Fire safety assessment management system and assessment method

Abstract

The invention discloses a fire safety assessment management system and an assessment method, and relates to the technical field of fire safety management. The method comprises the following steps: configuring evaluation information; the method comprises the following steps: acquiring data, and performing fire safety assessment on dimensions such as a fire safety management system, a building or park, a fire system equipment state, a fire alarm response condition and a fire service execution condition based on an assessment standard to obtain an assessment score of each dimension; based on the weight of each evaluation dimension and the corresponding evaluation score, calculating to obtain an overall fire safety score of the unit; and outputting the overall fire safety score of the unit, the respective evaluation scores of the building or park, the equipment, the alarm and the service, the score of each evaluation item of the building or park, and monthly, quarterly and annual reports containing the scores. The scheme provided by the invention can be used in fire safety assessment of various units in a standardized, efficient and precise manner, potential risks are quickly identified and managed, and the quality and efficiency of assessment work are improved.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of fire safety management technology, and in particular to a fire safety assessment and management system and assessment method. Background Technology

[0002] Current fire safety assessments generally suffer from the following pain points: The assessment standard system is not yet unified and standardized; different assessors have significantly different understandings of inspection items and scoring criteria, leading to a lack of comparability and consistency in assessment results; the assessment process relies heavily on manual operation, requiring significant manpower from on-site inspection and data recording to result analysis, which is not only inefficient and costly but also highly susceptible to human error due to subjective factors or operational negligence; the assessment dimensions are relatively singular, focusing primarily on explicit and localized aspects such as whether fire equipment is intact and whether the quantity meets standards, failing to form a full-chain, systematic coverage of key elements such as the soundness of management systems, building environment risks, alarm response timeliness, and the effectiveness of duty execution; assessment results are fragmented and unstructured, making it difficult to automatically generate logically clear and complete structured reports, and the lack of an effective data accumulation mechanism prevents longitudinal comparison of historical data and risk trend analysis, severely restricting the accurate formulation and closed-loop tracking of subsequent targeted improvement measures.

[0003] Existing technical solutions are mostly limited to single functional modules, making it difficult to meet comprehensive assessment needs. For example, some systems can only remotely monitor the status of fire-fighting equipment and issue fault alarms, but cannot verify the actual implementation of management systems such as equipment maintenance records and operating procedures. Although some assessment tools provide electronic checklists, they generally lack a scientific weighting system and automated scoring mechanism, still requiring assessors to manually check and calculate scores, which is not only time-consuming and labor-intensive, but also unable to meet the needs of large-scale and routine fire safety assessments due to its inability to support efficient data processing. At the same time, these solutions often neglect the deep integration and intelligent analysis capabilities of multi-source heterogeneous assessment data. Summary of the Invention

[0004] In order to solve the problems existing in the prior art, the present invention provides the following technical solution.

[0005] The first aspect of this invention provides a fire safety assessment method, comprising: Create an assessment template and configure basic information and assessment information on the template. The basic information includes the name of the assessment template, the generation time, and the creator. The assessment information includes: assessment dimensions and their weights, and assessment criteria for each dimension. The assessment dimensions include: fire safety management system, building or park, equipment, alarms, and duty. Each evaluation dimension is processed as follows: Data is collected, and a fire safety assessment is conducted based on the configured evaluation criteria to obtain an evaluation score. The fire safety assessment of the equipment is performed using the following method: Data on the usage time, warranty period, online status, and fault records of basic fire equipment, IoT fire equipment, integrated fire safety equipment, and fire protection facilities are automatically obtained through API integration with the fire equipment management system. Based on the acquired data, the in-service rate, near-expiration rate, expired warranty rate, online rate, and failure rate of each type of equipment are calculated. Based on the calculated in-service rate, near-expiration rate, expired warranty rate, online rate, and failure rate, the evaluation score of the equipment is obtained according to the configured equipment evaluation criteria. The evaluation criteria include: calculating the corresponding scores for each of the online rate, failure rate, in-service rate, near-expiration rate, and expired warranty rate; calculating the health score based on the scores and weights of the online rate and failure rate; calculating the lifecycle score based on the scores and weights of the in-service rate, near-expiration rate, and expired warranty rate; calculating the score of each type of equipment based on the scores of the lifecycle and health score and their weights among different types of equipment; and calculating the overall evaluation score of the equipment based on the scores and weights of each type of equipment. Based on the weights and corresponding scores of each assessment dimension, the overall fire safety score of the unit is calculated; the overall fire safety score of the unit, the individual assessment scores of buildings or parks, equipment, alarms and duties, the scores of each assessment item of buildings or parks, and monthly, quarterly and annual reports containing the above scores are output.

[0006] Preferably, the evaluation method further includes: verifying the creator's identity before configuring the evaluation information; and recording a modification log of the evaluation information.

[0007] Preferably, the fire safety management system is assessed using the following method: The fire safety management system shall include assessment items, which shall include: social fire rescue forces, the unit's own rescue forces, fire organization construction, safety responsibility system and / or publicity and education; Retrieve training records and practice videos uploaded via online forms, and verify their format and completeness; Based on the acquired data, each evaluation item is scored according to the set multi-level evaluation criteria to obtain the evaluation score of the fire safety management system.

[0008] Preferably, the fire safety assessment of the building or park is conducted using the following method: The building or park shall be assessed in two levels: primary and secondary assessment items. The primary assessment items include: fire resistance characteristics of building structure, combustible decoration and finishing, fire access roads, evacuation routes, fire water supply and / or electrical wiring. Depending on the type of evaluation item, the data for the primary and secondary evaluation items are obtained through automatic statistics, automatic reading, or manual surveying and input. Based on the acquired data, and according to the evaluation criteria for each primary and secondary evaluation item, the scores for each evaluation item and the evaluation scores for the building or park are obtained.

[0009] Preferably, the alarm is assessed for fire safety using the following method: By connecting to the fire alarm platform via API, the system can automatically obtain fire alarm or warning information associated with a region, time period, and equipment, and count the number of fire alarms or warnings associated with a region, time period, and equipment. Based on the number of fire alarms or early warnings, the area alarm rate is calculated using the following formula: ; in, , The number of alarms at the 80th percentile in historical data; For the region Number of alerts in the current month; The historical average number of alarms in the region; Standard deviation; Based on the statistical relationship between the number of fire alarms or early warnings and the preset number, or the regional alarm rate, the evaluation score of the alarm is obtained according to the alarm evaluation criteria.

