safety expo 2018 bergamo, 19 settembre 2018

1. NTC: legame fra
progettazione strutturale e
progettazione antincendio
Franco Bontempi
Professore Ordinario di Tecnica delle Costruzioni
Facoltà di Ingegneria Civile e Industriale
Università di Roma La Sapienza
19/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018 1

2. 19/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018 2

3. norme
19/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018 3

4. 19/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018 4
~ 400 pagg.

5. 19/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018 5
Il valore legale della Circolare delle
Norme Tecniche:
La Circolare, legalmente, non ha valore
di cogenza generale e dal punto di
vista tecnico è il riferimento
interpretativo certamente più
autorevole: assume spesso il ruolo di
una regola Tecnica «de facto» ed è, in
assoluto, riconosciuta per importanza
al fine della corretta applicazione delle
NTC.
Viene emanata, per Decreto, dal
Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei
Trasporti, pubblicata in GURI
~ 600 pagg.

6. Ergonomia delle norme
19/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018 6
1

7. Causes of System Failure
19/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018 7
100%
Time
%offailure
Unknown phenomena
Known phenomena
Research level Design code level
past present future
A
BB B
C
Humanerrors
2

8. 819/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018

9. 919/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018

10. 1019/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018

11. 11

12. 1219/09/2018

13. 1319/09/2018

14. 1419/09/2018

15. 15

16. http://territorio.regione.emilia-romagna.it/codice-territorio/sismica/dossier-
sentenze-della-causa-penale-conseguente-al-crollo-delledificio-scolastico-jovine-di-
san-giuliano-di-puglia/
16

17. HAZARD
IN-DEPTH
DEFENCE
HOLES DUE TO
ACTIVE ERRORS
HOLES DUE TO
HIDDEN ERRORS
General Failure Model
19/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018 17
3

18. 19/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018 18

19. STRUCTURAL
SYSTEM
CHARACTERISTICS
STRUCTURAL
SYSTEM
WEAKNESS
19
Structural
Fire
Design
19/09/2018

20. 2019/09/2018

21. STRUCTURAL
CONCEPTION
STRUCTURAL
TOPOLOGY
&
GEOMETRY
threats
No
Yes
threats
STRUCTURAL
MATERIAL
& PARTS
No
Yespassive
structural
characteristics
threats
FIRE DETECTION
& SUPPRESSION
No
Yes
active
structural
characteristics
threats
ORGANIZATION &
FIREFIGHTERS
No
Yes
threats
MAINTENANCE
& USE
No
Yes
threats
No
alive
structural
characteristics
Yes
2119/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018

22. AccidentTrajectory
2219/09/2018

23. differenze
19/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018 23

24. RESILIENCE
2419/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018

25. HPLC – LPHC EVENTS
19/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018 25
HPLC
High Probability
Low Consequences
LPHC
Low Probability
High Consequences
release of energy SMALL LARGE
numbers of breakdown SMALL LARGE
people involved FEW MANY
nonlinearity WEAK STRONG
interactions WEAK STRONG
uncertainty WEAK STRONG
decomposability HIGH LOW
course predictability HIGH LOW
4

26. Interazioni nel caso di incendio
26
decomposability
course predictability
5

27. LINEAR interactions NONLINEAR
LOOSEcouplingsTIGHT
2719/09/2018

28. ISO 13387: Example of Event Tree
28
A
B
C
D
E
G
F
19/09/2018

29. Cascade Effect / Domino Effect
• A cascade effect is an inevitable and sometimes unforeseen chain
of events due to an act affecting a system.
• In biology, the term cascade refers to a process that, once started,
proceeds stepwise to its full, seemingly inevitable, conclusion.
• A domino effect or chain reaction is the cumulative effect
produced when one event sets off a chain of similar events.
• It typically refers to a linked sequence of events where the time
between successive events is relatively small.
2919/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018

30. RUNAWAY (1)
effect
time
decomposability
course predictability
30

31. EFFECT
RUNAWAY(2)
decomposability
course predictability
31

32. 19/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018 32

33. 19/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018 33

34. 19/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018 34

35. A Black Swan is an event with the following three attributes.
1. First, it is an outlier, as it lies outside the realm of regular expectations,
because nothing in the past can convincingly point to its possibility.
Rarity -The event is a surprise (to the observer).
2. Second, it carries an extreme 'impact'.
Extreme “impact” - the event has a major effect.
3. Third, in spite of its outlier status, human nature makes us concoct
explanations for its occurrence after the fact, making it explainable and
predictable.
Retrospective (though not prospective) predictability
- After the first recorded instance of the event, it is rationalized by
hindsight, as if it could have been expected; that is, the relevant data were
available but unaccounted for in risk mitigation programs. The same is
true for the personal perception by individuals.
References: Taleb, Nassim Nicholas (April 2007). The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable (1st ed.).
London: Penguin. p. 400. ISBN 1-84614045-5.
Black Swan Event
35

36. concetti
19/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018 36

37. F
L
A
S
H
O
V
E
R
passiva
▪ Create fire
compartments
▪ Prevent damage
in the elements
▪ Prevent loss of
functionality in
the building
attiva
▪ Detection measures
(smoke, heat, flame
detectors)
▪ Suppression
measures (sprinklers,
fire extinguisher,
standpipes, firemen)
▪ Smoke and heat
evacuation system
prevenzione protezione robustezza
▪ Limit ignition
sources
▪ Limit hazardous
human behavior
▪ Emergency
procedure and
evacuation
▪ Prevent the
propagation
of collapse,
once local
damages
occurred (e.g.
redundancy)
Strategie
37
time
T
19/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018
6

38. Strategia antincendio: combinazione di misure di prevenzione,
protezione e gestionali per la riduzione del rischio di incendio.
active
protection
passive
protection
no
failures
doesn’t
trigger
Y
N
Y
N
spreads
extinguishes
damages
Y
N
robustness
no
collapse
collapse
Y
N
triggers
prevention
1 42 3
3819/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018

39. Structural Robustness (1)
39
ATTRIBUTES
RELIABILITY
AVAILABILITY
SAFETY
MAINTAINABILITY
INTEGRITY
SECURITY
FAILURE
ERROR
FAULT
permanent interruption of a system ability
to perform a required function
under specified operating conditions
the system is in an incorrect state:
it may or may not cause failure
it is a defect and represents a
potential cause of error, active or dormant
THREATS
NEGATIVE CAUSE
STRUCTURALQUALITY
less robust
more robust
19/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018
7

40. Structural Robustness (2)
40
• Capacity of a construction to show regular decrease of its
structural quality due to negative causes.
• It implies:
a) some smoothness of the decrease of structural
performance due to negative events (intensive feature);
b) some limited spatial spread of the rupture (extensive
feature).
19/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018

41. Levels of Structural Crisis
41
UsualULS&SLS
VerificationFormat
Structural Robustness
Assessment
1st level:
Material
Point
2nd level:
Element
Section
3rd level:
Structural
Element
4th level:
Structural
System
19/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018
7

42. Bad vs Good Collapse
42
STRUCTURE
& LOADS
Collapse
Mechanism
NO SWAY
“IMPLOSION”
OF THE
STRUCTURE
“EXPLOSION”
OF THE
STRUCTURE
is a process in which
objects are destroyed by
collapsing on themselves
is a process
NOT CONFINED
SWAY
19/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018
8

43. Compartimentazione
43
43
9

44. ISO13387:
ExamplesofFireSpreadRoutes
SAME
FLOOR
FROM
ONE
FLOOR
TO
ANOTHER
OUTSIDE
44

45. Connessione
45
4545
10

46. 19/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018 46

47. 19/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018 47

48. bonus track
19/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018 48

49. Mechanical Analysis
•The mechanical analysis shall be performed for the same
duration as used in the temperature analysis.
•Verification of fire resistance should be in:
• in the strength domain: Rfi,d,t ≥ Efi,requ,t
(resistance at time t ≥ load effects at time t);
• in the time domain: tfi,d ≥ tfi,requ
(design value of time fire resistance ≥ time required)
• In the temperature domain: Td ≤ Tcr
(design value of the material temperature ≤ critical material
temperature);
4919/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018

50. Variation of fire resistance (3D)
50
R = structural resistance
T = temperature
t = time
T=T(t)
R=R(t,T)=R(t,T(t))=R(t)
19/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018

51. Verification of fire resistance (R-safe)
51
R = structural resistance
T = temperature
t = time
Rfi,d,t
Efi,requ,t
19/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018

52. Verification of fire resistance (R-fail)
52
R = structural resistance
T = temperature
t = time
Efi,requ,t
Rfi,d,t
Failure !
19/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018

53. Verification of fire resistance (t)
53
R = structural resistance
T = temperature
t = time
Efi,requ,t
Rfi,d,t
Failure !
tfi,d ≥ tfi,requ
19/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018

54. Verification of fire resistance (T)
54
R = structural resistance
T = temperature
t = time
Efi,requ,t
Rfi,d,t
Failure !
Td ≤ Tcr
19/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018

55. Es.
5519/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018

56. #4
5619/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018

57. 57
57
#1
19/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018

58. 5819/09/2018

59. 5919/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018

60. 19/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018 60

61. riferimenti
19/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018 61

62. 6219/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018

63. 6319/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018

64. 6419/09/2018

65. 65

66. 6619/09/2018

67. 67
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCW3IyXTBJVIiS6OZeSdIN7g
19/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018

68. 68
https://fr.linkedin.com/in/francobontempi19/09/2018

69. 69

70. NTC: legame fra
progettazione strutturale e
progettazione antincendio
Franco Bontempi
Professore Ordinario di Tecnica delle Costruzioni
Facoltà di Ingegneria Civile e Industriale
Università di Roma La Sapienza
19/09/2018 Safety Expo 2018 70