Explore the site

Looking for a service, risk assessment or training course?
Use the Discovery System on the homepage to find the right option quickly.

Contact MHI

Fire & Explosion Risk Assessments (FERA) in South Africa

Home ● Fire & Explosion Risk Assessments

20+

years of experience

Fire & Explosive Risk Management

If your facility handles flammable liquids, gases, pressurised systems, or reactive chemicals, you don’t need vague “fire safety awareness” — you need a fire and explosion risk assessment that identifies credible scenarios, measures escalation potential, and tells you exactly where to invest to reduce risk.

At MHI Risk Engineers, our Fire & Explosion Risk Assessments (FERA) focus on the events that cause the most damage in industrial environments: jet fires, flash fires, and vapour cloud explosions (VCEs). We evaluate ignition likelihood, model physical effects like thermal radiation and blast overpressure, and recommend targeted mitigation measures such as fireproofing, spacing, and engineered safeguards.

If you’re searching for a practical fire risk assessment, an explosion risk assessment, or fire risk assessment services that hold up to technical scrutiny, FERA is designed for exactly that.

What a FERA actually does

A fire and explosion risk assessment answers three core questions:

FERA is especially useful when the concern is not just “a fire might happen,” but how it could escalate — from one piece of equipment to the next, across units, into occupied buildings, or into neighbouring sites.

When you should commission a FERA

A fire and explosion risk assessment is typically the right tool when you need to:

Our approach to Fire & Explosion Risk Assessments (FERA)

We use a structured process that mirrors how industrial incidents actually unfold — release, ignition, escalation — so the results are practical and defensible.

01

Develop credible fire and explosion scenarios

We define the scenarios that matter most in major hazard environments, including:

  • Jet fire (pressurised release ignites)

  • Flash fire (vapour cloud ignites without significant overpressure)

  • VCE – Vapour Cloud Explosion (confined/congested cloud ignites and generates blast)

Scenario credibility is crucial. We focus on what can plausibly occur based on your plant design, operating conditions, and known release points — not generic “worst-case everything” assumptions.

02

Assess ignition sources and likelihood

We identify likely ignition sources and evaluate the probability of ignition based on:

  • equipment type, hot surfaces, static risks, electrical classification, and work activities

  • known ignition mechanisms in similar industries

  • facility controls (e.g., hazardous area classification, hot work management, detection systems)

This helps separate “possible” from “probable” and improves prioritisation.

03

Model thermal radiation and blast overpressure

We model physical effects to determine impact distances and escalation potential, including:

  • thermal radiation levels at distance (for exposure and equipment damage)

  • blast overpressure impacts (structural damage, building vulnerability, domino effects)

These outputs help answer: If this happens, what else fails next?

 

 

04

Rank risks and identify protective measures

We rank scenarios and identify the controls that make the biggest difference, such as:

  • fireproofing of structural steel and key vessels

  • spacing and layout improvements

  • passive/active fire protection measures

  • engineered safeguards to reduce release duration

  • escalation barriers and critical equipment protection

The goal is always the same: reduce escalation potential, not just “tick compliance.”

Standards and guidance we apply

We align FERA work to recognised industry standards, including:

  • API 521 (pressure-relieving and depressuring systems guidance)

  • NFPA 68 & NFPA 69 (explosion protection by venting and prevention systems)

BS EN 14491 (explosion venting design for dust explosions and related contexts)

Get in touch with us

Reach out for any inquiries, support, or to discuss how we can meet your industrial needs.

Contact us

FAQ: Fire and Explosion Risk Assessment

What are the 5 main components of a fire risk assessment?

A practical fire risk assessment generally includes:

  1. Identifying fire hazards (fuels, ignition sources, oxygen)

  2. Identifying who is at risk (people, occupied buildings, contractors, neighbours)

  3. Evaluating existing controls (prevention, detection, suppression, emergency response)

  4. Assessing likelihood and consequences (severity, escalation, business impact)

  5. Recording findings and action plan (who does what, by when, and how it’s verified)

In industrial settings, a FERA goes deeper into scenario modelling and escalation potential.

A QRA is a broader quantitative framework that calculates overall risk numerically (often producing risk contours and FN curves).
A FERA focuses specifically on fire and explosion outcomes—jet fire, flash fire, VCE—and the physical effects that drive escalation.

In many major hazard contexts, FERA can feed into a QRA, or it can stand alone when the decision is primarily about fire/explosion safeguards and layout.

Key risks include:

  • injuries or fatalities from heat, smoke, toxic products, or blast

  • major equipment damage and domino escalation

  • structural collapse from overpressure or thermal weakening

  • production shutdown and asset loss

  • reputational and regulatory consequences

In high-hazard industries, escalation risk is often the biggest “multiplier.”

A good risk assessment should include:

  1. the hazards and credible scenarios

  2. likelihood/frequency (qualitative or quantitative, depending on scope)

  3. consequences and exposure

  4. evaluation against criteria (tolerability / ALARP thinking)

  5. controls, recommendations, and actions with ownership

A useful “4 P’s” lens is:

  • People (competence, exposure, behaviour)

  • Plant (equipment condition, integrity, safeguards)

  • Process (procedures, control of work, MOC)

  • Place (layout, congestion, ventilation, occupancy)

FERA heavily uses “Plant” and “Place” because they strongly affect escalation and blast/thermal impacts.

This varies by organisation, but commonly you’ll see:

  1. Baseline/general fire risk assessment (site-wide)

  2. Task/activity-based assessment (hot work, shutdowns, maintenance)

  3. Specialist fire engineering assessment (complex buildings/processes)

  4. Fire & explosion risk assessment (FERA) for major hazard process risks

The key difference is depth, modelling, and the type of decision you need to support.

A practical grouping is:

  • qualitative

  • semi-quantitative

  • quantitative (QRA)

  • dynamic/continuous

FERA can sit alongside these as a specialist assessment focused on fire/explosion physics and escalation.

  • HIRA is usually higher-level and covers systems/areas/processes.

  • JSA (Job Safety Analysis) is task-level, focusing on step-by-step job hazards and controls.

FERA is typically more technical and scenario-based than both.

 

You generally need:

  1. fuel (flammable gas/vapour/dust)

  2. oxygen/oxidiser (air)

  3. dispersion/mixing in the right concentration range

  4. confinement or congestion (often increases explosion severity)

  5. ignition source

FERA evaluates how these conditions could realistically develop on your site.

A typical HIRA workflow is:

  1. define scope and context

  2. identify hazards

  3. identify who/what could be harmed

  4. assess likelihood

  5. assess consequences

  6. determine risk rating and prioritise

  7. implement controls and review

HIRA is often broader and less physics-model-driven than FERA.

“Type 4” is not universal, but it often refers to a specialist or advanced assessment—typically where you’re using modelling, engineering judgement, and scenario analysis rather than a basic checklist. In many industrial contexts, FERA is exactly that type of “advanced” assessment.

A simplified practical view is:

  • release (loss of containment)

  • ignition (immediate or delayed)

  • escalation (domino effects, secondary events)

FERA focuses strongly on the escalation pathway.

A good fire safety system typically includes:

  1. prevention (reducing ignition and fuel exposure)

  2. detection (fire/gas detection, alarms)

  3. protection (passive and active systems like fireproofing/suppression)

  4. emergency response (plans, training, drills)

recovery and improvement (learning, maintenance, audit)

At a practical level:

  1. identify fire hazards and fuels

  2. identify ignition sources

  3. identify exposed people/assets

  4. evaluate existing controls

  5. assess likelihood and consequences

  6. prioritise improvements

  7. document and review

FERA adds scenario modelling and escalation assessment to these steps.

“Take 5” is a quick, on-the-job safety pause used in many workplaces. It’s typically a short checklist to confirm:

  • hazards are recognised

  • controls are in place

  • you’re competent and authorised

  • conditions haven’t changed

  • the task is safe to start

It’s useful operationally, but it doesn’t replace a detailed fire and explosion risk assessment for major hazards.

The simplest three-part model is:

  1. identify hazards

  2. analyse risk (likelihood + consequence)

control risk (apply and verify measures)

Need a fire and explosion risk assessment that drives real mitigation?

If you need a defensible fire and explosion risk assessment—with scenario development, ignition evaluation, thermal/blast modelling, and clear mitigation priorities—MHI Risk Engineers can help you reduce escalation potential and support safer engineering decisions.

Fire and Explosion Risk Assessments should align with your broader hazard and compliance strategy, including HAZOP studies and Major Hazard Installation (MHI) risk assessments. This ensures ignition risks, process deviations and regulatory obligations are addressed in a coordinated and defensible way.