Building Fire Risk Analysis

  • Brian J. Meacham
  • David Charters
  • Peter Johnson
  • Matthew Salisbury

Abstract

Building Fire Risk Analysis provides insight into how to enhance the design, construction and management of our built environment. Fire safety, as a concept, branches into all manner of fields. It can affect a building’s design & appearance, its capital and ongoing costs, its day-to-day functionality and above all the community or business it serves – in the event of a fire. Understanding risk is fundamental for consultants, approval organizations, Fire Brigades, insurers and regulators. Fire risk is embedded within codes and guidance – where decisions have been made about what is reasonable and practicable for buildings based on their size and use. This chapter explores what risk is and how it may be understood for future decision making throughout the fire safety industry. Risk herein is defined as the possibility of an unwanted outcome in an uncertain situation. Three key factors are: loss or harm of something; the event(s) that causes loss; and, the likelihood it will occur. The unwanted outcome generally affects life safety, property, business continuity, heritage, the environment, or a combination of these. The reality of our built environment, both now and in the future, is that unwanted outcomes are subject to a variety of active, passive and managerial systems which all contribute to improving safety and reducing risk. Risk assessment allows these systems to be fairly understood and the best decisions made to address the needs required.

References

  1. 1.
    B.J. Meacham, “A Process for Identifying, Characterizing, and Incorporating Risk Concepts into Performance-Based Building and Fire Regulations Development,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Clark University, Worcester, MA (2000).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    N.C. Rassmussen, “The Application of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Techniques to Energy Technologies,” in Readings in Risk (Glickman and Gough, eds.), Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, pp. 195–206 (1990).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P.C. Stern and H.V. Fineburg (eds.), Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society, National Academy Press, Washington, DC (1996).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    B.J. Meacham, “Understanding Risk: Quantification, Perceptions and Characterization,” Journal of Fire Protection Engineering, 14, 3, pp. 199–227 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    B.J. Meacham, “Incorporating Risk Concepts into Performance-Based Building and Fire Regulation Development,” in Safety Engineering and Risk Analysis, SERA Volume 9 (J.L. Boccio, ed.), American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp. 63–70 (1999).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    B.J. Meacham, “Application of a Decision-Support Tool for Comparing and Ranking Risk Factors for Incorporation into Performance-Based Building Regulations,” in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Performance-Based Codes and Fire Safety Design Methods, SFPE, Bethesda, MD (2000).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    B.J. Meacham and R.L.P. Custer, “Performance-Based Fire Safety Engineering: An Introduction of Basic Concepts,” Journal of Fire Protection Engineering, 7, 2, pp. 35–54 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    R.L.P. Custer and B.J. Meacham, Introduction to Performance-Based Fire Safety, NFPA, Quincy, MA (1997).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    B.J. Meacham, “Assessment of the Technological Requirements for Realization of Performance-Based Fire Safety Design in the United States: Final Report,” NIST GCR 98-763, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD (1998).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Society of Fire Protection Engineers, SFPE Engineering Guide to Performance-Based Fire Protection Analysis and Design of Buildings, SFPE and NFPA, Quincy, MA (2000).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R.L. Keeney and H. Raiffa, Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, John Wiley and Sons, New York (1976).MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    R.L. Keeney, “Formal Analysis Including Value Judgments and Public Risk,” Toxic Substances Journal, 3, 1, pp. 8–22 (1981).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R.T. Clemen, Making Hard Decisions: An Introduction to Decision Analysis, Duxbury Press, Pacific Grove, CA (1996).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. Schwing and W. Albers (eds.), Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe Is Safe Enough?, Plenum, New York (1980).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    E. Crouch and R. Wilson, Risk/Benefit Analysis, Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, MA (1982).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. Wilson, “Commentary: Risks and Their Acceptability,” Science, Technology and Human Values, 9, 2, pp. 11–22 (1984).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D.J. Alesch and W.J. Petak, The Politics and Economics of Earthquake Hazard Mitigation: Unreinforced Masonry Buildings in Southern California, Institute on Environment and Behavior, University of Colorado, Boulder (1986).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. Kelman, “Cost-Benefit Analysis: An Ethical Critique,” in Readings in Risk (Glickman and Gough, eds.), Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, pp. 129–137 (1990).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. Breyer, Breaking the Vicious Circle: Toward Effective Risk Regulation, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (1993).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    T. O. Tengs et al., “Five Hundred Life-Saving Interventions and Their Cost-Effectiveness,” Risk Analysis, 15, 3, pp. 369–390 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    W.K. Viscusi and J.E. Aldy, “The Value of a Statistical Life: A Critical Review of Market Estimates Throughout the World,” Related Publication 03-2, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies (Jan. 2003).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    H. Kunreuther and R.J. Roth, Sr., Paying the Price: The Status and Role of Insurance Against Natural Disasters in the United States, Joseph Henry Press, Washington, DC (1998).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    P.R. Kleindorfer and H.C. Kunreuther, “The Complementary Roles of Mitigation and Insurance in Managing Catastrophic Risks,” Risk Analysis, 19, 4, pp. 727–738 (1999).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Guidelines for Chemical Process Quantitative Risk Analysis, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Center for Chemical Process Safety, New York (1985).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Health Facilities Note, HFN 09, “Fire Safety—Cost or Benefit?” Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, UK (1995).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    S.E. Magnusson, H. Franzich, and K. Harada, “Fire Safety Design Based on Calculations: Uncertainty Analysis and Safety Verification,” Report 3078, Lund University, Lund, Sweden (1995).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    S.E. Magnusson, H. Frantzich, K. Harada. “Fire Safety Design Based on Calculations: Uncertainty Analysis and Safety Verification,” Fire Safety Journal, 27: 305–334, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    H. Frantzich, “Uncertainty and Risk Analysis in Fire Safety Engineering,” Report LUTVDG/(TVBB-1016), Lund University, Lund, Sweden (1998).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    D.A. Charters et al., “Assessment of the Probabilities That Staff and/or Patients Will Detect Fires in Hospitals,” Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of Fire Safety Science, Melbourne, Australia (1997).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    D.A. Charters, “Quantified Assessment of Hospital Fire Risks,” Proceedings of Interflam’96, InterScience Communications, Cambridge, UK (1996).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    N. Groner, “A Critique of Event Modeling as Applied to Human Reliability and a Suggested Alternative,” in Proceedings of the SFPE Symposium on Risk, Uncertainty and Reliability in Fire Protection Engineering, SFPE, Bethesda, MD, pp. 190–199 (1999).