ศูนย์รวมเครื่องมือวัดความดัน
Menu
Most, if not all of the codes and standards governing the set up and upkeep of fireplace shield ion systems in buildings embody requirements for inspection, testing, and maintenance activities to verify proper system operation on-demand. As a end result, most hearth safety techniques are routinely subjected to those activities. For example, NFPA 251 offers particular recommendations of inspection, testing, and upkeep schedules and procedures for sprinkler techniques, standpipe and hose methods, private fire service mains, hearth pumps, water storage tanks, valves, among others. The scope of the usual additionally consists of impairment handling and reporting, an important component in fire threat purposes.
Given the requirements for inspection, testing, and upkeep, it may be qualitatively argued that such actions not only have a optimistic impression on building hearth risk, but also assist maintain constructing fire risk at acceptable ranges. However, a qualitative argument is commonly not sufficient to provide fireplace protection professionals with the flexibleness to manage inspection, testing, and maintenance actions on a performance-based/risk-informed strategy. The capacity to explicitly incorporate these actions into a hearth risk model, taking benefit of the present information infrastructure primarily based on current requirements for documenting impairment, offers a quantitative strategy for managing hearth protection techniques.
This article describes how inspection, testing, and maintenance of fireside protection could be incorporated right into a building hearth danger model so that such actions can be managed on a performance-based approach in specific applications.
Risk & Fire Risk
“Risk” and “fire risk” could be outlined as follows:
Risk is the potential for realisation of unwanted adverse penalties, considering eventualities and their associated frequencies or probabilities and associated consequences.
Fire risk is a quantitative measure of fireside or explosion incident loss potential in phrases of both the occasion probability and combination consequences.
Based on these two definitions, “fire risk” is defined, for the aim of this article as quantitative measure of the potential for realisation of undesirable fireplace consequences. This definition is practical as a result of as a quantitative measure, fireplace risk has items and outcomes from a model formulated for specific applications. From that perspective, fire threat should be treated no in one other way than the output from another bodily models that are routinely utilized in engineering purposes: it’s a worth produced from a model primarily based on enter parameters reflecting the situation situations. Generally, the chance mannequin is formulated as:
Riski = S Lossi 2 Fi
Where: Riski = Risk associated with state of affairs i
Lossi = Loss associated with situation i
Fi = Frequency of scenario i occurring
That is, a danger value is the summation of the frequency and penalties of all identified eventualities. In the specific case of fireside evaluation, F and Loss are the frequencies and consequences of fireplace situations. Clearly, the unit multiplication of the frequency and consequence terms must lead to danger models which are related to the specific utility and can be used to make risk-informed/performance-based choices.
The fire eventualities are the person items characterising the fire risk of a given software. Consequently, the process of selecting the suitable eventualities is a vital factor of determining hearth threat. A fire state of affairs should embrace all aspects of a fire occasion. This includes conditions resulting in ignition and propagation up to extinction or suppression by different available means. Specifically, one must define fire eventualities considering the next components:
Frequency: The frequency captures how often the situation is expected to happen. It is often represented as events/unit of time. Frequency examples could embody variety of pump fires a 12 months in an industrial facility; variety of cigarette-induced household fires per year, and so forth.
Location: The location of the fire situation refers back to the characteristics of the room, constructing or facility during which the state of affairs is postulated. In common, room traits embody size, ventilation conditions, boundary supplies, and any extra data needed for location description.
Ignition source: This is usually the starting point for selecting and describing a fireplace state of affairs; that is., the primary merchandise ignited. In some applications, a fire frequency is directly associated to ignition sources.
Intervening combustibles: These are combustibles concerned in a fire state of affairs apart from the primary item ignited. Many fire occasions turn into “significant” due to secondary combustibles; that is, the fire is able to propagating beyond the ignition source.
Fire protection options: Fire protection features are the obstacles set in place and are meant to limit the results of fireplace eventualities to the lowest potential ranges. Fire protection options might include active (for example, automatic detection or suppression) and passive (for instance; hearth walls) systems. In addition, they’ll include “manual” options such as a hearth brigade or fire department, hearth watch actions, and so forth.
