Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
145
Department of Fire Safety Engineering, University of Edinburgh, The King's Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JL
(U.K.)
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
146
simplify the implementation of the Fire
Precautions Act (1971) and facilitate the
evaluation of relative levels of fire safety in
existing hospitals.
The group was led by members of the Department of Fire Safety Engineering at
Edinburgh University and used the "Delphi"
technique to achieve an agreed system. In this
technique, experts from a variety of related
fields are assembled and their opinions to
various questions recorded. The divergences in
opinion are then repeatedly discussed until
c o m m o n agreement is reached as to the solution. In determining the basis for the evaluation scheme and the details of its application,
the "Delphi" m e t h o d was used and the validity of the scheme lies in the membership of
the "Delphi" group. The ironical name
"Delphi" is taken from the ancient Greek
oracle at Delphi which was famous for the
ambiguity of its answers.
147
Following agreement on the t w e n t y components and on their relationship to the hierarchy of fire safety, it was agreed to use
matrices to establish the contribution of each
c o m p o n e n t to overall fire safety policy. The
Delphi group was therefore asked to give
values to an objectives-to-policy vector, a
tactics-to-objectives matrix and a components-to-tactics matrix. The matrices agreed
by the Delphi group are shown in Tables 1 - 3
and, by the multiplication of these matrices, a
vector for the contribution of components to
overall policy was produced. Each number in
TABLE 1
Contributory values of objective to policy
Life safety
Mission continuity
Property protection
Other consequences
TABLE 2
Contributory values of tactics to objectives
Ignition prevention
Fire control
Refuge
Egress
Rescue
Life
safety
Mission
continuity
Property
protection
Other
consequences
0.96
0.82
0.74
0.74
0 56
0.84
0.78
0.46
0.26
0.26
0.84
0 88
0.14
0.04
0.06
0.54
0.58
0.54
0.54
0.50
0.94
0.78
0.50
0.44
148
TABLE 3
C o n t r i b u t o r y values o f c o m p o n e n t s to tactics
1 Staff
2 P a t i e n t s a n d visitors
3 Factors affecting smoke movement
4 P r o t e c t e d areas
5 Ducts, s h a f t s a n d cavities
6 Hazard p r o t e c t i o n
7 I n t e r i o r finish
8 Furnishings
9 Access t o p r o t e c t e d areas
10 Direct e x t e r n a l egress
11 Travel distance
12 Staircases
13 Corridors
14 Lifts
15 C o m m u n i c a t i o n s y s t e m s
16 Signs a n d fire n o t i c e s
17 M a n u a l firefighting e q u i p m e n t
18 Escape lighting
19 A u t o m a t i c s u p p r e s s i o n
20 Fire brigade
Igmtlon
prevention
Fire
control
Refuge
Egress
Rescue
0.98
0.88
0 04
0.12
0 34
0.66
0 50
0.96
0 04
0.00
0.02
0.14
0.12
0.14
0.12
0.24
0.04
0.02
0.08
0 04
0.90
0.30
0.82
0.66
0 72
0.88
0 72
0.86
0.48
0 44
0.42
0 58
0.58
0.48
0.92
0.22
0 90
0.40
0.82
0.90
0 72
0 70
0 80
0 96
0.50
0 56
0.42
0 24
0.82
0.50
0.78
0.58
0.68
0 38
0 52
0 60
