that property protection

is not and, for most cases, cannot be the sole

performance objective criterion to be considered when

selecting appropriate level fire protection. In a real

situation, some of the fire protection levels (measures

combinations) would not be considered if they did not

meet the minimum legislative or standard requirements

for fire safety, which are usually concerned with life

safety.

7. Conclusion

The purpose of this work was to analyse the

potential of probabilistic fire modelling, using the event

tree analysis approach, to assist the fire safety engineer

in selecting an appropriate level of fire protection when

multiple design alternatives are available.

For a model building 16 various level of fire

protection were analysed, ranging from no protection to

full protection, comprising a fire alarm system, portable

fire extinguishers, sprinkler protection and

compartmentation.

The focus of the comparison was property protection

and the criterion evaluated was the expected yearly fire-

damaged area.

As expected sprinkler protection was identified to

have the greatest impact on reducing the fire damage,

however, the combination of the other three measures

offered a similar degree of damage reduction.

Analyses such as the one presented in this paper

provide useful output for cost-benefit assessment. The

final selection of an appropriate level of fire protection

should be based on minimum life safety requirements

and the most economically efficient combination of fire

protection measures; the highest value of efficiency

factor ce.

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Slovak Research and

Development Agency under the contract No. APVV-

0727-12.

References

[1] RAMACHANDRAN, G. The economics of fire

protection. London: E & FN Spon, 1998. ISBN

0419207805.

[2] RAMACHANDRAN, G., CHARTERS, D. A.

Quantitative risk assessment in fire safety.

London, New York: Spon Press, 2011. ISBN

9780419207900.

[3] PD 7974-7. Part 7 Probabilistic risk assessment.

London: BSI, 2003.

[4] CONEVA, I., PANÁKOVÁ, J.: Požiare a ich

následky na základe kategorizácie budov In:

Advances in fire and safety engineering 2014:

recenzovaný zborník: Trnava: AlumniPress, 2014.

- ISBN 978-80-8096-202-9.

[5] CONEVA, I., PANÁKOVÁ, J.: Požiarovosť podľa

kategorizácie stavebných objektov za obdobie

2008-2012 In: Bezpečnost, spolehlivost a rizika

2014 – Zborník konferencie, Liberec: Technická

univerzita, 2014. - ISBN 978-80-7494-110-8.

[6] XU, Q., ZACHAR, M., MAJLINGOVÁ, A., JIN,

C., JIANG Y.: Evaluation of plywood fire

behaviour by ISO tests in: European Journal of

Environmental and Safety Sciences Vol. 1(1)

(2013)

[7] MARTINKA, J., CHREBET, T., BALOG, K.: An

assessment of petrol fire risk by oxygen

consumption calorimetry in: Journal of Thermal

Analysis and Calorimetry Vol. 115(3) (2014)

[8] HASOFER, A. M., BECK, V. R., BENNETTS, I.

D. Risk analysis in building fire safety

engineering. Amsterdam, London: Butterworth-

Heinemann, 2007. ISBN 075068156X.

[9] MÓZER, V., WILKINSON, P., SMOLKA, M.,

TOFILO, P. Probabilistic-deterministic modelling

of fire spread [online]. European Journal of

Environmental and Safety Sciences. 2014, 2(2),

79-83. Available from: http://www.sci-

institute.com/2014_volume_2_issue_2/9a_mozer.p

df.

[10] BUKOWSKI, R. W., BUDNICK, E. K.,

SCHEMEL, C. F. Estimates of the Operational

Reliability of Fire Protection Systems. Third

international conference on fire research and

engineering,. Conference proceedings Chicago,

Ill., October 4-8, 1999. Bethesda, Md: Society of

Fire Protection Engineers, 1999, pp. 87-98.

[11] RASBASH, D. Evaluation of fire safety.

Chichester, England, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley,

2004. ISBN 0471493821.

[12] GHOSH, B. Assessment of the benefits of Fire

Extinguishers as fire safety precautions in New

Zealand Buildings. Christchurch, New Zealand,

2008.

[13] BUKOWSKI, R. W., BUDNICK, E. K.,

SCHEMEL, C. F. Estimates of the Operational

Reliability of Fire Protection Systems. Third

international conference on fire research and

engineering,. Conference proceedings Chicago,

Ill., October 4-8, 1999. Bethesda, Md: Society of

Fire Protection Engineers, 1999, pp. 87-98.

[14] FITZGERALD, R. W. Building fire performance

analysis. Chichester: Wiley, 2004. ISBN 0-470-

86326-9.

[15] TYLDESLEY, A., REW, P., HOULDING, R.

Benefits of Fire Compartmentation in Chemical

Warehouses. Process Safety and Environmental

Protection. 2004, 82(5), 331-340.

[16] HOULDING, R. C., REW, P. J. Benefits of fire

compartmentation in chemical warehouses.

Research report 152. Norwich, 2003.

292

[17] MELINEK, S. Fire Fighting and Extent of Spread.

FRN 912. Borehamwood, 1972. Fire Research

Notes.

[18] SÄRDQVIST, S., HOLMSTEDT, G. Correlation

Between Firefighting Operation and Fire Area:

Analysis of Statistics. Fire Technology. 2000,

36(2), 109-130.

[19] MÓZER, V., WILKINSON, P., TOFILO, P. Use

of Statistical Data in Fire Engineering Design – an

International Comparison. Zeszyty Naukowe SGSP.

2015, 53(1), 167-181.

Figure 1

Ignition Spread Fire alarm Fire exting. Sprinklers Compartm. Fire brigade Damage

0.6 2.5 m2

Y

0.9 0.9 10 m2

Y Y

0.8 N

0.8 500 m2

Y 0.4 0.8 Y

5.00E-03

Y N 1000 m2

Y

N 0.2

0.1 0.6 2000 m2

N Y

0.2 N 4000 m2

0.4

0.3 2.5 m2

Y

N 0.9 10 m2

0.1 Y

N

0.6 500 m2

0.7 0.8 Y

Y N 1000 m2

N 0.4

0.1 0.5 2000 m2

N Y

0.2 N 4000 m2

0.5

N 1 m2

0.2

N 0 m2

293

Center for Risk, Safety and the Environment

(CERISE)

ISBN 978-9963-2177-0-0