J. Xin, C.
Huang / Fire Safety Journal 62 (2013) 72–78
Table 6
Fire risk analysis of a residential building based on fire protection measures.
No. Existing fire Inherent fire risk
protection
measure P (number of fires C (number of Risk (number of
per unit area per deaths per deaths per unit area
year) fire) per year)
1 Smoke alarms 2.81  10  6 1.76  10  2 4.95  10  8
2 Smoke alarms 2.81  10  6 1.76  10  2 4.95  10  8
3 Smoke alarms 2.81  10  6 1.76  10  2 4.95  10  8
4 Smoke alarms 2.81  10  6 1.76  10  2 4.95  10  8
are performed once every 3 years, there is a probability 91.4% that
there is no victim, and performing evacuation exercises is once
every year, there is a 91.7% chance that there is no victim [19]. If
there is no information available on the reduction of death rates of
residential buildings, the residual multiplication factor of imple-
menting regular evacuation drills needs to be judged and agreed
upon fire protection engineers and regulators. It is assumed that
the residual multiplication factor of implementing regular evacua-
tion drills in a residential building is 0.30 by fire protection
engineers' judgment. Then, the average residual fire risk of deaths
is 1.49  10  8 deaths/year m2 by successful planning of ‘regular
evacuation drills’. Similarly, the residual multiplication factor of
the inherent consequence value by providing adequate number of
fire stations and resources can be judged. Fire risk analysis of
residential buildings based on some fire protection measures is
presented in Table 6.
With the data provided by fire risk analysis in residential
buildings, combining with applying the accepted risk criteria, the
appropriate fire risk management measures in residential build-
ings could be taken by the fire risk management department to
control or reduce fire risk.
4. Conclusions
In this paper, ideas for carrying out fire risk analysis and
implementing a quantitative analysis model are described. Accord-
ing to fire statistics in China, the average fire risk of deaths in
residential buildings is 4.95  10  8 deaths/year m2, and the aver-
age fire risk of directive property loss is 1.36  10  8 million Yuan
(RMB)/year m2 over the past 4 years. However, the above inherent
risk values of residential buildings are based on some fire protec-
tion measures. If additional fire protection measures or operations
are put in place, the inherent fire risks would be further reduced
by using the residual multiplier. In theory, the more fire protection
measures provided for any given building, the better the fire safety
level is, and the more the fire cost is. For example, although refuge
areas and safe elevators designed in a high-rise building can
provide added fire safety, especially to those with disability, they
represent an added cost to fire protection. Therefore, the fire risk
management department must make trade-off between cost and
risk according to the actual condition of buildings.
The fire risk analysis method allows a quick check of any safety
deficiencies in residential buildings and any need to provide
additional fire protection measures to minimize fire risk. However,
it does not include the consideration of the logical development of
fire events, and the quantification parameters of fire risk are based
on statistical data if they are available, or engineering judgment
based on the simulation method and actual fire drills if such data
are not available. Accordingly, future research will be needed on
the verification methods of some parameters in international
contexts, the measurement method of the impacts of fire on
77
Additional fire Residual fire risk
protection measures
P (multiplication C (multiplication Risk (number of
factor of inherent factor of inherent deaths per unit area
value) value) per year)
No smoking 0.88 1.00 4.36  10  8
material
Sprinklers 1.00 0.19 0.94  10  8
Evacuation drills 1.00 0.30 1.49  10  8
No smoking 0.88 0.19 0.83  10  8
materialþSprinklers
business continuity, heritage and the environment, and the appro-
priate risk management strategy to reduce fire risks in residential
buildings.
References
[1] Fire Service Bureau, Ministry of Public Security, China fire services, China
Personnel Press, Beijing, 2012 (in Chinese).
[2] Fire Service Bureau, Ministry of Public Security, China fire services, Interna-
tional Cultural Publishing Company, Beijing, 2011 (in Chinese).
[3] Fire Service Bureau, Ministry of Public Security, China fire services, Interna-
tional Cultural Publishing Company, Beijing, 2010 (in Chinese).
