Development of an Integrated Risk Assessment Method to Quantify the Life Safety Risk in Buildings in Case of Fire

  • Bart Van WeyenbergeEmail author
  • Xavier Deckers
  • Robby Caspeele
  • Bart Merci


An integrated probabilistic risk assessment methodology is developed for the purpose of quantifying the life safety level of people present in buildings in the context of fire safety design. Multiple risk based concepts and tools have been developed in previous research to objectify performance based design methods for simple building types and layouts. However, these available models lack an integrated approach for challenging building designs and moreover they are not adequately coupled, most often resulting in a significant computational effort. Hence, there is a need for a practical and efficient framework for dealing with complicated building layouts and different occupancy types. Therefore, a computationally efficient quantitative risk assessment method is developed that provides a framework by combining deterministic sub-models and probabilistic techniques to quantify the fire safety level by means of failure probabilities, individual and societal risk. The deterministic framework is supported by analytical and numerical models. The probabilistic framework is supported by response surface modelling, sampling techniques and limit state design. Following the theoretical description of the model, a case study of a five storey commercial shopping mall of 25,000 m2 is elaborated and discussed as proof of concept. Multiple fire, building and occupant variables are implemented in the model. Three different fire safety designs are compared, resulting in quantified risks between 10−6 and 10−8. The case study proves the validity of the newly developed integrated methodology for this type of buildings and its benefits in fire safety engineering.


Fire safety Performance based design Probabilistic risk assessment Life safety 



The authors would like to thank the Flanders Innovation and Entrepreneurship (VLAIO) for supporting project number 130857 for this research.


