WCA January 2016

63 / 72

61
Wire & Cable ASIA – January/February 2016
❍
❍ Figure 1: Cultural relativity for three selected nationalities
according to Hofstede[1]
❍
❍ Figure 2 : Remaining risk versus total effort for reduction efforts
on one factor or both factors
Power distance
Individualism
Uncertainty
avoidance
Masculinity
Long-term
orientation
Germany
Japan
USA
Risk vs Effort
Total Effort
Remaining Risk
Risk (2 factors)
Risk (1 factor)
Several publications by social scientists as well as by
economic scientists show the huge regional difference
regarding different parameters. Hofstede[1] defines the
five parameters power distance, uncertainty avoidance,
individualism, masculinity, and long-term orientation. The
detailed meaning of these parameters is explained in his
paper[1], but the regional difference can be demonstrated
in general without detailed understanding of these
parameters (Figure 1).
All these parameters are scaled from zero to 100. A value
close to zero means the opposite position is extremely
strong. So, for example, an individualism factor of three
means collectivism is in high gear. Keeping in mind that
there are huge regional differences regarding cultural
relativity, it is easy to understand that in every region of the
world, safety feelings and safety needs are different, too.
This is also valid in respect to fire safety. For this reason
the threat of fire is estimated differently. This results in
different national or regional approaches for fire protection.
To look deeper into these approaches it is important to
understand the threats of fire and the theory of risk.
3 Risk of Fire
3.1 Threats of Fire Events
In occurrence of fire there are different aspects that people
are to be protected against. In almost all cultures the most
important aspect should be the protection of life and the
avoidance of personal injuries.
Protection of goods against combustion or secondary
damages such as corrosion are important. This depends
on the value of these goods, which might be estimated
differently in different cultures. Further economic loss can
be caused by less physical effects of a fire such as loss of
information or downtime of any infrastructure.
3.1.1 Personal Health
The threats for personal injury by a fire are much more
than suffering burns. Huge danger in case of fire is
generated by smoke. In dense smoke people may lose
orientation and not find the emergency exit. In the same
way smoke may restrict the work of rescue teams. Further
acid fumes cause asphyxiation which is the most often
lethal consequence of a fire.
3.1.2 Damage of Goods
In case of fire, damage of goods might happen by
combustion but also by corrosion effects due to the
presence of acid smoke. Smaller damages by acid smoke
often remain undetected when a halogenated material
burns and a layer of acid radicals covers some electronics.
When weeks or months later humidity increases due to
weather changes or else, this film reacts to an acid and
causes failures by corrosion which are not detected as a
long-term consequence of that fire some time ago.
3.1.3 Economic Loss
The financial damage caused by a fire might be much
higher than the real value of any devices burnt down. In the
industrial field we know a production downtime caused by
machinery damage may exceed the cost of the machinery
itself many times over. Especially in banking and finance
the loss of information is another important economic
threat of a fire event. Thus additional aspects are to be
included when considering fire protection. Repairability,
data safety and backup strategies are just a few of them.
3.2 Risk Assessment
Quantitative risk assessment requires calculations of two
components of risk: the magnitude of the potential loss,
and the probability that the loss will occur. So risk (R) is
determined as a product of two factors: The probability
of any failure (p) is multiplied by the magnitude of the
potential loss (L) caused by that failure, further shortly
called impact of failure.
R=p*L Equation (1 )
This is common knowledge according to Wikipedia[5]
and is used in standard engineering methods as the well
known failure method and effect analysis (FMEA)[3] as well
as in insurance risk assessment procedures. Insurance
companies use the risk calculation according to Equation
(1) in risk assessment which is basic to determine
insurance premiums. Here both factors – probability and
impact of failure - are taken into account, too.
Equation (1) indicates that it is worth taking both factors
into account. In many realistic cases both factors of
risk depend on each other. To name an example taken
from this fire protection topic, the use of halogenated
materials reduces the probability of failure but increases
the possible impact on personal health by asphyxiation or
something else.
Experience from FMEA practice reveals the advantage to
keep both factors on a similar low level. If both factors may
vary in a range from 1 to 10, the risk varies from 1 to 100.