[0010] Preferably, the fire safety assessment of the service is conducted using the following method: By connecting to the duty work order system via API, the system can automatically obtain the total number of patrol, inspection, maintenance tasks, and fire control duty tasks, the number of completed tasks, sign-in and sign-out records, and scoring records, and calculate the task completion rate, average score, work order completion rate, attendance rate, and response rate. The task completion rate is calculated using the following formula: ; in, To complete the total number of tasks, Total number of tasks; The average score is calculated according to the following formula: in, For the number of ratings, This refers to the score for a single evaluation. The attendance rate is calculated according to the following formula: ; in, For check-in records, if any exist, take 1; If there is a check-out record, take 1; The required number of days of attendance; Based on the calculated task completion rate, average score, work order completion rate, attendance rate, and response rate, the evaluation score of the duty is obtained according to the duty evaluation criteria.

[0011] Preferably, the retention rate is calculated using the following formula: ; in, This is an indicator function; it takes the value 1 if the condition is met, and 0 otherwise. This refers to the actual usage time of the equipment. For the equipment warranty period; Assign weights to equipment importance; This refers to the total number of devices that are under warranty or out of warranty. This refers to the number of devices nearing their warranty expiration date, defined as devices with a usage period ≥ 0.8 times the warranty period.

[0012] Preferably, the online rate is calculated using the following formula: ; in, , Mean time between failures (MTBF) of the equipment; Mean time to repair (MTBL) of the equipment; Number of online devices; This represents the total number of devices.

[0013] A second aspect of the present invention provides a fire safety assessment and management system, comprising: The configuration module is used to create an assessment template and configure basic information and assessment information on the assessment template. The basic information includes the name of the assessment template, the generation time, and the creator. The assessment information includes: assessment dimensions and their weights, and assessment criteria for each dimension. The assessment dimensions include: fire safety management system, building or park, equipment, alarms, and duty. The evaluation module processes each evaluation dimension as follows: Data is collected, and a fire safety evaluation is performed based on configured evaluation standards to obtain an evaluation score. The fire safety evaluation of the equipment is conducted using the following method: Through API integration with the fire equipment management system, data on the usage time, warranty period, online status, and fault records of basic fire equipment, IoT fire equipment, integrated fire safety equipment, and fire facilities are automatically obtained. Based on the acquired data, the in-service rate, near-expiration rate, expired warranty rate, online rate, and failure rate of each type of equipment are calculated. Based on the calculated in-service rate, near-expiration rate, expired warranty rate, online rate, and failure rate, an evaluation score for the equipment is obtained according to the configured equipment evaluation standards. The evaluation standards include: calculating the corresponding scores for each of the online rate, failure rate, in-service rate, near-expiration rate, and expired warranty rate; calculating the health score based on the scores and weights of the online rate and failure rate; calculating the lifecycle score based on the scores and weights of the in-service rate, near-expiration rate, and expired warranty rate; calculating the scores of each type of equipment based on the scores of the lifecycle and health rate and their weights among different types of equipment; and calculating the overall evaluation score of the equipment based on the scores and weights of each type of equipment. The output module is used to calculate the overall fire safety score of the unit based on the weights and corresponding evaluation scores of each evaluation dimension; it outputs the overall fire safety score of the unit, the individual evaluation scores of buildings or parks, equipment, alarms and duties, the scores of each evaluation item of buildings or parks, and monthly, quarterly and annual reports containing the above scores.

[0014] Preferably, the system further includes a verification module for verifying the creator's identity before configuring the evaluation information and for recording a modification log of the evaluation information.

[0015] The beneficial effects of this invention are as follows: The fire safety assessment and management system and assessment method provided by this invention quantify and assess multiple dimensions of factors, including fire safety management systems, building or park conditions, fire system equipment status, fire alarm response, and fire service execution. The system employs advanced data analysis technologies (such as scoring models and algorithms) to accurately locate fire safety hazards and generate structured assessment conclusions and targeted improvement suggestions (such as equipment upgrades or process optimization). Simultaneously, the system supports automatic output of detailed assessment reports on monthly, quarterly, and annual periods, including risk scores, trend charts, and rectification plans. Ultimately, this achieves the standardization, datafication, and intelligentization of fire safety management, improving overall safety protection levels (such as reducing accident rates and enhancing emergency response capabilities). Attached Figure Description

[0016] Figure 1 This is a flowchart illustrating the fire safety assessment method described in this invention. Figure 2This is a functional structure diagram of the fire safety assessment and management system described in this invention; Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram of the workflow of the fire safety assessment and management system according to a specific embodiment of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0017] To better understand the above technical solutions, the following will provide a detailed explanation of the technical solutions in conjunction with the accompanying drawings and specific implementation methods.

[0018] The method provided by this invention can be implemented in a terminal environment that may include one or more of the following components: a processor, a memory, and a display screen. The memory stores at least one instruction, which is loaded and executed by the processor to implement the method described in the following embodiments.

[0019] A processor may include one or more processing cores. The processor uses various interfaces and lines to connect various parts of the terminal, and performs various functions and processes data by running or executing instructions, programs, code sets or instruction sets stored in memory, and by calling data stored in memory.

[0020] Memory can include random access memory (RAM) or read-only memory (ROM). Memory can be used to store instructions, programs, code, code sets, or instructions.

[0021] The display screen is used to show the user interface of each application.

[0022] In addition, those skilled in the art will understand that the structure of the terminal described above does not constitute a limitation on the terminal. The terminal may include more or fewer components, or combine certain components, or have different component arrangements. For example, the terminal may also include radio frequency circuits, input units, sensors, audio circuits, power supplies, and other components, which will not be described in detail here.

[0023] Addressing the numerous pain points of existing technologies, such as complex and cumbersome assessment processes, highly subjective and unobjective assessment results, and low overall assessment efficiency, this invention provides a fire safety assessment management system and assessment method. This system can be used for fire safety assessments in various organizations (e.g., corporate parks, commercial complexes, office buildings, schools, hospitals, etc.), offering a standardized and efficient solution. It effectively and accurately solves problems in related technologies, helping these organizations quickly identify and manage potential risks, and improving the quality and efficiency of assessment work. Specifically, the system's overall architecture adopts a modular and layered design, including a data acquisition layer, a processing layer, and an output layer, ensuring seamless integration of components and supporting dynamic expansion. The assessment template module provides a flexible configuration interface, allowing users to customize assessment standards and indicators according to actual needs, covering five core dimensions: the soundness of fire safety management systems, building or park environmental risks, system equipment operating status, alarm handling effectiveness, and duty management standardization. This addresses the problem of incomplete assessment dimensions from the outset. The multi-dimensional assessment module uses intelligent algorithms to analyze collected data in real time, combined with a weighting mechanism to ensure the objectivity and fairness of the assessment results. The fire safety management system assessment sub-module thoroughly reviews key elements such as system documents and implementation records, automatically generating quantitative scores. The intelligent conclusion output mechanism further integrates multi-dimensional results to form a structured risk report, generating priority improvement suggestions based on risk levels. It also supports automatic generation of trend comparison analyses (such as month-on-month and year-on-year comparisons) on a monthly, quarterly, or annual basis, effectively avoiding the problem of disconnect between output results and application. In addition, the system has built-in strict access control mechanisms, such as password verification and operation log recording, to ensure the traceability and security of modifications to key configuration parameters, preventing data tampering or accidental operation risks. The entire solution aims to automate, standardize, and intelligently manage the assessment process.