Consequences: Scenario consequences ought to capture the outcome of the fire event. Consequences must be measured when it comes to their relevance to the choice making course of, consistent with the frequency term within the risk equation.
Although เกจวัดแรงดูด and consequence phrases are the one two in the threat equation, all fireplace state of affairs characteristics listed beforehand should be captured quantitatively in order that the mannequin has enough decision to turn out to be a decision-making tool.
The sprinkler system in a given building can be utilized as an example. The failure of this technique on-demand (that is; in response to a fire event) may be included into the risk equation as the conditional likelihood of sprinkler system failure in response to a fireplace. Multiplying this probability by the ignition frequency term in the danger equation results in the frequency of fireside occasions where the sprinkler system fails on demand.
Introducing this chance term in the danger equation offers an explicit parameter to measure the results of inspection, testing, and upkeep within the hearth danger metric of a facility. This simple conceptual example stresses the importance of defining hearth threat and the parameters in the threat equation in order that they not solely appropriately characterise the facility being analysed, but also have adequate resolution to make risk-informed choices while managing fire protection for the ability.
Introducing parameters into the danger equation must account for potential dependencies resulting in a mis-characterisation of the chance. In the conceptual instance described earlier, introducing the failure probability on-demand of the sprinkler system requires the frequency time period to include fires that have been suppressed with sprinklers. The intent is to avoid having the consequences of the suppression system reflected twice in the evaluation, that is; by a decrease frequency by excluding fires that were managed by the automatic suppression system, and by the multiplication of the failure chance.
FIRE RISK” IS DEFINED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE, AS QUANTITATIVE MEASURE OF THE POTENTIAL FOR REALISATION OF UNWANTED FIRE CONSEQUENCES. THIS DEFINITION IS PRACTICAL BECAUSE AS A QUANTITATIVE MEASURE, FIRE RISK HAS UNITS AND RESULTS FROM A MODEL FORMULATED FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS.
Maintainability & Availability
In repairable techniques, that are these the place the repair time is not negligible (that is; long relative to the operational time), downtimes must be properly characterised. The term “downtime” refers to the periods of time when a system is not operating. “Maintainability” refers again to the probabilistic characterisation of such downtimes, that are an necessary think about availability calculations. It includes the inspections, testing, and maintenance activities to which an merchandise is subjected.
Maintenance activities generating some of the downtimes can be preventive or corrective. “Preventive maintenance” refers to actions taken to retain an item at a specified degree of performance. It has potential to scale back the system’s failure fee. In the case of fireplace protection techniques, the goal is to detect most failures throughout testing and maintenance actions and never when the hearth protection techniques are required to actuate. “Corrective maintenance” represents actions taken to revive a system to an operational state after it’s disabled as a end result of a failure or impairment.
In the risk equation, decrease system failure rates characterising fireplace safety features could also be mirrored in numerous methods relying on the parameters included within the danger model. Examples embody:
A lower system failure price could also be mirrored in the frequency term if it is primarily based on the number of fires the place the suppression system has failed. That is, the number of hearth events counted over the corresponding time period would include only these where the applicable suppression system failed, resulting in “higher” penalties.
A extra rigorous risk-modelling strategy would include a frequency term reflecting each fires the place the suppression system failed and people the place the suppression system was profitable. Such a frequency may have no much less than two outcomes. The first sequence would consist of a fireplace occasion where the suppression system is successful. This is represented by the frequency time period multiplied by the probability of successful system operation and a consequence time period according to the situation consequence. The second sequence would consist of a fireplace occasion where the suppression system failed. This is represented by the multiplication of the frequency instances the failure likelihood of the suppression system and consequences in maintaining with this scenario condition (that is; higher penalties than within the sequence the place the suppression was successful).
Under the latter method, the chance model explicitly consists of the fire protection system in the analysis, offering increased modelling capabilities and the power of monitoring the performance of the system and its impact on fireplace danger.
