Fire Technology

, Volume 51, Issue 2, pp 409–441 | Cite as

The Concepts of Safety Level and Safety Margin: Framework for Fire Safety Design of Novel Buildings

  • Henrik Bjelland
  • Ove Njå
  • Atle William Heskestad
  • Geir Sverre Braut


This article discusses how the concepts of safety level and safety margin have been approached in recognized peer-reviewed journals within the field of fire safety science. The aim is to explore the scientific efforts that have been made to advocate principles for dimensioning fire safety arrangements in buildings. We restrict our discussion to novel buildings in the sense of lack of similar constructions with relevant long term experience. Due to increasing complexity in buildings, infrastructures, technical systems and society in general, we argue that traditional fire safety science based on natural science principles alone is severely limited. We argue that fire safety and safety margins are emergent properties of socio-technical systems that need to be managed rather than verified. The search for objectivity and mechanistic decision criteria is futile and diverts attention from the main purpose of engineering: to guide decisions during the whole design process and thus enable safe operation. An adapted framework for fire safety engineering is proposed, built around traditional fire safety engineering principles, and founded on constructivist systems theory. The focus is observable quantities and how these quantities can be managed during design and operation of a building project. The framework eases the involvement of stakeholders who are required to consider the safety aspects of the building design. The end goal of fire safety design in our framework is the development of a fire safety control structure that must be enforced to keep systems in a safe state, in which safety margins are deemed sufficient.


Safety level Safety margin Scientific foundation System thinking 



The review process has been very interesting. It has revealed very divided international views on fire safety management. We have extensive research and professional experience from the Norwegian health sector, oil and gas industry as well as the building industry. These have to varying degrees adopted performance based safety management principles. Divided views on safety management are appreciated because they encourage reflections and better quality in the development of safety management approaches. Further it is claimed that a substantial part of the scientific literature on fire safety science is published outside peer-reviewed journals, by organizations such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Building Research Establishment (BRE) in the UK, the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE) and the Inter-Jurisdictional Regulatory Collaboration Committee (IRCC). We find that these contributions are important for the fire safety engineering community. On that basis, other researchers might provide input, comments and discussion to our suggested approach. This was our goal with this article and we greatly appreciate all the comments from the five anonymous reviewers to earlier versions. Part of the work is funded by the University Fund in Rogaland, Norway. We are very grateful for the financial support.


  1. 1.
    Perrow C (1999) Normal accidents: living with high-risk technologies (first published by Basic Books 1984). Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bjelland H, Njå O (2012) Fourteen years of experience with performance-based fire safety engineering in Norway—lessons learned. Paper presented at the 9th international conference on performance-based codes and fire safety design methods, The Excelsior Hong Kong, 20–22 June 2012Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tehler H, Brehmer B (2013) Design within the field of accident and crisis management, with emphasis on leadership (in Swedish). LUCRAM—Lund University Centre for Risk Analysis and Management, Lund, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aven T (2010) Misconceptions of risk. Wiley, ChichesterMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Solberg Ø, Njå O (2012) Reflections on the ontological status of risk. J Risk Res 15(9):1201–1215Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leveson N (2011) Engineering a safer world: systems thinking applied to safety. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rasmussen J (1997) Risk management in a dynamic society: a modeling problem. Saf Sci 27:183–213Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Checkland P (1999) Systems thinking, systems practice. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wallace B, Ross A (2006) Beyond human error : taxonomies and safety science. CRC/Taylor & Francis, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Renn O (2008) Concepts of risk: an interdisciplinary review—part 1: disciplinary risk concepts. GAIA 17(1):50–66Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bjelland H, Aven T (2013) Treatment of uncertainty in risk assessments in the Rogfast road tunnel project. Saf Sci 55:34–44Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Noonan F, Fitzgerald RW (1991) On the role of subjective probabilities in fire risk management studies. Paper presented at the 3rd international symposium on fire safety science, 8–12 July, 1991, Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meacham BJ (2004) Understanding risk: quantification, perceptions, and characterization. J Fire Prot Eng 14(3):199–227Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aven T, Zio E (2011) Some considerations on the treatment of uncertainties in risk assessment for practical decision making. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 96:64–74Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Abrahamsen EB, Aven T (2010) Safety oriented bubble diagrams in project risk management. Int J Perform Eng 7(1):91–96Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chakravartty A (2011) Scientific realism. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (summer 2011 edition). March 21, 2013
  17. 17.