[0024] Example 1 like Figure 1 As shown in the figure, this embodiment of the invention provides a fire safety assessment method, which may include the following steps: S101, Configure assessment information, which includes: assessment dimensions and their weights, and assessment standards for each dimension; the assessment dimensions include: fire safety management system, building or park, equipment, alarms, and duty. Configuration can be understood as custom settings. Specifically, a template can be created, and assessment dimensions, their weights, and corresponding assessment standards can be customized on the template. Unified configuration of assessment information before implementation can achieve uniformity and standardization of assessment standards, improving the level of assessment standardization. Assessment results from different units and at different times can be directly compared, effectively solving the problem of "inconsistent assessment scales" in related technologies. For example, users can set standardized parameters according to specific scenarios to ensure the objectivity and consistency of the assessment process. By covering five core assessment dimensions, considering factors such as equipment status, management system, personnel training, environmental factors, and emergency response, it avoids the omission of hidden dangers due to missing dimensions (such as focusing only on equipment while neglecting the implementation of management systems), improving the risk identification accuracy rate by more than 50%. Through a comprehensive scanning mechanism, it comprehensively captures potential risk points, achieving full-dimensional risk identification.

[0025] S102, collect data and conduct fire safety assessments on each dimension based on the evaluation criteria to obtain assessment scores for each dimension. Data collection can be achieved automatically through data interfaces connected to the systems for each dimension. In this embodiment of the invention, each dimension has its own corresponding evaluation criteria, which are used when assessing each dimension. The evaluation criteria provide scoring methods; therefore, based on the collected data and the evaluation criteria, the assessment score for the corresponding dimension can be obtained. Automatically reading data from fire equipment, alarms, and duty systems can replace more than 70% of manual data entry and reduce human error. Automatically calculating scores and generating reports shortens the monthly assessment cycle from the traditional 10 working days to 1 working day, significantly reducing labor costs. Integrating data sources through real-time API interfaces improves processing speed and responsiveness, thereby increasing assessment efficiency.

[0026] S103 calculates the overall fire safety score of the unit based on the weights and corresponding scores of each assessment dimension; it outputs the overall fire safety score of the unit, the individual assessment scores for buildings or parks, equipment, alarms, and duties, the scores for each assessment item of buildings or parks, and monthly, quarterly, and annual reports containing the above scores. The monthly report can include detailed scores for each assessment item and a list of potential hazards; the quarterly report can summarize monthly data and add month-on-month analysis (e.g., score changes from this month to last month); the annual report can summarize quarterly data and add year-on-year analysis (e.g., score changes from this year to last year), and supports export in PDF format.

[0027] This invention provides a comprehensive understanding and grasp of fire safety assessment results through multi-dimensional output. This allows for more detailed preventative or corrective measures at different levels, supporting informed decision-making. The structured report includes priority improvement suggestions (such as prioritizing high-risk items) and supports month-on-month and year-on-year analysis, helping managers intuitively understand fire safety trends. The efficiency of implementing improvement measures is increased by 40%. The report also provides visualization charts and trend forecasting functions, facilitating the rapid development of optimization strategies.

[0028] In one embodiment of the present invention, the evaluation method may further include: creating an evaluation template; and configuring the evaluation information on the evaluation template.

[0029] Specifically, assessment dimensions can be configured on the assessment template, such as fire safety management systems, buildings / parks, systems, alarms, and duty schedules. For example, the buildings to be included in the assessment can be specified (e.g., office buildings, warehouses). The weighting of each assessment dimension can also be configured, such as management systems 20%, buildings / parks 10%, systems 20%, alarms 30%, and duty schedules 20%. Sub-items under each assessment dimension can also be specified, such as whether the building assessment includes sub-items like "fire hydrant" and "evacuation routes." Assessment standards can also be configured, such as 0.5 points for equipment uptime of 80%-100%, and 0.3 points for 60%-80%. Furthermore, risk levels of 0-30% are high risk (red), 31-60% are medium risk (yellow), and 61-100% are low risk (green).

[0030] In practical applications, the evaluation template can support preview functions (viewing basic information and configuration parameters), setting a default template (the system automatically generates monthly evaluation reports based on the default template), and deletion functions (the default template cannot be deleted).

[0031] In one embodiment of the present invention, the assessment method may further include: configuring basic information on the assessment template, the basic information including the name, generation time, and creator of the assessment template. By configuring the basic information, the configuration information can be traced back to its source, ensuring the safety and reliability of the fire safety assessment process from the outset.

[0032] In one embodiment of the present invention, the evaluation method may further include: verifying the creator's identity before configuring the evaluation information; and recording a modification log of the evaluation information after configuration. Specifically, a password verification can be performed before modifying the evaluation information, and the system automatically records the modification log (including the modifier, modification time, and modification content). Evaluation can be performed automatically on a monthly basis, calculating only the data from the previous month and generating an evaluation conclusion based on a default template.

[0033] The above methods prevent unauthorized modifications through password verification and logging mechanisms. Every assessment and configuration adjustment is traceable, including the operation time, user identity, and modified content, which meets the compliance requirements of fire safety management and ensures audit trails and data integrity.

[0034] In one embodiment of the present invention, the fire safety management system can be assessed using the following method: The fire safety management system shall include assessment items, which shall include: social fire rescue forces, the unit's own rescue forces, fire organization construction, safety responsibility system and / or publicity and education; Retrieve training records and practice videos uploaded via online forms, and verify their format and completeness; Based on the acquired data, each evaluation item is scored according to the set multi-level evaluation criteria to obtain the evaluation score of the fire safety management system.

[0035] The assessment items can include nine categories, such as social fire and rescue forces, the unit's own rescue forces, fire organization construction, safety responsibility system, and publicity and education. Each assessment item can have multiple assessment standards (e.g., "fire emergency plan and drills" is divided into three levels: "twice a year", "once a year" and "no drills", with corresponding scores for each level).

[0036] Data collection can be achieved through a combination of manual data entry (such as training records and number of drills) and system verification (such as records of responsibility system document uploads).

[0037] Specifically, the following steps can be taken to implement it: Step 1: The system uses its built-in data acquisition module to automatically obtain relevant data for each assessment item based on the preset assessment template. This data includes, but is not limited to, the number of annual fire safety training sessions, records of fire drills, and safety equipment inspection status. The data acquisition process may involve querying the system database, receiving user input, or integrating external data sources to ensure data accuracy and completeness.

[0038] Step Two: Based on the collected recorded data, the system automatically assigns a corresponding score to each evaluation item, referring to the pre-set scoring standards in the rule base according to the requirements of relevant fire protection laws and regulations. The rule base defines the scoring levels for each item in detail. For example, for the item "Fire Emergency Plan and Drills," the rules are preset as follows: "≥2 times per year" earns 2 points, "1 time per year" earns 1 point, and "No drill" earns 0 points. Meanwhile, other items such as "Number of Safety Equipment Maintenance" may be set as "≥1 time per month" earns 3 points, "≥1 time per quarter" earns 2 points, etc. If the data shows "1 time," the system will accurately calculate the score for that item as 1 point, ensuring that the scoring process is objective and consistent.

[0039] Step 3: The system performs aggregate calculations on all the score sets generated in Step 2. In accordance with the requirements of relevant fire safety laws and regulations, this typically involves weighted averaging, summation, or other statistical methods to generate the final comprehensive evaluation score. This process strictly incorporates the weight and priority of each indicator to ensure that the results comprehensively and objectively reflect the overall situation, providing a quantitative basis for evaluation report generation or decision support.

[0040] In one embodiment of the present invention, the fire safety assessment of the building or park can be conducted using the following method: The building or park shall be assessed in two levels: primary and secondary assessment items. The primary assessment items include: fire resistance characteristics of building structure, combustible decoration and finishing, fire access roads, evacuation routes, fire water supply and / or electrical wiring. Depending on the type of evaluation item, the data for the primary and secondary evaluation items are obtained through automatic statistics, automatic reading, or manual surveying and input. Based on the acquired data, and according to the evaluation criteria for each primary and secondary evaluation item, the scores for each evaluation item and the evaluation scores for the building or park are obtained.

[0041] The assessment items can include 22 categories of primary assessment items, such as fire resistance characteristics of building structure, combustible decoration and renovation, fire roads, evacuation routes, fire water sources, and electrical wiring. Each primary assessment item can have multiple secondary assessment items. For example, the secondary assessment items under the primary assessment item "fire water sources" can include the number of outdoor fire hydrants, the total number of fire water tanks, and the number of abnormalities.

[0042] In this embodiment of the invention, different data collection methods can be adopted according to different evaluation items. For example, data such as the number of outdoor fire hydrants and the number of abnormal front-end equipment can be automatically calculated by the system, while data such as fire pipeline pressure and evacuation route width can be entered manually after on-site inspection.

[0043] In this embodiment of the invention, specifically, the system, based on the evaluation standards and with the "Code for Fire Protection Design of Buildings" (GB50016-2014, 2018 edition) as the core basis, clarifies the maximum allowable area standard for fire compartments according to building type and fire resistance rating, and implements quantitative scoring for each evaluation item. The scoring rule is: full marks are awarded for fire compartment areas that meet the maximum allowable area requirements of the corresponding type, and 0 marks are awarded for areas exceeding the upper limit of that type; finally, the comprehensive evaluation score of the building or park is formed by summing the scores of all evaluation items. The maximum allowable area standard for fire compartments of each type of building is as follows: Civil buildings: Single-story and multi-story buildings with fire resistance rating of Class I / II: 2500㎡, Class III: 1200㎡, Class IV: 600㎡; High-rise civil buildings: 1500㎡; Underground or semi-underground buildings: 500㎡ (equipment rooms: 1000㎡).

[0044] Factory buildings: Class I fire resistance rating, single-story 8000㎡, multi-story 6000㎡; Class II fire resistance rating, single-story 6000㎡, multi-story 4000㎡.

[0045] Warehouses: Class C, Class I fire resistance rating, single-story (unlimited), multi-story (6000㎡); Class B, Class I fire resistance rating, single-story (5000㎡).

[0046] Special venues: Each commercial service outlet unit is ≤300㎡; the theater auditorium is ≤1000㎡.

[0047] The following examples illustrate the evaluation criteria.

[0048] Case 1 (Multi-story civil building): A multi-story office building with a Class II fire resistance rating has a fire compartment area of ​​2200㎡, which does not exceed the upper limit of 2500㎡, so this evaluation item gets full marks; if its fire compartment area is 2800㎡, which exceeds the standard upper limit, this evaluation item gets 0 marks.

[0049] Case 2 (High-rise civil building): A high-rise office building (fire resistance rating of Class I) has a fire compartment area of ​​1450㎡, which meets the upper limit requirement of 1500㎡, so this assessment item gets full marks; if the compartment area reaches 1600㎡, it exceeds the standard and gets 0 marks.

[0050] Case 3 (Factory Building): A single-story machinery factory with a fire resistance rating of Class I has a fire compartment area of ​​7,500㎡, which does not exceed the upper limit of 8,000㎡, so this assessment item receives full marks; if the compartment area is 8,200㎡, it exceeds the standard and receives 0 marks.

[0051] Case 4 (Special Location): A community commercial service outlet has a single unit area of ​​280㎡, ​​which meets the requirement of ≤300㎡, and this evaluation item receives full marks; if the single unit area is 320㎡, it exceeds the standard and receives 0 marks.

[0052] Case 5 (Underground Building): An underground parking garage (non-equipment room) has a fire compartment area of ​​480㎡, which does not exceed the 500㎡ limit, so this assessment item gets full marks; if the compartment area is 550㎡, it exceeds the standard and gets 0 marks.

[0053] In one embodiment of the present invention, the fire safety assessment of the equipment can be performed using the following method: By connecting to the fire equipment management system via API, the system automatically acquires data on the usage time, warranty period, online status, and fault records of basic fire equipment, IoT fire equipment, integrated fire safety equipment, and fire protection facilities. Based on the acquired data, it calculates the in-service rate, near-expiration rate, expired rate, online rate, and failure rate of various types of equipment. Based on the calculated in-service rate, near-expiration rate, expired rate, online rate, and failure rate, it obtains the evaluation score of each equipment according to the configured evaluation criteria. The evaluation criteria include: calculating the corresponding score based on the online rate, failure rate, in-service rate, near-expiration rate, and expired rate; calculating the health score based on the scores and weights of the online rate and failure rate; calculating the lifespan score based on the scores and weights of the in-service rate, near-expiration rate, and expired rate; calculating the score of each type of equipment based on the scores of the lifespan and health rate and their weights among various types of equipment; and calculating the overall evaluation score of each type of equipment based on its scores and weights.

[0054] The lifecycle can be represented by indicators such as the equipment's coverage rate, near-expiration rate, and past-expiration rate. Health can be represented by indicators such as offline rate, online rate, and failure rate.

[0055] These indicators can be calculated using preset formulas, such as the insured rate, which is calculated using the following formula: ; in, This is an indicator function; it takes the value 1 if the condition is met, and 0 otherwise. This refers to the actual usage time of the equipment. For the equipment warranty period; Assigning importance weights to equipment (IoT fire protection equipment) Basic fire protection equipment ); This refers to the total number of devices that are under warranty or out of warranty. This refers to the number of devices nearing the end of their warranty period, defined as devices with a usage time ≥ 0.8 times the warranty period. Online rate can be calculated using the following formula: in, , The mean time between failures (MTBF) of the equipment can be taken as the manufacturer's standard value (e.g., 1000 hours). Mean time to repair (MTBL) of the equipment; Number of online devices; Total number of devices; In this embodiment of the invention, the evaluation score of the device can be implemented using the following steps: Step 1: Construct a three-tiered evaluation weighting system (clarifying the basis of the scoring rules) 1. Set device type weights (based on security priority) IoT fire protection equipment: weight 0.35 (high demand for real-time monitoring, highest safety priority); Integrated fire safety equipment: weight 0.3 (multiple integrated functions, wide range of impact from malfunctions); Basic fire protection equipment: weight 0.2 (core protection function, high stability requirements); Fire protection facilities (such as fire doors, fire exit signs, etc.): weight 0.15 (auxiliary protection, must be continuously effective).

[0056] 2. Set the weights for each item (the proportion of lifespan and health). IoT fire protection equipment: lifecycle weight 0.5, health weight 0.5 (both equally critical); Integrated fire safety equipment: life cycle weight 0.45, health weight 0.55 (health directly affects operational efficiency); Basic fire protection equipment: life cycle weight 0.4, health weight 0.6 (aging has a more significant impact on safety); Fire protection facilities: life cycle weight 0.55, health weight 0.45 (life cycle directly determines basic protection capability).

[0057] 3. Set the weight of individual indicators (the proportion of sub-indicators under life cycle / health). Lifecycle category (total weight = corresponding sub-item weight): Insured rate 0.6, near-expiration rate 0.3, expired rate 0.1 (insured status has the highest priority); Health category (total weight = corresponding sub-item weight): online rate 0.5, failure rate 0.35, offline rate 0.15 (online availability is the core).

[0058] Step 2: Conversion of individual indicator scores (converting statistical indicators into a 0-100 point scale) 1. Lifecycle-related indicator conversion Coverage Rate (WCI): Score = WCI × 100 (Example: Coverage rate 85% → 85 points, full score 100 points); Early pregnancy rate (ECR): Score = (1-ECR)×100 (the lower the early pregnancy rate, the higher the score, e.g., early pregnancy rate 10% → 90 points); Pass Rate (OCR): Score = (1-OCR) × 100 (pass rate 0 → 100 points, pass rate 50% → 50 points); Note: Near-expiration rate = number of near-expiration equipment (usage time ≥ 0.8T_i) / total number of equipment; Expiration rate = number of expiration equipment (t_i > T_i) / total number of equipment. The calculation logic is the same as that of the in-warranty rate.

[0059] 2. Conversion of health indicators Online performance (OAI): Score = OAI × 100 (e.g., online performance 92% → 92 points); Failure Rate (FR): Score = (1-FR) × 100 (Failure Rate = Number of Failed Devices / Total Number of Devices, e.g., Failure Rate 3% → 97 points); Offline Rate (OR): Score = (1-OR) × 100 (Offline Rate = Number of Offline Devices / Total Number of Devices, e.g., Offline Rate 2% → 98 points); Note: The offline rate and online rate must meet the condition that "online rate + offline rate ≤ 1" (considering special states such as device hibernation, a small amount of overlap is allowed, and the overlapping part is counted with "offline rate first").

[0060] Step 3: Calculate the weighted sum of the scores for lifespan and health. 1. Lifecycle Score (LS): LS = (Insured Rate Score × 0.6) + (Near-Expiration Rate Score × 0.3) + (Overdue Rate Score × 0.1); 2. Health score (HS): HS = (Online rate score × 0.5) + (Failure rate score × 0.35) + (Offline rate score × 0.15); 3. Calculation constraints: The scores for each item must be truncated to 0-100 points (scores below 0 are counted as 0 points, and scores above 100 are counted as 100 points).

[0061] Step 4: Calculate the evaluation score for each type of equipment (combining equipment type weights). 1. Single-type device score (S): S = (LS × Lifecycle component weight) + (HS × Health component weight); Example: For IoT fire protection equipment (lifecycle weight 0.5, health weight 0.5), if LS=88 points and HS=90 points, then S=88×0.5+90×0.5=89 points; Example: Basic fire protection equipment (life cycle weight 0.4, health weight 0.6), if LS=92 points, HS=85 points → S=92×0.4+85×0.6=87.8 points.

[0062] 2. Fraction precision: Retain one decimal place for easy subsequent aggregation calculations.

[0063] Step 5: Aggregate the total evaluation score (weighted sum of all devices) 1. Total Evaluation Score (TS): TS = Σ (Score of a single type of equipment S × Weight of the corresponding equipment type); Example: IoT devices S=89 points (weight 0.35), integrated fire safety equipment S=86 points (weight 0.3), basic fire protection equipment S=87.8 points (weight 0.2), fire protection facilities S=91 points (weight 0.15) → TS=89×0.35+86×0.3+87.8×0.2+91×0.15=87.91 points; 2. Final result: The total evaluation score is rounded to two decimal places, ranging from 0 to 100.

[0064] Step 6: Assess the match between score levels (practical application scenarios) 1. Preset score threshold (can be adjusted according to industry standards) Excellent: 90 points or above (stable equipment status, no safety risks); Good: 80-89.99 points (Equipment condition is acceptable, regular monitoring is required); Pass: 70-79.99 points (The equipment has minor hidden dangers and needs to be rectified within a time limit); Unqualified: Below 70 points (the equipment poses a serious safety risk and must be shut down for maintenance immediately).

[0065] 2. Output results: The system simultaneously provides the total evaluation score, detailed scores for each type of equipment, grade determination conclusions, and rectification suggestions.

[0066] In one embodiment of the present invention, the alarm can be assessed for fire safety using the following method: By connecting to the fire alarm platform via API, the system can automatically obtain fire alarm or warning information associated with a region, time period, and equipment, and count the number of fire alarms or warnings associated with a region, time period, and equipment. Based on the number of fire alarms or early warnings, the area alarm rate is calculated using the following formula: ; in, , The number of alarms at the 80th percentile in historical data; For the region Number of alerts in the current month; The historical average number of alarms in the region; Standard deviation; Based on the relationship between the number of fire alarms or early warnings and the preset number (e.g., 8 alarms / month in underground parking garages) or the regional alarm rate, the evaluation score of the alarm is obtained according to the alarm evaluation criteria (e.g., "regional alarm rate ≤ 80% (90-100 points), 80%-100% (70-89 points)").

[0067] In this embodiment of the invention, the evaluation score of the alarm can be implemented using the following steps: Step 1. Determining the Pre-set Evaluation Criteria and Parameters The evaluation indicators are defined in three dimensions: separate preset number of times, score ranges and risk weights are set for “region-related alarms”, “time-related alarms” and “device-related alarms”.

[0068] Determine the values ​​of the core parameters: λ is calculated using the formula λ=ln(2) / z0.8 (z0.8 is the 80th percentile alarm count of the corresponding dimension's historical data, such as z0.8=5 times / month for the device dimension); μ (historical average alarm count) and σ (standard deviation) are obtained by statistical analysis of historical alarm data from the past 12 months.

[0069] Set the relationship between score ranges and risk: for example, 0-40 points are high risk, 41-70 points are medium risk, and 71-100 points are low risk, and each range corresponds to a fixed base score (such as 30 points for high risk, 60 points for medium risk, and 90 points for low risk).

[0070] Step 2. Single-dimensional alarm frequency statistics and score calculation Data split by dimension: The raw data of the fire alarm system is split into three independent datasets by “region”, “time period” and “equipment”, ensuring that each dataset contains only valid alarm / early warning information of the corresponding dimension (excluding verified false alarms).

[0071] Substitute into the formula to calculate the raw score for a single dimension: For the region dimension, directly use the formula HZRIk=100·(1-e^(-λ·(n_k-μ_z) / σ_z)); For the time period and device dimensions, use the same formula structure, only replacing the parameter definitions (for the time period dimension, n_k is the number of alarms in the target time period, μ is the historical average number of alarms in the time period, and σ is the standard deviation of the time period; the same applies to the device dimension).

[0072] Example: In a certain area, the number of alarms in the current month is n_k=10, the historical average is μ_z=6, σ_z=2, z0.8=8, then λ=ln(2) / 8≈0.0866, substituting into the formula, we get HZRIk=100·(1-e^(-0.0866×(10-6) / 2))≈100·(1-e^(-0.1732))≈15.9 points.

[0073] Step 3. Compare and match single-dimensional scores with preset standards. The original score of a single dimension calculated in step 2 is matched with the preset score range of that dimension: for example, if the above-mentioned regional dimension score of 15.9 falls within the range of 0-40, the corresponding base score is 30.

[0074] Correcting scores for special cases: If the number of statistics is 0 (no alarm), the full score of 100 points for that dimension is directly taken; if the number of statistics far exceeds the historical extreme value (such as exceeding μ+3σ), the lowest score of 0 points for that dimension is taken.

[0075] Step 4. Multi-dimensional score weighted aggregation Set dimension weights: Assign weights according to the application scenario requirements (e.g., shopping mall scenario: area dimension 0.4, device dimension 0.3, time period dimension 0.3; factory scenario: device dimension 0.4, area dimension 0.3, time period dimension 0.3).

[0076] Calculate the total evaluation score: using the weighted average formula, total score = (regional dimension score × regional weight) + (time period dimension score × time period weight) + (equipment dimension score × equipment weight).

[0077] Example: Area score 30 points (weight 0.4), equipment score 60 points (weight 0.3), time period score 90 points (weight 0.3), total score = 30×0.4 + 60×0.3 + 90×0.3 = 57 points.

[0078] Step 5. Result Calibration and Correction False alarm calibration: If there are ≥3 consecutive false alarms in a certain dimension (after manual verification), the score for that dimension will be recalculated after subtracting the number of false alarms from the total number of alarms.

[0079] Extreme value correction: If the difference between the score of a certain dimension and the scores of the other two dimensions exceeds 40 points, a second verification is initiated. After confirming the authenticity of the data, the median is used to replace the score of that dimension in the aggregation.

[0080] Dynamic adjustment: If historical data is updated (e.g., one month of data is added), parameters such as μ, σ, and z0.8 are recalculated to ensure that the evaluation criteria are consistent with the actual situation.

[0081] Step 6. Output the final assessment score and risk conclusion. Clearly define the overall risk level corresponding to the total score: for example, 57 points corresponds to medium risk, and simultaneously output the scores and risk levels of each individual dimension.

[0082] Generate an assessment report: including the total assessment score, detailed scores for each dimension, the basis for parameter values, and risk cause analysis (e.g., a low score in the regional dimension is due to an excessive number of alarms).

[0083] In one embodiment of the present invention, conducting a fire safety assessment of duty operations may include the following steps: By connecting to the duty work order system via API, the system can automatically obtain the total number of patrol, inspection, maintenance tasks, and fire control duty tasks, the number of completed tasks, sign-in and sign-out records, and scoring records, and calculate the task completion rate, average score, work order completion rate, attendance rate, and response rate. The task completion rate is calculated using the following formula: ; in, To complete the total number of tasks, Total number of tasks; The average score is calculated according to the following formula: in, For the number of ratings, This refers to the score for a single evaluation. The attendance rate is calculated according to the following formula: ; in, For check-in records, if any exist, take 1; If there is a check-out record, take 1; The required number of days of attendance; Based on the calculated task completion rate, average score, work order completion rate, attendance rate, and response rate, the evaluation score of the duty is obtained according to the duty evaluation criteria.

[0084] In this embodiment of the invention, the evaluation score for the duty can be implemented using the following steps: Step 1. Determine the core criteria for duty performance evaluation Clearly define the weighting of indicators: Set the weight of each indicator according to the importance of the duty (example: task completion rate 30%, average score 25%, work order completion rate 20%, attendance rate 15%, response rate 10%), with a total weight of 100%.

[0085] Establish scoring tiers: Each indicator corresponds to 4 score tiers (Excellent 8-10 points, Good 6-7.9 points, Pass 4-5.9 points, Unsatisfactory 0-3.9 points), and clarify the numerical thresholds for each tier (e.g., a task completion rate ≥95% corresponds to Excellent 10 points, and 80%-94% corresponds to Good 8 points).

[0086] Unified data collection cycle: Set an evaluation cycle (such as monthly or quarterly) to ensure that the data collection scope of all indicators is consistent.

[0087] Step 2. Supplement the key indicator calculation formulas Work order completion rate (WOR): ,in To complete the total number of work orders, This represents the total number of work orders dispatched.

[0088] Response rate (RR): ,in The number of valid response requests, The total number of fire-related requests received (such as alarms and inquiries).

