Final Dissertation

Dundalk Institute of Technology

School of Engineering and Department of Built Environment

“Occupant Behaviour in Fire”

Submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of:

Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Building Surveying

By Patrick Reel

6th April 2016

Supervisors: Enda Fields (First Reader) and Gerard Smyth (Second Reader)

i

“If there is going to be panic, let it be

organised”

Stephan J Pratt, (2013)

ii

Acknowledgements

This dissertation has been both a pleasure and a challenge of which will never be

forgotten. Many people throughout the completion of my dissertation have made the

process easier who deserve acknowledgments for their support.

My mother Bernie (Mommy) and father Oliver (Ollie), your constant support, guidance

and belief in me every step of the way is invaluable. All the sandwiches, coins, work,

advice, crack, bad manners, creativeness and encouragement will never ever be

forgotten. From the bottom of my heart, thank you so much for everything inside and

outside of college.

All of my family members have given their time and experiences to encourage me:

Awk Micheala, “Patsy Mc Guigure”, Unbelievable support in and out of college.

Siovana, “Think of the office”, reminded me of the dream and constant support.

Joe Blo, “Just get it done will ya”, rulya man who pushed me over the finish line.

Annie, “Your smart fein”, incredible support from my second half.

Don Don, “Grade fein”, reminded me of why I went to college.

Martina, “V&D Guy, Uncle Paudi”, Unusual techniques of inspiration.

Lilly, “The wee woman herself”, my girlfriend Leona who pushed me every step.

Bunch of weirdos who somehow spoke words of wisdom that were an inspiration to

keep the head down. It’s time!

In conclusion I would like to thank all of my friends, DKIT classmates, DKIT staff, my first

reader Enda Fields and second reader Gerry Smyth for their guidance and support

throughout the year. Last of all a thank you to the first year building surveying students

and Regional Development Centre participants who assisted my case study research.

iii

Declaration

I hereby certify that this material, which I now submit for assessment on the programme

of study leading to the award of Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Building Surveying is

entirely my own work and has not been taken form the work of others save where and

to the extent that such work has been cited and acknowledged within the text.

Name: Patrick Reel

Student ID: D00152274

Date: 6th April 2016

Word count: 10,964

Signature: ________________

iv

Abstract

Occupant behaviour in fire has always been a sensitive issue within the construction

industry because of its wide variability. Due to its diversity and complexity,

professionals such as fire engineers and building surveyors are faced with a problematic

challenge to overcome the unknowns and uncertainties associated with occupant

behaviour in fires. Over time, many researchers have advanced occupant behaviour

theories but it comes back to the individuals cognitive affordances to perceive the safest

method to exit a building.

Bearing this in mind, the research undertaken was to evaluate the legislation supporting

occupant behaviour in fire which is BS: 7974, Part 6 (2004). Following this was an

assessment of the response and movement behaviour process by occupants. This

process consists of 6 stages from learning about the fire to movement through the final

exit. Throughout this was an industry questionnaire to get an opinion on from current

practice methods when dealing with complex issues.

This accumulates to a comparative case study on two participant groups exiting from

third level institute buildings during a practice fire drill. Results showed participants

intended behaviour changed when placed under pressure and into a state of panic. The

closing stages of this dissertation purposes recommendations to improve fire safety

during an evacuation and occupant behaviour in fire in general.

Patrick Reel

2016

v

Table of Contents

Contents

1.0 Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................................... 2

1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................... 3

1.2 Scope ................................................................................................................... 3

1.3 Aims..................................................................................................................... 4

1.4 Objectives............................................................................................................ 4

1.5 Research Methodology ....................................................................................... 4

1.5.1 Stage 1: Literature Review .......................................................................... 4

1.5.2 Stage 2: Questionnaire ................................................................................ 4

1.5.3 Stage 3: Case Study ..................................................................................... 5

1.5.4 Stage 4: Interviews ...................................................................................... 5

1.5.5 Stage 5: Writing Up ..................................................................................... 5

1.6 Dissertation Structure ......................................................................................... 5

1.7 References .......................................................................................................... 7

2.0 Chapter 2: Legislation ............................................................................................. 9

2.1 Fire Legislation History ........................................................................................ 9

2.2 Legislation Process ............................................................................................ 10

2.3 Process 1A – Building Regulations: TGD’s ......................................................... 10

2.4 Process 1B – Building Regulations: UK & Irish Standards ................................. 13

2.5 Process 2 – Building Regulations: Fire Engineering Solutions........................... 18

2.6 Client Interest.................................................................................................... 19

2.7 Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 19

vi

2.8 References ........................................................................................................ 20

2.9 Image references .............................................................................................. 21

3.0 Chapter 3: Response Behaviour ............................................................................ 24

3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 24

3.2 Response Behaviour Process ............................................................................ 24

3.3 Pre-Response Behaviour ................................................................................... 25

3.4 Response Process .............................................................................................. 26

3.5 Decision Making ................................................................................................ 29

3.6 Detection ........................................................................................................... 32

3.7 Fire Engineering Techniques ............................................................................. 33

3.8 Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 34

3.9 References ........................................................................................................ 35

3.10 Image References .............................................................................................. 36

4.0 Chapter 4: Evacuation Movement Behaviour ....................................................... 39

4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 39

4.2 Evacuation Movement Process ......................................................................... 39

4.3 Stage 1: Pre-evacuation Movement ................................................................. 40

4.4 Stage 2: Movement ........................................................................................... 42

4.4.1 Horizontal Movement ............................................................................... 43

4.4.2 Vertical Movement ................................................................................... 46

4.5 Stage 3: Final Exit .............................................................................................. 48

4.5.1 Interpretation of Final Exit ........................................................................ 48

4.6 Strategic Recap ................................................................................................. 49

4.7 Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 51

vii

4.8 References ........................................................................................................ 52


5.0 Chapter 5: Case Study – Dundalk Institute of Technology .................................... 57

5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 57

5.2 Outline of Study ................................................................................................ 57

5.3 The Building’s .................................................................................................... 58

5.3.1 DKIT North Block ....................................................................................... 58

5.3.2 DKIT Regional Development Centre .......................................................... 59

5.4 The Participant’s ............................................................................................... 61

5.5 The Drill ............................................................................................................. 63

5.6 Means of Escape ............................................................................................... 64

5.6.1 DKIT North Block Means of Escape ........................................................... 64

5.6.2 DKIT RDC Means of Escape ....................................................................... 65

5.7 Evaluation of the Drill ....................................................................................... 66

5.7.1 Participants Response Behaviour.............................................................. 66

5.7.2 Participants Evacuation Movement .......................................................... 70

5.7.3 Speed of Movement.................................................................................. 74

5.8 Evaluation of Questionnaire Data ..................................................................... 77

5.9 Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 85

5.10 References ........................................................................................................ 86