    Giere RN, Richardson AW (1996) Origins of logical empiricism. University of Minnesota Press, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schön DA (1991) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Ashgate Publishing GroupGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shrader-Frechette KS (1991) Risk and rationality: philosophical foundations for populist reforms. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stanford PK (2006) Instrumentalism. In: Sarkar S, Pfeifer J (eds) The philosophy of science: an encyclopedia. Routledge, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sathaye SG (1972) Instrumentalism: a methodological exposition of the philosophy of John Dewey. Popular Prakashan, BombayGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rosenberg A (2000) Philosophy of science: a contemporary introduction. Routledge, FlorenceGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Eldridge M (1998) Transforming experience: John Dewey’s cultural instrumentalism. Vanderbilt University Press, NashvilleGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    LeCoze J-C (2005) Are organisations too complex to be integrated in technical risk assessment and current safety auditing? Saf Sci 43(8):613–638Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Leveson N, Daouk M, Dulac N, Marais K (2004) A systems theoretic approach to safety engineering. Aeronautics and Astronautics Dept., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Heinrich HW (1931) Industrial accident prevention: a scientific approach. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lucht DA (1989) Coming of age. J Fire Prot Eng 1(2):35–48Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fitzgerald RW (1991) Integration of fire science into building requirements. Fire Saf J 17:159–163Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Quintiere J (1988) Analytical methods for firesafety design. Fire Technol 24(4):333–352Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Thomas PH (1992) Fire modelling: a mature technology? Fire Saf J 19(2–3):125–140Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Babrauskas V, Peacock RD (1992) Heat release rate: the single most important variable in fire hazard. Fire Saf J 18(3):255–272Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Janssens M (2002) Calorimetry. In: DiNenno PJ, Drysdale D, Beyler CL et al (eds) Handbook of fire protection engineering, 3rd edn. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), Quincy, MA, pp (3)38–62Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tewarson A (1980) Heat release rate in fires. Fire Mater 4(4):185–191Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Budnick EK (1986) Quantitative fire hazards analysis—an overview of needs, methods and limitations. Fire Saf J 11(1–2):3–14Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    DiNenno PJ (ed) (2002) SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering, 3rd edn. National Fire Protection Association, QuincyGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Drysdale D (2002) An introduction to fire dynamics, 2nd edn. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Buchanan AH (2002) Structural design for fire safety. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Karlsson B, Quintiere JG (2000) Enclosure fire dynamics. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Walton WD (2002) Zone computer fire models for enclosures. In: DiNenno PJ, Drysdale D, Beyler CL et al (eds) Handbook of fire protection engineering, 3rd edn. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), Quincy, MA, pp (3)189–193Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mitler HE (1985) The Harvard fire model. Fire Saf J 9(1):7–16Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cooper LY, Stroup DW (1985) ASET-A computer program for calculating available safe egress time. Fire Saf J 9(1):29–45Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Peacock RD, Bukowski RW (1990) A prototype methodology for fire hazard analysis. Fire Technol 26(1):15–40Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Emmons HW (1990) Firesafety science—the promise of a better future. Fire Technol 26(1):5–15MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Friedman R (1992) An international survey of computer models for fire and smoke. J Fire Prot Eng 4(3):81–92Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Olenick SM, Carpenter DJ (2003) An updated international survey of computer models for fire and smoke. J Fire Prot Eng 13(2):87–110Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Proulx G (2001) Occupant behaviour and evacuation. Paper presented at the 9th international fire protection symposium, Munich, May 25–26, 2001, Munich, May 25–26Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bryan JL (1999) Human behaviour in fire: the development and maturity of a scholarly study area. Fire Mater 23(6):249–253Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Canter D (1980) Fires and human behaviour: emerging issues. Fire Saf J 3(1):41–46Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Fruin JJ (1971) Pedestrian planning and design. Metropolitan Association of Urban Designers and Environmental Planners, Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Predtechenskii VM, Milinskii AI (1978) Planning for foot traffic flow in buildings. Amerind Publishing Co., New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Canter DV (ed) (1980) Fires and human behaviour. J. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Pauls J (1984) Development of knowledge about means of egress. Fire Technol 20 (2):28–40Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Babrauskas V, Fleming JM, Don Russell B (2010) RSET/ASET, a flawed concept for fire safety assessment. Fire Mater 34(7):341–355Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Gwynne S, Galea ER, Owen M, Lawrence PJ (1998) Investigation of the aspects of occupant behavior required for evacuation modeling. J Appl Fire Sci 8(1):19–59Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kobes M, Helsloot I, de Vries B, Post JG (2010) Building safety and human behaviour in fire: a literature review. Fire Saf J 45(1):1–11Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wong LT, Leung LK (2005) Minimum fire alarm sound pressure level for elder care centres. Build Environ 40(1):125–133Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Gwynne SMV, Boswell DL, Proulx G (2009) Understanding the effectiveness of notification technologies in assisting vulnerable populations. J Fire Prot Eng 19 (1):31–49Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Bruck D, Horasan M (1995) Non-arousal and non-action of normal sleepers in response to a smoke detector alarm. Fire Saf J 25(2):125–139Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Bruck D (2001) The who, what, where and why of waking to fire alarms: a review. Fire Saf J 36(7):623–639Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Bruck D (1999) Non-awakening in children in response to a smoke detector alarm. Fire Saf J 32(4):369–376Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Hasofer AM, Thomas IR (2007) Sound intensity required for waking up. Fire Saf J 42(4):265–270Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hasofer AM, Bruck D (2004) Statistical analysis of response to fire cues. Fire Saf J 39(8):663–688Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Bryan JL (1983) A review of the examination and analysis of the dynamics of human behavior in the fire at the MGM Grand Hotel, Clark County, Nevada, as determined from a selected questionnaire population. Fire Saf J 5:233–240.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Proulx G (2007) Response to fire alarms. Fire Protection Engineering Magazine January 2007:8–14.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Purser DA, Bensilum M (2001) Quantification of behaviour for engineering design standards and escape time calculations. Saf Sci 38(2):157–182Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Gwynne S, Galea ER, Parke J, Hickson J (2003) The collection and analysis of pre-evacuation times derived from evacuation trials and their application to evacuation modelling. Fire Technol 39(2):173–195Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Jin T, Yamada T (1994) Experimental study on effect of escape guidance in fire smoke by travelling flashing of light sources. Paper presented at the Fourth international symposium on fire safety science, 13–17 July, 1994, Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Fahy R, Proulx G (1997) Human behavior in the world trade center evacuation. In: The fifth international symposium on fire safety science, 3–7 March, 1997, Melbourne, Australia, 1997Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    ISO (2009) ISO/TR 16738:2009 (E) Fire-safety engineering—technical information on methods for evaluating behavior and movement of people. International Organization for Standardization, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Steen-Hansen A, Heskestad AW (2001) Assessment of smoke atmospheres where loss of visibility is the limiting hazard. Paper presented at the 2nd international symposium on human behaviour in fire, 26/28 March 2001, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USAGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Heskestad AW (1999) Performance in smoke of wayguidance systems. Fire Mater 23(6):375–381Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Purser D (1985) How toxic smoke products affect the ability of victims to escape from fires. Fire Prev (179):28–32Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Hartzell GE (1988) Fire and life threat. Paper presented at the INTERFLAM ‘88, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Babrauskas V, Gann RG, Levin BC, Paabo M, Harris RH, Peacock RD, Yusa S (1998) A methodology for obtaining and using toxic potency data for fire hazard analysis. Fire Saf J 31(4):345–358Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Hadjisophocleous GV, Benichou N, Tamim AS (1998) Literature review of performance-based fire codes and design environment. J Fire Prot Eng 9(1):12–40Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Hadjisophocleous GV, Benichou N (1999) Performance criteria used in fire safety design. Autom Constr 8(4):489–501Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Beck VR (1987) A cost-effective, decision-making model for building fire safety and protection. Fire Saf J 12(2):121–138Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Beck VR (1991) Fire safety system design using risk assessment models: developments in Australia. paper presented at the third international symposium on fire safety science, 8–12 July, 1991, Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Ramachandran G (1988) Probabilistic approach to fire risk evaluation. Fire Tech 24(3):204–226Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Wade C, Whiting P (1996) Fire risk assessment using the building fire safety engineering method. J Fire Prot Eng 8(4):157–168Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Frantzich H (1998) Risk analysis and fire safety engineering. Fire Saf J 31(4):313–329Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Jönsson R, Lundin J (2000) Fire safety design based on risk assessment. Fire Sci Technol 20(1):13–25Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Lundin J, Johansson H (2003) A risk-based approach to verification of fire safety design solutions. Fire Sci Technol 22(1):1–15Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Yuen WW, Chow WK (2005) A new method for selecting the design fire for safety provision. Fire Sci Technol 24(3):133–149Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Hadjisophocleous GV, Zalok E (2008) Development of design fires for performance-based fire safety designs. Paper presented at the ninth international symposium on fire safety science, 21–26 September, 2008, Karlsruhe, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Tanaka T (2008) Risk-based selection of design fires to ensure an acceptable level of evacuation safety. Fire Saf Sci 9:49–61Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Rasbash DJ (1985) Criteria for acceptability for use with quantitative approaches to fire safety. Fire Saf J 8(2):141–158Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Hokstad P, Mostue BA, Opstad K, Paulsen T (1998) Method for the calculation of human safety in building fires (in Norwegian). SINTEF NBL, TrondheimGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Gwynne S, Galea ER, Owen M, Lawrence PJ, Filippidis L (1999) A review of the methodologies used in evacuation modelling. Fire Mater 23(6):383–388Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Tanaka T (2011) Integration of fire risk concept into performance-based evacuation safety design of buildings. Paper presented at the 10th international symposium on fire safety science, 19–24 June 2011, University of Maryland, USAGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Deakin G (1999) Fire safety standards—help or hindrance. Fire Saf J 32(2):103–118Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Berlin GN (1982) A simulation model for assessing building firesafety. Fire Technol 18(1):66–76Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Beck VR (1997) Performance-based fire engineering design and its application in Australia. Paper presented at the fifth international symposium on fire safety science, 3–7 March, 1997, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Puchovsky M (1996) NFPA’s perspectives on performance-based codes and standards. Fire Technol 32(4):323–332Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Law M, Beever P (1995) Magic numbers and golden rules. Fire Technol 31(1):77–83Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Bukowski RW, Tanaka T (1991) Toward the goal of a performance fire code. Fire Mater 15:175–180Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Bukowski RW, Babrauskas V (1994) Developing rational, performance-based fire safety requirements in model building codes. Fire Mater 18:173–191Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Meacham BJ, Custer RLP (1995) Performance-based fire safety engineering: an introduction of basic concepts. J Fire Prot Eng 7(2):35–54Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Richardson K (ed) (2003) History of fire protection engineering. National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MAGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Nelson HE, Levin BM, Shibe AJ, Groner NE, Paulsen RL, Alvord DM, Thorne SD (1983) Fire safety evaluation systems for board and care homes. Final Report. National Bureau of Standards, Department of Commerce, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Nelson HE (1982) Approach to enhancing the value of professional judgement in the derivation of performance criteria. Paper presented at the performance concept in building, 3rd ASTM/CIB/RILEM symposium, March 29–April 2, 1982, Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Caldwell CA, Buchanan AH, Fleischman CM (1999) Documentation for performance-based fire engineering design in New Zealand. J Fire Prot Eng 10(2):24–31Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Chapman RE, Hall WG (1982) Code compliance at lower costs: A mathematical programming approach. Fire Technol 18(1):77–89Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Watts JM Jr (1991) Criteria for fire risk ranking. Paper presented at the 3rd international symposium on fire safety science, 8–12 July, 1991, Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Watts JM Jr (2002) Fire risk indexing. In: DiNenno PJ, Drysdale D, Beyler CL et al (eds) Handbook of fire protection engineering, 3rd edn. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), Quincy, MA, pp (5)125–142Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Frantzich H (2000) Fire safety assessment of care facilities: a risk analysis tool (in Swedish). Lund University, Lund, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Hall JR Jr, Sekizawa A (1991) Fire risk analysis: general conceptual framework for describing models. Fire Technol 27(1):33–53Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Purser D (2002) ASET and RSET: addressing some issues in relation to occupant behaviour and tenability. Paper presented at the 7th international symposium on fire safety science, 16–21 June 2002, Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI), Worcester, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Fleischmann CM (2011) Is prescription the future of performance-based design? Paper presented at the 10th international symposium on fire safety science, 19–24 June 2011, University of Maryland, USAGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    ISO (2005) ISO/TS 16732 Fire safety engineering—guidance on fire risk assessment. International Organization for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Hasofer AM, Beck VR (1999) The probability of death in the room of fire origin: an engineering formulae. J Fire Prot Eng 10(19):19–28Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    He Y (2010) Linking safety factor and failure of probability for fire safety engineering. J Fire Prot Eng 20:199–217Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Magnusson SE, Frantzich H, Karlsson B, Särdqvist S (1994) Determination of safety factors in design based on performance. Paper presented at the fourth international symposium on fire safety science, 13–17 July, 1994, Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Chu GQ, Chen T, Sun ZH, Sun JH (2007) Probabilistic risk assessment for evacuees in building fires. Build Environ 42(3):1283–1290Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Meacham BJ (2004) Decision-making for fire risk problems: a review of challenges and tools. J Fire Prot Eng 14:149–168Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Beard AN (1982) A stochastic model for the number of deaths in a fire. Fire Technol 18(3):280–291MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Santos-Reyes J, Beard AN (2001) A systemic approach to fire safety management. Fire Saf J 36(4):359–390Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Triner EG (1968) Fire loss reduction—an analytical approach. Fire Technol 4(4):310–318Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Tryon GH (1969) The process of setting safety standards. Fire Technol 5(4):267–271Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Richardson KJ (1993) Changing the regulatory system to accept fire safety engineering methods. J Fire Prot Eng 5(4):135–140Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Hanea D, Ale B (2009) Risk of human fatality in building fires: a decision tool using Bayesian networks. Fire Saf J 44(5):704–710Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Shpilberg D, de Neufville R (1974) Best choice of fire protection: An airport study. Fire Technol 10(2):5–14Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Blockley DI (1980) The nature of structural design and safety. Ellis Horwood, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Clausen J, Hansson SO, Nilsson F (2006) Generalizing the safety factor approach. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 91(8):964–973Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Blockley DI, Godfrey P (2000) Doing it differently: systems for rethinking construction. Thomas Telford, LondonGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    NFPA (2008) NFPA glossary of terms. National Fire Protection Association, QuincyGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Harada K (1999) Performance based codes and performance based fire safety design. Fire Sci Technol 19(1):1–10Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Cooper LY (1983) A concept for estimating available safe egress time in fires. Fire Saf J 5(2):135–144Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Bjelland H, Njå O (2012) Interpretation of safety margin in ASET/RSET assessments in the Norwegian building industry. In: Proceedings to the 11th international probabilistic safety assessment and management conference (PSAM11) and the annual european safety and reliability conference (ESREL2012), Scandic Marina Congress Center, Helsinki, Finland, 25–29 June 2012, pp 2421–2430Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Meacham BJ (1999) Integrating human factors issues into engineered fire safety design. Fire Mater 23(6):273–279Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Frantzich H, Magnusson SE, Holmquist B, Rydén J (1997) Derivation of partial factors for fire safety evaluation using the reliability index β method. Paper presented at the fifth international symposium on fire safety science, 3–7 March 1997, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Mathews MK, Karydas DM, Delichatsios MA (1997) A performance-based approach for fire safety engineering: a comprehensive engineering risk analysis methodology, a computer model, and a case study. Paper presented at the fifth international symposium on fire safety science, 3–7 March 1997, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Takeyoshi T, Jun-ichi Y (2006) A consideration on determination of design fore based on fire risk concept. Fire Sci Technol 25(2):115–132Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Beck VR, Yung D (1990) A cost-effective risk-assessment model for evaluating fire safety and protection in Canadian apartment buildings. J Fire Prot Eng 2(3):65–74Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Hirschler MM (1998) Fire hazard assessment: roadblock or opportunity? Fire Technol 34(2):177–187Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    Kukla A (2000) Social constructivism and the philosophy of science. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    LeCoze J-C (2012) Towards a constructivist program in safety. Saf Sci 50(9):1873–1887Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    Yeganeh H, Su Z (2005) Positivism and constructivism: two opposite but reconcilable paradigms in cross-cultural management research. Proceedings of 33rd ASAC annual conference (Administrative Sciences Association of Canada). Toronto, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Simon HA (1996) The sciences of the artificial, 3rd edn (first published by MIT Press in 1969). The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    SFPE (2000) SFPE engineering guide to performance-based fire protection analysis and design of buildings. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), QuincyGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Heskestad AW (1998) Fire safety assessment of the furnishing on the living quarter of the Åsgard A FPSO unit (confidential report). Paper presented at the orally presented at the 3rd international conference on performance-based codes and fire safety design methods, Lund, Sweden, 2000Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    Heskestad AW, Drangsholt G, Steen-Hansen A (2010) Review of the fire safety strategy of the Norwegian national opera building (confidential report in Norwegian). SINTEF NBL (the Norwegian fire research laboratory), TrondheimGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Heskestad AW, Landrø H, Steen-Hansen A (2010) Experiences on introducing functional fire safety requirements in the building regulations of Norway. Paper presented at the 8th international conference on performance-based codes and safety design methods, Lund University SwedenGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Kjellén U (2007) Safety in the design of offshore platforms: Integrated safety versus safety as an add-on characteristic. Saf Sci 45(1–2):107–127Google Scholar
  145. 145.
    Dorst K, Cross N (2001) Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution. Des Stud 22(5):425–437Google Scholar
  146. 146.
    Rasbash DJ (1996) Fire safety objectlves for buildings. Fire Technol 32(4):348–350Google Scholar
  147. 147.
    Reason J (1997) Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Ashgate, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    Njå O (1998) Approach for assessing the performance of emergency response arrangements. Stavanger University College, StavangerGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    Sklet S (2006) Safety barriers: definition, classification, and performance. J Loss Prev Process Ind 19(5):494–506Google Scholar
  150. 150.
    Graver HP (2009) Evidence evaluation—unscientific gut feeling or a rational holistic assessment? (in Norwegian). Tidsskrift for Rettsvitenskap 122(2):191–233MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  151. 151.
    Dorst K (2006) Design problems and design paradoxes. Des Issues 22(3):4–17Google Scholar
  152. 152.
    Braut GS, Njå O (2010) Learning from accidents (incidents). Theoretical perspectives on investigation reports as educational tools. In: Briš R, Guedes Soares C, Martorell S (eds) Reliability, risk and safety. theory and applications. Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 9–16Google Scholar
  153. 153.
    Aven T (2003) Foundations of risk analysis: a knowledge and decision-oriented perspective. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henrik Bjelland
    • 1
  • Ove Njå
    • 1
  • Atle William Heskestad
    • 2
  • Geir Sverre Braut
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Industrial Economics, Risk Management and PlanningUniversity of StavangerStavangerNorway
  2. 2.Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in SpaceNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  3. 3.Stord Haugesund University College and Stavanger University HospitalStavangerNorway

Personalised recommendations