บทความ เกจวัดแรงดัน

Inspection, Testing & Maintenance & Building Fire Risk

Most, if not all of the codes and standards governing the set up and maintenance of fire shield ion techniques in buildings include requirements for inspection, testing, and maintenance actions to confirm proper system operation on-demand. As a outcome, most fire safety methods are routinely subjected to these activities. For example, NFPA 251 provides specific suggestions of inspection, testing, and maintenance schedules and procedures for sprinkler techniques, standpipe and hose techniques, private fireplace service mains, fire pumps, water storage tanks, valves, amongst others. The scope of the standard additionally consists of impairment dealing with and reporting, an important factor in fireplace danger applications.
Given the necessities for inspection, testing, and upkeep, it can be qualitatively argued that such activities not solely have a optimistic impression on constructing hearth threat, but also assist maintain constructing hearth threat at acceptable levels. However, a qualitative argument is often not enough to supply fire protection professionals with the flexibleness to manage inspection, testing, and upkeep activities on a performance-based/risk-informed approach. The ability to explicitly incorporate these actions into a fire danger mannequin, taking benefit of the prevailing data infrastructure based mostly on current necessities for documenting impairment, provides a quantitative strategy for managing fire protection methods.
This article describes how inspection, testing, and upkeep of fireside protection could be incorporated right into a building fire threat mannequin in order that such actions can be managed on a performance-based method in particular purposes.
Risk & Fire Risk

“Risk” and “fire risk” may be outlined as follows:
Risk is the potential for realisation of unwanted adverse penalties, contemplating scenarios and their associated frequencies or possibilities and related penalties.
Fire danger is a quantitative measure of fireside or explosion incident loss potential by means of each the event likelihood and combination consequences.
Based on these two definitions, “fire risk” is outlined, for the aim of this article as quantitative measure of the potential for realisation of undesirable fire penalties. This definition is sensible as a end result of as a quantitative measure, hearth risk has items and outcomes from a mannequin formulated for specific applications. From that perspective, fire risk must be treated no differently than the output from some other physical models which are routinely used in engineering functions: it’s a value produced from a mannequin based mostly on enter parameters reflecting the scenario conditions. Generally, the risk mannequin is formulated as:
Riski = S Lossi 2 Fi