6.0 Chapter 6: Conclusion and Recommendations ..................................................... 89

7.0 Bibliography .......................................................................................................... 93

8.0 Appendix A: Fire Drill Analysis .............................................................................. 99

viii

8.1 DKIT’s Fire Drill Reports .................................................................................... 99

8.2 Evaluation Report on DKIT North Block and RDC Fire Drills ........................... 101

9.0 Appendix B: Questionnaires and Interviews ....................................................... 118

9.1 Fire Drill Participant Questionnaires ............................................................... 118

9.1.1 Pre-Drill Questionnaire ........................................................................... 119

9.1.2 Post-Drill Questionnaire .......................................................................... 122

9.2 Professional Questionnaires ........................................................................... 125

9.2.1 Professional Questionnaire ..................................................................... 125

9.2.2 Professional Questionnaire Answers ...................................................... 126

9.3 Fire Drill Participant Interviews....................................................................... 131

9.3.1 DKIT North Block Participant Interviews ................................................. 131

9.3.2 DKIT Regional Development Centre Participant Interviews ................... 134

10.0 Appendix C: Participant Speed of Movement Breakdown ................................. 138

11.0 Appendix D: Photos ............................................................................................. 141

11.1 DKIT North Block Fire Drill............................................................................... 142

11.2 DKIT Regional Development Centre Fire Drill ................................................. 145

ix

List of Illustrations

List of Tables

Table 1 National fire safety legislation (Author, 2016) ....................................................... 9

Table 2 Third level institution purpose group from TGD Part B1 (2006, pg.15) ............... 11

Table 3 Calculation for travel distances from BS: 7974 (2004, pg.4) ................................ 12

Table 4 Travel distance for a third level institution from TGD Part B1 (2006, pg.25)....... 12

Table 5 Horizontal movement speed per meter/second (Zinke, 2014, pg.18) ................. 43

Table 6 Vertical movement speed per meter/second (Zinke, 2014, pg.8) ....................... 47

Table 7 DKIT participant evacuation time data (Author, 2016) ........................................ 63

Table 8 Overview of three researchers’ evacuation calculation (2016) ........................... 74

Table 9 Fire Drill Assessment - General Information (Author, 2016) ............................. 102

Table 10 Fire Drill Assessment - Pre-Drill Assessment - General (Author, 2016) ........... 103

Table 11 Fire Drill Assessment - Pre-Drill Assessment – Maintenance (Author, 2016) .. 106

Table 12 Fire Drill Assessment - Time (Author, 2016) .................................................... 106

Table 13 Fire Drill Assessment - Construction Aspects –Stairs (Author, 2016) .............. 106

Table 14 Fire Drill Assessment - Construction Aspects – Steps (Author, 2016) .............. 107

Table 15 Fire Drill Assessment - Analysis – Occupants (Author, 2016)........................... 108

Table 16 Fire Drill Assessment - Analysis – Fire Service (Author, 2016) ......................... 108

Table 17 Fire Drill Assessment - Analysis – Fire Drill (Author, 2016) .............................. 109

Table 18 Fire Drill Assessment - Analysis – Active Measures (Author, 2016) ................. 110

Table 19 Fire Drill Assessment - Analysis – Staff Behaviour (Author, 2016) ................... 113

Table 20 Fire Drill Assessment - Analysis –Movement (Author, 2016) ........................... 114

Table 21 Fire Drill Assessment - Analysis –Procedure (Author, 2016) ............................ 114

Table 22 Fire Drill Assessment - Analysis - Fire drill (North Block) (Author, 2016) ......... 115

Table 23 Fire Drill Assessment - Analysis - Fire drill (Regional Centre) (Author, 2016) .. 116

Table 24 Fire Drill Assessment - Analysis – Utilities (Author, 2016) ............................... 117

Table 25 Fire Drill Assessment - Analysis – Misc. (Author, 2016) ................................... 117

Table 26 Interviews with Industry Professionals - Q1 (Author, 2016) ............................ 127

x




Table 30 Interviews with North Block Participants – Q1 (Author, 2016)........................ 132




Table 34 Interviews with RDC Participants – Q1 (Author, 2016) .................................... 135




Table 38 Overview of three researchers evacuation calculation (Author, 2016) ........... 139

Table 39 Comparison of three researchers’ evacuation calculation (Author, 2016) ...... 140

List of Figures

Figure 1 Strategic approach to dissertation (Author, 2016) ............................................... 3

Figure 2 Participants egressing in DKIT fire drills (Author, 2016) ....................................... 6

Figure 3 Participants re-entering in DKIT fire drills (Author, 2016) .................................... 6

Figure 4 Building Control Act (2015)…………. ....................................................................... 9

Figure 5 Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (2005) .......................................................... 9

Figure 6 Breakdown of Legislation Process (Author, 2016) .............................................. 10

Figure 7 Process of Compliance with TGD Part B (Author, 2016) ..................................... 11

Figure 8 Process of compliance using British or Irish Standards (Author, 2016) .............. 13

Figure 9 British Standards for Third Level Institutions from TGD Part B1 (2006, pg.25) .. 13

Figure 10 BB: 100 (2007) ............................................................................................... 14

Figure 11 TGD Part B1 abstract (2006, pg.21) .................................................................. 14

Figure 12 BS: 9999 (2008, pg.1) .................................................................................... 14

Figure 13 TGD Part B (2006, pg.1) .................................................................................... 14

Figure 14 Process of Compliance using BS: 7974 (2004, pg. 4) ........................................ 15

Figure 15 Typical scenarios used in evacuation simulation (GCG, 2013).......................... 15

xi

Figure 16 ASET and RSET breakdown (Mitchell and Charters (2010, pg.3) ...................... 16

Figure 17 ASET and RSET theory (Ruggiero Lovereglio, 2013) ......................................... 16

Figure 18 Unknowns and uncertainties (Proulx, 2001, pg.4) ............................................ 17

Figure 19 Occupant robotic movement (NIST, 2014) ....................................................... 17

Figure 20 Fire engineering solution compliance process (Author, 2016) ......................... 18

Figure 21 Simulation software (TH, 2015) .................................................................... 18

Figure 22 Simulation software (SIEMENS, 2014) .............................................................. 18

Figure 23 Lab situation in college (Nollandam, 2011) ...................................................... 19

Figure 24 Overview of occupant response behaviour process (Author, 2016) ................ 24

Figure 25 Response Behaviour Process Stage 1: Pre-response (Author, 2016) ................ 25

Figure 26 Fire characteristics (Proulx, 2001, pg.4) ............................................................ 25

Figure 27 Response Behaviour Process Stage 2: Response Process (Author, 2016) ........ 26

Figure 28 Response Behaviour Process Stage 2A: Input (Author, 2016) .......................... 26

Figure 29 Response Behaviour Process Stage 2B: Response process (Author, 2016) ...... 27

Figure 30 Response Behaviour Process Stage 2B: Psychological (Williams, 2005, pg.2) .. 27

