Probabilistic Risk Analysis Report Ensuring optimal management of critical risks within a facility is imperative for safeguarding occupants and assets. This entails a comprehensive assessment of the premises to preemptively

identify potential hazards, evaluate existing protection systems, analyze their efficacy, assess the likelihood and consequences of various scenarios, and ascertain the overall probability of fire incidents. As a Fire Risk Assessor, the objective is to compile a Probabilistic Fire Risk Analysis report for a Warehouse. The Warehouse houses multiple fire protection systems designed to act as barriers against fire outbreaks and facilitate safe evacuation. These systems encompass: Flame Detection Systems Fire Alarm Systems Automatic Sprinkler Systems Fire Extinguishers Fire Suppression Systems Smoke Control Systems Passive Fire Protection Systems Emergency Lighting Systems Fire Blankets Your tasks include: 1. Drawing an event tree corresponding to the Warehouse and its fire protection systems, with all scenarios and expected results of each scenario as well as the probability of each scenario. 2. Constructing a fault tree outlining potential failures of the building's fire protection systems. 3. Explaining the concept of Mean Time to Failure (MTTF) and its relevance to this field. 4. Detailing the advantages of event tree analysis and fault tree analysis. 5. Computing MTTF by assuming hazard rates. Page 1 of 4 Marking Scheme: Classification Grade 1 st 2.1 2.2 3 Fail 96 89 81 74 68 65 62 58 55 52 48 45 42 35* 30* 25 10 Relevance 20% Directly relevant to title. Able to address the implications, assumptions and nuances of the title. Relevance to practice is thoroughly and explicitly addressed. Directly relevant to title. Is able to demonstrate effective practice relevance. Generally addresses the title, sometimes addresses irrelevant issues. Relevance to practice effectively addressed, may be implicit in places. Some degree of irrelevance to the title is common. Only the most obvious issues are addressed at a superficial level and in unchallenging terms. Relevance to practice is superficially addressed and rarely made explicit Relevance to the title is intermittent or missing. The topic is reduced to its vaguest and least challenging terms. Relevance to practice is barely considered or not at all. Knowledge 20% Makes effective use of a comprehensive range of theory and practice knowledge. Demonstrates ability in the manipulation and transfer of subject material to demonstrate a solid understanding of the issues in both theory and practice. Makes effective use of good theory and practice knowledge. Manipulates and transfers some material to demonstrate a clear grasp of the themes, questions and issues in theory and practice. Adequate knowledge of a fair range of relevant theoretical and practice related material with evidence of an appreciation of its significance. Basic understanding of a limited range of relevant theoretical and practice related material. A limited understanding of a narrow range of relevant theoretical and practice related material or a lack of basic knowledge in either or both theory and practice necessary for an understanding of the topic Analysis 15% A comprehensive analysis of the material resulting in clear and illuminating conclusions. Good analysis of the material resulting in clear and logical conclusions. Adequate analytical treatment, with occasional descriptive or narrative passages which lack clear analytical purpose. Conclusions are clear. Largely descriptive or narrative in style with limited evidence of analytical capability. Conclusions are not always clear or logical Heavy dependence on description and/or narrative. Paraphrase is common. Evidence of analysis is lacking. Clear and logical conclusions are sparse Argument & Structure 20% Coherent and logically structured, making creative use of an appropriate mode of argument and/or theoretical model. Generally coherent and logically constructed. Uses an appropriate mode of argument or theoretical model. Adequate attempt to construct a coherent argument, but may loss of focus and consistency. suffer Issues at stake may lack clarity or theoretical models couched in simplistic terms. A basic argument is evident but tends to be supported by assertion and lacks proper development. Coherence and clarity are evident only intermittently Little evidence of coherent argument. There is a lack of development and the work may be repetitive and/or thin. Originality 15% Distinctive work showing independent thought and critical engagement with alternative views. Contains some distinctive or independent thinking. Beginning to formulate an independent position Sound work which expresses a personal position, often in broad terms and tends towards uncritical conformity to one or more standard views of the topic. Largely derivative. No personal view is adequately formulated Wholly uncritical and conforming to one or more standard views. Almost wholly derivative. The writer's contribution rarely goes beyond simplifying paraphrase. No evidence of personal thought. Presentation 10% A very well written answer with standard spelling and syntax. Style is lucid and resourceful with an appropriate bibliographical apparatus. Well written with standard spelling and syntax. Style is lucid utilising an appropriate format and bibliographical apparatus. Competently written with only minor lapses from standard spelling and syntax. Style is readable with acceptable format and bibliographical status. Style of presentation makes reading difficult. Deficiencies in spelling, syntax, format or bibliographical apparatus impact significantly upon clarity. Poorly written with numerous deficiencies in syntax, spelling, expression and presentation. The writer may achieve clarity (if at all) only by using simplistic or repetitious style. Page 4 of 4