Skip to main content

The Concepts of Safety Level and Safety Margin: Framework for Fire Safety Design of Novel Buildings

Abstract

This article discusses how the concepts of safety level and safety margin have been approached in recognized peer-reviewed journals within the field of fire safety science. The aim is to explore the scientific efforts that have been made to advocate principles for dimensioning fire safety arrangements in buildings. We restrict our discussion to novel buildings in the sense of lack of similar constructions with relevant long term experience. Due to increasing complexity in buildings, infrastructures, technical systems and society in general, we argue that traditional fire safety science based on natural science principles alone is severely limited. We argue that fire safety and safety margins are emergent properties of socio-technical systems that need to be managed rather than verified. The search for objectivity and mechanistic decision criteria is futile and diverts attention from the main purpose of engineering: to guide decisions during the whole design process and thus enable safe operation. An adapted framework for fire safety engineering is proposed, built around traditional fire safety engineering principles, and founded on constructivist systems theory. The focus is observable quantities and how these quantities can be managed during design and operation of a building project. The framework eases the involvement of stakeholders who are required to consider the safety aspects of the building design. The end goal of fire safety design in our framework is the development of a fire safety control structure that must be enforced to keep systems in a safe state, in which safety margins are deemed sufficient.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Figure 1
Figure 2

References

  1. 1.

    Perrow C (1999) Normal accidents: living with high-risk technologies (first published by Basic Books 1984). Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Bjelland H, Njå O (2012) Fourteen years of experience with performance-based fire safety engineering in Norway—lessons learned. Paper presented at the 9th international conference on performance-based codes and fire safety design methods, The Excelsior Hong Kong, 20–22 June 2012

  3. 3.

    Tehler H, Brehmer B (2013) Design within the field of accident and crisis management, with emphasis on leadership (in Swedish). LUCRAM—Lund University Centre for Risk Analysis and Management, Lund, Sweden

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Aven T (2010) Misconceptions of risk. Wiley, Chichester

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Solberg Ø, Njå O (2012) Reflections on the ontological status of risk. J Risk Res 15(9):1201–1215

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Leveson N (2011) Engineering a safer world: systems thinking applied to safety. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Rasmussen J (1997) Risk management in a dynamic society: a modeling problem. Saf Sci 27:183–213

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Checkland P (1999) Systems thinking, systems practice. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Wallace B, Ross A (2006) Beyond human error : taxonomies and safety science. CRC/Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Renn O (2008) Concepts of risk: an interdisciplinary review—part 1: disciplinary risk concepts. GAIA 17(1):50–66

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Bjelland H, Aven T (2013) Treatment of uncertainty in risk assessments in the Rogfast road tunnel project. Saf Sci 55:34–44

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Noonan F, Fitzgerald RW (1991) On the role of subjective probabilities in fire risk management studies. Paper presented at the 3rd international symposium on fire safety science, 8–12 July, 1991, Edinburgh, UK

  13. 13.

    Meacham BJ (2004) Understanding risk: quantification, perceptions, and characterization. J Fire Prot Eng 14(3):199–227

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Aven T, Zio E (2011) Some considerations on the treatment of uncertainties in risk assessment for practical decision making. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 96:64–74

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Abrahamsen EB, Aven T (2010) Safety oriented bubble diagrams in project risk management. Int J Perform Eng 7(1):91–96

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Chakravartty A (2011) Scientific realism. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (summer 2011 edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/scientific-realism/. March 21, 2013

  17. 17.

    Giere RN, Richardson AW (1996) Origins of logical empiricism. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Schön DA (1991) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Ashgate Publishing Group

  19. 19.

    Shrader-Frechette KS (1991) Risk and rationality: philosophical foundations for populist reforms. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Stanford PK (2006) Instrumentalism. In: Sarkar S, Pfeifer J (eds) The philosophy of science: an encyclopedia. Routledge, Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Sathaye SG (1972) Instrumentalism: a methodological exposition of the philosophy of John Dewey. Popular Prakashan, Bombay

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Rosenberg A (2000) Philosophy of science: a contemporary introduction. Routledge, Florence

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Eldridge M (1998) Transforming experience: John Dewey’s cultural instrumentalism. Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    LeCoze J-C (2005) Are organisations too complex to be integrated in technical risk assessment and current safety auditing? Saf Sci 43(8):613–638