Figure 31 Occupant past experiences (Fire Sec, 2011) ..................................................... 28

Figure 32 Response Behaviour Process Stage 2C: Response Output (Author, 2016) ....... 28

Figure 33 Occupant characteristics (Kecklund, 2005, pg.3) .............................................. 29

Figure 34 Response Behaviour Process Stage 3: Decision Making (Author, 2016) .......... 29

Figure 35 Response leadership (Peterson, 2013) ............................................................. 30

Figure 36 Student presentation (Campus Explorer, 2015) ............................................... 31

Figure 37 Occupant response levels (Hofinger, 2014, pg.609) ......................................... 31

Figure 38 Realistic practice fire drill (Fire drill becomes real, 2010)................................. 32

Figure 39 Staff training (Fire Solves, 2014) ...................................................................... 33

Figure 40 Overview of evacuation movement process (Author, 2016) ............................ 39

Figure 41 Evacuation Movement Process Stage 1: Pre-evacuation (Author, 2016) ......... 40

Figure 42 Reassurance of alarm (Phill Wesson, 2005) ...................................................... 40

Figure 43 Evacuation movement types (Zinke, 2014, pg.7) .............................................. 41

Figure 44 Sleeping occupants (Occupants Sleeping, 2015) .............................................. 41

Figure 45 Pre-evacuation movement (Samuel Fricchione, 2014) .................................... 41

xii

Figure 46 Pre-evacuation movement (Samuel Fricchione, 2014) .................................... 41

Figure 47 Evacuation Movement Stage 2: Movement behaviour, (Author, 2016) .......... 42

Figure 48 Stages of Movement (Author, 2016) ................................................................ 42

Figure 49 Evacuation Movement Stage 2A: Horizontal Movement (Author, 2016) ......... 43

Figure 50 Occupant characteristics (Proulx, 2001, pg.4) .................................................. 44

Figure 51 Deviation through smoke (Escape Consult, 2006) ............................................ 45

Figure 52 Building characteristics (Proulx, 2001, pg.4) ..................................................... 45

Figure 53 College final exit (Author, 2016) ....................................................................... 46

Figure 54 College final exit (Author, 2016) ....................................................................... 46

Figure 55 Evacuation Movement Stage 2B: Vertical Movement (Author, 2016) ............. 46

Figure 56 Vibrating alarms (MFS, 2001) ........................................................................ 46

Figure 57 Evacuation Chair (Stryker, 2015)....................................................................... 47

Figure 58 Evacuation Movement Stage 3: Final Exit, (Author, 2016) ............................... 48

Figure 59 Misleading information (McClintock, 2001) ..................................................... 49

Figure 60 Tactics of Occupant Behaviour (Stollard and Abrahams, 1999, pg. 14-15) ...... 49

Figure 61 Relationship between tactics (Stollard and Abrahams, 1999, pg.15) ............... 50

Figure 62 Intended Behaviour (Author, 2016) .............................................................. 57

Figure 63 Actual Behaviour (Author, 2016) .............................................................. 57

Figure 64 DKIT Campus Site Plan (Google Maps, 2016) .................................................... 58

Figure 65 North Block Passive Layout (Author, 2016) ...................................................... 58

Figure 66 DKIT North Block Site Location in red (Author, 2016)....................................... 58

Figure 67 North Automatic Doors (Author, 2016) ............................................................ 58

Figure 68 Building characteristics for DKIT North Block (Author, 2016) ........................... 59

Figure 69 DKIT North Block front elevation (Author, 2016) ............................................. 59

Figure 70 DKIT RDC Site Location in red (Author, 2016) ................................................... 59

Figure 71 DKIT RDC Unprotected staircase (Author, 2016) .............................................. 60

Figure 72 DKIT RDC protected staircase (Author, 2016) ................................................... 60

Figure 73 Building characteristics for DKIT RDC (Author, 2016) ....................................... 60

Figure 74 DKIT Regional Development Centre front elevation (Author, 2016) ................ 60

Figure 75 DKIT North Block fire drill (Author, 2016) ........................................................ 61

xiii

Figure 76 DKIT RDC fire drill (Author, 2016) .................................................................... 61

Figure 77 Group A Age Range (Author, 2016) .................................................................. 61

Figure 78 Group B Age Range (Author, 2016) .................................................................. 61

Figure 79 Group B Sex Range (Author, 2016) .................................................................. 61

Figure 80 Group A Sex Range (Author, 2016) .................................................................. 61

Figure 81 Group A characteristics in DKIT North Block (Author, 2016) ............................ 62

Figure 82 DKIT RDC Participants familiarity (Author, 2016) ............................................. 62

Figure 83 Group B characteristics in DKIT RDC (Author, 2016) ........................................ 62

Figure 84 DKIT North Block and RDC fire drill cues (Author, 2016) .................................. 63

Figure 85 First floor corridor (Author, 2016) .................................................................... 64

Figure 86 First floor travel path in red (Author, 2016) ..................................................... 64

Figure 87 First floor stairwell (Author, 2016) .................................................................... 64

Figure 88 Ground floor travel path in red (Author, 2016) ................................................ 64

Figure 89 Assembly Point (Author, 2016) ......................................................................... 64

Figure 90 Final Exit (Author, 2016) ................................................................................... 64

Figure 91 Ground floor final exit (Author, 2016) .............................................................. 64

Figure 92 First floor travel path in red (Author, 2016) ..................................................... 65

Figure 93 First floor corridor (Author, 2016) .................................................................... 65

Figure 94 First floor stairs (Author, 2016) ......................................................................... 65

Figure 95 Ground floor travel path in red (Author, 2016) ................................................ 65

Figure 96 Final Exit (Author, 2016) ................................................................................... 65

Figure 97 Assembly Point (Author, 2016) ......................................................................... 65

Figure 98 Ground floor stairs (Author, 2016) ................................................................... 65

Figure 99 Participant Response Stage 1: Pre-response behaviour (Author, 2016) .......... 66

Figure 100 NC216 Pre-response behaviour (Author, 2016) ............................................. 66

Figure 101 Participant Response Stage 2: Response Process (Author, 2016) .................. 67

Figure 102 Constructive Response by Group A (Author, 2016) ........................................ 67

Figure 103 Participant Response Stage 3: Decision making (Author, 2016) ..................... 68

Figure 104 Group A beginning to exit (Author, 2016) ...................................................... 68

Figure 105 Group B beginning to exit (Author, 2016) ....................................................... 68

xiv

Figure 106 Group A and Group B Response levels (Author, 2016) ................................... 69

Figure 107 Group B Participants response process (Author, 2016).................................. 69

Figure 108 Participant Movement Stage 1: Pre-evacuation behaviour (Author, 2016) ... 70

Figure 109 Group A Participants leaving (Author, 2016) .................................................. 70

