Abstract
AbstractRisk-based design and assessment methods are gaining popularity in performance-based structural fire engineering. These methods usually start by defining a set of hazard scenarios to use as analysis inputs. This approach, proven highly effective for other hazard types such as earthquakes, may not be optimal for fire safety design. Indeed, the strong coupling between the fire phenomenon and structural features enables an ad-hoc design variable selection (and/or optimisation) to reduce fire intensity, making fire scenarios additional design outputs. In addition, such a coupling effect implies that fire scenarios maximising consequences are structure specific. Building on these considerations, this paper discusses the limitations that arise at different analysis steps (i.e., fire-scenario and intensity treatment, identifying fire intensity measures, probabilistic fire hazard analysis, developing fire fragility models, and risk calculation) when using conventional risk-based approaches for design purposes. Furthermore, it compares such approaches with a fire safety design methodology (the Consequence-oriented Fire intensity Optimisation, CFO, approach) that addresses the identified limitations. The potential benefits of integrating the two approaches are also discussed. Finally, the fire design of a simplified steel-girder bridge is introduced as an illustrative example, comparing the consequence metrics and design updating strategies resulting from the two approaches.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference79 articles.
1. Ahrens M (2021) US fire death rates by state. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Research. Accessed March 13, 2023. Available at: https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Data-research-and-tools/US-Fire-Problem/Fire-deaths-by-state
2. Clark H (2023) Fire and rescue incident statistics. England, year ending September 2022: data tables. Table 0501. Accessed March 14, 2023. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/fire-and-rescue-incident-statistics-england-year-ending-september-2022
3. Kodur V, Naser MZ (2021) Fire hazard in transportation infrastructure: review, assessment, and mitigation strategies. Front Struct Civ Eng 15:46–60
4. Usmani AS, Chung YC, Torero JL (2003) How did the WTC towers collapse: a new theory. Fire Saf J 38(6):501–533
5. Hubbard RG, Deal B, Hess P (2005) The economic effects of federal participation in terrorism risk. Risk Manag Insurance Rev 8(2):177–209
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献