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Leveson N, Daouk M, Dulac N, Marais K (2004) A systems theoretic approach to safety engineering. Aeronautics and Astronautics Dept., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Heinrich HW (1931) Industrial accident prevention: a scientific approach. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Lucht DA (1989) Coming of age. J Fire Prot Eng 1(2):35–48

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Fitzgerald RW (1991) Integration of fire science into building requirements. Fire Saf J 17:159–163

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Quintiere J (1988) Analytical methods for firesafety design. Fire Technol 24(4):333–352

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Thomas PH (1992) Fire modelling: a mature technology? Fire Saf J 19(2–3):125–140

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Babrauskas V, Peacock RD (1992) Heat release rate: the single most important variable in fire hazard. Fire Saf J 18(3):255–272

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Janssens M (2002) Calorimetry. In: DiNenno PJ, Drysdale D, Beyler CL et al (eds) Handbook of fire protection engineering, 3rd edn. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), Quincy, MA, pp (3)38–62

  33. 33.

    Tewarson A (1980) Heat release rate in fires. Fire Mater 4(4):185–191

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Budnick EK (1986) Quantitative fire hazards analysis—an overview of needs, methods and limitations. Fire Saf J 11(1–2):3–14

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    DiNenno PJ (ed) (2002) SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering, 3rd edn. National Fire Protection Association, Quincy

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Drysdale D (2002) An introduction to fire dynamics, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Buchanan AH (2002) Structural design for fire safety. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Karlsson B, Quintiere JG (2000) Enclosure fire dynamics. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Walton WD (2002) Zone computer fire models for enclosures. In: DiNenno PJ, Drysdale D, Beyler CL et al (eds) Handbook of fire protection engineering, 3rd edn. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), Quincy, MA, pp (3)189–193

  40. 40.

    Mitler HE (1985) The Harvard fire model. Fire Saf J 9(1):7–16

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Cooper LY, Stroup DW (1985) ASET-A computer program for calculating available safe egress time. Fire Saf J 9(1):29–45

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Peacock RD, Bukowski RW (1990) A prototype methodology for fire hazard analysis. Fire Technol 26(1):15–40

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Emmons HW (1990) Firesafety science—the promise of a better future. Fire Technol 26(1):5–15

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Friedman R (1992) An international survey of computer models for fire and smoke. J Fire Prot Eng 4(3):81–92

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Olenick SM, Carpenter DJ (2003) An updated international survey of computer models for fire and smoke. J Fire Prot Eng 13(2):87–110

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Proulx G (2001) Occupant behaviour and evacuation. Paper presented at the 9th international fire protection symposium, Munich, May 25–26, 2001, Munich, May 25–26

  47. 47.

    Bryan JL (1999) Human behaviour in fire: the development and maturity of a scholarly study area. Fire Mater 23(6):249–253

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Canter D (1980) Fires and human behaviour: emerging issues. Fire Saf J 3(1):41–46

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Fruin JJ (1971) Pedestrian planning and design. Metropolitan Association of Urban Designers and Environmental Planners, Inc, New York

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Predtechenskii VM, Milinskii AI (1978) Planning for foot traffic flow in buildings. Amerind Publishing Co., New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Canter DV (ed) (1980) Fires and human behaviour. J. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Pauls J (1984) Development of knowledge about means of egress. Fire Technol 20 (2):28–40

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Babrauskas V, Fleming JM, Don Russell B (2010) RSET/ASET, a flawed concept for fire safety assessment. Fire Mater 34(7):341–355

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Gwynne S, Galea ER, Owen M, Lawrence PJ (1998) Investigation of the aspects of occupant behavior required for evacuation modeling. J Appl Fire Sci 8(1):19–59

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Kobes M, Helsloot I, de Vries B, Post JG (2010) Building safety and human behaviour in fire: a literature review. Fire Saf J 45(1):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Wong LT, Leung LK (2005) Minimum fire alarm sound pressure level for elder care centres. Build Environ 40(1):125–133

    Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Gwynne SMV, Boswell DL, Proulx G (2009) Understanding the effectiveness of notification technologies in assisting vulnerable populations. J Fire Prot Eng 19 (1):31–49

    Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Bruck D, Horasan M (1995) Non-arousal and non-action of normal sleepers in response to a smoke detector alarm. Fire Saf J 25(2):125–139

    Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Bruck D (2001) The who, what, where and why of waking to fire alarms: a review. Fire Saf J 36(7):623–639

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Bruck D (1999) Non-awakening in children in response to a smoke detector alarm. Fire Saf J 32(4):369–376

    Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Hasofer AM, Thomas IR (2007) Sound intensity required for waking up. Fire Saf J 42(4):265–270

    Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Hasofer AM, Bruck D (2004) Statistical analysis of response to fire cues. Fire Saf J 39(8):663–688

    Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Bryan JL (1983) A review of the examination and analysis of the dynamics of human behavior in the fire at the MGM Grand Hotel, Clark County, Nevada, as determined from a selected questionnaire population. Fire Saf J 5:233–240.

    Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Proulx G (2007) Response to fire alarms. Fire Protection Engineering Magazine January 2007:8–14.

  65. 65.

    Purser DA, Bensilum M (2001) Quantification of behaviour for engineering design standards and escape time calculations. Saf Sci 38(2):157–182

    Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Gwynne S, Galea ER, Parke J, Hickson J (2003) The collection and analysis of pre-evacuation times derived from evacuation trials and their application to evacuation modelling. Fire Technol 39(2):173–195

    Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Jin T, Yamada T (1994) Experimental study on effect of escape guidance in fire smoke by travelling flashing of light sources. Paper presented at the Fourth international symposium on fire safety science, 13–17 July, 1994, Ottawa, Canada

  68. 68.

    Fahy R, Proulx G (1997) Human behavior in the world trade center evacuation. In: The fifth international symposium on fire safety science, 3–7 March, 1997, Melbourne, Australia, 1997

  69. 69.

    ISO (2009) ISO/TR 16738:2009 (E) Fire-safety engineering—technical information on methods for evaluating behavior and movement of people. International Organization for Standardization, Switzerland

  70. 70.

    Steen-Hansen A, Heskestad AW (2001) Assessment of smoke atmospheres where loss of visibility is the limiting hazard. Paper presented at the 2nd international symposium on human behaviour in fire, 26/28 March 2001, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA

  71. 71.

    Heskestad AW (1999) Performance in smoke of wayguidance systems. Fire Mater 23(6):375–381

    Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Purser D (1985) How toxic smoke products affect the ability of victims to escape from fires. Fire Prev (179):28–32

    Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Hartzell GE (1988) Fire and life threat. Paper presented at the INTERFLAM ‘88, Cambridge

  74. 74.

    Babrauskas V, Gann RG, Levin BC, Paabo M, Harris RH, Peacock RD, Yusa S (1998) A methodology for obtaining and using toxic potency data for fire hazard analysis. Fire Saf J 31(4):345–358

    Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Hadjisophocleous GV, Benichou N, Tamim AS (1998) Literature review of performance-based fire codes and design environment. J Fire Prot Eng 9(1):12–40

    Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Hadjisophocleous GV, Benichou N (1999) Performance criteria used in fire safety design. Autom Constr 8(4):489–501

    Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Beck VR (1987) A cost-effective, decision-making model for building fire safety and protection. Fire Saf J 12(2):121–138

    Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Beck VR (1991) Fire safety system design using risk assessment models: developments in Australia. paper presented at the third international symposium on fire safety science, 8–12 July, 1991, Edinburgh, UK

  79. 79.

    Ramachandran G (1988) Probabilistic approach to fire risk evaluation. Fire Tech 24(3):204–226

    Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Wade C, Whiting P (1996) Fire risk assessment using the building fire safety engineering method. J Fire Prot Eng 8(4):157–168

    Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Frantzich H (1998) Risk analysis and fire safety engineering. Fire Saf J 31(4):313–329

    Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Jönsson R, Lundin J (2000) Fire safety design based on risk assessment. Fire Sci Technol 20(1):13–25

    Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Lundin J, Johansson H (2003) A risk-based approach to verification of fire safety design solutions. Fire Sci Technol 22(1):1–15

    Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Yuen WW, Chow WK (2005) A new method for selecting the design fire for safety provision. Fire Sci Technol 24(3):133–149

    Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Hadjisophocleous GV, Zalok E (2008) Development of design fires for performance-based fire safety designs. Paper presented at the ninth international symposium on fire safety science, 21–26 September, 2008, Karlsruhe, Germany

  86. 86.