Figure 110 Participant Movement Stage 2: Movement (Author, 2016) ........................... 71

Figure 111 Stages of Group A Horizontal Movement (Author, 2016) .............................. 71

Figure 112 Stages of Group B Horizontal Movement (Author, 2016) .............................. 71

Figure 114 Group B in corridor (Author, 2016) ................................................................. 72

Figure 113 Group A in corridor (Author, 2016) ................................................................. 72

Figure 115 Group B Individual movement (Author, 2016) ............................................... 72

Figure 116 Group A group movement (Author, 2016) ..................................................... 72

Figure 117 Stages of Group A Vertical Movement (Author, 2016) ................................... 73

Figure 118 Stages of Group B Vertical Movement (Author, 2016) ................................... 73

Figure 119 North Block congested non-ambulant staircase (Author, 2016) .................... 73

Figure 120 Crowd control in Group A fire drill (Author, 2016) ......................................... 74

Figure 121 Participant Movement Stage 3: Final Exit (Author, 2016) .............................. 75

Figure 122 Group A final exit (Author, 2016) .................................................................... 75

Figure 123 Group B final exit (Author, 2016) .................................................................... 75

Figure 124 Group A final escape steps (Author, 2016) ..................................................... 76

Figure 125 Group A final escape steps (Author, 2016) ..................................................... 76

Figure 126 Question 1: If a fire broke out (Author, 2016) ................................................ 77

Figure 127 Group B Escaping (Author, 2016) .................................................................... 77

Figure 128 Group A Escaping (Author, 2016) ................................................................... 77

Figure 129 Question 2: Exit Choice (Author, 2016) .......................................................... 78

Figure 130 Question 3: Fire Safety Training (Author, 2016) ............................................ 78

Figure 131 Question 4: Building Knowledge (Author, 2016) ............................................ 79

Figure 132 North Block Complex layout (Author, 2016) ................................................... 79

Figure 133 Open Plan RDC Layout (Author, 2016) ............................................................ 79

Figure 134 Question 5: Exit Plan (Author, 2016) .............................................................. 80

Figure 135 Question 6: Situational Awareness (Author, 2016) ........................................ 80

xv

Figure 136 Question 7: Initial Reactions (Author, 2016) .................................................. 81

Figure 137 Question 8: Apprehensive Reactions (Author, 2016) ..................................... 81

Figure 138 Question 9: Fire Cues (Author, 2016) ............................................................. 82

Figure 139 Question 10: Pre-evacuation Movement (Author, 2016) ............................... 82

Figure 140 Question 11: Confidence in Alarm System (Author, 2016) ............................. 83

Figure 141 Group A calm (Author, 2016) .......................................................................... 83

Figure 142 Question 12: Smoke Reaction (Author, 2016) ................................................ 84

Figure 143 Question 13: Fire Reaction (Author, 2016) ..................................................... 84

Figure 144 DKIT RDC Fire Drill Assessment form (DKIT, 2016) ......................................... 99

Figure 145 DKIT North Block Fire Drill Assessment form (DKIT, 2015) ........................... 100

Figure 146 Moving towards final exit (Author, 2016) .................................................... 143

Figure 147 North Block Participants exiting (Author, 2016) ........................................... 143

Figure 149 Vertical Movement (Author, 2016) .............................................................. 143

Figure 148 Movement towards Assembly Point ‘A’ (Author, 2016) ............................... 143

Figure 150 Assembly Point ‘A’ (Author, 2016) ............................................................... 144

Figure 151 Assembly Point ‘A’ (Author, 2016) ................................................................ 144

Figure 152 Assembly Point ‘A’ (Author, 2016) ............................................................... 144

Figure 153 Participants re-entering the North Block (Author, 2016) ............................. 144

Figure 154 Movement towards Vertical Escape (Author, 2016) .................................... 146

Figure 155 Participants leaving offices (Author, 2016) .................................................. 146

Figure 156 Vertical Movement (Author, 2016) .............................................................. 146

Figure 157 Movement towards final exit (Author, 2016) .............................................. 146

Figure 159 Final Exit (Author, 2016) .............................................................................. 146

Figure 158 Movement towards Assembly Point ‘C’ (Author, 2016) ............................... 146

Figure 160 Movement towards Assembly Point ‘C’ (Author, 2016) ............................... 146

Figure 161 Assembly Point ‘C’ (Author, 2016) ............................................................... 146

xvi

Glossary

Term Explanation

Prescriptive

Regulations used by professionals to design buildings using guidance

documents and legislation i.e. Technical Guidance Documents

Scenario

An environment created by fire simulation software to test or determine

the possible dangers and exit strategies available to simulated

occupants.

RSET/ASET Required/Available Safe Evacuation Time

Situational

Awareness

Occupants/Participants awareness of their surroundings when placed

into a state of panic

Psychological

Process

Process an occupant/participant goes through in their mind when

positioned into a fire scenario

Dissonance The situational awareness of a person that filters new information based

on what we know to be true or false to filter, rationalize or avoid the

information.

Deviation Error in processing information through the psychological process which

causes occupants to stray off the regular path of information processing

due to several factors.

Cognitive Relates to the mental process of perception, memory and judgement

through the psychological process.

xvii

Psychological Mind process of information by occupant at each stage of the response

stage.

Cues A factor that has an impact on human behaviour in fire. This may be

building characteristics, occupant characteristics or fire characteristics.

Keywords: Behaviour, legislation, ASET, RSET, response, pre-response, process, decision,

pre-evacuation, horizontal movement, vertical movement, final exit and speed per

meter/second.

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

2

1.0 Chapter 1: Introduction

Within today’s modern design standards, most buildings are equipped with appropriate

passive design and active measures. Nevertheless fires still occur even in the most

modern of buildings such as the Stricken Hotel fire in Dubai (BBC, 2015). This means

that it is reasonably anticipated that occupants will evacuate safely. A large number of

cases have shown that this is not the case such as the Stardust fire. Either occupant

behaviour and/or management of the premises differs from what is anticipated.

Reasons being that each occupant has their own perceived concept on how they should

exit a building. The expectation that occupants will leave the building as soon as the

alarm is initially sounded is false as stated by McClintock (2001, pg.9).

In reality, according to Breznitz (1984, pg.11), occupants will react to the alarm and

necessitate confirmation from other occupants before leaving the building which is

known as the response process. Within this process is the pre-response behaviour,

psychological process and the decision making. In line with Hofinger (2014, pg.608), this

is where most occupants deviate off the intended path due to occupant characteristics.

Following a response is the evacuation movement by occupants. The egress

successfulness from the building, in keeping with Proulx (2001, pg.4), is down to the

building characteristics and the individual occupant knowledge/experience in fire

evacuations. Theoretically occupants leaving should be pay attention to signage and exit

strategies mounted on walls. However in reality, according to Canter (1990, pg.6),

occupant’s non-adaptive behaviour causes occupants to deviate to a longer route. This

is maintained by Nilsson (2010, pg.341) that occupants tend to exit the way they

entered the building. This is known as a common path of travel exit strategy made by

unconscious decision making.