[4] Fire Service Bureau, Ministry of Public Security, China fire services, China
Personnel Press, Beijing, 2009 (in Chinese).
[5] Fire Service Bureau, Ministry of Public Security, China fire services, China
Personnel Press, Beijing, 2008 (in Chinese).
[6] Grant Purdy, ISO 31000:2009 – Setting a new standard for risk management,
Risk Analysis, vol. 30, 2010, pp. 881–892.
[7] ISO 31000, Current draft vocabulary for risk management – ISO/IEC Guide
73:2009,2002.
[8] S.I. Suddle, Physical safety in multiple use of space, Ph.D. Dissertation, Delft
University of Technology, Print Partners Ipskamp, ISBN 90-808205-2-0, 2004.
[9] A.M. Hasofer, V.R. Beck, I.D. Bennetts, Risk Analysis in Building Fire Safety
Engineering, first ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, London, 2006. (Chapter 1 MA).
[10] T. Bedford, R.M. Cooke, Probabilistic Risk Analysis: Foundations and Methods,
Cambridge University Press, 2001.
[11] D. Yung, N. Benichou, How design fires can be used in fire hazard analysis, Fire
Technology 38 (3) (2002) 231–242.
[12] FiRECAM, Fire risk evaluation and cost assessment model, National Research
Council Canada, 2008, 〈http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/fr/frhb/firecamnewe.html〉.
[13] N. Benichou, A.H. Kashef, I. Reid, et al., FIERAsystem: a fire risk assessment tool
to evaluate fire safety in industrial buildings and large spaces, Journal of Fire
Protection Engineering 15 (2005) 145–172.
[14] G.H. Kristiansson, On Probabilistic Assessment of Life Safety in Building on
Fire, Report 5006, Department of Fire Safety Engineering, Lund University,
Lund, Sweden, 1997.
[15] J.K. Vrijling, W. van Hengel, R.J. Houben, Acceptable risk as a basis for design,
Reliability Engineering and System Safety 59 (1998) 141–150.
[16] N. Benichou, D. Yung, G.V. Hadjisophocleous, Impact of fire department response
and mandatory sprinkler protection on life risks in residential communities, in:
Proceedings of the 8th International Fire Science and Engineering Conference,
Interflam '99, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1999, pp. 521–532.
[17] D. Yung, G.V. Hadjisophocleous, B. Yager, Case study: the use of FiRECAM to
identify cost-effective fire safety design options for a large 40-storey office
building, in: Proceedings of the Pacific Rim Conference and 2nd International
Conference on Performance-Based Codes and Fire Safety Design Methods,
1998, pp. 441–452.
[18] K.M. Elovitz, Commissioning smoke control systems, Fire Protection Engineering
Magazine, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Bethesda, MD, 2006, pp. 28–40.
[19] Daniela Hanea, Ben Ale, Risk of human fatality in building fires: a decision tool
using Bayesian networks, Fire Safety Journal 44 (2009) 704–710.
[20] J.M. Watts, J.R. Hall, Introduction to Fire Risk Analysis, SFPE Handbook for Fire
Protection Engineering, third ed., NFPA, Quincy, MA, 2002.
[21] Jing Xin, Chong Fu Huang, Fire risk assessment of residential buildings based
on fire statistics from China, Fire Technology (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10694-013-0327-8.
[22] John R. Hall, Ai Sekizawae, Revisiting our 1991 paper on fire risk assessment,
Fire Technology 46 (2010) 789–801.
[23] R.L.P. Custer, B.J. Meacham, Introduction to Performance-Based Fire Safety,
Society of Fire Protection Engineers and National Fire Protection Association,
Quincy, MA, 1997.
[24] D. Yung, N. Benichou, Concepts of fire risk assessment, Report No. NRCC-
46393, National Research Council Canada, Ottawa, ON, 2003.
[25] K. Margrethe, I. Helsloot, B. Vries, J.G. Post, Building safety and human
behavior in fire: a literature review, Fire Safety Journal 45 (2010) 1–11.