Title: Example Fire Risk Event Tree Model ETA-01
Author:
Thomas F. Barry
tfbarry@[Link]
[Link]
Overview/Abstract:
This the first of what I hope will be a group of generic event tree fire
risk modeling examples, which will be listed in the RISKTools section
of the Fire Risk Forum web site.
These example event tree models are intented as free educational
tools to promote quantitative fire risk analysis. ETA-01 is presented
as a problem example to introduce the use and application of fire
risk event tree analysis as a decision support tool.
Notice to Users:
These spreadsheet templates are provided as-is.
No representations or warranties are made regarding their
accuracy or suitability for a particular application. The author of these
templates has no control over their application and therefore accepts no
responsibility for their use. People using these templates should
be familiar with proper use and application and also with the limitations
associated with their use.
Fire Risk Forum RiskTOOLS
From Toolbox: Excel Templates
Listed: Sepember 2003
References:
1. Barry, Thomas F., Risk-Informed, Performance-Based
Industrial Fire Protection, TFBarry Publcations and
Tennessee Valley Publications, Knoxville, TN. 2002
Available at [Link]
This workbook contains the following worksheets:
1. Problem/Exercise Setup
2. Event Tree
3. Time Line
4. Risk Tolerance Profiles
5. Alternatives Evaluation
6. Cost Evaluation
7. Decision
Every Fire Safety Professional should know how to
perform Fire Event Tree Analysis to support design projects,
loss expectancy estimates, scenario-based training, and
loss investigations.
TFB
Event Tree Analysis Example Exercise ETA-01
Purpose:
This exercise is for educational purposes only. The example problem,
example data, example risk tolerance profiles are for example purposes
only, solely intended to introduce the use of fire risk event tree analysis
as a decision support tool.
Problem:
The Descision Maker is faced with the problem of how to optimize fire prevention and
fire protection improvements to meet the Company's Risk Tolerance criteria
in the most cost-effective manner.
Alternatives:
The Decision Maker has been presented with the following risk reduction alternatives:
Initial
Cost of Improvement
$26,000.00
Annual
Cost
$1,000.00
2. Make modification upgrades to the automatic detection
system to improve performance success probability to 0.95
$15,000.00
$500.00
3. Install an automatic fire suppression system to provide local area
fire hazards protection. The system will be independent of the ceiling
level detection system and designed for a minimum 0.95 performance.
$45,000.00
$5,000.00
4. Upgrade the plant's Fire Brigade performance success to 0.85
by additional manual fire fighting and mobile response equipment
$30,000.00
$10,000.00
5. Make improvements to area fire barrier walls to completely isolate
the fire hazard; expected performance success probability 0.95.
$68,000.00
$500.00
Alternative
1. Reduce initiating event likelihood to moderate by
reducing ignition factors and human error potential
INFO
INFO
INFO
Exercise:
Step 1
Review Event Tree worksheet (2. Event Tree, 3. Time Line) and compare the Existing Risk to the Risk
tolerance criteria in the Risk Tolerance worksheet ( 4. Risk Tolerance Profiles)
Step 2
Go to the Alternatives Evaluation worksheet (5. Alternatives Eval) and assess Risk Reduction strategies
to determine if they meet the Risk Tolerance criteria.
Note: In the Event Tree worksheet, evaluate each of the above alternatives by changing the likelihood or
probability of success numbers to determine what is the optimized strategy in terms of meeting the Company's
Risk Tolerance criteria in the most cost-effective manner. Note: A 'Strategy" is a set of alternatives or options.
Step 3
Go to the Cost Evaluation worksheet (6. Cost Eval) and compare the costs of Risk Reduction Strategies
Step 4
Go to the Decisions Worksheet (7. Decisions) and indicated what recommendations you would make.
EXAMPLE: Generic Ev ent Tree Fire Risk Model ETA 01
**INFO**
Source (S)
PROBABILITY DATA TABLE IS BELOW EVENT TREE
Prov ides information and comments
Likelihood Inputs
Maj or Incident Exposure Lev el(s)
Layer of Fire Protection Systems in Pathway (P)
[A]
Initiating
Fire Event
Likelihood
[B]
Automatic
Detection
& Alarms
Successful
**INFO**
**INFO**
[C]
Local Application
Automatic Fire
Suppression
Successful
**INFO**
[D]
Manual
Fire Fighting
Response
Successful
**INFO**
Targets (T)
[E]
Hazard Isolation
Fire Barrier
Integrity
Maintained
**INFO**
0
C-1
"INFO"
[F]
[G]
BRANCH
LINE
I.D.
BRANCH
LINE
LIKELIHOOD
1
**INFO**
0.00E+00
[H]
Life
Safety
Exposure
Level
**INFO**
[I]
Property
Damage
Exposure
Level
**INFO**
0.85
0.7
B-1
3.99E-02
0.4
6.83E-03
0.6
1.03E-02
0.00E+00
D-2
1
E-2
0.3
YES
6.70E-02
Fires / Year
Major Exposure
**INFO**
NO
0
For Bounding
Design Basis Fire
C-2
0.15
0.35
**INFO**
3.52E-03
0.4
2.61E-03
0.6
3.92E-03
D-4
1
E-4
0.65
TIME LINE
1-3
3 - 10
10-30
30-60
**INFO**
Major Exposure
6.70E-02
Minutes
Maj or Life Safety Expsoure
Maj or Property Damage Expsoure
Branch Line 4###
Branch Line
Likelihood of exposure
lev el 3 or greater
3.92E-03
3.92E-03
events/year
Branch Line 8###
Likelihood of
exposure lev el 4
or greater
Tolerable ?
1.03E-02
3.92E-03
1.42E-02
events/year
Tolerable ?
**INFO**
**INFO**
EXAMPLE EVENT TREE PROBABILITY DATA TABLE - EXISTING RISK
Ev ent ID
Ev ent
[A]
Initiating fire
ev ent occurs
[B]
Automatic detection
and alarms
successful
Frequency (F) or
Probability (P)
Basis /
Reference(s)
High
0.067 (F)
fire ev ents/year
1 fire/15 years
Historical data and
engineering j udgement.
Remarks
Refer to Chapter 4
in Reference 1.
References X,Y,Z,
0.085 (P)
Engineering rev iew and analysis.
Refer to Chapter 6
in Reference 1.
References X,Y,Z,
[C]
Local application
automatic fire
suppression successful
[D1]
Manual Fire Fighting
Response Successful
- giv en that fire detection
system [B] which notifies
fire brigade IS successful
[D2]
Manual Fire Fighting
Response Successful
- giv en that fire detection
system [B] which notifies
fire brigade IS NOT successful
[E]
Hazard Isolation
Fire Barrier
Integrity Maintained
(IS successful)
0 (P)
Presently does
not exist;
assigned zero
success probability
This would be a
new installation that is
being ev aluated as an
improv ement alternativ e
0.7 (P)
Engineering rev iew and analysis.
Would be designed to be
independent of ceiling lev el
smoke detection system and
meet minium 0.95 performance
success design
Refer to Chapter 6
in Reference 1.
References X,Y,Z,
0.35 (P)
For this example, a
v alue of 50% of [D1]
was assigned
References X,Y,Z,
Engineering rev iew and analysis.
0.40 (P)
Engineering rev iew and analysis.
References X,Y,Z,
Refer to Chapter 6
in Reference 1.
Refer to Chapter 6
in Reference 1.
[Link] Line
EXAMPLE: Fire Exposure Profile ETA 01
[A]
Initiating
Fire Event
Likelihood
TIME LINE
[B]
Automatic
Detection
& Alarms
Successful
[C]
Local Application
Automatic Fire
Suppression
Successful
[D]
Manual
Fire Fighting
Response
Successful
[E]
Hazard Isolation
Fire Barrier
Integrity
Maintained
1-3
3 - 10
10-30
30-60
**INFO**
Minutes
Example; Uncontrolled Fire Exposure Profile
Fire Exposure
Modeled at
Defined
Target(s)
e.g.
. radiant heat
. temperature
. smoke
Fire Spread & Propagation to
Secondary Fuel Sources
Start of Structural Failure
of Steel Roof Beams
Fuel Package
Fire Growth
Fuel Package
Peak Heat Release Rate
Equipment Damage from Temperature
and Radiant Heat
Operator Injuries from Temperature
and Smoke
10
30
Minutes
Page 5
EXAMPLE: Risk Tolerance Profile for Life Safety Exposure ETA 01
LIKELIHOOD **
Fire Exposure/ Year
INFO
1.00E-01
1.0 / 10 unit years
1.00E-02
1.0 / 100 unit yrs
Existing Risk
Not Tolerable
An example of Life Safety Exposure Categories :
Life Safety Exposure:
1 - Low
2 - Moderate
3 - Heavy
4 - High
5 - Major
1.00E-03
1.0 / 1000 unit yrs
1.00E-04
1.0 / 10,000 unit yrs
1.00E-05
1.0 / 100,000 unit years
Tolerable Risk
1.00E-06
1.0 / 1,000,000 unit yrs
1
Potential Consequences:
Minor First Aid ( i.e. smoke inhalation)
Single person injury requiring hospital treatment
Mutiple person injuries
Life threatening injury or death ON-SITE
Life threatening injuries or death OFF-SITE
** This is the annualized likelihood tolerance limit for fire exposure
(i.e. with existing or proposed protection layers in-place) versus
the Life Safety or Property Damage Exposure categories or levels.
