Reliability-Based Fire Resistance Periods for Buildings in England

The traditional route to achieving adequate structural performance in the event of fire is through ensuring that structural elements attain fire resistance ratings. The magnitude of these ratings typically varies in function of the building use, size, and height. In their genesis, fire resistance ratings were a proxy for the specification required of elements such that they had a reasonable likelihood of surviving the full duration of a fire, i.e., burn-out. As such, fire resistance periods were specified in the function of fire load, which, over time, progressively increased in consideration of the consequences of fire induced structural failure. This ratcheting of fire resistance periods was seemingly done so based on the collective experience of the profession, in response to observations from real fires and, where applicable, resulting disasters. That is, the safety levels associated with current fire resistance recommendations in most global codes and guidance documents are not determined. Therefore, this paper presents a review of reliability-based acceptance criteria for structures, ahead of their application, to determine fire resistance recommendations for buildings in England based on both codified reliability indices and the principle of relative (marginal) lifesaving costs. The study applies a novel form of probabilistic time equivalence, which is augmented by fire occurrence related statistics/parameters, to arrive at risk-informed fire resistance ratings that directly relate to the life safety consequences of fire induced structural failure (i.e., fatalities) to adequate fire resistance ratings. In determining these building fire resistance periods, it is observed that safety targets which implicitly include material damage and building reconstruction costs result in fire resistance recommendations that are well-aligned with National codes and standards. That is, to some extent, the ratcheting of fire resistance periods with time has resulted in some potential resilience to fire. Where safety targets are rationalised in consideration of life safety only, i.e., through the principle of relative (marginal) lifesaving costs, it is shown that fire resistance periods can be optimised, particularly in sprinkler protected buildings. However, this has the potential to introduce vulnerabilities to common mode failures