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    R.E. Britter, “The Evaluation of Technical Models Used for Major-Accident Hazard Installations,” EUR 14774EN, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, Belgium (1993).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    C. Hohenemser, R. Kasperson, and R.W. Kates, “Causal Structure,” in Perilous Progress: Managing the Hazards of Technology (Kates, Hohenemser, and Kasperson, eds.), Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 25–42 (1985).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    M.C. White et al., “A Quantitative Estimate of Leukemia Mortality Associated with Occupational Exposure to Benzene,” in Readings in Risk (Glickman and Gough, eds.), Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, pp. 165–180 (1990).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    B.N. Ames, R. Magow, and L.S. Gold, “Ranking Possible Carcinogenic Hazards,” in Readings in Risk (Glickman and Gough, eds.), Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, pp. 76–99 (1990).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    D. Hattis and D. Kennedy, “Assessing Risks from Health Hazards: An Imperfect Science,” in Readings in Risk (Glickman and Gough, eds.), Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, pp. 156–163 (1990).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    B.D. Goldstein, Issues in Risk Assessment, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC (1993).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    C.T. Petito and B.D. Beck, “Evaluation of Evidence of Nonlinearities in the Dose-Response Curve for Arsenic Carcinogenesis,” Trace Substances in Environmental Health, 24, pp. 143–176 (1990).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    F.P. Lees, Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Butterworths, London (1980).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    R.L. Keeney et al., “Assessing the Risk of an LNG Terminal,” in Readings in Risk (Glickman and Gough, eds.), Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, pp. 207–217 (1990).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    G. Apostolakis, “Fire Risk Assessment and Management in Nuclear Power Plants,” Fire Science and Technology, 13, Supplement, pp. 12–39 (1993).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Y.Y. Haimes, Risk Modeling, Assessment, and Management, John Wiley and Sons, New York (1998).MATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Proceedings of the SFPE Symposium on Risk, Uncertainty and Reliability in Fire Protection Engineering and Joint SFPE/UMD/Clark University Workshop on Encouraging the Use of Risk Concepts in Performance-Based Building and Fire Regulation Development, SFPE, Bethesda, MD (1999).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    NFPA 550, Guide to the Fire Safety Concepts Tree, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2002 edition.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    J.M. Watts, Jr., “Systems Approach to Fire-Safe Building Design,” in Fire Protection Handbook, 20th ed. (A.E. Cote et al., eds.), National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, pp. 1-157–1-170 (2008).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Random House, The Random House College Dictionary, Random House, Inc., New York (1980).Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    J.R. Hall, Jr., “Probability Concepts,” in SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 3rd ed. (P.J. DiNenno et al., eds.), National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, pp. 1-182–1-192 (2002).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    G. Apostolakis, “Probability and Risk Assessment: The Subjectivistic Viewpoint and Some Suggestions,” Nuclear Safety, 19, 3, pp. 305–315 (1978).Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    M.J. Karter, Jr., “1996 U.S. Fire Loss,” NFPA Journal, 91, 5, pp. 77–83 (1997).Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    M. Fontana, J.P. Favre, and C. Fetz, “A Survey of 40,000 Building Fires in Switzerland,” Fire Safety Journal, 32, 2, pp. 137–159 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    J. Rahikainen and O. Keski-Rahkonen, “Determination of Ignition Frequency of Fire in Different Premises in Finland,” Fire Engineers Journal, 58, 197, pp. 33–37 (1998).Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    J.R. Hall, Jr., The U.S. Fire Problem Overview Report—Leading Causes and Other Patterns and Trends, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA (1998).Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Fire in the United States, 10th Edition, 1986–1995, National Fire Center, United States Fire Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emmitsburg, MD (1998).Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Fire Safety Engineering in Buildings, British Standards Institute, DD 240: Parts 1 and 2 (1997).Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Fire Code Reform Centre, Fire Engineering Guidelines, Sydney, Australia (1996).Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    D. Charters, C. Sherwood and E. Warren, (2012), “A Study of the nature of fire risks in tall buildings,” Proceedings, 9th International Conference on Performance-Based Codes and fire Safety Design Methods. SFPE, Bethesda, MD.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Y. Kobayashi and H. Nozaki, (2005), “A Statistical Method to Evaluate Fire Risks in Non-Residential Buildings in Japan,” Fire Safety Science: Proceedings of the Eight International Symposium, China, International Association for Fire Safety Science, pp. 341-352Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    J. Taveau (2010), “Risk assessment and land-use planning regulations in France following the AZF disaster,” Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Volume 23, issue 6, November 2010, pp. 813–823Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    K. Tillander (2004). Utilisation of statistics to assess fire risk in buildings, VTT Publications 537, VTT, Espoo, Finland.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    M. Tsujimoto (2006), “Death risk by building fires in Japan and its usage,” Fire Science and Technology, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 63–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    F.R. Farmer, “Siting Criteria—A New Approach,” IAEA Symposium on the Containment and Siting of Nuclear Power Reactors, IAEA SM-89/34, Vienna, Austria (Apr. 3–7, 1967).Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    D.P. Fernandes-Russell, “Societal Risk Estimates from Historical Data for UK and Worldwide Events,” Research Report No. 3, Environmental Risk Assessment Unit, University of East Anglia, UK (1987).Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    D. Charters, M. Salisbury, and S. Wu, “The Development of Risk-Informed Performance-Based Codes,” Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Performance-Based Codes and Fire Safety Design Methods, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Luxembourg (2004).Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    F.R. Allen, A.R. Garlick, M.R. Hayns, and A.R. Taig, The Management of Risk to Society from Potential Accidents, Elsevier Applied Science, London (1992).Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    D.A. Charters, Fire Safety Assessment of Bus Transportation, AEA Technology, Warrington, UK, C437/037 (1992).Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    D. Kahneman and A. Tversky, “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” Science, 185, pp. 1124–1131 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    W.W. Lowrance, Of Acceptable Risk, William Kaufmann, Inc., Los Altos, CA (1976).Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    B. Fischhoff et al., Acceptable Risk, Cambridge University Press, New York (1981).Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    P. Slovic, “Perception of Risk,” Science, 236, pp. 280–285 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    V.T. Covello et al. (eds.), Uncertainty in Risk Assessment, Risk Management, and Decision Making, Plenum Press, New York (1987).Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    M.G. Morgan and M. Henrion, Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis, Cambridge Press, Cambridge, UK (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    S.O. Funtowicz and J.R. Ravetz, “Three Types of Risk Assessment and the Emergence of Post-Normal Science,” in Social Theories of Risk (Krimsky and Golding, eds.), Praeger, Westport, CT, pp. 251–274 (1992).Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    D. Hattis and D.E. Burmaster, “Assessment of Variability and Uncertainty Distributions for Practical Risk Analysis,” Risk Analysis, 14, 5, pp. 713–730 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    F.O. Hoffman and J.S. Hammonds, “Propagation of Uncertainty in Risk Assessment: The Need to Distinguish Between Uncertainty Due to Lack of Knowledge and Uncertainty Due to Variability,” Risk Analysis, 14, 5, pp. 707–712 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    M.W. Merkhofer, A Comparative Evaluation of Quantitative Decision-Making Approaches, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA (1983).Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    M.W. Merkhofer, “Comparative Analysis of Formal Decision-Making Approaches,” in Risk Evaluation and Management (V.T. Covello et al., eds.), Plenum Press, New York, pp. 183–220 (1986).Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    D.E. Bell, H. Raiffa, and A. Tversky (eds.), Decision Making: Descriptive, Normative, and Prescriptive Interactions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (1988).MATHGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    D. Hattis and E. Anderson, “What Should Be the Implications of Uncertainty, Variability, and Inherent Biases/Conservatism for Risk Management Decision Making?” Paper presented at Second Workshop on When and How Can You Specify a Probability Distribution if You Don’t Know Much, University of Virginia, Charlottesville (1997).Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    J.L. Casti, Searching for Certainty: What Scientists Can Know About the Future, William Morrow and Company, New York (1990).Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    V. Brannigan et al., “Risk Models Involving Human Decisions: Intentional Uncertainty and the Need for Regulation,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Fire Research and Engineering, SFPE, Bethesda, MD, pp. 252–262 (1998).Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    V.M. Brannigan and C. Smidts, “Performance-Based Fire Safety Regulation Under Intentional Uncertainty,” in Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Human Behavior in Fire, University of Ulster, Jordanstown, Northern Ireland, pp. 411–420 (1998).Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    J.R. Benjamin and C.A. Cornell, Probabilities, Statistics, and Decision for Civil Engineers, McGraw-Hill, New York (1970).Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    D. Von Winterfeldt and W. Edwards, Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (1986).Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    G.S. Omenn et al., Risk Assessment and Risk Management in Regulatory Decision-Making, Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management, Final Report, Volume 2, Washington, DC (1997).Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    K.A. Notarianni and P. Fischbeck, “Dealing with Uncertainty to Improve Regulations,” in Proceedings of the 1999 Conference on Fire Design in the 21st Century, SFPE and WPI, Worcester, MA (1999).Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    K.A. Notarianni, “The Role of Uncertainty in Improving Fire Protection Regulations,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA (2000).Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    D.A. Lucht, “Public Policy and Performance-Based Engineering,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Performance-Based Codes and Fire Safety Design Methods, SFPE, Bethesda, MD (1997).Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    B.J. Meacham, “Identifying and Addressing Uncertainty in Fire Protection Engineering,” in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Fire Research and Engineering, SFPE, Bethesda, MD, pp. 238–251 (1998).Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Albrecht, C. A risk-informed and performance-based life safety concept in case of fire, PhD thesis, TU Braunschweig, ISBN 978-3-89288-202-2, 2012.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Albrecht, C., Hosser, D., “A Response Surface Methodology for Probabilistic Life Safety Analysis using Advanced Fire Engineering Tools.” Fire Safety Science 10: 1059–1072, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    M. Siemon, C. Albrecht and D. Hosser, “Considerations for the development of a quantitative life safety design concept using performance based fire engineering methods’,” Proceedings of the 9th International SFPE-Conference on Performance- Based Codes and Fire Safety Design Methods, SFPE, Bethesda, MD, USA, 2012.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    P. Lancaster and K. Salkauskas, “Surfaces generated by moving least squares methods,” Mathematics of Computation, 37(155):141–158, 1981.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    T. Most and C. Bucher, “New concepts for Moving least squares: An interpolating non-singular weighting function and weighted nodal least squares,” Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements, 32:461–470, 2008.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    A.M. Hasofer, V.R. Beck, and I.D. Bennetts, Risk Analysis in Building Fire Safety Engineering, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, England, 2007, p 87.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    C. Bucher, “Adaptive sampling-an iterative fast Monte Carlo procedure,” Structural Safety, 5(2):119–126, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    D. Yung, Principles of Fire Risk Assessment in Buildings, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, England, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    G. Ramachandran and D. Charters, Quantitative Risk Assessment in Fire Safety, Spon Press, London, England (2011)Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    BS7974, Application of fire safety engineering principles to the design of buildings. Code of practice. Technical report, British Standards Institution (BSI), 2001.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    C. Albrecht and D. Hosser, “A risk-informed framework for performance-based structural fire protection according to the Eurocode fire parts,” Proceedings, Interflam 9, Interscience Communications, Ltd, UK, 2010.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    V.R. Beck, “Cost-Effective Fire Safety and Protection Design Requirements for Buildings,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of New South Wales, Australia (1986).Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    V.R. Beck, “A Cost-Effective Decision-Making Model for Building Fire Safety and Protection,” Fire Safety Journal, 12, pp. 121–138 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    V.R. Beck, “Performance-Based Fire Engineering Design and Its Application in Australia,” in Fire Safety Science—Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium, IAFSS, Bethesda, MD, pp. 23–40 (1997).Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    V.R. Beck and D. Yung, “A Cost-Effective Risk Assessment Model for Evaluating Fire Safety and Protection in Canadian Apartment Buildings,” Journal of Fire Protection Engineering, 2, 3, pp. 65–74 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    D. Yung, G.V. Hadjisophocleous, and H. Takeda, “Comparative Risk Assessments of 3-Storey Wood-Frame and Masonry Construction Office Buildings,” in Proceedings of Interflam93, Interscience Communications Ltd., London, pp. 499–508 (1993).Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    V.R. Beck and S.L. Poon, “Results from a Cost-Effective Decision-Making Model for Building Fire Safety and Protection,” Fire Safety Journal, 13, pp. 197–210 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    V.R. Beck and D. Yung, “A Cost-Effective Risk Assessment Model for Evaluating Fire Safety and Protection in Canadian Apartment Buildings,” International Fire Protection Engineering Institute, 5th Conference, Ottawa, Canada (1989).Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    V.R. Beck and D. Yung, “A Risk-Cost Assessment Model for Evaluating Fire Risks and Protection in Apartment Buildings,” in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Fire Engineering for Buildings and Structures, The Institution of Engineers, Melbourne, Australia (1989).Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    I. Thomas, D.W. Weinert, and B. Ashe, “Quantified Levels of Risk to Life Safety in Deemed-to-Satisfy Apartment Buildings,” in 8th International Symposium on Fire Safety Science, IAFSS, Beijing, China (Sept. 2005).Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    J. Gaskin and D. Yung, “Canadian and U.S.A. Fire Statistics for Use in the Risk-Cost Assessment Model,” IRC Internal Report No. 637, National Research Council, Ottawa, Canada (1993).Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    H. Takeda and D. Yung, “Simplified Fire Growth Models for Risk-Cost Assessment in Apartment Buildings,” Journal of Fire Protection Engineering, 4, 2, pp. 53–66 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    G.V. Hadjisophocleous and D. Yung, “A Model for Calculating the Probabilities of Smoke Hazard from Fires in Multi-Storey Buildings,” Journal of Fire Protection Engineering, 4, 2, pp. 67–80 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    G.V. Hadjisophocleous and D. Yung, “Parametric Study of the NRCC Fire Risk-Cost Assessment Model for Apartment and Office Buildings,” Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Fire Safety Science, IAFSS, Bethesda, MD, pp. 829–840 (1994).Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    R.W. Bukowski, F.B. Clarke, J.R. Hall, Jr., and S.W. Stiefel, Fire Risk Assessment Method: Description of Methodology, National Fire Protection Research Foundation, Quincy, MA (1990).Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    J.R. Hall, Jr., “Product Fire Risk,” in SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 3rd ed. (P.J. DiNenno et al., eds.), National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, pp. 5-143–5-152 (2002).Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    J. Fraser-Mitchell, “An Object-Oriented Simulation (CRISP II) for Fire Risk Assessment,” in Fire Safety Science: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium, IAFSS, Bethesda, MD, pp. 793–803 (1994).Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    J. Fraser-Mitchell, “Risk Assessment of Factors Related to Fire Protection in Dwellings,” in Fire Safety Science: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium, IAFSS, Bethesda, MD, pp. 631–642 (1997).Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Bjorn Karlsson, Iceland Fire Authority, Reykjavik, Iceland; Bodvar Tomasson, Linuhonnun Consulting Engineers, Reykjavik, Iceland. B. Karlsson, and B. Tomasson, “Repeatability Tests of a Fire Risk Index Method for Multi-Storey Apartment Buildings,” 8th International Symposium on Fire Safety Science, IAFSS, Beijing, China (Sept. 2005).Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    G. Hadjisophocleous and Z. Fu, “Development and Case Study of a Risk Assessment Model CUrisk for Building Fires,” 8th International Symposium on Fire Safety Science, IAFSS, Beijing, China (Sept. 2005).Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    D.A. Charters and D. Berry, “Application of Quantified Fire Risk Assessment in the Design of Buildings,” Proceedings of Interflam ‘99, Interscience Communications Ltd., London (1999).Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    D. Charters and S. Wu, “The Application of ‘Simplified’ Quantitative Fire Risk Assessment to Major Transport Infrastructure,” SFPE Symposium on Risk, New Orleans (2002).Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    D. Charters, J. Paveley, and F.B. Steffensen, “Quantified Fire Risk Assessment in the Design of a Major Multi-Occupancy Building,” in Proceedings of Interflam 2001, Interscience Communications Ltd, Edinburgh, UK (2001).Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    D. Charters, “What Does Quantified Fire Risk Assessment Need to do to Become an Integral Part of Design Decision-Making,” SFPE International Conference on Performance Based Codes, San Francisco (2000).Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    System Safety Program Requirements, Military Standard 882C, U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, DC (1993).Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Preparation Guide for U.S. Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Safety Analysis Reports, DOE-STD-3009-94, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC (1994).Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    International Code Council Performance Code for Buildings and Facilities, International Code Council, Falls Church, VA (2012).Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    B.J. Meacham, “Application of a Decision-Support Tool for Comparing and Ranking Risk Factors for Incorporation into Performance-Based Building Regulations,” Proceedings, 3rd International Conference on Performance-Based Codes and Fire Safety Design Methods, SFPE, Bethesda, MD, 2000, pp. 59–70.Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    B.J. Meacham, “Identifying and Regulating for Multiple Levels of Performance,” in Proceedings of the International Council for Building Research and Innovation, World Congress—Wellington, NZ, CIB, the Netherlands (Apr. 2001).Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    B.J. Meacham, “Performance-Based Building Regulatory Systems: Structure, Hierarchy and Linkages,” Journal of the Structural Engineering Society of New Zealand, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 37–51, 2004.Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    R.W. Fitzgerald, “An Engineering Method for Building Fire Safety Analysis,” Fire Safety Journal, 9, 2, pp. 233–243 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    R.W. Fitzgerald, “An Engineering Method for Translating Fire Science into Building Design,” in Proceedings of the CIB W14 International Symposium and Workshops, Engineering Fire Safety in the Process of Design: Demonstrating Equivalency, University of Ulster, Jordanstown, Northern Ireland (1993b).Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    R.W. Fitzgerald, Building Fire Performance Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Fitzgerald, R.W. and Meacham, B.J., Fire Performance Analysis of Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, in development, target publication May 2016.Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    R.W. Fitzgerald, R.C. Richards, and C.L. Beyler, “Fire Analysis of the Polar Icebreaker Replacement Design,” Journal of Fire Protection Engineering, 3, 4, pp. 137–150 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Society of Fire Protection Engineers, SFPE Engineering Guide: Fire Risk Assessment, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Bethesda, MD (Nov. 2006).Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    John Hall Jr. and A. Sekizawa, “Revisiting Our 1991 Paper on Fire Risk Assessment,” Fire Technology, 46, pp 789–901, (2010).Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    NFPA 551, Guide for the Evaluation of Fire Risk Assessments, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2004 edition.Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    BS 7974-7, “Part 7—Probabilistic Risk Assessment,” Code on the Application of Fire Safety Engineering Principles to the Design of Buildings, British Standards Institute, London, UK (2003).Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    ISO/PDTS 16732, Fire Safety Engineering—Guidance on Fire Risk Assessment, International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland (2004).Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    D. Rasbash, G. Ramachandran, B. Kandola, J. Watts and M. Law, Evaluation of Fire Safety, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, England, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    B.J. Meacham, “Extreme Event Mitigation Through Risk-Informed Performance-Based Analysis and Design,” in Extreme Event Mitigation in Buildings: Analysis and Design (B.J. Meacham and M.A. Johann, eds.), National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, Chapter 2 (Apr. 2006).Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    BuildingQRA, Quantified Fire Risk Assessment Software for the Built Environment, Salisbury Fire Engineering Software, (www.fire-engineering-software.com), 2015.
