| PDF Pages<\/th>\n | PDF Title<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 158<\/td>\n | Foreword <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 161<\/td>\n | 1 Scope 2 Normative references 3 Terms and definitions <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 163<\/td>\n | 4 Design approach <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 165<\/td>\n | Figure 1 \u2014 Flowchart for demonstrating adequate safety of a design <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 166<\/td>\n | Figure 2 \u2014 General flowchart for design assessment using PRA methods <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 168<\/td>\n | Figure 3 \u2014 Consolidated flowchart for a design through PRA <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 169<\/td>\n | 5 Acceptance criteria Figure 4 \u2014 One-dimensional representation of generalized consequence-frequency (FC) <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 171<\/td>\n | Figure 5 \u2014 Generalized consequence-frequency (FC) diagram with indication of tolerability limit and negligible limit <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 172<\/td>\n | Figure 6 \u2014 Flowchart to determine the applicable PRA acceptance criteria for demonstrating adequate safety <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 173<\/td>\n | Figure 7 \u2014 FN diagram (cumulative exceedance frequency versus number of casualties) <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 183<\/td>\n | 6 Analysis methods <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 184<\/td>\n | Table 1 \u2014 Summary of discussed methods and main characteristics <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 186<\/td>\n | Figure 8 \u2014 Event tree analysis Figure 9 \u2014 Fault tree analysis <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 192<\/td>\n | Figure 10 \u2014 Example of typical uncertainty distribution <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 193<\/td>\n | Figure 11 \u2014 Example of Tornado Chart Showing Contribution to Variance <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 194<\/td>\n | 7 Data collection for PRA <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 195<\/td>\n | Annex A (informative)\u2002 Acceptance and tolerability criteria Table A.1 \u2014 Individual risk limits Table A.2 \u2014 Parameters and valuation of benchmark proportionality constant SCCR1life Annex B (informative)\u2002 indicative probabilities <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 196<\/td>\n | Table B.1 \u2014 Sprinkler reliability by occupancy based on USA experience Table B.2 \u2014 Sprinkler effectiveness (%) by occupancy based on NZ experience Table B.3 \u2014 Overall probability of fire starting in various types of occupancy <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 197<\/td>\n | Table B.4 \u2014 Fire growth rate distributions Table B.5 \u2014 Fire load energy density for various types of occupancy <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 198<\/td>\n | Table B.6 \u2014 System effectiveness Table B.7 \u2014 Extent of Damage in USA Fire Incidents, 1989-1994 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 199<\/td>\n | Annex C (informative)\u2002 Commentary on acceptance criteria Figure C.1 \u2014 Acceptability criteria <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 204<\/td>\n | Bibliography <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Tracked Changes. Application of fire safety engineering principles to the design of buildings – Probabilistic risk assessment<\/b><\/p>\n |