    Tanaka T (2008) Risk-based selection of design fires to ensure an acceptable level of evacuation safety. Fire Saf Sci 9:49–61

    Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Rasbash DJ (1985) Criteria for acceptability for use with quantitative approaches to fire safety. Fire Saf J 8(2):141–158

    Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Hokstad P, Mostue BA, Opstad K, Paulsen T (1998) Method for the calculation of human safety in building fires (in Norwegian). SINTEF NBL, Trondheim

    Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Gwynne S, Galea ER, Owen M, Lawrence PJ, Filippidis L (1999) A review of the methodologies used in evacuation modelling. Fire Mater 23(6):383–388

    Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Tanaka T (2011) Integration of fire risk concept into performance-based evacuation safety design of buildings. Paper presented at the 10th international symposium on fire safety science, 19–24 June 2011, University of Maryland, USA

  91. 91.

    Deakin G (1999) Fire safety standards—help or hindrance. Fire Saf J 32(2):103–118

    Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Berlin GN (1982) A simulation model for assessing building firesafety. Fire Technol 18(1):66–76

    Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Beck VR (1997) Performance-based fire engineering design and its application in Australia. Paper presented at the fifth international symposium on fire safety science, 3–7 March, 1997, Melbourne, Australia

  94. 94.

    Puchovsky M (1996) NFPA’s perspectives on performance-based codes and standards. Fire Technol 32(4):323–332

    Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Law M, Beever P (1995) Magic numbers and golden rules. Fire Technol 31(1):77–83

    Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Bukowski RW, Tanaka T (1991) Toward the goal of a performance fire code. Fire Mater 15:175–180

    Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Bukowski RW, Babrauskas V (1994) Developing rational, performance-based fire safety requirements in model building codes. Fire Mater 18:173–191

    Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Meacham BJ, Custer RLP (1995) Performance-based fire safety engineering: an introduction of basic concepts. J Fire Prot Eng 7(2):35–54

    Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Richardson K (ed) (2003) History of fire protection engineering. National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA

    Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Nelson HE, Levin BM, Shibe AJ, Groner NE, Paulsen RL, Alvord DM, Thorne SD (1983) Fire safety evaluation systems for board and care homes. Final Report. National Bureau of Standards, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC

  101. 101.

    Nelson HE (1982) Approach to enhancing the value of professional judgement in the derivation of performance criteria. Paper presented at the performance concept in building, 3rd ASTM/CIB/RILEM symposium, March 29–April 2, 1982, Lisbon, Portugal

  102. 102.

    Caldwell CA, Buchanan AH, Fleischman CM (1999) Documentation for performance-based fire engineering design in New Zealand. J Fire Prot Eng 10(2):24–31

    Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Chapman RE, Hall WG (1982) Code compliance at lower costs: A mathematical programming approach. Fire Technol 18(1):77–89

    Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Watts JM Jr (1991) Criteria for fire risk ranking. Paper presented at the 3rd international symposium on fire safety science, 8–12 July, 1991, Edinburgh, UK

  105. 105.

    Watts JM Jr (2002) Fire risk indexing. In: DiNenno PJ, Drysdale D, Beyler CL et al (eds) Handbook of fire protection engineering, 3rd edn. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), Quincy, MA, pp (5)125–142

  106. 106.

    Frantzich H (2000) Fire safety assessment of care facilities: a risk analysis tool (in Swedish). Lund University, Lund, Sweden

    Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    Hall JR Jr, Sekizawa A (1991) Fire risk analysis: general conceptual framework for describing models. Fire Technol 27(1):33–53

    Google Scholar 

  108. 108.

    Purser D (2002) ASET and RSET: addressing some issues in relation to occupant behaviour and tenability. Paper presented at the 7th international symposium on fire safety science, 16–21 June 2002, Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI), Worcester, Massachusetts

  109. 109.

    Fleischmann CM (2011) Is prescription the future of performance-based design? Paper presented at the 10th international symposium on fire safety science, 19–24 June 2011, University of Maryland, USA

  110. 110.

    ISO (2005) ISO/TS 16732 Fire safety engineering—guidance on fire risk assessment. International Organization for Standardization

  111. 111.

    Hasofer AM, Beck VR (1999) The probability of death in the room of fire origin: an engineering formulae. J Fire Prot Eng 10(19):19–28

    Google Scholar 

  112. 112.