  142. 142.
    C. Wade, G. Baker, K. Frank, A. Robbins, R. Harrison, M. Spearpoint, and C. Fleischmann. B-RISK User Guide and Technical Manual, BRANZ Study Report 282, BRANZ Ltd, Porirua, New Zealand (2013).Google Scholar
  143. 143.
    C.A. Wade. BRANZFIRE Technical Reference Guide (revised), BRANZ Ltd, Porirua, New Zealand (2004).Google Scholar

Further Readings

  1. C. Albrecht, “Quantifying life safety: Part I: Scenario-based quantification,” Fire Safety Journal, doi: 10.1016/j.firesaf.2014.01.003, Volume 64, Pages 87–94 (2014).
  2. C. Albrecht, “Quantifying life safety: Part II: Quantification of fire protection systems,” Fire Safety Journal, doi: 10.1016/j.firesaf.2014.01.002, Volume 64, Pages 81–86 (2014).
  3. V. Babrauskas, “Ensuring the Public’s Right to Adequate Fire Safety Under Performance-Based Building Codes,” in Proceedings of the 1998 Pacific Rim Conference and Second International Conference on Performance-Based Codes and Fire Safety Design Methods, ICBO and SFPE, Whittier, CA, pp. 239–247 (1998).Google Scholar
  4. M.S. Baram, Alternatives to Regulation: Managing Risks to Health, Safety and the Environment, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA (1982).Google Scholar
  5. V. Beck et al., Fire Safety and Engineering Project Report, The Warren Center for Advanced Engineering, Sydney, Australia (1989).Google Scholar
  6. V.R. Beck et al., “Microeconomic Reform: Fire Regulation,” National Building Fire Safety Systems Code, in Building Regulation Review Task Force, Department of Industry Technology and Commerce, Canberra, Australia, p. 165 (1991).Google Scholar
  7. M. Belsham, “Probable Cause,” Fire Risk Management, p. 41–46, February 2009.Google Scholar
  8. V.M. Brannigan and A. Kilpatrick, “Performance-Based Codes: Reengineering the Regulatory System,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Performance-Based Codes and Fire Safety Design Methods, SFPE, Bethesda, MD, pp. 139–149 (1997).Google Scholar
  9. H.S. Brown and R.L. Goble, “The Role of Scientists in Risk Assessment,” Risk: Issues in Health and Safety, 1, 4, pp. 283–311 (1990).Google Scholar
  10. D. Canter (ed.), Fires and Human Behavior, 2nd ed., Fulton Publishers, Ltd., London (1990).Google Scholar
  11. R.E. Cheit, Setting Safety Standards: Regulation in the Public and Private Sectors, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA (1990).Google Scholar
  12. G.Q. Chu, T. Chen, Z.H Sun, and J.H. Sun, “Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Evacuees in Building Fires,” Building and Environment, 42:1283–1290, 2007.Google Scholar
  13. G. Chu and J. Sun, “Quantitative Assessment of Building Fire Risk to Life Safety,” Risk Analysis, DOI:  10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01048.x, Volume 28, Issue 3, pages 615–625 (2008).
  14. G. Chu, J. Sun, “Decision analysis on fire safety design based on evaluating building fire risk to life,” Safety Science, doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2007.06.011, Volume 46, Issue 7, Pages 1125–1136 (2008).
  15. V.T. Covello et al. (eds.), The Analysis of Actual versus Perceived Risks, Plenum Press, New York (1983).Google Scholar
  16. V.T. Covello et al. (eds.), Risk Evaluation and Management, Plenum Press, New York (1986).Google Scholar
  17. V.T. Covello and M.W. Merkhofer, Risk Assessment Methods: Approaches for Assessing Health & Environmental Risks, Plenum Press, New York (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. V.T. Covello and J. Mumpower, “Risk Analysis and Risk Management: A Historical Perspective,” in Risk Evaluation and Management (V.T. Covello et al., eds.), Plenum Press, New York, pp. 519–540 (1986).Google Scholar
  19. R.E. Donnelly, “Implications of De Minimis Risk Concepts for OSHA,” in De Minimis Risk (C. Whipple, ed.), Plenum Press, New York, pp. 95–99 (1987).Google Scholar
  20. R.F. Fahy, “Building Fire Simulation Model. An Overview,” Fire Safety Journal, 9, pp. 189–203 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. A. Finkel, “Comparing Risks Thoughtfully,” Risk: Health, Safety & Environment, 7, 4, pp. 325–359 (1996).Google Scholar
  22. B. Fischhoff, “Acceptable Risk: A Conceptual Proposal,” Risk: Health, Safety & Environment, 5, 1, pp. 1–28 (1994).Google Scholar
  23. B. Fischhoff, “Public Values in Risk Research,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 545, pp. 75–84 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. B. Fischhoff, “Ranking Risks,” Risk: Health, Safety & Environment, 6, 3, pp. 191–202 (1996).Google Scholar
  25. B. Fischhoff, P. Slovic, and S. Lichtenstein, “Lay Foibles and Expert Fables in Judgements About Risk,” The American Statistician, 36, 3, pp. 240–255 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. R.W. Fitzgerald, “Thoughts on Building Codes, Design Standards, and Performance Evaluations for Fire,” Proceedings of the First International Conference on Performance-Based Codes and Fire Safety Design Methods, SFPE, Bethesda, MD, pp. 127–137 (1997).Google Scholar
  27. H. Frantzich. Uncertainty and Risk Analysis in Fire Safety Engineering. PhD thesis, Lund University Sweden, Department of Fire Safety Engineering, 1998.Google Scholar
  28. W. Freudenburg, “Perceived Risk, Real Risk: Social Science and the Art of PRA,” Science, 242, pp. 44–49 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. S.O. Funtowicz and J.R. Ravetz, “Three Types of Risk Assessment,” in Risk Analysis in the Private Sector (Whipple and Covello, eds.), Plenum Press, New York (1985).Google Scholar
  30. B.J. Garrick and W.C. Gekler (eds.), The Analysis, Communication and Perception of Risk, Plenum Press, New York (1991).Google Scholar
  31. T.S. Glickman and M. Gough (eds.), Readings in Risk, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC (1990).Google Scholar
  32. J.D. Graham et al. “Science and Analysis: Roles in Risk and Decision Making,” in Risk Evaluation and Management (V.T. Covello et al., eds.), Plenum Press, New York, pp. 503–518 (1986).Google Scholar
  33. J.R. Hall, Jr., “Societal Issues in Performance-Based Fire Safety Design,” in Proceedings of the Workshop on Performance-Based Fire Safety Design, the Society of Fire Protection Engineers and the Centre for Environmental and Risk Engineering, Victoria University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia (1997).Google Scholar
  34. J.R. Hall, Jr., “Using Data for Public Education Planning and Decision Making,” in Fire Protection Handbook, 20th ed. (A.E. Cote et al., eds.), National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, pp. 5-103–5-118 (2008).Google Scholar
  35. J.R. Hall, Jr., and A.E. Cote, “An Overview of the Fire Problem and Fire Protection,” in Fire Protection Handbook, 20th ed. (A.E. Cote et al., eds.), National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, pp. 3-3–3-30 (2008).Google Scholar
  36. J. R. Hall Jr. and A. Sekizawa, “Fire risk analysis: General conceptual framework for describing models,” Fire Technology, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 33–53 (1991).Google Scholar
  37. Y. Hasemi, “Wooden 3-Storey Apartment Building Shake and Burn Test Report,” Building Research Institute, Tsukuba, Japan (1992).Google Scholar
  38. Health and Safety Executive, The Tolerability of Risk from Nuclear Power Stations, HMSO, London (1988).Google Scholar
  39. S. Hostikka and O. Keski-Rahkonen, “Probabilistic Simulation of Fire Scenarios,” Nuclear Engineering and Design, 224:301–311, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. S. Hostikka, Development of fire simulation models for radiative heat transfer and probabilistic risk assessment. PhD thesis, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, 2008.Google Scholar
  41. House Committee on Science, Unlocking Our Future: Toward A New National Science Policy, Washington, DC (1998).Google Scholar
  42. D.W. Hubbard, The Failure of Risk Management: Why It’s Broken and How to fix It, John Wiley & Sons Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 2009.Google Scholar
  43. C.R. Jennings, “Socioeconomic Characteristics and Their Relationship to Fire Incidence: A Review of the Literature,” Fire Technology, 35, 1, pp. 7–34 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. X. Jing and H. Chongfu, “Fire risk analysis of residential buildings based on scenario clusters and its application in fire risk management,” Fire Safety Journal, Special Issue on Spatial Analytical Approaches in Urban Fire Management, doi: 10.1016/j.firesaf.2013.09.022, Volume 62, Part A, Pages 72–78 (2013)
  45. S.N. Jonkman, P.H.A.J.M. van Gelder, and J.K. Vrijling, “An Overview of Quantitative Risk Measures for Loss of Life and Economic Damage,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, 99, 1, pp. 1–30 (2003).Google Scholar
  46. D. Kahneman and A. Tversky, “The Psychology of Preferences,” Scientific American, 246, 1, pp. 162–173 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. R.E. Kasperson, “Acceptability of Human Risk,” Environmental Health Perspectives, 52, pp. 15–20 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. R.E. Kasperson, “Six Propositions for Public Participation and Their Relevance for Risk Communication,” Risk Analysis, 6, 3, pp. 275–281 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. R.E. Kasperson, “The Social Amplification of Risk: Progress in Developing an Integrative Framework,” Social Theories of Risk (Krimsky and Golding, eds.), Praeger, Westport, CT, pp. 153–178 (1992).Google Scholar
  50. R. Kasperson, D. Golding, and S. Tuler, “Social Distrust as a Factor in Siting Hazardous Facilities and Communicating Risks,” Journal of Social Issues, 48, 4, pp. 167–187 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. R.E. Kasperson and J.X. Kasperson, “Determining the Acceptability of Risk: Ethical and Policy Issues,” in Proceedings of Risk: A Symposium on the Assessment and Perception of Risk to Human Health in Canada (J.T. Rogers and D.V. Bates, eds.), Royal Society of Canada (1982).Google Scholar
  52. R.E. Kasperson and J.X. Kasperson, “Hidden Hazards,” in Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Hazard Management (D.C. Mayo and R. Hollander, eds.), Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 9–28 (1990).Google Scholar
  53. R. Kasperson et al., “The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework,” Risk Analysis, 8, pp. 177–187 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. R.E. Kasperson et al., Corporate Management of Health & Safety Hazards: A Comparison of Current Practice, Westview Press, Boulder, CO (1988a).Google Scholar
  55. R.E. Kasperson and I. Palmlund, “Evaluating Risk Communication,” in Effective Risk Communication (V.T. Covello et al., eds.), Plenum Press, New York, pp. 143–158 (1989).Google Scholar
  56. R.E. Kasperson and P.J.M. Stallen (eds.), Communicating Risk to the Public, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands (1991).Google Scholar
  57. R. Kates et al., Perilous Progress: Managing the Hazards of Technology, Westview Press, Boulder, CO (1985).Google Scholar
  58. R.L. Keeney, Value Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision Making, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (1992).Google Scholar
  59. R.L. Keeney, “The Role of Values in Risk Management,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 545, pp. 126–134 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. P.R. Kleindorfer, H.C. Kunreuther, and P.J.H. Schoemaker, Decision Sciences: An Integrative Perspective, Cambridge University Press, New York (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. M. Kobayashi, “A Methodology for Evaluating Fire/Life Safety Planning of Tall Buildings,” in “Evaluation of Fire Safety in Buildings,” Occasional Report of Japanese Association of Fire Science and Engineering (Nihon Kasaigakka, ed.), 3, pp. 204–214 (1979).Google Scholar
  62. S. Krimsky and D. Golding (eds.), Social Theories of Risk, Praeger, Westport, CT (1992).Google Scholar
  63. H. Kunreuther and P. Slovic, “Science, Values, and Risk,” in special edition of The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (Kunreuther and Slovic, eds.), 545, pp. 116–125 (1996a).Google Scholar
  64. H. Kunreuther and P. Slovic (eds.), “Challenges in Risk Assessment and Risk Management,” in special edition of The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science, 545 (1996b).Google Scholar
  65. T.T. Lie, “Safety Factors for Fire Loads,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 6, pp. 617–628 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. W-C.T. Ling and R.B. Williamson, “Using Fire Tests for Quantitative Risk Analysis,” in ASTM Special Publication STP 762 (G.T. Castino and T.Z. Harmathy, eds.), American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia (1982).Google Scholar
  67. D. Litai, A Risk Comparison Methodology for the Assessment of Acceptable Risk, Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA (1980).Google Scholar
  68. D. Litai, D.D. Lanning, and N. Rasmussen, “The Public Perception of Risk,” in The Analysis of Actual Versus Perceived Risks (V.T. Covello et al., eds.), Plenum Press, New York, pp. 213–224 (1983).Google Scholar
  69. D.A. Lucht (ed.), Proceedings of the Conference on Fire Safety Design in the 21st Century, Worcester, MA (1991).Google Scholar
  70. B.D. McDowell and A.C. Lemer, Uses of Risk Analysis to Achieve Balanced Safety in Building Design and Operations, National Academy Press, Washington, DC (1991).Google Scholar
  71. B.J. Meacham, “Risk-Informed Decision-Making in Performance-Based Building and Fire Code Development,” in Proceedings of the NFPRF Fire Risk and Hazard Assessment Research Application Symposium, NFPRF, Quincy, MA, pp. 62–77 (1998).Google Scholar
  72. B.J. Meacham, “Concepts of a Performance-Based Building Regulatory System for the United States,” NIST GCR 98-762, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD (1998b).Google Scholar