This is NOT the Initiating Fire Likelihood ( see Event [A] in Event Tree).
This IS the fire scenario incident outcome likelihood ( see Event Tree
Branch Line Likelihood, Event [G]).
Life Safety Exposure Categories
Unit years indicate a likelihood associated with a defined fire
source boundary (unit area); not necessarily an entire facility.
EXAMPLE: Risk Tolerance Profile for Property Damage Exposure ETA 01
LIKELIHOOD **
Fires Exposure/ Year
An example of Property Damage Exposure Categories:
1.00E-01
1.0 / 10 unit years
Existing Risk
Not Tolerable
1.00E-02
1.0 / 100 unit yrs
1.00E-03
1.0 / 1000 unit yrs
1.00E-04
1.0 / 10,000 unit yrs
Tolerable Risk
Tolerable Risk
Property Damage
Exposure
1 - Slight
2 - Light
3 - Moderate
10-25
4 - Heavy
5 - Major
25-60
60-100
1.00E-05
1.0 / 100,000 unit years
1
Damage Factor
Range ( %)
0-1
1-10
Property Damage Exposure Categories
NOTE: Additional Risk Tolerance Profiles could be developed for Business Interruption potential,
environmental consequences, media reaction- loss of customer potential, etc.
General Definition
Limited localized minor damage not requiring repairs.
Significant localized damage of some components
not requiring major repairs.
Significant localized damage to many components
requiring repairs or replacement
Extensive equipment and struture damage
Major widespread damage to equipment, major structural
damage, potential for release of contaminated combustion
products off-site.
[Link] Eval
Example - Risk Reduction Alternatives Evaluation ETA 01
FROM EVENT TREE ANALYSIS
EXISTING RISK
Situation
[A]
Initiating
Fire Event
Likelihood
[B]
Automatic
Detection
& Alarms
Successful
[C]
Local Application
Automatic Fire
Suppression
Successful
[D]
Manual
Fire Fighting
Response
Successful
[E]
Hazard Isolation
Fire Barrier
Integrity
Maintained
0.067
0.85
0
No System
0.7
0.4
LIFE SAFETY
PROPERTY DAMAGE
Likelihood of
Expsoure Level 3
or greater
Likelihood of
Expsoure Level 4
or greater
3.92E-03
1.42E-02
Does NOT meet Risk Tolerance Criteria
Risk Reduction
0.033
Strategy 1
Improvements to
reduce likelihood
from high to
moderate
0.95
Improvement
to fire detection
system
Risk Reduction
0.033
Strategy 2
Improvements to
reduce likelihood
from high to
moderate
0.95
Improvement
to fire detection
system
0.95
Install an automatic
fire suppression
system for local
hazard protection
Same
No
Improvements
Same
No
system
installed
0.85
Improvements
made
Same
No
Improvements
"INFO"
Meets Risk Tolerance Criteria ?
0.95
Improvement
to fire barrier
system made
Meets Risk Tolerance Criteria ?
Risk Reduction
Strategy 3
????????????
Meets Risk Tolerance Criteria ?
Page 7
[Link] Eval
Example Cost Evaluation ETA 01
Uniform
Assumed
Interest Rate
Future Value
Total
Initial Cost
Annual Cost
Useful Life, Years
%/100
of Annual Costs
Investment
Reduce Initiating Fire Event Likelihood
$26,000.00
$1,000.00
Improve Fire Detection System
$15,000.00
$500.00
ADD Local Fire Suppression System
$45,000.00
$5,000.00
$86,000.00
$6,500.00
15
0.05
($140,260.66)
$226,260.66
Reduce Initiating Fire Event Likelihood
$26,000.00
$1,000.00
Improve Fire Detection System
$15,000.00
$500.00
Upgrade Plant Fire Brigade
$30,000.00
$10,000.00
Improve Fire Barrier / Hazard Isolation
$68,000.00
$500.00
$139,000.00
$12,000.00
15
0.05
($258,942.76)
$397,942.76
Strategy
Strategy 1
Strategy 2
Strategy 3 ????
Note: This is a first-order evaluation. It assumes uniforn
annual costs, and useful life, for all alternatives, and
does not include non-uniform costs such as the costs
associated with periodic parts repair/replacement.
Page 8
[Link]
Summarize your Risk-Based Decision ETA 01
A few points:
1. First priority should always be the reduction of the likelihood of fire occurrence,
if feasible technological and administrative measures can be implemented.
2. Always maximize detection and alarm system design effectiveness, availability, and reliability.
3. Evaluate layers of protection that get you down to tolerable risk levels, considering initial costs, annual
costs such as IMT (inspection, maintenance, testing), useful life, and risk monitoring efforts, such as
potential future change in occupancy,hazard, risk, and impariments to protection systems.
INFO Suggested Strategy, Recommendations; Comments on Uncertainty Issues
Page 9