  1. 1.
    Maluk C, Woodrow M, Torero JL (2017) The potential of integrating fire safety in modern building design. Fire Saf J 88:104–112. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Meacham BJ (2004) Decision-making for fire risk problems: a review of challenges and tools. J Fire Prot Eng 14:149–168. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fischer K, De Sanctis G, Kohler J et al (2015) Combining engineering and data-driven approaches: calibration of a generic fire risk model with data. Fire Saf J 74:32–42. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Meacham B, Bowen R, Traw J, Moore A (2005) Performance-based building regulation: current situation and future needs. Build Res Inf 33:91–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Meacham BJ (1998) The evolution of performance based codes and fire safety design methods, NIST-GCR-98-761. United StatesGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Spinardi G (2016) Fire safety regulation: Prescription, performance, and professionalism. Fire Saf J 80:83–88. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wolski A, Dembsey N, Meacham BJ (2000) Accommodating perceptions of risk in performance-based building fire safety code development. Fire Saf J 34:297–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meacham BJ (2000) International experience in the development and use of performance-based fire safety design methods: evolution, current situation and thoughts for the future. In: The 6th international symposium on fire safety science, pp 59–76Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hadjisophocleous G, Fu Z (2004) Literature review of fire risk assessment methodologies. Int J Eng Perform Based Fire Codes 6:28–45Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alvarez A, Meacham BJ, Dembsey N, Thomas J (2013) Twenty years of performance-based fire protection design: challenges faced and a look ahead. J Fire Prot Eng 23:249–276. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alvarez A (2012) An integrated framework for the next generation of risk-informed performance-based design approach used in fire safety engineering. WPI, WorcesterGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    SFPE (2007) SFPE engineering guide to performance-based fire protection. SFPE,WorchesterGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fleischmann CM (2011) Is prescription the future of performance-based design? In: The 10th international symposium on fire safety science, Christchurch, New Zealand, pp 77–94Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kong D, Lu S, Frantzich H, Lo SM (2013) A method for linking safety factor to the target probability of failure in fire safety engineering. J Civ Eng Manag 19:S212–S221. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    PD7974-7 (2003) Application of fire safety engineering principles to the design of buildings—Part 7: probabilistic risk assessment. London, UKGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    National Fire Protection Association (2016) NFPA 551: guide for the evaluation of fire risk assessments. National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, USAGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Society of Fire Protection Engineers (2006) SFPE Engineering Guide: Fire Risk Assessment.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    ISO 16732-1:2012 preview fire safety engineering—fire risk assessment—Part 1: general.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yung D (2008) Principles of fire risk assessment in buildings. Wiley, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chu G, Sun J (2008) Decision analysis on fire safety design based on evaluating building fire risk to life. Saf Sci 46:1125–1136. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hall JR, Sekizawa A (1991) Fire risk analysis: general conceptual framework for describing models. Fire Technol 27:33–53. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Alvarez A, Meacham BJ, Dembsey NA, Thomas JR (2013) A framework for risk-informed performance-based fire protection design for the built environment. Fire Technol 50:161–181. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kong D, Lu S, Kang Q et al (2014) Fuzzy risk assessment for life safety under building fires. Fire Technol 50:977–991. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pires TT, Almeida AT De, Lemos DC et al (2005) A decision-aided fire risk analysis. Fire Technol 41:25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hall JR, Sekizawa A (2010) Revisiting our 1991 paper on fire risk assessment. Fire Technol 46:789–801. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    De Sanctis G (2015) Generic risk assessment for fire safety—performance evaluation and optimisation of design provisions. ETH Zürich, Switzerland.
  27. 27.
    Van Weyenberge B, Deckers X, Caspeele R, Merci B (2015) Development of a risk assessment method for life safety in case of fire in rail tunnels. Fire Technol 52:1465–1479. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Albrecht C (2014) Quantifying life safety: part I: scenario-based quantification. Fire Saf J 64:87–94. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Van Weyenberge B, Criel P, Deckers X et al (2017) Response surface modelling in quantitative risk analysis for life safety in case of fire. Fire Saf J. Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    SFPE (2016) SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering, Fifth, USA.
  31. 31.
    Barry T (2002) Risk-informed, performance-based industrial fire protection. TVP, USAGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    BSI (1994) Draft British Standard Code of practice for the application of fire safety engineering principles to fire safety in buildings. London, UKGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Meacham B (2016) Ultimate health & safety (UHS) quantification: individual and societal risk quantification for use in National Construction Code (NCC). BCA, pp 45–100Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Meacham BJ, Van Straalen IJ (2017) A socio-technical system framework for risk- informed performance-based building regulation. Build Res Inf 46:444–462. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hadjisophocleous GV, Benichou N (1999) Performance criteria used in fire safety design. Autom Constr 8:489–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Oliphant TE (2007) Python for scientific computing python overview. Comput Sci Eng 9:10–20. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    MathWorks T (2017) MATLAB and statistics toolbox release 2017a Version 9.2Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Borg A, Njå O, Torero JL (2015) A framework for selecting design fires in performance based fire safety engineering. Fire Technol 51:995–1017. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kong D, Lu S, Ping P (2017) A risk-based method of deriving design fires fore evacuation safety in buildings. Fire Technol 53:771–791. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Van Weyenberge B (2013) Development of a risk assessment methodology for fire in rail tunnels. Ghent University, GentGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Albrecht C (2012) A risk-informed and performance-based life safety concept in case of fire. TU, BraunschweigGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Salgueiro OP, Jönsson J, Vigne G (2016) Sensitivity analysis for modelling parameters used for advanced evacuation simulations—how important are the modelling parameters when conducting evacuation modelling. In: SFPE performance-based design conferenceGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sandberg M (2004) Statistical determination of ignition frequency. Lund University, LundGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nilsson M, Johansson N, Van Hees P (2014) A new method for quantifying fire growth rates using statistical and empirical data—applied to determine the effect of arson. Fire Saf Sci 11:517–530. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Deguchi Y, Notake H, Yamaguchi J, Tanaka T (2011) Statistical estimations of the distribution of fire growth factor—study on risk-based evacuation safety design method. Fire Saf Sci 10:1087–1100. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Holborn PG, Nolan PF, Golt J (2004) An analysis of fire sizes, fire growth rates and times between events using data from fire investigations. Fire Saf J 39:481–524. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (2013) C/VM2 verification method: framework for fire safety design For New Zealand Building Code Clauses C1-C6 Protection from FireGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Marsh (2012) Fire system effectiveness in major buildings. Marsh, AucklandGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zhao L (1997) Reliability of stair pressurisation and zoned smoke control systems. ABCB, Victoria, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tillander K, Keski-Rahkonen O (2003) The ignition frequency of structural fires in Finland 1996–99. Fire Saf Sci 7:1051–1062. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Leira BJ (2013) Optimal stochastic control schemes within a structural reliability framework. SpringerBriefs in Statistics.
  52. 52.
    Suard S, Hostikka S, Baccou J (2013) Sensitivity analysis of fire models using a fractional factorial design. Fire Saf J 62:115–124. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Morris M (1991) Factorial sampling plans for preliminary computational experiments. Technometrics 33:161–174. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    McGrattan K, McDermott R, Floyd J, et al. (2012) Computational fluid dynamics modelling of fire. Int J Comput Fluid Dyn 26:349–361. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Albrecht C (2014) Quantifying life safety Part II: quantification of fire protection systems. Fire Saf J 64:81–86. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wiener N (1938) The homogeneous chaos. J Appl Math 60:897–936. MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hoerl AE, Kennard RW (1970) Ridge regression: application to nonorthogonal problems. Technometrics 12:69–82. CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Helton JC, Davis FJ (2002) Latin hypercube sampling and the propagation of uncertainty in analyses of complex systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 81:23–69. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Sobol IM (1967) On the distribution of points in a cube and the approximate evaluation of integrals. USSR Comput Math & Math Phys 7:784–802. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Thornton C, O’Konski R, Hardeman B et al (2011) Pathfinder: an agent-based egress simulator. Evacuation Dyn. Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Ulrich A, Wagoum K, Chraibi M et al (2015) JuPedSim: an open framework for simulating and analyzing the dynamics of pedestrians. In: Conference of Transportation Research Group of IndiaGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Purser DA, Maynard RL, Wakefield JC (2016) Toxicology, survival and health hazards of combustion products. RSC, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    ISO TC 98 (2015) Iso 2394 General principles on reliability for structures, reliability of structures.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Bottelberghs PH (2000) Risk analysis and safety policy developments in the Netherlands. J Hazard Mater 71:59–84. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    CEN (2015) NBN EN 12845: 2015 Fixed firefighting systems—automatic sprinkler systems—design, installation and maintenance, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bart Van Weyenberge
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Xavier Deckers
    • 1
    • 2
  • Robby Caspeele
    • 3
  • Bart Merci
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Flow, Heat and Combustion MechanicsGhent University – UGentGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Fire Engineered Solutions GhentGhentBelgium
  3. 3.Department of Structural EngineeringGhent University – UGentGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations