【正文】 rotection measures in place. ? This example looks at one fire hazard in an assumed apartment building and the consideration of a number of additional fire protection measures to minimize the risk. ? The same event tree can be constructed for more hazards and more fire protection measures. A plete fire risk assessment would involve the identification of all potential fire hazards and the consideration of various fire protection measures to minimize the risk. ? A typical apartment building usually has some fire protection measures, such as fire resistant construction and fire alarms. Additional fire protection measures would lower the risk further. This example considers the same six different binations of three additional fire protection measures which were considered in the checklist method in Section . ? The three additional fire protection measures are: ? (1) no smoking material (such as cigarettes) in the apartments, ? (2) sprinklers and ? (3) regular evacuation drills. ? Each of the three fire protection measures has an impact on either the probability of fire occurrence or the consequence of a fire occurrence. ? For example, the measure of ‘no smoking material in the apartment’ would have an impact on lowering the probability of fire occurrence。 ? This allows the fire protection engineers and regulators to assess the impact of these fire protection measures based on their assessments of the reduction of the probability of fire occurrence. Some of these residual probability multipliers can be obtained from statistics, if they are available. If no such information is available, then subjective judgment may be required. ? 火災(zāi)安全工程師基于火災(zāi)安全措施對火災(zāi)發(fā)生可能性的減縮情況來確定火災(zāi)安全措施的影響。即在“在公寓中使用阻燃材料”成功，其結(jié)果是將火災(zāi)發(fā)生的頻率下降到其固有頻率的。 ? That is, the consequence of a ‘no smoking material’ plan is the reduction of the rate of fire occurrence to of its inherent value. ? Also in an eventtree method, the consequence of each fire scenario is assessed based on the inherent consequence of the fire and the impact of the various fire protection measures to minimize the consequence. ? In Figure , the impact of each of the fire protection measures on the consequence is assessed using a residual consequence multiplier. ? This allows the fire protection engineers and regulators to assess the impact of these fire protection measures based on their assessments of the reduction of the consequence. Some of these residual consequence multipliers can be obtained from statistics, if they are available. ? For example, NFPA statistics show that, based on the 1989–1998 data, the reduction in deaths in apartment buildings with sprinklers is 81% when pared with similar buildings without sprinklers (Kimberly and Hall, 2023). The residual consequence multiplier of a sprinkler system therefore is . ? That is, the consequence of installing a sprinkler system is the reduction of the death rate per fire to of its inherent value. ? If no such information is available, then subjective judgment may be required. For example, there is no statistical information that can be easily found on the death reduction benefit of implementing a ‘regular evacuation drills’ plan. Without such statistical information, we have to make an assumption again. ? Let us assume for this example that the residual consequence multiplier of a ‘regular evacuation drills’ plan is . That is, the consequence of a ‘regular evacuation drills’ plan is the reduction of the death rate per fire to of its inherent value. ? This residual consequence multiplier for each scenario is shown in Figure . For example, Scenario B has a residual consequence multiplier of , which is the product of (residual consequence multiplier of a failed sprinkler system) (residual consequence multiplier of a successful ‘regular evacuation drills’ plan). ? Figure shows the residual risk values of all the fire scenarios which are based on the success or failure of three fire protection measures. ? The probability value of each fire scenario is the product of the individual probability values of all the branches that are associated with that scenario. ? The residual probability multiplier of each scenario is the product of the individual probability multipliers of all the fire protection measures that are associated with that scenario. ? The residual consequence multiplier of each scenario is the product of the individual consequence multipliers of all the fire protection measures that are associated with that scenario. ? ? Finally, the residual risk multiplier for each scenario is the product of (scenario probability) (residual probability multiplier) (residual consequence multiplier). ? For example, Scenario E has a scenario residual risk multiplier of 10?03, which is the product of 10?03 (scenario probability) (residual probability multiplier) (residual consequence multiplier). ? In Figure , the multiplication of the residual multipliers is based on the argument, as discussed in Section , that each fire protection measure reduces the rate of fire occurrence, or the severity of the fire, or the death rate per fire, in succession by a certain percentage. ? It should be emphasized again that the values in the example are selected by the author as an example to show how such eventtree method can be carried out. In real risk assessments, these values