0 28
0 62
0 30
0 30
0 86
0 80
0 86
0.68
0.38
0 60
0 44
0.22
0.72
0.88
0 92
0 88
0 82
0 52
0 52
0.78
0 14
0 82
0 10
0.34
0 86
0 68
0 78
0 76
0 14
0 62
0.28
0 20
0 52
0.86
0.76
0.72
0.72
0 40
0.38
0 42
0 10
0 60
0 10
0 78
TABLE 4
Values o f c o m p o n e n t s . C o l u m n 1: relative values b y m a t r i x m u l t i p l i c a t i o n
C o l u m n 2" revised values o f c o m p o n e n t s a f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g i n t e r a c t i o n s .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Staff
P a t i e n t s a n d visitors
Factors affecting smoke movement
P r o t e c t e d areas
Ducts, s h a f t s a n d cavities
Hazard p r o t e c t i o n
I n t e r i o r finish
Furnishings
Access t o p r o t e c t e d areas
Direct e x t e r n a l egress
Travel d i s t a n c e
Staircases
Corridors
Lifts
Communications systems
Signs a n d fire notices
Manual firefighting e q u i p m e n t
Escape lighting
Automatic suppression
Fire brigade
this vector
fraction of
values for
(see Table
0.0866
0.0646
0.0586
0.0565
0 0443
0.0676
0.0500
0.0592
0.0448
0 0436
0.0478
0.0509
0.0511
0.0356
0.0487
0 0401
0.0328
0.0411
0.0316
0.0445
0.0889
0.0643
0.0656
0.0555
0.0400
0.0649
0.0497
0.0625
0.0407
0.0412
0 0488
0.0488
0 0509
0.0342
0 0506
0.0406
0.0302
0 0462
0.0329
0 0435
1.0000
1.0000
Staff
P a t i e n t s a n d visitors
Factors affecting smoke
movement
P r o t e c t e d area
Ducts, shafts a n d cavities
Hazard p r o t e c t i o n
I n t e r i o r finish
Furnishings
Access t o p r o t e c t e d areas
Direct e x t e r n a l egress
Travel distance
Staircases
Corridors
Lifts
Communications systems
Signs a n d fire notices
Manual firefighting
equipment
Escape lighting
Automatic suppression
Fire brigade
Components B
<
0.8
0.78
0.54
0.94
0.44
0.54
0.86
0.72
0.76
0.54
0.6
0.62
0.66
0.84
-~
0.64
0.72
0.72
0.74
0.68
0.6
0.76
0.32
0.44
0.62
0.8
09
09
09
0.6
0.44
0.72
0.74
0.74
C o n t r i b u t o r y values o f c o m p o n e n t i n t e r a c t i o n m a t r i x
TABLE 5
0.54
0.84
0.58
0.42
0.58
0.72
0.66
0.76
0.58
0.66
0.6
0.68
0.88
0.52 0.54
0.66 0 . 6 6
0.58
0.52
0.56
0.4
0.34
~..
0.62
0.62
,~
0.7
0.6
072
0.6
0.48
0.8
0.58 0 . 6 4
0.4
0.6
0.46
0.34
0.72
0.8
0.56
0.48
0.5
0.6
0.6
074
0.58
0.46
04
0.66
0.88
0.44
0.78
07
0.72
062
0.5
0.72
0.42
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.52
0.48
0.4
078
~.-~
E
.-~
09
0.54
0.54
0.62
0.52
0.6
0.44
0.4
0.44
0.64
0.64
09
0.34
0.62
0.26
0.68
0.56
0.46
0.6
09
09
0 46
0.58
0.52
0.28
0.68
0.52
e~
'7.
"O
.O
150
concerned. A matrix expressing these interactions (Table 5) was developed and used to
m o d i f y the c o m p o n e n t c o n t r i b u t i o n vector to
give a new set o f values (see Table 4, c o l u m n
2).
It is i m p o r t a n t to not e t ha t m all calculations of interactions, each c o m p o n e n t was
assumed to be making the m a x i m u m possible
c o n t r i b u t i o n to fire safety. The assessment of
how far short o f t h a t m a x i m u m c o n t r i b u t i o n
c o m p o n e n t s actually fell, required the develo p m e n t o f a survey m e t h o d .
