| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立交通大學 === 工學院產業安全與防災學程 === 103 === Based on the domestic current stage, there are less relevant research references to quote fire risk assessment method to stipulate building’s fire risk levels, so this study expects to propose a feasible way to quantify fire risk, and assess fire risk result to provide owners and AHJ to consult.
In this study, take a large-scale furniture retail store as indicators of buildings. Through field visits, the place can accommodate 1.7 thousand customers, including four levels above ground, underground two-floor building. The furniture retail market contains self-contained storage space, restaurant table delicacies districts, game space, but also provides 67 exhibition space, 500 car parking spaces, and 600 motorcycle parking grids. In addition, place patterns and fire features include large-scale floor area, huge fire load capacity, numerous small space compartments, tough evacuation, and challenging fire rescue, etc. On the other hand, the industry invested a huge amount of money in it, so the fire risk assessment of the building is relative more valuable.
According to industry, government, and academia expert opinion surveys and cross-analysis of building’s field survey score to evaluate the results of the evaluation system of the place and the fire risk rating hierarchy. Based on Super Decisions software, this study quantified the percentage of 21 fire risk index of the lowest level of the building effect factors. The top eight factors, accounting for more than 4%, sequentially as "building materials", "automatic fire extinguishing system, " fire load density, " smoke compartment "," expiration date "," fire compartment "," floor height ", and" fire drills. " Experts generally believe that "building the body's own factors" is the most influential item, "fire protection equipment factors" is middle item, and "human management factors" is the least item.
Furthermore, this study was for the "large furniture retail mall" and "general traditional furniture line" place to do field validation. After analysis of buildings on-site investigation and evaluation scores, the "System safety score" SV was quantified as 4.183462 and 2.914841, "System Security rating" was classified as 4 points and 3," respectively. According to the fire risk assessment results and the impact of fire risk index as a benchmark, both places were recommended the Priority orders to improve fire risks, respectively.
Finally, the study anticipates that building fire risk assessment can be applied to the field of fire safety practices which, in a more scientific way to evaluate a building's fire risk. On one hand, fire risk assessment can provide the right data to make the industry more reliable decisions; on the other hand, on the basis of building’s fire risk level, it can offer relevant owners more views to improve careful security measures, thereby reducing the fire risk of building, to ensure the safety of people's lives and property.
|
|---|
