FRAME Calculation examples book. - FRAME Fire Risk Assessment ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

F.R.A.M.E. The central airport building was completely renewed and provided for a larger flow of passengers with more comfort and more services. The new fire safety concept addresses all weaknesses found during the analysis of the 1996 event, and uses the following main goals : minimising fire loads, compartimentation, early detection of fire, smoke control, safeguarding the evacuation The data available in the reference article were enough to recalculate the fire risk for the new concept. The results of this calculation show a very low residual risk, which goes beyond the standard "good" level proposed by FRAME. In the next table , the improved values are in bold. Item explanation (sub) factor Value Result Type of occupancy Dusseldorf Airport 2000+ concept Fire load immobile Qi 150 Fire load mobile Qm 400 q=1.28 Temperature rise T 250 Average dimension m 0.3 Reaction to fire M 1.0 i=0.90 Length l 250 Width b 90 g=3.61 Level level access improved E 0 e=1.00 Height of room h 5 Ventilation smoke venting system k 1.16 % v=0.94 Access direction Z 2 Height difference H 0 z=1.00 Potential Risks P= 4.30 P1=1.19 P2=3.37 Activation factor Main: non industrial a 0 a=0.0 Heating : ok Electrical: ok Explosion: no Secondary: none 0 0 0 0 Occupants Number: 4000 Mobility factor: 2 Exits X 72 Exit directions k 2 Evacuation time factor t=0.37 Content factor: 200 M. Euro c=0.37 environment factor r r= 0.32 dependency factor d d= 0.30 Acceptable Risks A= 0.86 A1= 0.91 A2 =0.93 Water supplies adequate W=1.00 Normal protection limited training N = 0.90 Special Protection automatic detection, S= 14.64 sprinklers, permanently staffed station, private airport brigade Fire resistance Structure: 90 F=1.08 Walls: 60 Ceiling:60 Partitions:0 Escape protection see above U= 12.04 Salvage safeguarded data and Y=1.63 repair Calculated Risks: R= 0.35 R1= 0.12 R2=0.17 Conclusion: inadequate protection 20
F.R.A.M.E. The pendulum swung to the other side as could be expected: Based on the FRAME calculations, it is possible to say that in the Dusseldorf Airport, the fire protection design was not properly balanced: before the catastrophe, it was too poor, afterwards a costly overdone design was chosen.... Case study 12. The Sight and Sound Theater (US) fire on February 28, 1997. This fire has been extensively documented in report 097 of the major fires investigation project, published by the United States Fire Administration. The following information comes from the report overview: “On the morning of January 28, 1997, in the Lancaster County , Pennsy1vania township of Strasburg, a fire caused the collapse of the state-of-the-art, seven year old Sight and Sound Theater and resulted in structural damage to most of the connecting buildings. The theater was a total loss, valued at over $15 million. The stage area was undergoing renovation and the theater was closed to the public, however, approximately 200 people, construction staff and employees were in the building at the time the fire started. Although the theater was built to conform to a two hour, fire rated assembly code requirement, many other fire protection features that could have assisted in saving the structure and reducing the damage were not present. Further contributing to the resultant loss, was the failure of the alarm system to notify the fire dispatch communications center and the lack of an adequate, readily available water supply. The volunteer fire departments that responded were faced with difficult fire conditions and tactical challenges for which they had not been adequately trained, and were without the benefit of adequate pre-planning. Local fire service suggestions for built-in fire suppression and smoke ventilation systems during the pre-construction plan review phase were ignored. While the incident was influenced by many conditions and situations that contributed to the large fire loss, fortunately there was no loss of life and only six minor injuries to the construction company staff. If the 1,400 seat capacity auditorium had been full, the situation could have been catastrophic.” The following issues have been identified in the report summary of key issues issues comments FRAME Fire origin Welding operations caused the fire. added as risk factor in the activation factor a Sprinkler System Waived Alarm System Failure Employees Delayed Report of Fire Structural Failure The requirement for sprinklers in the high hazard storage area under the stage was offset for a central alarmed smoke detector system and 2-hour fire walls. The alarm system failed to notify the county fire communications center and contributed to a delayed response. The fire was discovered by theater employees who used fire extinguishers for several minutes calling 911. Construction on the stage floor damaged the sprayed-on fire-resistant coating of see special protection factor S =1.80 , calculation of initial risk R0 also indicates the need for sprinkler protection Thermal detection included in special protection S and escape factor U intervention time estimated at 15 minutes, not included in the calculation, fire resistance 21
Page 1 and 2: FRAME Calculation examples book.
Page 3 and 4: F.R.A.M.E. Case study 43. Synthetic
Page 5 and 6: FRAME calculations for real fires.
Page 7 and 8: F.R.A.M.E. Case study 2. Dupont Pla
Page 9 and 10: F.R.A.M.E. corresponding factors in
Page 11 and 12: F.R.A.M.E. Case study 6. Fire at
Page 13 and 14: F.R.A.M.E. Background The fire occu
Page 15 and 16: F.R.A.M.E. Occupants Number: 10 Mob
Page 17 and 18: F.R.A.M.E. evaluating the damage to
Page 19: F.R.A.M.E. Item explanation (sub) f
Page 23 and 24: F.R.A.M.E. Access direction Z 3 Hei
Page 25 and 26: F.R.A.M.E. Case study 14. Hartford
Page 27 and 28: F.R.A.M.E. Height difference H 15 z
Page 29 and 30: F.R.A.M.E. and exit capacity still
Page 31 and 32: F.R.A.M.E. FRAME version 2. Fire pr
Page 33 and 34: F.R.A.M.E. Maximum occupancy is 500
Page 35 and 36: F.R.A.M.E. Item explanation (sub) f
Page 37 and 38: F.R.A.M.E. The FRAME calculation fo
Page 39 and 40: F.R.A.M.E. Fire resistance Structur
Page 41 and 42: F.R.A.M.E. Case study 25. High rack
Page 43 and 44: F.R.A.M.E. than one unit Calculated
Page 45 and 46: F.R.A.M.E. A third calculation was
Page 47 and 48: F.R.A.M.E. Salvage data protected,
Page 49 and 50: F.R.A.M.E. The proposal was to equi
Page 51 and 52: F.R.A.M.E. Case study 30. Company c
Page 53 and 54: F.R.A.M.E. Other non-industrial ris
Page 55 and 56: F.R.A.M.E. Case study 33. Medical g
Page 57 and 58: F.R.A.M.E. Case study 35. Medical g
Page 59 and 60: F.R.A.M.E. Case study 37. Bubble fo
Page 61 and 62: F.R.A.M.E. Pet bottle manufacturer,
Page 63 and 64: F.R.A.M.E. Case study 39. Stockings
Page 65 and 66: F.R.A.M.E. Case study 41. Jute spin
Page 67 and 68: F.R.A.M.E. Case study 43. Synthetic
Page 69 and 70: F.R.A.M.E. Floor coverings industry
Page 71 and 72:
F.R.A.M.E. Case study 46. Floor cov
Page 73 and 74:
F.R.A.M.E. Case study 48. Carpet ma
Page 75 and 76:
F.R.A.M.E. Woodworking industry wit
Page 77 and 78:
F.R.A.M.E. More woodworking industr
Page 79 and 80:
F.R.A.M.E. Food industry with FRAME
Page 81 and 82:
F.R.A.M.E. Case study 54. Chocolate
Page 83 and 84:
F.R.A.M.E. Case study 56. Frozen ve
Page 85 and 86:
F.R.A.M.E. Fire load mobile Content
Page 87 and 88:
F.R.A.M.E. Case study 60. Animal fe
Page 89 and 90:
F.R.A.M.E. Case study 62. Storage s
Page 91 and 92:
F.R.A.M.E. Electric and electronics
Page 93 and 94:
F.R.A.M.E. Case study 65. Electroni
Page 95 and 96:
F.R.A.M.E. More electric and electr
Page 97 and 98:
F.R.A.M.E. Case study 68. Paint man
Page 99 and 100:
F.R.A.M.E. Case study 70. Honeycomb
Page 101 and 102:
F.R.A.M.E. Case study 72. Car seats
Page 103 and 104:
F.R.A.M.E. Case studies 74. Metalwo
Page 105 and 106:
F.R.A.M.E. Real fire cases with FRA
Page 107:
F.R.A.M.E. FREME. The predecessor o
show all

FRAME Calculation examples book. - FRAME Fire Risk Assessment ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?