University of Central Lancashire School of Engineering and Computing Details FV3103 Assignment 1/2021 Assignment 1 (this contributes 20% to your overall module mark) The aim of the coursework is to

demonstrate your ability to evaluate, compare and contrast risk using a fire risk assessment methodology and to show how differing methods of analysing risk can yield differing results for the same building. In order to complete this assignment successfully you will produce, present and defend poster that addresses the following: As a fire risk assessor your task is to advise the building management company about the fire risks in the tall building allocated to you. You will evaluate the fire risks and hazards using guidance contained in PAS79 2020 and the 5x5 risk matrix approach. You will carry out an evaluation based on 5 key aspects of the fire risk in the building and include appropriate control measures to reduce the risk to an acceptable level. You will compile and present your findings on an A3 poster (which we can print for you) you will then defend during the class on 12th December 2023. All the class posters will be posted on the walls of the room and you will have the chance to question your peers about their posters. Assessors will view each poster and ask you questions about your poster and they will be interested to hear your observations, comparisons and justifications. This is your opportunity to showcase (defend) your findings. Remember that your evaluation of the risks is important for helping the building management company arrive at informed decisions about fire risk to the owner or occupiers of the building. The deadline for submission of your final work is during the class on Learning outcomes This assessment will test your ability to meet the learning outcomes as described in your module descriptor, specifically: 1. Employ a range of qualitative and quantitative methods for application to risk assessment 2. Critically evaluate a risk assessment 3. Assess relevant documents and communicate the essential and important points Classification Grade 1st 2.1 2.2 3 96 89 81 74 68 65 62 58 55 52 48 45 42 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 UCLAN FIRE Indicativemarkingscheme Indicative marking scheme Analysis 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. 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 1 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 suffer loss of focus and consistency. 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 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. 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. Fail 35* 30* 25 10 Relevance to the title is intermittent or missing. The topic is reduced to its vaguest and least challenging * can be compensated terms. Relevance to practice is barely considered or not at all. UCLAN FIRE A limited Lunderstanding 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 ANFIRE Heavy dependence on description and/or narrative. Paraphrase is common. Evidence of analysis is lacking. Clear and logical conclusions are sparse 2 Little evidence of coherent argument. There is a lack of development and the work may be repetitive and/or thin. Almost wholly derivative. The writer's contribution rarely goes beyond simplifying paraphrase. No evidence of personal thought. 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.