The likelihood of a hearth protection system failure on-demand reflects the effects of inspection, upkeep, and testing of fireside protection features, which influences the availability of the system. In common, the term “availability” is outlined because the likelihood that an merchandise will be operational at a given time. เกจแรงดันสูง of the provision is termed “unavailability,” where U = 1 – A. A simple mathematical expression capturing this definition is:
the place u is the uptime, and d is the downtime during a predefined time frame (that is; the mission time).
In order to precisely characterise the system’s availability, the quantification of kit downtime is necessary, which can be quantified utilizing maintainability methods, that is; based on the inspection, testing, and upkeep actions associated with the system and the random failure history of the system.
An instance can be an electrical gear room protected with a CO2 system. For life safety causes, the system could additionally be taken out of service for some intervals of time. The system may be out for maintenance, or not operating because of impairment. Clearly, the probability of the system being obtainable on-demand is affected by the time it’s out of service. It is within the availability calculations where the impairment handling and reporting necessities of codes and standards is explicitly included in the fireplace threat equation.
As a first step in determining how the inspection, testing, upkeep, and random failures of a given system affect fire danger, a model for figuring out the system’s unavailability is important. In practical functions, these models are based on performance knowledge generated over time from upkeep, inspection, and testing actions. Once explicitly modelled, a call can be made based mostly on managing upkeep activities with the goal of sustaining or bettering fire threat. Examples embrace:
Performance data could recommend key system failure modes that could be identified in time with elevated inspections (or utterly corrected by design changes) stopping system failures or pointless testing.
Time between inspections, testing, and maintenance actions may be elevated with out affecting the system unavailability.
These examples stress the necessity for an availability model primarily based on efficiency data. As a modelling different, Markov fashions supply a powerful method for figuring out and monitoring techniques availability based mostly on inspection, testing, upkeep, and random failure historical past. Once the system unavailability time period is outlined, it could be explicitly integrated in the risk mannequin as described within the following part.
Effects of Inspection, Testing, & Maintenance in the Fire Risk
The risk model could be expanded as follows:
Riski = S U 2 Lossi 2 Fi
where U is the unavailability of a hearth safety system. Under this threat model, F might symbolize the frequency of a hearth situation in a given facility regardless of how it was detected or suppressed. The parameter U is the probability that the fire safety options fail on-demand. In this example, the multiplication of the frequency instances the unavailability leads to the frequency of fires the place fire safety features did not detect and/or control the fireplace. Therefore, by multiplying the situation frequency by the unavailability of the fireplace protection function, the frequency time period is lowered to characterise fires the place hearth safety features fail and, due to this fact, produce the postulated eventualities.
In follow, the unavailability term is a operate of time in a fireplace scenario progression. It is often set to 1.0 (the system isn’t available) if the system is not going to operate in time (that is; the postulated injury within the state of affairs happens before the system can actuate). If the system is anticipated to operate in time, U is about to the system’s unavailability.
In order to comprehensively include the unavailability into a hearth state of affairs analysis, the next state of affairs progression occasion tree model can be utilized. Figure 1 illustrates a pattern event tree. The progression of damage states is initiated by a postulated fireplace involving an ignition supply. Each injury state is outlined by a time in the development of a fire event and a consequence within that time.
Under this formulation, each damage state is a special state of affairs outcome characterised by the suppression probability at each cut-off date. As the fire scenario progresses in time, the consequence term is predicted to be greater. Specifically, the first damage state usually consists of injury to the ignition supply itself. This first state of affairs could characterize a hearth that’s promptly detected and suppressed. If such early detection and suppression efforts fail, a unique state of affairs outcome is generated with a better consequence term.
Depending on the traits and configuration of the situation, the final harm state may consist of flashover conditions, propagation to adjacent rooms or buildings, and so on. The harm states characterising every situation sequence are quantified in the event tree by failure to suppress, which is governed by the suppression system unavailability at pre-defined time limits and its capacity to operate in time.
This article originally appeared in Fire Protection Engineering magazine, a publication of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (www.sfpe.org).
Francisco Joglar is a fire safety engineer at Hughes Associates
For further information, go to www.haifire.com
Share
Radius Global Co., Ltd.
บริษัท เรเดียส โกลบอล จำกัด