    He Y (2010) Linking safety factor and failure of probability for fire safety engineering. J Fire Prot Eng 20:199–217

    Google Scholar 

  113. 113.

    Magnusson SE, Frantzich H, Karlsson B, Särdqvist S (1994) Determination of safety factors in design based on performance. Paper presented at the fourth international symposium on fire safety science, 13–17 July, 1994, Ottawa, Canada

  114. 114.

    Chu GQ, Chen T, Sun ZH, Sun JH (2007) Probabilistic risk assessment for evacuees in building fires. Build Environ 42(3):1283–1290

    Google Scholar 

  115. 115.

    Meacham BJ (2004) Decision-making for fire risk problems: a review of challenges and tools. J Fire Prot Eng 14:149–168

    Google Scholar 

  116. 116.

    Beard AN (1982) A stochastic model for the number of deaths in a fire. Fire Technol 18(3):280–291

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  117. 117.

    Santos-Reyes J, Beard AN (2001) A systemic approach to fire safety management. Fire Saf J 36(4):359–390

    Google Scholar 

  118. 118.

    Triner EG (1968) Fire loss reduction—an analytical approach. Fire Technol 4(4):310–318

    Google Scholar 

  119. 119.

    Tryon GH (1969) The process of setting safety standards. Fire Technol 5(4):267–271

    Google Scholar 

  120. 120.

    Richardson KJ (1993) Changing the regulatory system to accept fire safety engineering methods. J Fire Prot Eng 5(4):135–140

    Google Scholar 

  121. 121.

    Hanea D, Ale B (2009) Risk of human fatality in building fires: a decision tool using Bayesian networks. Fire Saf J 44(5):704–710

    Google Scholar 

  122. 122.

    Shpilberg D, de Neufville R (1974) Best choice of fire protection: An airport study. Fire Technol 10(2):5–14

    Google Scholar 

  123. 123.

    Blockley DI (1980) The nature of structural design and safety. Ellis Horwood, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  124. 124.

    Clausen J, Hansson SO, Nilsson F (2006) Generalizing the safety factor approach. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 91(8):964–973

    Google Scholar 

  125. 125.

    Blockley DI, Godfrey P (2000) Doing it differently: systems for rethinking construction. Thomas Telford, London

    Google Scholar 

  126. 126.

    NFPA (2008) NFPA glossary of terms. National Fire Protection Association, Quincy

    Google Scholar 

  127. 127.

    Harada K (1999) Performance based codes and performance based fire safety design. Fire Sci Technol 19(1):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  128. 128.

    Cooper LY (1983) A concept for estimating available safe egress time in fires. Fire Saf J 5(2):135–144

    Google Scholar 

  129. 129.

    Bjelland H, Njå O (2012) Interpretation of safety margin in ASET/RSET assessments in the Norwegian building industry. In: Proceedings to the 11th international probabilistic safety assessment and management conference (PSAM11) and the annual european safety and reliability conference (ESREL2012), Scandic Marina Congress Center, Helsinki, Finland, 25–29 June 2012, pp 2421–2430

  130. 130.

    Meacham BJ (1999) Integrating human factors issues into engineered fire safety design. Fire Mater 23(6):273–279

    Google Scholar 

  131. 131.

    Frantzich H, Magnusson SE, Holmquist B, Rydén J (1997) Derivation of partial factors for fire safety evaluation using the reliability index β method. Paper presented at the fifth international symposium on fire safety science, 3–7 March 1997, Melbourne, Australia

  132. 132.

    Mathews MK, Karydas DM, Delichatsios MA (1997) A performance-based approach for fire safety engineering: a comprehensive engineering risk analysis methodology, a computer model, and a case study. Paper presented at the fifth international symposium on fire safety science, 3–7 March 1997, Melbourne, Australia

  133. 133.

    Takeyoshi T, Jun-ichi Y (2006) A consideration on determination of design fore based on fire risk concept. Fire Sci Technol 25(2):115–132

    Google Scholar 

  134. 134.

    Beck VR, Yung D (1990) A cost-effective risk-assessment model for evaluating fire safety and protection in Canadian apartment buildings. J Fire Prot Eng 2(3):65–74

    Google Scholar 

  135. 135.

    Hirschler MM (1998) Fire hazard assessment: roadblock or opportunity? Fire Technol 34(2):177–187

    Google Scholar 

  136. 136.