  73. B.J. Meacham, “The Evolution of Performance-Based Codes and Fire Safety Design Methods,” NIST GCR 98-763, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD (1998c).Google Scholar
  74. B.J. Meacham, “Integrating Human Factors Issues into Engineered Fire Safety Design,” in Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Human Behavior in Fire, University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, pp. 47–58 (1998d).Google Scholar
  75. B.J. Meacham, “Incorporating Risk Concepts into Performance-Based Building and Fire Code Development,” in Proceedings of the Second Conference on Fire Design in the 21st Century, Worcester, MA (1999a).Google Scholar
  76. B.J. Meacham, “Integrating Human Behavior and Response Issues into Fire Safety Management of Facilities,” Facilities, 17, 9/10, pp. 303–312 (1999b).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. B.J. Meacham, “Integrating Human Factors Issues into Engineered Fire Safety Design,” Fire and Materials, 23, pp. 273–279 (1999c).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. B.J. Meacham, “Challenges in Decision-Making for Fire Risk Problems,” Journal of Fire Protection Engineering, 14, 2, pp. 149–168 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. B.J. Meacham and M. Johann (eds.), Extreme Event Mitigation in Buildings: Analysis and Design, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA (Apr. 2006).Google Scholar
  80. B.J. Meacham, “Using Risk as a Basis for Establishing Tolerable Performance: An Approach for Performance-Based Building Regulation,” in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Performance-Based Codes and Fire Safety Design Methods, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Bethesda, MD (Apr. 2008).Google Scholar
  81. B.J. Meacham and C. Galioto, “Protecting Against Extreme Events,” in Fire Protection Handbook, 20th ed. (A.E. Cote et al., eds.), National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, pp. 1-109–1-136 (2008).Google Scholar
  82. M. Modarres and F. Joglar-Billoch, “Reliability,” in SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 3rd ed. (P.J. DiNenno et al., eds.), National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, pp. 5-24–5-39 (2002).Google Scholar
  83. M.G. Morgan, “Choosing and Managing Technology-Induced Risk,” in Readings in Risk (Glickman and Gough, eds.), Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, pp. 17–28 (1990).Google Scholar
  84. NFPA, Fire Protection Handbook, 20th ed., Quincy, MA (2008).Google Scholar
  85. NFPA 101A, Guide on Alternative Approaches to Life Safety, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA (2007).Google Scholar
  86. NIST “1994 Northridge Earthquake: Performance of Structures, Lifelines and Fire Protection Systems,” NIST Special Publication 862 (ICSSC TR14), NIST, Gaithersburg, MD (1994).Google Scholar
  87. NKB “Performance Requirements for Fire Safety and Technical Guide for Verification by Calculation,” NKB Committee and Work Reports, 1994:07 E, Nordic Committee on Building Regulations (NKB), Fire Safety Committee, Helsinki, Finland (1995).Google Scholar
  88. K.A. Notarianni and P. Fischbeck, “A Methodology for the Quantitative Treatment of Variability and Uncertainty in Performance-Based Engineering Analysis and/or Decision Analysis with a Case Study in Residential Fire Sprinklers,” in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Performance-Based Codes and Fire Safety Design Methods, ICBO and SFPE, Whittier, CA, pp. 297–311 (1998).Google Scholar
  89. NRC Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC (1983).Google Scholar
  90. NRC Improving Risk Communication, (J.F. Ahearne et al., eds.), National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC (1989).Google Scholar
  91. NRC Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment, National Academy Press, Washington, DC (1994).Google Scholar
  92. T. O’Riordan, “Approaches to Regulation,” in Regulating Industrial Risks—Science, Hazards and Public Protection (H. Otway and M. Peltu, eds.), Butterworths, London, pp. 20–39 (1985).Google Scholar
  93. H. Otway “Regulation and Risk Analysis,” in Regulating Industrial Risks—Science, Hazards and Public Protection (H. Otway and M. Peltu, eds.), Butterworths, London, pp. 1–19 (1985).Google Scholar
  94. H. Otway and M. Peltu (eds.), Regulating Industrial Risks—Science, Hazards and Public Protection, Butterworths, London (1985).Google Scholar
  95. H. Otway and D. Von Winterfeldt, “Beyond Acceptable Risk: On Social Acceptability of Technologies,” Policy Sciences, 14, pp. 247–256 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. H. Otway and B. Wynne, “Risk Communication: Paradigm and Paradox,” Risk Analysis, 9, 2, pp. 141–145 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. M.E. Pate, “Acceptable Decision Processes and Acceptable Risks in Public Sector Regulations,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-13, 3, pp. 113–124 (1983).Google Scholar
  98. C. Perrow, Normal Accidents, Basic Books, New York (1984).Google Scholar
  99. N. Pidgeon et al., “Risk Perception,” Risk: Analysis, Perception and Management, Report of the Royal Society, London, pp. 89–134 (1992).Google Scholar
  100. A. Plough and S. Krimsky, “The Emergence of Risk Communication Studies: Social and Political Context,” in Readings in Risk (Glickman and Gough, eds.), Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, pp. 223–232 (1990).Google Scholar
  101. M. Pollak, “Public Participation,” in Regulating Industrial Risks—Science, Hazards and Public Protection (H. Otway and M. Peltu, eds.), Butterworths, London, pp. 76–93 (1985).Google Scholar
  102. R.A. Pollak, “Government Risk Regulation,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 545, pp. 25–34 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. D. Proske, Catalogue of Risks: Natural, Technical, Social and Health Risks, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, ISBN 978-3540795544, 2008Google Scholar
  104. D.J. Rasbash, “Criteria for Acceptability for Use with Quantitative Approaches to Fire Safety,” Fire Safety Journal, 8, pp. 141–158 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. N.C. Rassmussen, Reactor Safety Study: WASH-1400, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC (1975).Google Scholar
  106. O. Renn, “Concepts of Risk: A Classification,” in Social Theories of Risk (Krimsky and Golding, eds.), Praeger, Westport, CT, pp. 54–79 (1992).Google Scholar
  107. O. Renn and D. Levine, “Credibility and Trust in Risk Communication,” in Communicating Risks to the Public (R.E. Kasperson and P.M. Stallon, eds.), Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 175–218 (1991).Google Scholar
  108. W.D. Rowe, Anatomy of Risk, John Wiley and Sons, New York (1977).Google Scholar
  109. W.D. Rowe, “Understanding Uncertainty,” Risk Analysis, 14, 5, pp. 743–750 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. A. Sekizawa, “Fire Risk Analysis: Its Validity And Potential For Application In Fire Safety,” Fire Safety Science, 8: 85–100. doi: 10.3801/IAFSS.FSS.8-85 (2005).
