When FRA will be an exact science?

[Chris Houston]

You should take in to account the percentage of fires that are reported to the fire service.  Most are not.

[Benzerari]

The probability of fire occurrence ‘Pf’ should be function of so many variables including:
1  -   'P1' percentage related to previous statistics and it should be at least multiplied by a coefficient of 1.5, since the real world statistics are far more serious than the one recorded and compiled by statisticians... etc
2  -  'P2' the percentage of availability of combustible material in the building compared to other none combustible ones... etc
3  -  'P3' the percentage related to the medium temperature within the building deducted from a year time records... etc

Probability of fire occurence ‘Pf’ = f (P1, P2, P3, ...) = P1 + P2 + P3 + ... etc

In addition to other variables where applicable... etc, also each sub probability could be function of others sub-variables… etc

What do you think guys?

[Benzerari]

The probability of fire occurrence ‘Pf’ should be function of so many variables including:
1  -   'P1' percentage related to previous statistics and it should be at least multiplied by a coefficient of 1.5, since the real world statistics are far more serious than the one recorded and compiled by statisticians... etc
2  -  'P2' the percentage of availability of combustible material in the building compared to other none combustible ones... etc
3  -  'P3' the percentage related to the medium temperature within the building deducted from a year time records... etc

Probability of fire occurence ‘Pf’ = f (P1, P2, P3, ...) = P1 + P2 + P3 + ... etc

In addition to other variables where applicable... etc, also each sub probability could be function of others sub-variables… etc

What do you think guys?

Building alteration may affect the the probability of fire occurence 'Pf' therefore It has to be taken into account...

What do you think?

[nearlythere]

The probability of fire occurrence ‘Pf’ should be function of so many variables including:
1  -   'P1' percentage related to previous statistics and it should be at least multiplied by a coefficient of 1.5, since the real world statistics are far more serious than the one recorded and compiled by statisticians... etc
2  -  'P2' the percentage of availability of combustible material in the building compared to other none combustible ones... etc
3  -  'P3' the percentage related to the medium temperature within the building deducted from a year time records... etc

Probability of fire occurence ‘Pf’ = f (P1, P2, P3, ...) = P1 + P2 + P3 + ... etc

In addition to other variables where applicable... etc, also each sub probability could be function of others sub-variables… etc

What do you think guys?

Building alteration may affect the the probability of fire occurence 'Pf' therefore It has to be taken into account...

What do you think?

Should you not include the human factor?

[kurnal]

Why complicate things and try to quantify things that cannot be measured.

What is the probability that I will be knocked down and killed by a yellow ford focus whilst crossing the road outside 60 Old Kent Road at 1032 pm tonight having drunk two pints of Fullers? What if I drink three pints of Stella?

Answer - absolutely zero. I only drink wine.

KISS

[Benzerari]

Why complicate things and try to quantify things that cannot be measured.

What is the probability that I will be knocked down and killed by a yellow ford focus whilst crossing the road outside 60 Old Kent Road at 1032 pm tonight having drunk two pints of Fullers? What if I drink three pints of Stella?

Answer - absolutely zero. I only drink wine.

KISS

Kurnal;

I think every thing can be quantified at least with probabilities... etc, it's rather our understanding and analysis towards seeing things, which haven't yet achieved to decipher the necessary know how, to do so... etc

[kurnal]

But probabilities are always approximations and always include error, the more variables the greater the margin of error and once you start multiplying error by error the result is so inaccurate it becomes dangerous. And besides human factors - failure to behave in the expected manner - is at the root of most fires. This failure may cause a fire through carelessnes or intent, the failure to install or maintain properly may cause the consequences of the fire to be more serious than they should be, the persons may behave in the wrong way and this may affect their ability to make a safe escape.

Why dont you have a read of BS7974 which approaches fire safety from an engineering basis and the interactions of sub systems affecting fire safety- it may be what you are looking for.

