Abstract

There is a mismatch between the desire to introduce greater levels of sustainability in engineering design and in the need to provide effective engineering solutions, particularly where issues of human safety and asset protection are involved. Sustainability engineering typically incorporates economic, environmental, and social factors, all of which are highly relevant and applicable to fire safety and the design of fire protection systems. The term fire strategy denotes a documented methodology to encapsulate a full range of such systems, within a single framework, for more complex risks such as those found in the process industry. The subject of fire safety is emotive and its application within building design may not change unless we refocus on a holistic and strategic approach, especially for complex building profiles. Fire is a recognized critical safety issue for most types of industrial plants. Due to the complexity of the processes, even a relatively small fire accident can lead to a chain of events that could be devastating, resulting in huge asset and continuity losses, damage to the local environment, and of course, the threat to life. More complex processes require a more flexible and relevant approach. The use of fire safety engineering and performance-based evaluation techniques, instead of prescriptive rules, continues to grow in prominence because of this. This is the case when specifying fire protection and safety for modern power generating plants. However, when it comes to critical infrastructure, such as is the case with power plants, it is sometimes not clear whether optimum fire safety engineering solutions have been applied. One of the ideas specifically developed for evaluating the most appropriate fire safety strategies and systems, especially for such infrastructure examples, is a method based upon the British Standard Specification PAS 911. This method is captured in a diagram and identifies eight main elements for fire safety and protection. The idea presented in this article is to allow assessment of a submitted actual fire strategy for a building or other form of infrastructure, against what has been predetermined as a standard baseline fire strategy for, in this case, a power plant building. The assessment makes use of a multi-level questionnaire, in this case specifically formulated for power plant fire safety needs. By comparing the actual fire strategy diagram against a baseline fire strategy, enforcement agencies, or other interested stakeholders, can recognize which fire safety factors play the most important part in the fire strategy, and determine whether proper levels of fire safety and protection have been applied. The fire strategy evaluation is realized by a team of engineers, which consists of independent fire strategist from a consultant office, internal fire and technical experts from the industrial plant, such as the person responsible for fire safety, person responsible for explosion safety, person responsible for housekeeping, and building manager. Additionally, there should be representatives of insurance companies and independent fire experts. Typically, the group consists of 7 to 12 people.

Highlights

  • Sustainability engineers have identified that there is a fundamental conflict between sustainable building design strategies [1] and current fire safety engineering methodologies

  • Have internal procedures/instructions been implemented, which take into account the specific requirements for power plant facilities? For example: general instructions regarding the scope of fire safety management organization, procedures for hazardous work, fire safety instructions, explosion protection documentation, the rules concerning the operation of equipment and installations in case of fire, 2

  • The last step of fire strategy evaluation—a fire risk index (FRI) calculation is based on the original Gretener method, where fire risk was assumed as a product of hazard severity and loss expectation represented by the fire frequency of ignition and here is presented in (Equation (1)) [13]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Sustainability engineers have identified that there is a fundamental conflict between sustainable building design strategies [1] and current fire safety engineering methodologies. Given that a typical power plant arrangement consists of a variety of building profiles and their associated risks, a range of fire safety and protection systems may be found to cater to this variation in risk profiles [9,10] Such a highly prescriptive approach has often restricted advances in building design [11] and may not be appropriate for ever more complex arrangements as is being seen in the development of modern power station arrangements, and with the increasing range of fuels used. This document was designed to provide a methodology for the preparation of fire strategies, whether they used prescriptive standards or a performance-based approach It does not, in itself, give recommendations or requirements for the fire safety design of, for example, power plant. The calculus for fire risk index calculations, is given in Equations (1)–(5)

Organization and Management
Control of Ignition Sources and Combustible Materials
Fire and Smoke Spread Limitation—Passive Systems
Detection and Alarm Communication
Fire Suppression
Have the required characteristics of escape routes and exits been implemented?
Maintenance of Fire Precautions and Systems
Fire Services Intervention
Is there a good internal fire-road network on any part of the site?
Fire Strategy Evaluation
Fire Safety Factors
Baseline Fire Strategy
Actual Fire Strategy
Scoring of Fire Strategies
Fire Strategy Value Grid
Fire Risk Index Calculation
Fire and smoke spread limitation—passive systems
Polaniec Power Plant Fire Strategy Evaluation
Conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call