The final exit choice by occupants will determine they total distance occupants have to

travel. As stated by Professional Interviewee No.4 and No.5 the final exit may be

interpreted incorrectly as occupants feel they are ‘breaking a rule’ using the emergency

exit.

3

Occupant Behaviour in Fire

Legislation

Process 1: TGD's

Process 2: Fire Engineering

Solution

Response Behaviour

Stage 1:

Pre-response behaviour

Stage 2:

Response Process

Stage 3:

Decision Making

Evacuation Movement

Stage 1:

Pre-evacuation Movement

Stage 2:

Movement

Stage 3:

Final Exit

1.1 Purpose

A research paper by Cordeiro (2006) initiated interested into the topic area of occupant

behaviour in fires. However as Cordeiro’s paper was limited to the response aspect to

fire but Proulx (2001, pg.1-12) and Hofinger (2014, pg.604-609) increased interest in the

egress movement area.

1.2 Scope

The aim of this dissertation is to evaluate legislation, theoretical literature and practicing

professionals opinion relating to occupant response behaviour and movement

behaviour in fires. This will accumulate to a case study that practically evaluates theory

put into practice during a fire drill. The strategic approach to the dissertation is outlined

below in figure 1.

Figure 1 Strategic approach to dissertation (Author, 2016)

4

1.3 Aims

The primary aim of this dissertation is to compare and contrast the effectiveness of the

theoretical viewpoint when placed into a practical demonstration

1.4 Objectives

In achieving this aim this research will:

Outline the current legislation processes and how compliance is achieved.

Evaluate occupant response behaviour to a fire using a three stage process

including pre-response behaviour, response process and decision making.

Evaluate occupant evacuation movement behaviour in a fire using a three stage

process including pre-movement behaviour, movement and final exit.

A comparison of on the efficiency of two fire drills in Dundalk Institute of

Technology Campus. Additionally a theoretical perspective on aspects

throughout the drill.

An analysis and comparison of pre-drill and post-drill questionnaires from

participants of the fire drill. Also a theoretical perspective on answers given by

participants.

1.5 Research Methodology

1.5.1 Stage 1: Literature Review

Research will be carried out in the relevant fields of study using qualitative research

including review of literature in forms of articles, books, research reports to develop a

series of viewpoints.

1.5.2 Stage 2: Questionnaire

A quantitative approach to gathering information through one questionnaire to observe

what occupants intended behaviour pre-fire drill. Against this will be a second

questionnaire to evaluate participant’s actual behaviour post-fire drill with consent from

DKIT Ethics. Additionally questionnaires to industry professionals will be issued to get an

industry viewpoint on occupant behaviour as shown in Appendix B (Section 9.2).

5

1.5.3 Stage 3: Case Study

A full evacuation of DKIT North Block and the Regional Development Centre will be

done. Focus will be placed on a particular group of participants in both drills to study

how they dealt with the responses to active systems and movement out of the building.

This stage will be a practical review of the previous literature chapters.

1.5.4 Stage 4: Interviews

A supplement from the questionnaire and fire drill will be interviews with a small

number of the participants for reasons for their decisions during the drills as shown in

Appendix B (Section 9.3). This will examine the rationale behind their decisions made

during the fire drill.

1.5.5 Stage 5: Writing Up

Within this stage is writing up the content of the dissertation and should include all of

the stages outlined previously.

1.6 Dissertation Structure

The first chapter, Legislation, will evaluate the two processes of compliance with Fire

Safety Legislation. The first process is the use of Building Regulations using either

Technical Guidance Document or directed UK/Irish Standards. The second process is

Fire Safety Engineering Solutions which is only used on complex projects. Lastly an

overview of the client’s interest on each process and how this impacts on the buildings

occupants.

In conjunction with this is the next chapter which is occupant response behaviour

process. Within this process are three key steps which will be appraised individually

including; pre-response, response process and decision making. This advances to an

assessment of fire engineering software’s outlook on occupant responses in fire.

The next sequence of assessment is evacuation movement behaviour. Within this

chapter will be a synopsis of the three stage evacuation process including; pre-

evacuation movement behaviour, evacuation movement and final exit. Finally an

evaluation of fire engineering software’s approach to evacuation movement behaviour.

6

Finally the literature review will accumulate to the case study. The first half of the case

study will be an evaluation and comparison on the efficiency of two fire drills in Dundalk

Institute of Technology North Block and Regional Development Centre.

The second half of the case study is a questionnaire to a specific groups within each fire

drill. The first questionnaire will be pre-drill asking participants ‘What would you do in

the event of a fire?’ and the second questionnaire will be post-drill asking ‘What did you

do in the fire drill?’. This was completed with ethical consent from the Dundalk Institute

of Technology's Ethical Committee.

Therefore the live investigation using primary research is to seek quantitative data that

confirms occupants behaviour changes when pressurised into exiting a building during a

fire evacuation. This is known as ‘Intended behvaiour Vs Actual behaviour’.

The results gained will be analysed and recommendations will be given to improve

participant behaviour during evacuation drills at Dundalk Instiute of Technology and in

general terms. Additionally the outcome of this research will be used in a MSc in Fire

Engineering dissertation research which is planned to be completed after this

undergraduate degree.

Figure 2 Participants egressing in DKIT fire drills (Author, 2016)

Figure 3 Participants re-entering in DKIT fire drills (Author, 2016)

7

1.7 References

BBC, (2015). Dubai Hotel Fire. [Online]

Available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35213541

[Accessed 09 02 16].

Irish Examiner, (2015). Stardust tragedy. [Online]

Available at: http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/stardust-tragedy-its-

not-too-late-for-families-to-get-justice-306755.html


McClintock, (2001). A behavioural solution to the learned irrelevance of emergency exit

signage In M.I.T. (Ed.), Human Behaviour in Fire. Proceedings of the Second International

Symposium on Human Behaviour in Fire. Page No.9.

Breznitz, (1984). Cry wolf: The psychology of false alarms. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

Hillsdale. Page No. 11.

Hofinger, (2014). Human factors in evacuation simulation, planning, and guidance.

Remseck, Germany. Elsevier. Page No. 608 and 604-609.

Proulx, (2001). Occupant Behaviour and Evacuation, Munich: NRC. Page No. 4 and 1-12.

Canter, (1990) Fires and human behaviour (pp. 15-30). London: David Fulton. Page No. 6

Nilsson. (2010). Influencing Exit Choice in the Event of a Fire Evacuation. Lund: SE Ltd.

Page No. 341.

8

Chapter 2

Legislation

9

2.0 Chapter 2: Legislation

The aim of this chapter is to evaluate the current fire safety legislation and methods of

compliance processes in Ireland. Throughout this chapter there will be an assessment of

the legislation processes as well an overview of National fire safety legislation history.