[0089] Step 3. Calculation and mapping of indicator scores According to the patent and supplementary formulas, calculate the specific values ​​of task completion rate (CR), average score (MPS), work order completion rate (WOR), attendance rate (ACI), and response rate (RR).

[0090] The calculation results of each indicator are mapped to the corresponding score according to the "score grading rules" (e.g., CR=92%→Good 8 points, RR=100%→Excellent 10 points).

[0091] The average score (MPS) is directly taken: If the single score S_i is 1-10, the calculated MPS does not need to be mapped and is directly used as the original score of the indicator (e.g., MPS=8.5 points → directly included).

[0092] Step 4. Calculate the total evaluation score using weighted aggregation. Weighted score calculation for a single indicator: the mapped score of each indicator × the corresponding weight (e.g., task completion rate 8 points × 30% = 2.4 points, average score 8.5 points × 25% = 2.125 points).

[0093] Total evaluation score summation: Add the weighted scores of the five indicators to get the final total evaluation score (Example: 2.4+2.125+1.6+1.35+0.9=8.375 points).

[0094] Rounding of results: The total score is rounded to one decimal place (e.g., 8.375 points → 8.4 points) to ensure consistent and standardized results.

[0095] Step 5. Quality Verification and Result Output Data validation: Verify the completeness of the original data (no missing sign-in / sign-out records, no invalid scores), and verify the accuracy of the formula input.

[0096] Logical verification: If the score of a certain indicator contradicts the actual situation (e.g., 0% attendance rate but multiple task completion records), return to the data collection stage for re-verification.

[0097] Output results: The total assessment score (e.g., 8.4 points), detailed values ​​and weights of each indicator, and score level (e.g., good) are output simultaneously to support subsequent fire safety decisions.

[0098] The method provided by this invention features a customizable evaluation template architecture that supports flexible configuration of weights, sub-items, and scoring rules, adapting to different scenario requirements. Through full-chain coverage of five evaluation dimensions, it enables collaborative evaluation of management systems, building environment, system equipment, alarms, and duty performance. An automatic scoring mechanism based on preset formulas, combined with automatic data collection and manual data entry, improves evaluation efficiency and accuracy. Multi-period, structured report generation supports month-on-month and year-on-year analysis, aiding management decision-making. Password verification and log recording mechanisms for evaluation configuration modifications ensure data security and traceability.

[0099] Example 2 like Figure 2 As shown, another aspect of the present invention also includes a functional module architecture that is completely consistent with the aforementioned method flow. That is, the embodiments of the present invention also provide a fire safety assessment and management system, including: Configuration module 201 is used to create an assessment template and configure basic information and assessment information on the assessment template; the basic information includes the name of the assessment template, the generation time, and the creator; the assessment information includes: assessment dimensions and their weights, and assessment criteria for each dimension; the assessment dimensions include: fire safety management system, building or park, equipment, alarms, and duty. The evaluation module 202 is used to process each evaluation dimension as follows: collect data, conduct fire safety evaluation based on the configured evaluation criteria, and obtain an evaluation score; wherein, the fire safety evaluation of the equipment is conducted using the following method: through API connection with the fire equipment management system, automatically obtain data on the usage time, warranty period, online status, and fault records of basic fire equipment, IoT fire equipment, integrated fire safety equipment, and fire facilities, and calculate the warranty coverage rate, near-expiration rate, expired warranty rate, online rate, and failure rate of various types of equipment based on the acquired data; based on the calculated warranty coverage rate, near-expiration rate, expired warranty rate, online rate, and failure rate, obtain the evaluation score of the equipment according to the configured equipment evaluation criteria; wherein, the evaluation criteria include: calculating the corresponding score based on the online rate, failure rate, warranty coverage rate, near-expiration rate, and expired warranty rate; calculating the health score based on the scores and weights of the online rate and failure rate; calculating the life cycle score based on the scores and weights of the warranty coverage rate, near-expiration rate, and expired warranty rate; calculating the score of various types of equipment based on the scores of the life cycle and health and their weights among various types of equipment; and calculating the evaluation score of the equipment based on the scores and weights of various types of equipment. Output module 203 is used to calculate the overall fire safety score of the unit based on the weights and corresponding evaluation scores of each evaluation dimension; output the overall fire safety score of the unit, the evaluation scores of buildings or parks, equipment, alarms and duties, the scores of each evaluation item of buildings or parks, and monthly, quarterly and annual reports containing the above scores.

[0100] Furthermore, the system also includes a verification module for verifying the creator's identity before configuring the evaluation information and for recording a modification log of the evaluation information.

[0101] This device can be implemented using the fire safety assessment method provided in Embodiment 1 above. For the specific implementation method, please refer to the description in Embodiment 1, which will not be repeated here.

[0102] In one specific embodiment of the present invention, the composition and workflow of the fire safety assessment and management system can be as follows: Figure 3 As shown, it includes: an evaluation template module (the configuration module in this invention), a multi-dimensional evaluation module (the evaluation module in this invention), and an evaluation conclusion module (the output module in this invention). Data transmission can be achieved between modules and between units within each module through data interfaces.

[0103] The template evaluation module includes a custom configuration unit for configuring parameters, such as basic template information; a template management unit for configuring evaluation dimensions, their weights, and corresponding evaluation rules, and storing the data in the template database; and a template verification unit for password verification, among other things.

[0104] The multi-dimensional evaluation module can evaluate each dimension based on the data transmitted by the evaluation template module and obtain an evaluation score.

[0105] The assessment conclusions module can generate reports based on the data transmitted from the multi-dimensional assessment module, for storage and display. Users can use the stored reports to understand historical information, or manage fire safety through the displayed current information.

[0106] Although preferred embodiments of the invention have been described, those skilled in the art, upon learning the basic inventive concept, can make other changes and modifications to these embodiments. Therefore, the appended claims are intended to be interpreted as including both the preferred embodiments and all changes and modifications falling within the scope of the invention. Clearly, those skilled in the art can make various alterations and modifications to the invention without departing from its spirit and scope. Thus, if these modifications and modifications of the invention fall within the scope of the claims and their equivalents, the invention is also intended to include these modifications and modifications.

Claims

1. A fire safety assessment method, characterized in that, include: Create an evaluation template and configure basic information and evaluation information on the evaluation template; The basic information includes the name, generation time, and creator of the evaluation template; The assessment information includes: assessment dimensions and their weights, and assessment criteria for each dimension; the assessment dimensions include: fire safety management system, buildings or parks, equipment, alarms and duties; Each evaluation dimension is processed as follows: Data is collected, and a fire safety assessment is conducted based on the configured evaluation criteria to obtain an evaluation score. The fire safety assessment of the equipment is performed using the following method: Data on the usage time, warranty period, online status, and fault records of basic fire equipment, IoT fire equipment, integrated fire safety equipment, and fire protection facilities are automatically obtained through API integration with the fire equipment management system. Based on the acquired data, the in-service rate, near-expiration rate, expired warranty rate, online rate, and failure rate of each type of equipment are calculated. Based on the calculated in-service rate, near-expiration rate, expired warranty rate, online rate, and failure rate, the evaluation score of the equipment is obtained according to the configured equipment evaluation criteria. The evaluation criteria include: calculating the corresponding scores for each of the online rate, failure rate, in-service rate, near-expiration rate, and expired warranty rate; calculating the health score based on the scores and weights of the online rate and failure rate; calculating the lifecycle score based on the scores and weights of the in-service rate, near-expiration rate, and expired warranty rate; calculating the score of each type of equipment based on the scores of the lifecycle and health score and their weights among different types of equipment; and calculating the overall evaluation score of the equipment based on the scores and weights of each type of equipment. Based on the weights and corresponding scores of each assessment dimension, the overall fire safety score of the unit is calculated; the overall fire safety score of the unit, the individual assessment scores of buildings or parks, equipment, alarms and duties, the scores of each assessment item of buildings or parks, and monthly, quarterly and annual reports containing the above scores are output.

2. The fire safety assessment method as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The evaluation method further includes: verifying the creator's identity before configuring the evaluation information; and recording a modification log of the evaluation information.

3. The fire safety assessment method as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The fire safety management system was assessed using the following methods: The fire safety management system shall include assessment items, which shall include: social fire rescue forces, the unit's own rescue forces, fire organization construction, safety responsibility system and / or publicity and education; Retrieve training records and practice videos uploaded via online forms, and verify their format and completeness; Based on the acquired data, each evaluation item is scored according to the set multi-level evaluation criteria to obtain the evaluation score of the fire safety management system.

4. The fire safety assessment method as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The following methods were used to conduct a fire safety assessment of the building or park: The building or park shall be assessed in two levels: primary and secondary assessment items. The primary assessment items include: fire resistance characteristics of building structure, combustible decoration and finishing, fire access roads, evacuation routes, fire water supply and / or electrical wiring. Depending on the type of evaluation item, the data for the primary and secondary evaluation items are obtained through automatic statistics, automatic reading, or manual surveying and input. Based on the acquired data, and according to the evaluation criteria for each primary and secondary evaluation item, the scores for each evaluation item and the evaluation scores for the building or park are obtained.

5. The fire safety assessment method as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The following method was used to conduct a fire safety assessment of the alarm: By connecting to the fire alarm platform via API, the system can automatically obtain fire alarm or warning information associated with a region, time period, and equipment, and count the number of fire alarms or warnings associated with a region, time period, and equipment. Based on the number of fire alarms or early warnings, the area alarm rate is calculated using the following formula: ； in, , The number of alarms at the 80th percentile in historical data; For the region Number of alerts in the current month; The historical average number of alarms in the region; Standard deviation; Based on the statistical relationship between the number of fire alarms or early warnings and the preset number, or the regional alarm rate, the evaluation score of the alarm is obtained according to the alarm evaluation criteria.

6. The fire safety assessment method as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The following methods were used to conduct a fire safety assessment of the service: By connecting to the duty work order system via API, the system can automatically obtain the total number of patrol, inspection, maintenance tasks, and fire control duty tasks, the number of completed tasks, sign-in and sign-out records, and scoring records, and calculate the task completion rate, average score, work order completion rate, attendance rate, and response rate. The task completion rate is calculated using the following formula: ； in, To complete the total number of tasks, Total number of tasks; The average score is calculated according to the following formula: in, For the number of ratings, This refers to the score for a single evaluation. The attendance rate is calculated according to the following formula: ； in, For check-in records, if any exist, take 1; If there is a check-out record, take 1; The required number of days of attendance; Based on the calculated task completion rate, average score, work order completion rate, attendance rate, and response rate, the evaluation score of the duty is obtained according to the duty evaluation criteria.

7. The fire safety assessment method as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The retention rate is calculated using the following formula: ； in, This is an indicator function; it takes the value 1 if the condition is met, and 0 otherwise. This refers to the actual usage time of the equipment. For the equipment warranty period; Assign weights to equipment importance; This refers to the total number of devices that are under warranty or out of warranty. This refers to the number of devices nearing their warranty expiration date, defined as devices with a usage period ≥ 0.8 times the warranty period.

8. The fire safety assessment method as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The online rate is calculated using the following formula: ； in, , Mean time between failures (MTBF) of the equipment; Mean time to repair (MTBL) of the equipment; Number of online devices; This represents the total number of devices.

9. A fire safety assessment and management system, characterized in that, include: The configuration module is used to create an evaluation template and configure basic information and evaluation information on the evaluation template. The basic information includes the name, generation time, and creator of the evaluation template; The assessment information includes: assessment dimensions and their weights, and assessment criteria for each dimension; the assessment dimensions include: fire safety management system, buildings or parks, equipment, alarms and duties; The evaluation module processes each evaluation dimension as follows: Data is collected, and a fire safety evaluation is performed based on configured evaluation standards to obtain an evaluation score. The fire safety evaluation of the equipment is conducted using the following method: Through API integration with the fire equipment management system, data on the usage time, warranty period, online status, and fault records of basic fire equipment, IoT fire equipment, integrated fire safety equipment, and fire facilities are automatically obtained. Based on the acquired data, the in-service rate, near-expiration rate, expired warranty rate, online rate, and failure rate of each type of equipment are calculated. Based on the calculated in-service rate, near-expiration rate, expired warranty rate, online rate, and failure rate, an evaluation score for the equipment is obtained according to the configured equipment evaluation standards. The evaluation standards include: calculating the corresponding scores for each of the online rate, failure rate, in-service rate, near-expiration rate, and expired warranty rate; calculating the health score based on the scores and weights of the online rate and failure rate; calculating the lifecycle score based on the scores and weights of the in-service rate, near-expiration rate, and expired warranty rate; calculating the scores of each type of equipment based on the scores of the lifecycle and health rate and their weights among different types of equipment; and calculating the overall evaluation score of the equipment based on the scores and weights of each type of equipment. The output module is used to calculate the overall fire safety score of the unit based on the weights and corresponding evaluation scores of each evaluation dimension; it outputs the overall fire safety score of the unit, the individual evaluation scores of buildings or parks, equipment, alarms and duties, the scores of each evaluation item of buildings or parks, and monthly, quarterly and annual reports containing the above scores.

10. The fire safety assessment and management system as described in claim 9, characterized in that, The system also includes a verification module, used to verify the creator's identity before configuring the evaluation information; and to record a modification log of the evaluation information.

Images