Where: Riski = Risk associated with scenario i

Lossi = Loss related to state of affairs 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 analysis, F and Loss are the frequencies and consequences of fireplace eventualities. Clearly, the unit multiplication of the frequency and consequence phrases must lead to threat items that are relevant to the specific application and can be utilized to make risk-informed/performance-based choices.
The fire eventualities are the individual items characterising the hearth danger of a given software. Consequently, the process of choosing the appropriate eventualities is an essential element of figuring out fire risk. A fireplace scenario should embrace all elements of a fire occasion. This includes circumstances leading to ignition and propagation up to extinction or suppression by different obtainable means. Specifically, one should define fire scenarios contemplating the next components:
Frequency: The frequency captures how typically the situation is predicted to occur. It is normally represented as events/unit of time. Frequency examples might embrace variety of pump fires a 12 months in an industrial facility; variety of cigarette-induced family fires per yr, and so forth.
Location: The location of the fireplace state of affairs refers again to the characteristics of the room, building or facility by which the situation is postulated. In digital pressure gauge , room characteristics include dimension, air flow circumstances, boundary supplies, and any further data necessary for location description.
Ignition source: This is often the starting point for choosing and describing a hearth scenario; that’s., the primary merchandise ignited. In some functions, a fireplace frequency is immediately associated to ignition sources.
Intervening combustibles: These are combustibles involved in a fire state of affairs apart from the first item ignited. Many fireplace occasions become “significant” because of secondary combustibles; that’s, the hearth is capable of propagating beyond the ignition source.
Fire protection options: Fire protection features are the barriers set in place and are meant to restrict the implications of fireplace eventualities to the bottom attainable ranges. Fire protection features might embrace lively (for example, automatic detection or suppression) and passive (for occasion; hearth walls) techniques. In addition, they will include “manual” features corresponding to a fire brigade or hearth division, fireplace watch actions, and so forth.
Consequences: Scenario penalties should seize the outcome of the fire occasion. Consequences should be measured when it comes to their relevance to the choice making course of, consistent with the frequency term within the danger equation.
Although the frequency and consequence phrases are the only two in the risk equation, all hearth situation characteristics listed beforehand must be captured quantitatively in order that the model has sufficient decision to turn out to be a decision-making software.
The sprinkler system in a given constructing can be used as an example. The failure of this method on-demand (that is; in response to a fireplace event) could additionally be integrated into the danger equation as the conditional chance of sprinkler system failure in response to a hearth. Multiplying this chance by the ignition frequency time period in the threat equation results in the frequency of fire events the place the sprinkler system fails on demand.
Introducing this probability term in the risk equation offers an explicit parameter to measure the results of inspection, testing, and upkeep in the fire threat metric of a facility. This simple conceptual example stresses the importance of defining hearth risk and the parameters in the threat equation so that they not only appropriately characterise the power being analysed, but also have sufficient resolution to make risk-informed decisions while managing fireplace safety for the ability.
Introducing parameters into the danger equation should account for potential dependencies resulting in a mis-characterisation of the danger. In the conceptual instance described earlier, introducing the failure probability on-demand of the sprinkler system requires the frequency time period to incorporate fires that were suppressed with sprinklers. The intent is to avoid having the results of the suppression system mirrored twice in the analysis, that’s; by a decrease frequency by excluding fires that have been controlled by the automatic suppression system, and by the multiplication of the failure likelihood.
Maintainability & Availability

In repairable systems, which are these where the restore time is not negligible (that is; lengthy relative to the operational time), downtimes ought to be correctly characterised. The time period “downtime” refers to the periods of time when a system just isn’t operating. “Maintainability” refers to the probabilistic characterisation of such downtimes, which are an essential consider availability calculations. It contains the inspections, testing, and maintenance activities to which an item is subjected.
Maintenance actions producing some of the downtimes can be preventive or corrective. “Preventive maintenance” refers to actions taken to retain an merchandise at a specified degree of performance. It has potential to minimize back the system’s failure rate. In the case of fireplace safety techniques, the goal is to detect most failures during testing and upkeep activities and never when the fireplace safety techniques are required to actuate. “Corrective maintenance” represents actions taken to restore a system to an operational state after it’s disabled as a result of a failure or impairment.
In the risk equation, decrease system failure rates characterising fire protection options may be mirrored in varied ways depending on the parameters included within the danger model. Examples embrace:
A lower system failure rate may be mirrored within the frequency term whether it is primarily based on the number of fires where the suppression system has failed. That is, the number of fire occasions counted over the corresponding period of time would include only those where the applicable suppression system failed, leading to “higher” penalties.
A more rigorous risk-modelling strategy would include a frequency term reflecting both fires the place the suppression system failed and people the place the suppression system was successful. Such a frequency may have a minimum of two outcomes. The first sequence would consist of a fireplace event where the suppression system is profitable. This is represented by the frequency time period multiplied by the probability of successful system operation and a consequence time period in preserving with the scenario end result. The second sequence would consist of a fire event the place the suppression system failed. This is represented by the multiplication of the frequency times the failure chance of the suppression system and consequences according to this scenario situation (that is; larger consequences than within the sequence the place the suppression was successful).
Under the latter method, the risk mannequin explicitly includes the fire protection system in the analysis, offering increased modelling capabilities and the power of monitoring the efficiency of the system and its impression on hearth danger.
The likelihood of a fireplace protection system failure on-demand reflects the consequences of inspection, maintenance, and testing of fire safety options, which influences the availability of the system. In general, the term “availability” is outlined because the likelihood that an merchandise will be operational at a given time. The complement of the availability is termed “unavailability,” the place 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 period of time (that is; the mission time).
In order to precisely characterise the system’s availability, the quantification of apparatus downtime is necessary, which can be quantified utilizing maintainability strategies, that is; based mostly on the inspection, testing, and maintenance activities related to the system and the random failure historical past of the system.
An example would be an electrical equipment room protected with a CO2 system. For life safety causes, the system could also be taken out of service for some durations of time. The system can also be out for maintenance, or not operating as a end result of impairment. Clearly, the likelihood of the system being out there on-demand is affected by the point it’s out of service. It is within the availability calculations where the impairment handling and reporting requirements of codes and standards is explicitly incorporated within the hearth threat equation.
As a primary step in determining how the inspection, testing, maintenance, and random failures of a given system have an effect on hearth danger, a mannequin for determining the system’s unavailability is necessary. In sensible applications, these fashions are primarily based on performance data generated over time from maintenance, inspection, and testing actions. Once explicitly modelled, a choice may be made based on managing upkeep activities with the aim of sustaining or improving hearth danger. Examples embrace:
Performance data could counsel key system failure modes that could be identified in time with increased inspections (or fully corrected by design changes) stopping system failures or unnecessary testing.
Time between inspections, testing, and upkeep activities could additionally be elevated without affecting the system unavailability.
These examples stress the necessity for an availability model based on performance information. As a modelling different, Markov models supply a strong strategy for determining and monitoring techniques availability primarily based on inspection, testing, upkeep, and random failure historical past. Once the system unavailability time period is defined, it might be explicitly integrated in the danger mannequin as described in the following part.
Effects of Inspection, Testing, & Maintenance within the Fire Risk

The danger mannequin may be expanded as follows:
Riski = S U 2 Lossi 2 Fi

where U is the unavailability of a hearth safety system. Under this risk mannequin, F could symbolize the frequency of a hearth state of affairs in a given facility no matter how it was detected or suppressed. The parameter U is the probability that the hearth safety features fail on-demand. In this example, the multiplication of the frequency instances the unavailability leads to the frequency of fires the place hearth protection features didn’t detect and/or management the fireplace. Therefore, by multiplying the state of affairs frequency by the unavailability of the fireplace safety characteristic, the frequency term is reduced to characterise fires where fire safety options fail and, due to this fact, produce the postulated eventualities.
In follow, the unavailability time period is a operate of time in a hearth state of affairs progression. It is usually set to 1.0 (the system just isn’t available) if the system is not going to function in time (that is; the postulated damage in the situation occurs earlier than the system can actuate). If the system is anticipated to operate in time, U is set to the system’s unavailability.
In order to comprehensively include the unavailability into a hearth situation evaluation, the next situation progression event tree model can be used. Figure 1 illustrates a pattern event tree. The development of damage states is initiated by a postulated fireplace involving an ignition supply. Each damage state is outlined by a time in the progression of a fire event and a consequence inside that point.
Under this formulation, every harm state is a special scenario consequence characterised by the suppression chance at each cut-off date. As the fireplace scenario progresses in time, the consequence term is anticipated to be greater. Specifically, the primary harm state usually consists of harm to the ignition source itself. This first state of affairs might symbolize a fireplace that is promptly detected and suppressed. If such early detection and suppression efforts fail, a different state of affairs end result is generated with a better consequence term.
Depending on the characteristics and configuration of the state of affairs, the final injury state could consist of flashover situations, propagation to adjacent rooms or buildings, and so on. The harm states characterising every state of affairs sequence are quantified within the occasion tree by failure to suppress, which is governed by the suppression system unavailability at pre-defined points in time and its capability to function in time.
This article initially appeared in Fire Protection Engineering magazine, a publication of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (www.sfpe.org).
Francisco Joglar is a fire protection engineer at Hughes Associates

For further info, go to www.haifire.com