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


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.

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

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17


  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Meacham B, Bowen R, Traw J, Moore A (2005) Performance-based building regulation: current situation and future needs. Build Res Inf 33:91–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Meacham BJ (1998) The evolution of performance based codes and fire safety design methods, NIST-GCR-98-761. United States

  6. 6.

    Spinardi G (2016) Fire safety regulation: Prescription, performance, and professionalism. Fire Saf J 80:83–88.

    Article  Google 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 34:297–309

    Article  Google 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 59–76

  9. 9.

    Hadjisophocleous G, Fu Z (2004) Literature review of fire risk assessment methodologies. Int J Eng Perform Based Fire Codes 6:28–45

    Google 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.

    Article  Google 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, Worcester

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    SFPE (2007) SFPE engineering guide to performance-based fire protection. SFPE,Worchester

    Google 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 77–94

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    PD7974-7 (2003) Application of fire safety engineering principles to the design of buildings—Part 7: probabilistic risk assessment. London, UK

  16. 16.

    National Fire Protection Association (2016) NFPA 551: guide for the evaluation of fire risk assessments. National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, USA

  17. 17.

    Society of Fire Protection Engineers (2006) SFPE Engineering Guide: Fire Risk Assessment.

  18. 18.

    ISO 16732-1:2012 preview fire safety engineering—fire risk assessment—Part 1: general.

  19. 19.

    Yung D (2008) Principles of fire risk assessment in buildings. Wiley, London

    Book  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

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

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Pires TT, Almeida AT De, Lemos DC et al (2005) A decision-aided fire risk analysis. Fire Technol 41:25–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Hall JR, Sekizawa A (2010) Revisiting our 1991 paper on fire risk assessment. Fire Technol 46:789–801.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Albrecht C (2014) Quantifying life safety: part I: scenario-based quantification. Fire Saf J 64:87–94.

    Article  Google 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, USA

  32. 32.

    BSI (1994) Draft British Standard Code of practice for the application of fire safety engineering principles to fire safety in buildings. London, UK

  33. 33.

    Meacham B (2016) Ultimate health & safety (UHS) quantification: individual and societal risk quantification for use in National Construction Code (NCC). BCA, pp 45–100

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Oliphant TE (2007) Python for scientific computing python overview. Comput Sci Eng 9:10–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    MathWorks T (2017) MATLAB and statistics toolbox release 2017a Version 9.2

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Van Weyenberge B (2013) Development of a risk assessment methodology for fire in rail tunnels. Ghent University, Gent

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Albrecht C (2012) A risk-informed and performance-based life safety concept in case of fire. TU, Braunschweig

    Google 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 conference

  43. 43.

    Sandberg M (2004) Statistical determination of ignition frequency. Lund University, Lund

    Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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 Fire

  48. 48.

    Marsh (2012) Fire system effectiveness in major buildings. Marsh, Auckland

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Zhao L (1997) Reliability of stair pressurisation and zoned smoke control systems. ABCB, Victoria, Australia

  50. 50.

    Tillander K, Keski-Rahkonen O (2003) The ignition frequency of structural fires in Finland 1996–99. Fire Saf Sci 7:1051–1062.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Morris M (1991) Factorial sampling plans for preliminary computational experiments. Technometrics 33:161–174.

    Article  Google 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.

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Albrecht C (2014) Quantifying life safety Part II: quantification of fire protection systems. Fire Saf J 64:81–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Wiener N (1938) The homogeneous chaos. J Appl Math 60:897–936.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Hoerl AE, Kennard RW (1970) Ridge regression: application to nonorthogonal problems. Technometrics 12:69–82.

    Article  MATH  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    MathSciNet  Article  Google 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 India

  62. 62.

    Purser DA, Maynard RL, Wakefield JC (2016) Toxicology, survival and health hazards of combustion products. RSC, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    ISO TC 98 (2015) Iso 2394 General principles on reliability for structures, reliability of structures.

  64. 64.

    Bottelberghs PH (2000) Risk analysis and safety policy developments in the Netherlands. J Hazard Mater 71:59–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    CEN (2015) NBN EN 12845: 2015 Fixed firefighting systems—automatic sprinkler systems—design, installation and maintenance, Brussels, Belgium

Download references


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

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bart Van Weyenberge.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Van Weyenberge, B., Deckers, X., Caspeele, R. et al. Development of an Integrated Risk Assessment Method to Quantify the Life Safety Risk in Buildings in Case of Fire. Fire Technol 55, 1211–1242 (2019).

Download citation


  • Fire safety
  • Performance based design
  • Probabilistic risk assessment
  • Life safety