151
(E) T H E F O R M U L A T I O N O F A S U C C I N C T W A Y
T O P R E S E N T T H E R E S U L T S A N D M A K E COMPARISONS
152
TABLE 6
Sample summary sheet
Health A u t h o r i t y '
Building: Victoria Hospital
Survey Volume' Ward 1
Date of Survey: 1/4/83
Surveyor' A. N. Other
Number of Bedspaces: 30
Component
Grade*
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
012@45
01~345x
012~45X
01234~X
0123@5X
01234~X
012~45
012@45
0123@5
0123~5X
012~45
01234~X
01234~
01234~X
01~345X
012~45X
0123~5X
01~345X
@12345X
01234~X
Totalscore(outof500)
Staff
Patients and visitors
Factors affecting smoke movement
Protected areas
Ducts, shafts and cavities
Hazard protection
Interior finish
Furnishings
Access to protected areas
Direct external egress
Travel distance
Staircases
Corridors
Lifts
Communmations systems
Signs and fire notices
Manual fire fighting equipment
Escape lighting
Automatm suppression
Fire brigade
Percentage
contribution
9
6
7
6
4
7
5
6
4
4
5
5
5
3
5
4
3
5
3
4
= 27
= 12
= 21
= 30
= 16
= 35
= 15
= 18
= 16
= 16
= 15
= 25
= 25
= 15
= 10
= 12
= 12
= 10
= 0
= 20
=350
Additional comments:
*Grades given by assessor are encircled
By comparing their estimates with the
scores from the repeatability tests, it was possible to set the level of acceptability at 70%,
with scores greater than this being considered
as a c c e p t a b l e . A s c o r e o f 7 0 % o r less w a s c o n sidered indicative of an unacceptable level of
f i r e s a f e t y a n d a s c o r e o f 5 6 % o r less w a s
definitely unacceptable. Only a score of over
9 0 % c o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d ' g o o d ' as o n l y t h i s
represents compliance with the 'norm' (the
Draft Guide).
Three of the components ('staff', 'patients
and visitors', and 'fire brigade') were not dealt
w i t h e x p l i c i t l y w i t h i n t h e D r a f t G u i d e , a n d as
the evaluation scheme only compares survey
v o l u m e s w i t h t h i s n o r m , it w a s u n f a i r t o
p e n a l i s e s u r v e y v o l u m e s w h i c h f a i l in t h e s e
components. Therefore a survey volume had
t o b e g r a d e d as 5 f o r e a c h o f t h e o t h e r c o m p o n e n t s , b u t n e e d o n l y b e g r a d e d as 2 . 5 o n
these three. In this way, particularly high
scores for 'staff', 'patients and visitors' or
' f i r e b r i g a d e ' c o u l d c o m p e n s a t e in s o m e m e a s u r e f o r a d e f i c i e n c y in o t h e r c o m p o n e n t s .
W h e n d e t e r m i n i n g in w h i c h c a t e g o r y a surv e y v o l u m e s h o u l d b e p l a c e d , i t is i m p o r t a n t
t o b e a r in m i n d t h e c o a r s e n e s s o f t h e g r a d i n g
system within which the survey will have been
conducted (the 0 - 5 grading giving an accuracy of +0.5 on each component). The
repeatability studies indicated a margin of
e r r o r o f a b o u t 5%, a n d so s c o r e s o f 51 - 6 1 % ,
6 5 - 7 5 % a n d 8 5 - 9 5 % m u s t b e r e g a r d e d as
indicative of borderline situations. The scale
o f a c c e p t a b i l i t y is i l l u s t r a t e d in F i g . 1.
When considering the improvements necess a r y t o a s u r v e y v o l u m e w h i c h is ' d e f i n i t e l y
u n a c c e p t a b l e ' , i t c a n b e s e e n t h a t i t is i n s u f f i c i e n t t o s i m p l y r a i s e i t a b o v e 5 6 % a n d so
into the unacceptable category. Any planned
improvements must ensure that it would score
above 70% and so fall into the 'acceptable'
z o n e . A f t e r t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f o n e o r all
a s s e s s m e n t s o f s u r v e y v o l u m e s , i t will b e p o s -
153
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
100%
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
500
450
GOOD
45(~
90%
ACCEPTABLE
70%
35q
350
UNACCEPTABLE
280
. . . . . . . . .
DEFINITELY
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
56%
280
UNACCEPTABLE
O~o
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS