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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

F.R.A.M.E. Case study 3. Hotel International at Zurich (CH) , February 14, 1988 This high-rise hotel (28 floors) had a fire resistive construction and automatic fire detection. A fire in the restaurant at the 24 th floor resulted in 6 deaths and total destruction of that compartment. The FRAME calculation was made with the data found in the June 1988 ANPI magazine n° 91, “instructive fire” report nr 137. The fire case was used in the development of the FRAME version 2, as the calculation by FRAME version 1 did not indicate such a high risk for the occupants. Item explanation (sub) factor Value Result Type of occupancy restaurant in high rise hotel Fire load immobile Qi 100 Fire load mobile Qm 200 q=1.01 Temperature rise T 100 Average dimension m 0.3 Reaction to fire M 3 i=1.25 Length l 26 Width b 19 g=0.62 Level E 24 e=1.89 Height of room h 3 Ventilation k 2 % v=0.88 Access direction Z 4 Height difference H 72 z=1.15 Potential Risks P= 1.64 P1=2.64 P2=1.49 Activation factor Main: residential Heating : ok Electrical: ok Explosion: no Secondary: yes, cooking a 0 0 0 0 0.1 a=0.10 Occupants Number: 150 Mobility factor: 6 +risk of panic Exits X 10 Exit directions k 2 Evacuation time factor + no clear exits t=0.63 Content factor: 5 M. euro c=0.00 environment factor r r= 0.5 dependency factor d d= 0.5 Acceptable Risks A= 0.87 A1= 0.37 A2 =1.00 Water supplies Normal protection Special Protection no proper alarming, training, hose reels fire detection, professional fire brigade Fire resistance Structure: 120 Walls: 60 Ceiling:60 Partitions:0 Escape protection fire detection, horizontal evacuation 50% W=1.00 N = 0.66 S= 2.65 F=1.69 U=4.32 Salvage Y=1.47 Calculated Risks: R= 0.63 R1= 2.46 R2=0.57 Conclusion: poor protection These results indicate a situation with a low risk for property but a high risk for the occupants. The 3 main factors that caused the catastrophe were the combustible decoration, the lack of organisation and training of the personnel, and the location at the 24 th floor. The 8
F.R.A.M.E. corresponding factors in the FRAME calculation are : the fire spread factor i and the environment factor r, the level factor e and also low value of the normal protection N. Case study 4. Hotel fire in Kristiansand (NO) , September 5 th , 1986 Reference : Fire Prevention n° 198, April 1987 In the early morning of 5 September 1986 a severe fire swept through the Hotel Caledonian in Kristiansand in the south of Norway. The fire resulted in the death of fourteen guests and injury to fifty others. In the event, the fire protection features of the hotel proved inadequate and staff training not very effective. The hotel, constructed in 1968, complied with the building regulations in force at the time. It also complied with the Norwegian Hotel Fire Precautions Act 1963 that, among other requirements, ordered that the entire premises be protected by an automatic fire alarm system. Unfortunately, the system installed comprised only heat-activated detectors but it did have a direct link to the fire brigade. It was also linked to a tape system that relayed information to guests in case of fire. The lower three storeys of the building contained the reception area, restaurants, discotheques and conference facilities. The third storey in the tower housed the administration offices and the fourth to twelfth storeys contained two hundred guest rooms. On the night of the incident, there were 113 guests in the hotel. Two night porters were on duty. At around 0440 hours the porter checking security was alerted by the fire alarm. He immediately took the lift to the first storey reception area where he was greeted by flames and smoke near the stairwell. Together with the other porter, he ran through the restaurant into the street where both men found themselves locked out. The fire brigade in Kristiansand did receive a telephone call at 0440 hours with the message 'Fire in the reception of Hotel Caledonian' and seconds later the automatic fire message came through. The brigade responded by immediately. On arriving at the hotel three minutes later, the firemen were confronted by a very serious fire. The emergency staircase led down to the reception area that was aflame. The first firemen to arrive concentrated their initial effort in this area as they believed that the stairway was filled with trapped guests who could not get through the burning reception area. However, the two jets initially available proved no match for the intense heat. It was also established that none of the guests had reached the emergency stairs due to smoke logging of corridors outside the bedrooms. The fire spread rapidly and soon involved the first four storeys of the hotel. Firemen began rescuing guests with ladders, breathing apparatus teams entered the hotel through broken windows to assist guests onto the ladders. Conditions were extremely difficult with heavy smoke pouring from the building. The fire was thought to have been caused by an electrical fault in the wiring to a ceiling lamp located in the stairway between the first storey reception and the ground storey restaurant. The lower storeys were found to have been inadequately compartmented, with gaps between fire resisting walls and floors. The walls and ceilings had combustible linings that assisted fire spread. FRAME calculation The report of Fire Prevention n°198 , April 1987, did not give al the features of the building, so a FRAME calculation can only be made with some guesswork for the missing parameters. However, this first rough approach gave as a result R=1.00, R1=2.54, R2=1.65. These values 9
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: F.R.A.M.E. Case study 2. Dupont Pla
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 and 20: F.R.A.M.E. Item explanation (sub) f
Page 21 and 22: F.R.A.M.E. The pendulum swung to th
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?