See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326835366

Fire Risk Assessment of Historic Buildings in Malacca World Heritage Site

Article · December 2016

CITATIONS READS

3 2,498

3 authors, including:

Farid Wajdi Akashah Kurannen Baaki

University of Malaya Liverpool John Moores University
34 PUBLICATIONS   185 CITATIONS    16 PUBLICATIONS   69 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Investigating Effects of Different Active Fire Safety Strategy in High- Rise Residential Buildings View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Farid Wajdi Akashah on 06 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Post-print version:
Akashah, F.W., Wan-Teh, W.S.N., Baaki, T.K. (2016). Fire Risk Assessment of Historic
Buildings in Malacca World Heritage Site. The Malaysian Surveyor, 51(4):30-38.
https://www.rism.org.my/the-malaysian-surveyor/

Fire Risk Assessment of Historic Buildings in

Malacca World Heritage Site
Farid Wajdi Akashah
(Corresponding Author)
Centre for Building, Construction & Tropical Architecture (BuCTA),
Faculty of Built Environment,
University of Malaya
50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Email Address: faridakashah@um.edu.my

Wan Syarifah Nadirah Wan Teh Professor

Centre for Building, Construction & Tropical Architecture (BuCTA),
Faculty of Built Environment,
University of Malaya
50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Timothy Kurannen Baaki

Centre for Building, Construction & Tropical Architecture (BuCTA),
Faculty of Built Environment,
University of Malaya
50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
 Fire Risk Assessment of Historic Buildings in Malacca World Heritage Site

Farid Wajdi Akashah, Wan Syarifah Nadirah Wan Teh, Timothy Kurannen Baaki

Abstract
This study investigated the fire risk status of selected museums in Malacca, Malaysia. A fire
risk assessment was performed through on-site non-testing visual inspections and interviews
conducted with staff of the museum. It was observed from the fire safety audit that fire
hazards were present in all the observed buildings with poor housekeeping practices; escape
routes were insufficient and some hampered with consideration not given to disabled people
at two of the observed museums; and fire safety measures and protection systems installed
were insufficient with no evidence that provided firefighting equipment such as fire
extinguishers were checked, tested or serviced at least once a year resulting in non-
compliance with fire safety provisions from Uniform Building By-Laws 1984 and Fire and
Rescue Department of Malaysia. Based on the fire safety status recommendations are made
for improved fire safety protection at the observed buildings which include formulating a fire
safety policy, ensuring good housekeeping, regular inspection and maintenance and upgrade
of fire safety systems, and performance of fire drills.

Keywords: Fire risk assessment; fire safety management; heritage buildings; historic
buildings; museums; World Heritage Site

1. Introduction

Fire is an event that may cause loss of life, injury and property loss. In historic buildings,
there is additional loss of priceless heritage that can, like life, never be replaced. Fire
protection in historic buildings is therefore of great importance. Compared to today’s
buildings, historic buildings pose different unique challenges for fire protection. Many
historic buildings used timber construction which is a known combustible material. Fire
protection in historic buildings is also not as effective compared to today’s buildings which
have a much more comprehensive fire protection system that is considered and incorporated
right from design stage. Historic buildings therefore require upgrade of fire safety systems.
Fire protection and resistance has become a priority and part of building regulation in
Malaysia with existing buildings that do not comply with fire safety regulations required to
upgrade their fire protection systems and obtain a Certificate of Completion and Compliance
(CCC).

There have been reported cases of fire incidents in historic buildings across the world. The
Petruzzelli theatre in Italy which was destroyed by fire on 27th October 1991 is one important
example. The Hampton Court Palace in England also was badly damaged by fire in March
1986. The Windsor Castle also damaged by fire on 1992 and resulted in a loss of about 90
million US dollars (Salleh & Ahmad, 2009). Common issues regarding fire in historic
buildings that have been identified across the world include:
 1. Faulty electrical installation
2. Lack of compartment, no internal subdivisions, stairways not enclosed, wall lining not
fire proof
3. Inadequate means of escape; doors, passages, staircases have excessive travel distance
which is no alternative escape routes
4. Flammable decorative materials and furnishings
5. Deficient fire resistance; inadequate walls and floors, doors not fire resisting
6. Danger of arson
1) Danger from lightning
2) Poor standard of management, housekeeping and supervision
3) The danger from workmen, especially when using flame for repair work

In Malaysia, fire incidents according to the Fire and Rescue Department of Malaysia (FRDM)
between 2005 and 2007 resulted in a total loss of about 2.4 billion Malaysian ringgit, claimed
221 lives with 268 injured. From the total 20,225 fire cases in 2007, 17% of total loss of life
and property related building fires.

Watt (2001) contend that, standard fire protection approaches normally ideal for new
construction may have adverse impacts on heritage material and spaces and destroy the very
qualities that give a space its historic character. This give rise to a delicate and difficult
balancing act that must achieve optimum fire protection without degrading the building’s
historically significant structure and should take factors such as the age of the building,
location and accessibility, means of escape and the travel to exits, size and height of structure,
the occupancy and usage and the type of building content into consideration (Salleh &
Ahmad, 2009). Considering this scenario, this study therefore investigates the fire risk status
of selected historic buildings in the state of Malacca, Malaysia with the view to proposing fire
safety and protection plan for historical buildings.

2. Fire protection for historical building

As noted earlier, historic buildings usually do not have the same level of fire safety systems
as modern buildings and more difficulty is encountered in attempts to install fire safety
systems in historic buildings than modern buildings. this is because historic buildings are
already existing buildings and the option of designing fire safety systems into the building
right from design stage even before construction is no more available and therefore, requires
the tampering with of the building structure and components considered to be of historic
significance. Current prescriptive fire safety standards rely very heavily on passive
protection, usually involving the enclosure of staircases and corridors leading to final escape
points and the provision of fire doors across passageways. Passive fire protection include
means of escape such as emergency exit doors; material for surface finishes such as non-
combustible and fire-retardant materials and structural fire protection such as using fire
resistant construction materials to reduce chances of ignition; compartmentation for
containing spread of fires beyond their source of origin before the arrival of fire fighters. In
addition to the intrusion that the additional doors and partitions can cause in a historic
building’s interior, upgrading original historic features such as doors, walls, floors and
ceilings to standards of fire resistance intended for more modern buildings is less than ideal
(Bukowski, 1996). Active fire protection system on the other hand are systems installed as
the first line of firefighting defence before the arrival of fighting personnel. Active fire
protection is important to historical building being one of the fire safety design objectives.
Active fire protection systems include alarm system and detection for alerting the emergency
of a fire; fire suppression system such as sprinkler systems. The provision of these systems
are regulated by several fire safety legislations and guidelines. In Malaysia, the Uniform
Building By Laws 1984 is one of the major legislations with provisions on fire safety in a
diverse category of buildings. Table 1 shows other legislations and guidelines related to fire
safety in Malaysia.

Table 1: Legislations and guidelines related to building fire safety and heritage building in
Malaysia
Building Regulations Heritage Building Regulations
1) Street Drainage and Building Act 1974 (Act 1) National Heritage Act 2005 (Act 645)
133) 2) Sarawak Cultural Heritage Ordinance 1993 –
2) Uniform Building by Law 1984 Sarawak only
3) Building Ordinance 1994 – Sarawak only 3) Cultural Heritage (Conservation) Enactment
4) Fire Services Act 1988 (Act 341) 1997 – Sabah only
5) Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994
(Act 514)
6) Fire Services (Designated Premises) Order
1998
7) Fire Services (Fire Certificate) Regulations
2001
8) MS1183:2015: Fire safety in the design,
management and use of buildings - Code of
practice (First revision)

3. Fire Risk Assessment (FRA)

FRA is a series of systematic assessment to identify the fire risks and hazards within the
building (Reyes & Beard, 2000). FRA requires that the building is subjected to check on its
fire safety systems both active and passive fire protection systems against relevant guidelines
and standards such as Uniform Building By-Law (UBBL) 1984, Malaysian Standard (MS) as
well as British Standard (BS). FRA is an essential part of fire risk management. Dawkin
(2001) and Reyers (2003) point out that FRA is not only a tool to assist the building owner to
understand the hazards that the building is exposed to but it also helps to highlight the
remedial methods to be undertaken. Kaplan & Watts (2001) also agreed that in order to
identify the fire risk consequence on fire safety level in individual buildings, assessing the
building risk is important. The objective of fire risk assessment is to reduce risk to life and
property to very low levels acceptable to a property owner and a society at large
(Ramachandran & Charters, 2011). The Department for Communities and Local Government
(DCLG) prescribes 5 stages in performing a fire risk assessment as shown in Table 2.
 Table 2: Fire safety risk assessment
FRA stages Description
1. Identify Fire Hazards • Sources of ignition
• Sources of fuel
• Sources of oxygen

2. Identify People at Risk • People in and around the premises

• People especially at risk

3. Evaluate, Remove, Reduce and Protect From • Evaluate the risk of a fire occurring
Risk • Evaluate the risk to people from fire
• Remove or reduce the hazards
• Remove or reduce the risk to people

4. Record, Plan, Inform and Train • Record significant finding and action taken
• Prepare an emergency plan
• Inform and instruct relevant people; co-operate
and co-ordinate with others
• Provide training

5. Review • Keep assessment under review

• Revise where necessary

4. Methods
4.1 Background of case study
Three museums with listed building status in the state of Malacca were selected as case
studies for this study. The museums are described in this study as Museum A, Museum B,
and Museum C respectively. Basic criteria for selecting the case study museums was their
accessibility to enable data collection.

4.1.1 Museum A
Museum A a 2-storey building. The building was gazetted as a historical building monument
under the Antiquities Act 168 in 1976. In 1998, the Department of Museum Malaysia
performed restoration work on the building to restore to its original condition prior to 1982.

4.1.2 Museum B
Museum B is also a 2-storey building built by the Dutch. The Malacca State Government
gazetted the building as a historic building to commemorate the importance role that the
office play in the political, economical, social and administrative life of state. Official letters
of appointment, documents, artefacts and the personal collection from the past and present of
governors are some of the exhibits in the building.

4.1.3 Museum C
Museum C is a single-storey building. The museum contains historical records such as
Hikayat Hang Tuah, Malay Annals, Hukum Kanun Melaka, Munsyi Abdullah writings and a
local Malay folklore (PERZIM, 2013).
5. Data collection
On-site, non-testing visual inspection were performed at the identified case studies using a
fire risk assessment checklist. Each part of the respective case study buildings accessible
were investigated. To accompany data obtained by the checklist, photographs were also taken
as physical evidence of fire risk issues identified. Linear measurements were also performed
to record dimensions of building components related to fire safety. Semi-structured interview
was also conducted with the staff of the museums to obtain information particularly about the
maintenance of fire safety systems at the museums.

6. Results and discussion

6.1 Fire hazard identification
Identified fire hazards were categorized into three: stored combustible materials, poor
housekeeping and contributory activity as shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Fire hazards

Case study
Combustible material
Museum A • Piles of the second-hand
items such as cabinets, table
and some unused cardboard
placed at the back of the
building and exposed and
not in the store.
• Timber placed on the side of
the building without
appropriate storage.
Museum C
Museum B • Pile of garbage behind the
building.
• Unused furniture and timber
stored improperly in the
store with the door always
open.
Fire hazards
Poor housekeeping Contributory activity
• Store for storage • Papers and
item used for the equipment such as
workers rest place computers and
and for vehicle photocopier
parking area. machines for daily
usage in the office.
• The tools for the • Papers and books
garden works such in the gallery area
as wheelbarrow,
pesticides tool,
broom and etc are
not placed in the
proper place.
• The equipment
such as brooms,
ladder placed just
behind the split unit
air conditioning.
• Equipment such as • Papers and
scrapers grass and equipment such as
the lawn mower computers and
placed just behind photocopier
the split unit air machines for daily
conditioning. usage in the office.
• There are some
appliances such as
curtains, cushions
and furniture and
carpet in the
museum building.
Buildings with zero hazards are almost impossible. As shown in Table 3, there were fire
hazards in all the categories of fire hazard except Museum C which did not have any stored
combustible materials. Combustible materials such as curtain, furniture, carpet and other
displays in the gallery is a necessary requirement in some of the building and since they
cannot be simply omitted, these materials have to be be fire resistant to the extent possible.
Poor housekeeping was also identified (see Figure 1). The tools for gardening purposes also
give a huge impact in hazard of fire because the good housekeeping may reduce the
implication of fire. Poor housekeeping can accelerate the rate of fire. Contributory activity to
fire hazard included office equipment such as papers, stationeries, computers, photocopier
machines and other equipment are considered fundamental to the operation of the museums.
However, when used in less than ideal conditions, they could contribute to high fire hazard
load in the building.

Figure 1: Unused goods scattered in the store

6.1.1 Source of ignition
Non-conduit and messy electrical wiring, and flammable liquids were the most common
source of ignition found in two of the observed case studies as shown in in Table 4. Apart
from Museum C the electric wiring at the two other museums was loose, presenting high risk
of short-circuiting. Further interview with the staff revealed that none of the building had a
professional routine or regular check on the electrical wiring system. At Museum A the
flammable liquids (paint and liquid acid) was placed on the floor near the toilet and easy
while at Museum C, flammable liquids (petrol and pesticides liquid) were placed under the
staircases and exposed to the heat from sunlight. The staircase is a timber and makes the
possibility of spread of fire higher resulting also in higher risk to visitors.

Table 4: Sources of ignition

Case study Sources of ignition
Museum A  Electrical wiring not in conduit and tangled
 Flammable liquids not appropriately stored
Museum C  Flammable liquids not appropriately stored
Museum B  Electrical wiring not in conduit and tangled
 Figure 2: Exposed and tangled electrical wiring

6.1.2 Structural fire hazard

Table 5 shows the elements of the case studies that presented structural fire hazard. All of the
buildings had substantial use of timber as a construction material.

Table 5: Structural fire hazard in case studies

Case study Structural fire hazard
Museum A Timber structure for beam, floor, ceiling, staircases and the roof trusses
Museum B Timber structure for ceiling, floor, staircases and roof trusses.
Museum C Timber structure for beam, ceiling, floor, staircases and roof trusses.

Figure 3: The ceiling for the ground floor and become 1st floor’s floor in Museum A

6.2 Identifying people at risk

Based on the use of the case study buildings as museums, the following people were
identified as the people at risk in order of who was more at risk to who was less at risk:

1. Disabled people;
2. Visitors to the museums who are unfamiliar with the buildings; and
3. People who work at the museums.

Disabled people were considered to be more at risk by their physical inability to effectively
move around. Visitors to the museums who are unfamiliar with the buildings were considered
to be second most prone to risk as they lacked the knowledge on the physical layout of the
building. Lastly, workers at the museums were considered to be the least at risk. Taking into
consideration the people identified to be at risk, the adequacy of means of escape is
evaluated. Table 6 shows the means of escape at each building. It was found that the means
of escape for the observed buildings were either inadequate or hampered.

Table 6: Means of escape

Case study Means of escape
Museum A  Two escape routes in front of the museum and on the side of the museum.
 There is a ramp for disabled
 Too steep staircases
 Dimension of the staircases also does not comply with UBBL 1984
 The assembly area is too near the museum building
Museum C  The escape route to the final exit is in front and at the underground floor
 Too many restrictions in the museum
 No sound system provided
Museum B  Inappropriate placement of exit sign
 No sound system provided

At Museum A there are only two escape exits, one is the entrance and one on the right side of
the museum, which were considered to pose issues of congestion in the event of an
emergency. It was also observed that, the assembly area was too close to the building. The
BS 9999 suggests assembly areas be adequately far away from buildings to avoid interference
with the fire and rescue operation or danger from falling debris. The staircases were also
identified as a problem for been too steep thereby posing risk of further complications and
danger of injury in the event of an evacuation (see Figure 4). With such a steep gradient, it
can be extremely difficult for people to quickly descend the stairs during an emergency and
attempts to hasten movement could result in people falling over and injuring themselves,
creating further complications and problems in the evacuation. It was also observed that by
been too steep and narrow the dimensions of the staircases did not comply with the Uniform
Building By Laws 1984.

Figure 4: The staircases are too steeply

Museum C had three exit routes for use in an emergency. However, it was noticed that the
protective glass housing for museum artefacts reduced the dimensions of the exit routes and
was considered too narrow for mass exodus in the event of an emergency where large number
of people have to be evacuated at once and quickly.

Museum B on the other hand did not have exit route problems however, some of the exit
routes seemed to be unusable with also inappropriately placed exit signs. For instance, in
Figure 5, there is an exit sign above the door while a framed picture is displayed right on the
door, suggesting the door is permanently locked or cannot be operated as a means of escape
in the event of an emergency. Also, exit signs were placed above windows that were
permanently fixed with glass making it difficult to comprehend how this place could be used
as an exit route in the event of an emergency (see Figure 6). Among the three case study
buildings, only Museum A had provision for disabled people’s access.

Figure 5: Framed picture hanged on exit door

Figure 6: Permanently fixed glass at the window

 Figure 7: Ramp for disabled people

6.3 Fire safety measures and fire safety protection

Table 7 shows the fire safety equipment installed at the observed case studies. It shows that
all the buildings had fire safety equipment, however provided, the equipment were
insufficient in some of the buildings based on guidelines from UBBL 1984 and Fire and
Rescue Department of Malaysia (FRDM). For instance, while Museum C and Museum B had
20 and 15 smoke detectors respectively, Museum A did not have even a single smoke
detector. The fire extinguishers at Museum A were also placed on the floor and not hanged.
This was following restrictions by PERZIM that do not allow any additions or alterations to
the structure of the building. There were also questions about the functionality of some of the
fire safety equipment. There was no evidence that the installed fire extinguishers were
checked, tested or serviced at least once a year.

Table 7: Fire safety equipment installed at the case study buildings

Case study Fire safety equipment
Museum A Ground Floor
• 4 ABC powder fire extinguishers
• 2 Emergency lights
• 3 Break glass for door releases
• 4 Exit signs
1st Floor
• 6 ABC powder fire extinguishers
• 6 Emergency lights
Museum C Ground Floor
• 6 ABC powder fire extinguishers
• 6 Emergency lights
• 10 Smoke detectors
• 2 Exit signs
Under Ground Floor
• 5 ABC powder fire extinguishers
• 9 Emergency lights
• 2 Exit signs
• 10 Smoke detectors
Museum B Ground Floor
• 6 ABC powder fire extinguishers
 • 3 Emergency lights
• 7 Smoke detectors
• 7 Exit signs

1st Floor
• 3 ABC powder fire extinguishers
• 4 Emergency lights
• 8 Smoke detectors
• 4 Exit signs

Figure 8: Smoke detectors and emergency lights at Museum C

7. Conclusion
A fire risk assessment was performed on three selected historic museums in Malacca
designated as heritage buildings. Findings from the fire safety audit showed that, fire hazards
were present in all the observed buildings with poor housekeeping practices; escape routes
were insufficient and some hampered with consideration not given to disabled people at two
of the observed museums; and fire safety measures and protection systems installed were
insufficient with no evidence that provided firefighting equipment such as fire extinguishers
were checked, tested or serviced at least once a year resulting in non-compliance with fire
safety provisions from UBBL 1984 and Fire and Rescue Department Malaysia. Following the
fire risk status of the observed buildings, the following recommendations are made:
1. Formulating a fire safety policy as part of the health and safety policy. A fire safety
policy would show the museums’ commitment to ensuring minimum fire safety
regulations are complied with and provides operational principles for fire safety.
2. Upgrade of fire safety protection systems to meet building regulations such as UBBL
1984, MS1183:2015 and FRDM requirements.
3. Good housekeeping for the museums is needed for lowering the chance of fire
occurring through proper monitoring for combustible materials.
4. Regular inspection and maintenance of installed fire safety systems by competent
personnel.
5. Fire drills should be carried out regularly to train staffs and test work procedures
appropriately.
 Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia through the FRGS
Grant (Grant No.: FP046-2014B) which the authors are most thankful for.

References
Dawkin, A. (2001). Fire risk management in heritage buildings. Building Engineer, 76(7), 14-
15.
Kaplan, M. E., & Watts, J. M. (2001). Fire risk index for historic buildings. Fire Technology
Journal, 37, 167-180.
Perbadanan Muzium Melaka (PERZIM). (2013). Available at www.perzim.gov.my/
Ramachandran, G., & Charters, D. (2011). Quantitative risk assessment in fire safety.
Routledge.
Reyers, J. (2003). Risk and liability of consultants advising on built heritage. Structural
Survey, 21, 8-15.
Bukowski, R. W. (1996). Fire Risk Or Fire Hazard as the Basis for Building Fire Safety
Performance Evaluation [Fire Risk Or Fire Hazard-Building Fire Safety]. National
Institute of Standards and Technology.
Salleh, N. H., & Ahmad, A. G. (2009). Fire safety management in heritage buildings: the
current scenario in Malaysia. 22nd CIPA Symposium, October 11-15, Kyoto, Japan
Watts, J. M. (2001). Fire protection performance evaluation for historic buildings. Journal of
Fire Protection Engineering, 11(4), 197-208.

View publication stats