    Kukla A (2000) Social constructivism and the philosophy of science. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  137. 137.

    LeCoze J-C (2012) Towards a constructivist program in safety. Saf Sci 50(9):1873–1887

    Google Scholar 

  138. 138.

    Yeganeh H, Su Z (2005) Positivism and constructivism: two opposite but reconcilable paradigms in cross-cultural management research. Proceedings of 33rd ASAC annual conference (Administrative Sciences Association of Canada). Toronto, Ontario

  139. 139.

    Simon HA (1996) The sciences of the artificial, 3rd edn (first published by MIT Press in 1969). The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  140. 140.

    SFPE (2000) SFPE engineering guide to performance-based fire protection analysis and design of buildings. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), Quincy

  141. 141.

    Heskestad AW (1998) Fire safety assessment of the furnishing on the living quarter of the Åsgard A FPSO unit (confidential report). Paper presented at the orally presented at the 3rd international conference on performance-based codes and fire safety design methods, Lund, Sweden, 2000

  142. 142.

    Heskestad AW, Drangsholt G, Steen-Hansen A (2010) Review of the fire safety strategy of the Norwegian national opera building (confidential report in Norwegian). SINTEF NBL (the Norwegian fire research laboratory), Trondheim

  143. 143.

    Heskestad AW, Landrø H, Steen-Hansen A (2010) Experiences on introducing functional fire safety requirements in the building regulations of Norway. Paper presented at the 8th international conference on performance-based codes and safety design methods, Lund University Sweden

  144. 144.

    Kjellén U (2007) Safety in the design of offshore platforms: Integrated safety versus safety as an add-on characteristic. Saf Sci 45(1–2):107–127

    Google Scholar 

  145. 145.

    Dorst K, Cross N (2001) Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution. Des Stud 22(5):425–437

    Google Scholar 

  146. 146.

    Rasbash DJ (1996) Fire safety objectlves for buildings. Fire Technol 32(4):348–350

    Google Scholar 

  147. 147.

    Reason J (1997) Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Ashgate, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  148. 148.

    Njå O (1998) Approach for assessing the performance of emergency response arrangements. Stavanger University College, Stavanger

    Google Scholar 

  149. 149.

    Sklet S (2006) Safety barriers: definition, classification, and performance. J Loss Prev Process Ind 19(5):494–506

    Google Scholar 

  150. 150.

    Graver HP (2009) Evidence evaluation—unscientific gut feeling or a rational holistic assessment? (in Norwegian). Tidsskrift for Rettsvitenskap 122(2):191–233

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  151. 151.

    Dorst K (2006) Design problems and design paradoxes. Des Issues 22(3):4–17

    Google Scholar 

  152. 152.

    Braut GS, Njå O (2010) Learning from accidents (incidents). Theoretical perspectives on investigation reports as educational tools. In: Briš R, Guedes Soares C, Martorell S (eds) Reliability, risk and safety. theory and applications. Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 9–16

  153. 153.

    Aven T (2003) Foundations of risk analysis: a knowledge and decision-oriented perspective. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The review process has been very interesting. It has revealed very divided international views on fire safety management. We have extensive research and professional experience from the Norwegian health sector, oil and gas industry as well as the building industry. These have to varying degrees adopted performance based safety management principles. Divided views on safety management are appreciated because they encourage reflections and better quality in the development of safety management approaches. Further it is claimed that a substantial part of the scientific literature on fire safety science is published outside peer-reviewed journals, by organizations such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Building Research Establishment (BRE) in the UK, the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE) and the Inter-Jurisdictional Regulatory Collaboration Committee (IRCC). We find that these contributions are important for the fire safety engineering community. On that basis, other researchers might provide input, comments and discussion to our suggested approach. This was our goal with this article and we greatly appreciate all the comments from the five anonymous reviewers to earlier versions. Part of the work is funded by the University Fund in Rogaland, Norway. We are very grateful for the financial support.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henrik Bjelland.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bjelland, H., Njå, O., Heskestad, A.W. et al. The Concepts of Safety Level and Safety Margin: Framework for Fire Safety Design of Novel Buildings. Fire Technol 51, 409–441 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-014-0400-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Safety level
  • Safety margin
  • Scientific foundation
  • System thinking