[Benzerari]

The probability of fire occurrence ‘Pf’ should be function of so many variables including:
1  -   'P1' percentage related to previous statistics and it should be at least multiplied by a coefficient of 1.5, since the real world statistics are far more serious than the one recorded and compiled by statisticians... etc
2  -  'P2' the percentage of availability of combustible material in the building compared to other none combustible ones... etc
3  -  'P3' the percentage related to the medium temperature within the building deducted from a year time records... etc

Probability of fire occurence ‘Pf’ = f (P1, P2, P3, ...) = P1 + P2 + P3 + ... etc

In addition to other variables where applicable... etc, also each sub probability could be function of others sub-variables… etc

What do you think guys?

Building alteration may affect the the probability of fire occurence 'Pf' therefore It has to be taken into account...

What do you think?

Should you not include the human factor?

Just nearlythere good point    I mean it's a good point

[Benzerari]

Why dont you have a read of BS7974 which approaches fire safety from an engineering basis and the interactions of sub systems affecting fire safety- it may be what you are looking for.

Have you got a copy of BS7984 please

[jokar]

Yes.

[kurnal]

Your local library will be able to help you. BS7974 is copyright and runs to several hundred pages.

[Benzerari]

But probabilities are always approximations and always include error, the more variables the greater the margin of error and once you start multiplying error by error the result is so inaccurate it becomes dangerous. And besides human factors - failure to behave in the expected manner - is at the root of most fires. This failure may cause a fire through carelessnes or intent, the failure to install or maintain properly may cause the consequences of the fire to be more serious than they should be, the persons may behave in the wrong way and this may affect their ability to make a safe escape.

Kurnal;


What I meant from this topic is that, one day the fire risk assessment may achieve some ways to end up by saying, the building will be 70% safe by means there are 30% chance fire can strike..., it's all about predictions in more scientific and engineering ways, probabilities have been used for so long time for predictions processes, the weather forecast is just an example of that, when saying tomorrow it will be shower in the morning till mid day... and sunshine till the end of day with clear sky...etc, even their predictions fails some times. At the end of the day, they are just predictions based on probabilities, statistics and mathematical calculations, while taking into account so many variables and parameters of both major and minor effects..., even though some times the prediction itself revealed to be far away from the reality..., therefore it's this failure in calculation that must be taken into account while investigating, in order to either correct, or find out other substantial directives and solutions in predicting the probability of fire occurrence...etc

[Benzerari]

But probabilities are always approximations and always include error, the more variables the greater the margin of error and once you start multiplying error by error the result is so inaccurate it becomes dangerous. And besides human factors - failure to behave in the expected manner - is at the root of most fires. This failure may cause a fire through carelessnes or intent, the failure to install or maintain properly may cause the consequences of the fire to be more serious than they should be, the persons may behave in the wrong way and this may affect their ability to make a safe escape.

Kurnal;


What I meant from this topic is that, one day the fire risk assessment may achieve some ways to end up by saying, the building will be 70% safe by means there are 30% chance fire can strike..., it's all about predictions in more scientific and engineering ways, probabilities have been used for so long time for predictions processes, the weather forecast is just an example of that, when saying tomorrow it will be shower in the morning till mid day... and sunshine till the end of day with clear sky...etc, even their predictions fails some times. At the end of the day, they are just predictions based on probabilities, statistics and mathematical calculations, while taking into account so many variables and parameters of both major and minor effects..., even though some times the prediction itself revealed to be far away from the reality..., therefore it's this failure in calculation that must be taken into account while investigating, in order to either correct, or find out other substantial directives and solutions in predicting the probability of fire occurrence...etc

What do you think about this?

[Chris Houston]

Kurnal;


What I meant from this topic is that, one day the fire risk assessment may achieve some ways to end up by saying, the building will be 70% safe by means there are 30% chance fire can strike.....

The liklihood od a fire occuring in any year is less than 1% in more then 99% of buildings.

[Benzerari]

Kurnal;


What I meant from this topic is that, one day the fire risk assessment may achieve some ways to end up by saying, the building will be 70% safe by means there are 30% chance fire can strike.....

The liklihood od a fire occuring in any year is less than 1% in more then 99% of buildings.

How did you calculate that?