The Fire Safety Principles - Report Example

The result of case study research of actual conflict in Section 5.5.7 for instance shows most sustainable building fires were caused by non-fire rated facades. Similarly, fire safety issues in sustainable building projects in Abu Dhabi such as ADNEC Tower, Ferrari World, and MASDAR City include double-membrane facade, thermal protection, building classification, absence of sprinkler protection, smoke management, fire truck access, heat transfer, and others. Asperously the ducted qualitative and quantitative survey resurrect results list between Abu Dhabi sustainability initiatives and fire safety seems significant.

For instance, participants responses processed through the SPSS statistical analysis package for Questions presented in Section 2 (Fire Safety Practices) and 3 (Application of Fire Safety in Sustainable Building Design) other survey questionnaire suggest reliability (see Table 3.4.4-B-1) and with valid frequencies (see Section 3.4.4 (C)). As shown in Figure 7.1-A below, agreement (Strongly Agree and Agree one response represented by blue and red vertical bars respectively) in most fire safety-related questions is relatively higher than disagreement (purple and light blue vertical bars).

 Note that fire safety issues being asked in these questions are relevant to the restrictive nature of prescriptive codes (where disagreement or purple bar is almost as high as those who agree and not sure), revision of the local fire code to allow fire engineering solutions, and the performance of the fire service in terms of operation and firefighting capability.  Moreover, this also explains why the agreement to Question 20 (which is about the application of effective fire management) and 21 (integration between bodies to achieve successful PBD application) is high while “Not Sure” responses in Question 23 (which is the part performance of the fire service in terms of operations and firefighting management) is higher than those who either agree or strongly agree on About to the validity of the above frequency of responses, note that the One-Way ANOVA P-value generated by SPSS for Section 2 as shown in Figure 7.

1-B below are all statistically significant as responses were given independently regardless of group affiliation thus valid and reliable.

Figure 7.1-B Result of One Way ANOVA for Section 2 Note that above ANOVA P-Value (statistical significance) for Questions 13 to 23 are all below 0.05 thresholds (limit of significance) thus responses to questions are 95% certain (95% confidence level) or did not happen by chance. Therefore, the level of agreement, disagreement, and “Not Sure” responses in Table 7.1-A are legitimate and can be taken into account when making the final conclusion. Moreover, the validity of these frequencies can be verified by the Tukey’s Test results as shown in Figure 7.

1-C for Question 23 where the green bar dominated the red (agree) and blue (strongly agree) bars. Figure 7.1-C Homogenous subset from Tukey’s test Result for Question 23 As explained in Section 3.4.4 of this study, Tukey’s test determines the level of homogeneity (equality of variances) of participants in relation to their responses. Figure 7.1-C therefore demonstrates which respondents have (Main Contractor, Main Consultant, AHJ, and others) expressed almost similar level of agreement (calculated by their Means or average), disagreement, and uncertainty to Question 23 which is the quality of operational and fire fighting management of the Abu Dhabi’s fire service.

As shown above, these survey participants are grouped together with the Main Contractor, Main Consultant, Developer, and Others in Group 1 while the rest are in Group 2. However, note the participants in Group 1 (except Others) are sharing are also members of Group 2 while AHJ, Fire Protection Consultant, and Fire Engineering Design Consultant are restricted to Group 2. This grouping suggests that the value of the dominating or tallest green vertical bar in Figure 7.1-A is contributed by participants with higher Mean values and with different Mean with the other group such as AHJ, Fire Protection Consultant, Fire Engineering Design Consultant.

This is because the fire service in question is associated with them and probably hesitating to take side (agrees or disagrees) with the quality of fire service performance. Moreover, these stakeholders are not end users of the fire service thus not sure about the latter’s performance. In contrast, Group 1 or the Main Contractor, Main Consultant, Developer, and Other stakeholders are end users of the fire service thus familiar and can quickly evaluate the quality of fire fighting services.

Note that those who disagree and strongly disagree are only half of those who agree and uncertain about the issue. More importantly, note that total number of participants in this survey is 96, 46 are from AHJ, Fire Protection Consultant, and Fire Engineering Design Consultant. The remaining 50 participants are from the Main Contractor, Main Consultant, Developer, and others who are mostly sharing almost similar Means with Group 2 indicating variation in responses and cannot possibly contribute to high green vertical bar value.

In Section 3 (Application of fire safety to sustainable building design) SPSS frequency statistical analysis of survey data for questions 24 to 30 as shown in summary Figure 7.1-D, majority of respondents express their agreement. However, the number of those “not sure” (green vertical bars) appears significant and greater than those who strongly agree in Questions 27 to 30. Figure 7.1-D Summary of frequency result for Section 3 For instance, from Question 24 to Question 26, the number of those who strongly and purely agrees is high suggesting acceptance of the idea that sustainable design or SD is a new concept and inclusion of fire safety requirements is essential, the application of SD in Abu Dhabi is incorrect, and the need to understand the effects of SD in hot humid climate.

This acceptance can be confirmed by the frequency of those who disagree (purple vertical bars) that are evidently very low. However, the number of those who are “Not Sure” (green vertical bars) should be taken into account as they are indicative of either unfamiliarity or unwillingness to take side in important issues and therefore relevant to the accuracy of this study’s final conclusion.