  111. SFPE Proceedings of the 1998 International Conference on Performance-Based Codes and Fire Safety Design Methods, SFPE and ICBO, Bethesda, MD (1998).Google Scholar
  112. T.J. Shields, A Fire Safety Evaluation Points Scheme for Dwellings, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Ulster, Jordanstown, Northern Ireland (1990).Google Scholar
  113. T.J. Shields (ed.), Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Human Behaviour in Fire, University of Ulster, Antrim, Northern Ireland (1998).Google Scholar
  114. N. Siu and G. Apostolakis, “Uncertain Data and Expert Opinions in the Assessment of the Unavailability of Fire Suppression Systems,” Fire Technology, 24, pp. 138–162 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. P. Slovic, “Perception of Risk: Reflections on the Psychometric Paradigm,” in Social Theories of Risk (Krimsky and Golding, eds.), Praeger, Westport, CT (1992).Google Scholar
  116. M.B. Spangler, “A Summary Perspective on NRC’s Implicit and Explicit Use of De Minimis Risk Concepts in Regulating for Radiological Protection in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle,” in DeMinimis Risk (C. Whipple, ed.), Plenum Press, New York, pp. 111–143 (1988).Google Scholar
  117. C. Starr, “Societal Benefit vs. Technological Risk,” Science, 165, pp. 1232–1238 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. C. Starr, “Risk Management, Assessment, and Acceptability,” in Uncertainty in Risk Assessment, Risk Management, and Decision Making (V.T. Covello et al., eds.), Plenum Press, New York, pp. 63–70 (1986).Google Scholar
  119. T. Tanaka, D. Nii, J. Yamaguchi, H. Notake, and Y. Ikehata, “A Study on Risk-Based Evacuation Safety Design Method in Fire for Office Buildings,” Proceedings, Interflam 9, Interscience Communications, Ltd, UK, p. 849–860, 2010.Google Scholar
  120. T. Tanaka, “Risk-Based Selection of Design Fires to Ensure an Acceptable Level of Evacuation Safety.” Fire Safety Science – Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium, IAFSS, pp 49–62, 2008.Google Scholar
  121. I.R. Thomas, I.D. Bennetts, P. Dayawansa, D.J. Proe, and R.R. Lewis, Fire Tests of the 140 William Street Office Building, Report No. BHPR/ENG/R/92/043/SG2C, BHP Research—Melbourne Laboratories, Australia, Feb. 1992.Google Scholar
  122. W.K. Viscusi, Regulating Consumer Product Safety, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy, Washington, DC (1984).Google Scholar
  123. Warren Centre “Project Report” and “Technical Papers, Books 1 and 2,” Fire Safety and Engineering Project, The Warren Centre for Advanced Engineering, the University of Sydney, Australia (1989).Google Scholar
  124. J.M. Watts, Jr., “Dealing with Uncertainty: Some Applications in Fire Protection Engineering,” Fire Safety Journal, 11, pp. 127–134 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. C. Whipple (ed.), De Minimis Risk, Plenum Press, New York (1987).Google Scholar
  126. C.A. Williams and R.M. Heins, Risk Management and Insurance, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York (1981).Google Scholar
  127. R. Wilson, “Analyzing the Daily Risks of Life,” in Readings in Risk (Glickman and Gough, eds.), Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, pp. 55–61 (1990).Google Scholar
  128. A. Wolski, Addressing Building Fire Safety as an Acceptable Risk Problem: A Guide for Developing Performance-Based Fire Safety Regulations, Masters Thesis, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA (1999).Google Scholar
  129. A. Wolski, N. Dembsey, and B. Meacham, “Application of Acceptable Risk Principles to Performance-Based Building and Fire Safety Code Development,” in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Performance-Based Codes and Fire Safety Design Methods, ICBO and SFPE, Whittier, CA (1998).Google Scholar
  130. A. Wolski, N. Dembsey, and B. Meacham, “Accommodating Perceptions of Risk in Performance-Based Building Fire Safety Code Development,” Fire Safety Journal, 34, 3, pp. 297–310 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. B. Wynne, “Risk and Social Learning: Reification to Engagement,” in Social Theories of Risk (Krimsky and Golding, eds.), Praeger, Westport, CT, pp. 275–300 (1992).Google Scholar
  132. D. Yung and G.V. Hadjisophocleous, “The Use of the NRCC Risk-Cost Assessment Model to Apply for Code Changes for 3-Storey Apartment Buildings in Australia,” in Proceedings of the Symposium on Computer Applications in Fire Protection Engineering, Worcester, MA, pp. 57–62 (1993).Google Scholar
  133. R.J. Zeckhauser and W.K. Viscusi, “The Risk Management Dilemma,” in special edition of The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (Kunreuther and Slovic, eds.), 545, pp. 144–154 (1996).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Fire Protection Engineers 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian J. Meacham
    • 1
  • David Charters
    • 1
  • Peter Johnson
    • 1
  • Matthew Salisbury
    • 1
  1. 1.Worcester Polytechnic InstituteMassachusettsUSA

Personalised recommendations