2.1 Fire Legislation History

National fire safety legislation was initially introduced in 1981 with the Fire Services Act

(1981) after the tragic Stardust disaster in February 1981. This reactive law

implemented powers of inspection and issuing of notices to performing premises. From

the Fire Services Act (1981) there was several fire safety legislation documents published

as shown in table 1 and figures 4 and 5 below.

Legislation Initial Introduction Amendments

Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 1989 2007 and 2015

Building Control Act 1990 2007 and 2015

Fire Services Act 1982 2015

Table 1 National fire safety legislation (Author, 2016)

Figure 4 Building Control Act (2015) Figure 5 Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (2005)

10

Building Control Act 2015

Building Regulations

Technical Guidance Documents

Fire Engineering Solution

2.2 Legislation Process

Primary fire safety legislation foundation is the Building Control Act (2014, pg. 5). This

outlines all secondary legislation for the purpose of Building Control. At present there

are two processes of compliance with the Building Control Act (2014, pg.10) shown in

figure 6.

Figure 6 Breakdown of Legislation Process (Author, 2016)

The first process is the application of Building Regulations (Secondary Legislation) which

states the standard required for each aspect of a building through Technical Guidance

Documents (TGD) i.e. fire, structure, disability, etc. The second process is fire safety

engineering solutions. This unusual method is only used on complex projects when the

standard requirement cannot be satisfied using process 1.

2.3 Process 1A – Building Regulations: TGD’s

The current method of compliance using Building Regulations is through TGD Part B –

Fire Safety (2006), particularly Part B1 – Means of Escape as shown in figure 7. The

primary purpose of TGD Part B (2006, pg5) is to provide easy-to-read information to

professionals in relation to fire safety.

11





Figure 7 Process of Compliance with TGD Part B (Author, 2016)

The requirement of Part B1 – Means of Escape to comply with Building Regulations is

(2006, pg.5):

“A building shall be so designed and constructed that there are

adequate means of escape in case of fire from the building to a place of

safety outside the building, capable of being safely and effectively used.”

The assembly of TGD Part B1 – Means of Escape has been tailored to suit each type of

building occupancy, known as ‘Purpose Groups’ (TGD 2006, pg.10) This recognises the

variation of risks dependent upon the building and occupant characteristics. Table 2

below gives an example of a third level institution purpose group (TGD 2006, pg.10).

Classification of Purpose Groups

Use Group Purpose

Assembly

and

recreation

5 Places of assembly or recreation including the following

(i) A theatre, public library, hall or other building of public

resort used for social and recreational purposes.

(ii) A non-residential school or other educational

establishment

Table 2 Third level institution purpose group from TGD Part B1 (2006, pg.15)

12

From the purpose groups is the maximum safe distance that an occupant within room

can exit, known as travel distances (TGD 2006, pg.25). These travel distances were

calculated using fire safety engineering solutions in BS: 7974 (2004, pg.12). The aim was

to calculate a plausible required safe egress time (RSET) (Tavares, pg.3), as shown in

table 3 below.

Equation:

Required Safe Egress Time (RSET) = T de x T alarm x T pre x T move

T de: Fire detection time from ignition to detection.

T pre: Occupant pre-evacuation time defined as time interval between the

warning of fire and the move towards an exit.

T move: Occupant movement time required for occupants to reach a safe

place.

T alarm: Fire alarm time from detection to warning occupants to evacuate.

Table 3 Calculation for travel distances from BS: 7974 (2004, pg.4)

The total occupant speed per meter/second for each particular purpose group is the

maximum travel distance for that occupancy. For example a college occupant speed per

meter/second is 0.68 compared to 1.65 speed per meter/second for a nursing home

occupant according to Zinke (2014, pg.16). The example below in table 4 shows the

travel distances for a third level institution.

Purpose Group Use of Premises Maximum Travel Distance

One Direction Two direction

5 Assembly and Recreation 18m 45m

Table 4 Travel distance for a third level institution from TGD Part B1 (2006, pg.25)

This simplistic and straight forward approach to building design equips professionals

with guidance tables within Part B1 that ensures a structured, efficient and effective

approach to fire safety design in buildings.

13

Irish Standards or British Standards

Purpose Group 5

BB7 (Updated to BB100 Design for Schools)

BS: 5588 Part 6 Code of practice for places

of assembly

(Updated to BS: 9999)



(See Figure 9 Below)

Irish Standards or British Standards

(See Figure 9 Below)


2.4 Process 1B – Building Regulations: UK & Irish Standards

The alternative process of compliance using the Building Regulations through TGD’s

process is shown below in figure 8. A professional who uses Process 1A – TGD’s may be

directed to a British or Irish standard which gives prima facia compliance to the Building

Regulations (TGD 2006, pg.2).

Figure 8 Process of compliance using British or Irish Standards (Author, 2016)

However the issue with British and Irish Standards is that they have not been updated in

Technical Guidance Document Part B (2006) and do not specify what standard to use as

shown in figure 9 below of a third level institution example.

Figure 9 British Standards for Third Level Institutions from TGD Part B1 (2006, pg.25)

?

?

14

Therefore which standard is most appropriate to a third level institution? According to

professional questionnaires, the majority are currently directing to the British Standard

even though BB100 is more unique for third level institutions for a risk based approach

(TGD 2006, pg.21) as shown below in figures 10 and 11.

Figure 10 BB: 100 (2007) Figure 11 TGD Part B1 abstract (2006, pg.21)

Additionally BS: 5588 (2004) has been updated BS: 9999 (2008) in the UK as shown

below in figures 12 and 13. This means professionals in Ireland are practicing with BS:

5588 (2004) which highlights the immediate requirement for an update to National fire

safety legislation in the future similar to the UK.

Figure 12 BS: 9999 (2008, pg.1) Figure 13 TGD Part B (2006, pg.1)

(iii) Guidance on the provision of means of escape in schools is provided in the following:

Department of Education and Science (UK) Building Bulletin 7, Fire and the design of educational buildings; and

Sub-section 4 of this document

Recommendations in relation to means of escape are contained within paragraphs 34 to 91 of BB7

15

1. Building Regulations

2. British Standards Reference in TGD:

Part B1 (2006)

3. BS: 7974 (2004) 4. Demonstrate

compliance using calculations, etc.

5. Basic principals tailored to the

building

Figure 15 Typical scenarios used in evacuation simulation (GCG, 2013)

In relation to British standards in the context of occupant behaviour in fire, the primary

document is BS: 7974: Part 6: Human factors (2004). BS: 7974 (2004, pg.1) provides

guidance to professionals on the basic principal methods for evacuation strategies.

BS: 7974 (2004, pg.2) is used when the generic criteria in directed British or Irish

Standards cannot be satisfied. This means professionals use basic principles so that the

complex buildings can be tailored to BS: 7974 (2004) as shown in figure 14 below.

Figure 14 Process of Compliance using BS: 7974 (2004, pg. 4)

The basic principles for British standards within BS: 7974 (2004, pg.5-7) is known as

performance based calculations: Available Safe

Egress Time (ASET) and Required Available Safe

Egress Time (RSET). The intention of the

calculation requires RSET to be less than ASET so

occupants can evacuate safely. Each scenario has

a margin of safety and accountability for the

uncertainties that may occur as shown in figure 15.

16

Figure 17 ASET and RSET theory (Ruggiero Lovereglio, 2013)

The ideal scenario is to exit the building without coming into contact with the fire, heat

or smoke but this is usually not the case. Therefore each scenario must account for the

exit strategy, occupant characteristics, fire simulation dynamics and intervention effects.

The total ASET and RSET depends on the time from ignition to detection and from

detection to the alerting occupants. Evacuation time has two major phases; pre-

movement time and travel time as shown below in figure 16.

Figure 16 ASET and RSET breakdown (Mitchell and Charters (2010, pg.3)

The ASET and RSET concept is challenged by Professional Interviewee No.4, a Chartered

Building Surveyor, who states that occupant

behaviour in fire is a new tool in the design of

building as theories and models are still being

developed on occupant behaviour in order to

predicate and reduce the assumptions and

estimates which can either be too conservative

or too optimistic as shown in figure 17.

17

Occupant Characteristics

Gender, profile or

knowledge

Condition or personality

Awareness or speed of

movement

Building Characteristics

Occupancy type or

architecture

Complexity or activities

Fire safety features

Fire Characteristics

Visual cues or olfactory

cues Audible cues Heat cues

Agreeably, Fleming (2010, pg.341), states that ASET and RSET concept is inconsistent

and ignores the wide variations in occupant capabilities and physical condition. Like-

minded Mitchell and Charters (2010, pg.4-6) and Proulx (2001, pg.11) claims that there

is too many unknowns and uncertainties within the calculation for it to be a successful in

every scenario as shown below in figure 18.

Figure 18 Unknowns and uncertainties (Proulx, 2001, pg.4)

When ASET and RSET are compared to TGD Part B1 guidance there are similarities and

differences such as direct or indirect travel distances. However ASET and RSET assume

that a delay in the total evacuation time at the start will account for all pre-evacuation

movement time. This mobilizes occupants before continuing to the exit in a robotic

manner which is impracticable.

This is agreed with by Fleming (2010, pg.352) who states that this robotic manner

constraint is often under-estimated or over optimistic which is due to poor design

decisions as shown in figure 19. It often

takes occupants much longer than the

calculated RSET. Therefore if process option

1B Building Regulations – UK and Irish

Standards does not satisfy the required

standard then a fire safety engineering

solution is the final option.

Figure 19 Occupant robotic movement (NIST, 2014)

18





2.5 Process 2 – Building Regulations: Fire Engineering

Solutions

In unusual situations that cannot conform to Building Regulations using TGD Part B1

(2006) or British and Irish Standards, then a fire safety engineering solution is required

as shown in figure 20.

Figure 20 Fire engineering solution compliance process (Author, 2016)

Fire safety engineering solutions use calculations, theories and simulation software. In

terms of occupant behaviour, a simulation software can visually quantify the ‘worst case

scenario’ possible in a building evacuation according to Professional Interviewee No.2.

Simulation software evaluates every possible scenario however is only suitable for larger

complex projects as shown in figures 21 and 22 below.

Figure 21 Simulation software (TH, 2015) Figure 22 Simulation software (SIEMENS, 2014)

19

Figure 23 Lab situation in college (Nollandam, 2011)

2.6 Client Interest

In terms of the client, what process is within their interest? Industry research shows

that the majority of practicing professionals only use Building Regulations through

TGD’s. This is facilitated by Professional

Interviewee No.5 specifying ‘if it complies, then

there is no issue’. However professionals must

recognise the limit of TGD’s that may need a fire

engineer’s opinion i.e. lab areas in third level an

institution as shown in figure 23.

Yet before undertaking a fire engineering solution, compensating measures can be

examined in the interest of the client. For example such as if a room does not meet the

maximum travel distances, an upgrade to the sprinkler or alarm system can be a

compensating measure.

2.7 Conclusion

The two primary processes of compliance outlined are easy to follow for professionals.

Process 1A and 1B using Building Regulations with TGD Part B1 or British and Irish

Standards. It is suited to all building tenancies and is a simple risk based approach to

complying with legislation. Reverse of this is Process 2 using a fire engineering solution

that provides complex calculation and simulation for complex projects.

Overall the outcome of this chapter has highlighted how legislation is heavily influenced

by occupant behaviour in fire. The design process is the foundation of creating an

enabling environment life-cycle. It is within this life-cycle that a fire may occur that

requires occupants to have behaviour responses and evacuation movement. Therefore

it is important that the beginning of this life-cycle, that legislation is fully conformed to

in the interest of occupant lives.

20

2.8 References

Zinke, (2014). Psychological aspects of human dynamics in underground evacuation:

Field experiments. Weidmann, Schreckenberg. Page No: 16.

Fleming, (2010). ASET and RSET, a flawed concept for fire risk Assessment. Boston: Wiley

Online Livery. Page No: 341 and 352

Mitchell and Charters, (2010). Evaluating Modelling and Human Behaviour in Fire,

Watford: BRE516. Page No: 4 to 6

Ireland, (2006). Technical Guidance Document B – Fire Safety, Stationery Office, Dublin.

Page No: 5, 10, 25, 2, 21 and 24

England, (1997). BS: 5588 Fire precautions in the design, construction and use of

buildings. London. ICS. Page No: 15, 16 and 55.

England, (2008). BS: 9999, Code of Practice for the fire safety in design, management

and use of buildings. London. ICS. Page No: 24-29.

England, (2004). BS7974, Part 6: Human factors: Life safety strategies — Occupant

evacuation, behaviour and condition (Sub-system 6). London. ICS. Page No: 12, 1, 2, and

5 to 7

Tavares, (2010). Design for horizontal escape in buildings: The use of the relative

distance between exits as an alternative approach to the maximum travel distance.

London: Elsevier. Page No: 3

Oidhreachta, (2007). Building Control Act. [Online]

Available at: http://moodle.dkit.ie/201516/

[Accessed 01 10 2015].

Page No: 5 and 10

SA, (2007). Guide to Safety, Health and Welfare at Work, Dublin: HSA. Page No: 31-40

Proulx, (2001). Occupant Behaviour and Evacuation, Munich: NRC. Page No: 11

21

2.9 Image references

GCG, (2013). What is a High Occupancy Building?. [Online]

Available at: https://www.gcg.net.au/index.php/gcg-blog/66-what-is-a-high-occupancy-

building

[Accessed 25 01 16]

Ruggiero Lovreglio, (2013). FDS and Evac tools. [Online]

Available at: http://lovreglio.altervista.org/

[Accessed 25 01 16]

TH Inc, (2015). Thunderhead Engineering Consultants, Inc.. [Online]

Available at: http://www.thunderheadeng.com/


NIST, (2014). Occupant fire safety. [Online]

Available at:

http://www.nist.gov/el/fire_research/firesafety/project_occupantsafety.cfm


Siemens, (2015). Siemens software simulates the evacuation of people. [Online]

Available at:

http://www.siemens.com/press/en/pressrelease/?press=/en/pressrelease/2012/infrastr

ucture-cities/building-technologies/icbt201207033.htm&content[]=ICBT&content[]=BT


Nollandam, (2011). Nollandam. [Online]

Available at:

http://www.nollandtam.com/portfolio/science_healthcare_higher_ed/ca%C3%B1ada_c

ollege_science_facilities_modernization



Watford: BRE516.

22


England, (1997). BS 5588 Fire precautions in the design, construction and use of

buildings. London. ICS.

England, (2008). BS9999, Code of Practice for the fire safety in design, management and

use of buildings. London. ICS.


evacuation, behaviour and condition (Sub-system 6). London. ICS.



[Accessed 01 10 2015].

SA, (2007). Guide to Safety, Health and Welfare at Work, Dublin: HSA.

Proulx, (2001). Occupant Behaviour and Evacuation, Munich: NRC.

23

Chapter 3

Response Behaviour

24

Response Behaviour

Stage 1:


Stage 2:

Response Process

Stage 3:

Decision Making

3.0 Chapter 3: Response Behaviour

3.1 Introduction

The aim of this chapter is to evaluate occupant response behaviour. Within this chapter

is a three stage process which includes; Pre-response behaviour, Response process and

Decision making. Each stage is critical to occupants because every individual has broad

cognitive affordances on how a fire or smoke is observed.

This will then lead onto an analysis of fire simulation constraints of occupant responses

in fire. The approach to this chapter is the occupant process before beginning to leave

the building. It is within this process that dictates the evacuation movement by

occupants.

3.2 Response Behaviour Process

The process that occupants go through to reach a response as to how they will safely

exit the building as shown in figure 24 below. For the purpose of this chapter, this

process will be used to evaluate the stages of response behaviour along with other

factors.

Figure 24 Overview of occupant response behaviour process (Author, 2016)

25

Response Behaviour

Stage 1:


Stage 2:

Response Process

Stage 3:

Decision Making

Visual Cues Flames or fire Smoke Deflection off

a wall

Cented Cues Smell of burning

Smell of acid Smell of smoke

Audible Cues Cracking Broken glass Objects falling

3.3 Pre-Response Behaviour

The first stage is pre-response behaviour as shown in figure 25 below. Before

knowledge of the fire, Williams (2005, pg.1) states pre-ignition actions such as

inattentiveness, ignorance or carelessness can unsettle response behaviour in later

stages of the process.

Figure 25 Response Behaviour Process Stage 1: Pre-response (Author, 2016)

Williams (2005, pg.2) furthers this by stating it is four of the five senses; sight, hearing,

smell and touch, that make people aware of the situation particularly sight. This is

furthered by Hartson (2003, pg.14) stating occupants sensory affordances supports the

users in sensing danger. Like-minded Proulx (2001, pg.4) maintains occupants

situational awareness becomes apparent from fire characteristics as shown below.

Figure 26 Fire characteristics (Proulx, 2001, pg.4)

26

Response Behaviour

Stage 1:


Stage 2:

Response Process

Stage 3:

Decision Making

Response Behaviour

Stage 1:


Stage 2:

Response Process

Stage 2A: Input

Panic, Fire & Heat

Stage 2B: Process

Psychological and Decision making

Stage 2C: Output

Response

Stage 3:

Decision Making

3.4 Response Process

The next stage is the response process as shown in figure 27 below. According to

Hofinger (2014, pg.608) this stage is where occupant’s responses predominantly deviate

from each other.

Figure 27 Response Behaviour Process Stage 2: Response Process (Author, 2016)

The response process during a fire has three key elements: an input, a process and an

output as shown in figure 28 below. Each process is then subdivided into aspects and

elements that contribute to the final response. Stage 2A depends on the severity of the

fire and fire characteristics previously stated by Proulx (2001, p4).

Figure 28 Response Behaviour Process Stage 2A: Input (Author, 2016)

27

Response Behaviour

Stage 1:


Stage 2:

Response Process

Stage 2A: Input

Panic, Fire & Heat

Stage 2B: Process


Stage 2C: Output

Response

Stage 3:

Decision Making

Stage 1: Cognitive

Dissonance

The person, the external stimulus and the surrounding environment

Stage 2: Risk

Perception Perceiving and evaluating the risks or knowledge of risks

Stage 3: Cognitive Process

Accumulation of factors including knowledge of the fire

Stage 4: Deviation

Pressure and confusion causes occupants to panic on various levels

Stage 5: Decision Making

Summary of previous factors plus individual knowledge and experience in decision making

Stage 2B is the most important stage of the response process because it depends on the

occupant’s intelligence and capability to understand and process the information they

are provided with i.e. smoke, signage, etc. as shown in figure 29 below.

Figure 29 Response Behaviour Process Stage 2B: Response process (Author, 2016)

The fire inputs stated by Williams (2005, pg.1-2) triggers occupants to respond to these

cues. Once situational awareness is apparent a psychological process begins.

Throughout the process there are five key stages as shown in figure 30.

Figure 30 Response Behaviour Process Stage 2B: Psychological (Williams, 2005, pg.2)

28

Response Behaviour

Stage 1:


Stage 2:

Response Process

Stage 2A: Input

Panic, Fire & Heat

Stage 2B: Process


Stage 2C: Output

Response

Stage 3:

Decision Making

Figure 31 Occupant past experiences (Fire Sec, 2011)

Each of stage of the psychological process according to Wang (2013, pg.294) are

occupant’s awareness, external stimulus and

surrounding environment which can defer

occupants mind-set. Moreover Kecklund (2005,

pg.3) states that occupants cognitive dissonance will

depend on their life experiences as far back as their

childhood and how they perceive a situation as

shown in figure 31. This leads onto a risk analysis.

This risk analysis according to Wang (2013, pg.293) considers occupants ability to

analyse and evaluate their current situation from the fire cues previously stated by

Proulx (2001, pg.4). If occupants cannot process the received information, they may

deviate off a safe egress path due to inoperative decision making which can be life

threatening. Possible deviation could be the situation pressure or inconsiderable past

experience causing panic.

The final stage of the response process is an output as shown in figure 32 below.

According to Kecklund (2005, pg.4) this is fixated by two key factors: the emotional state

of the person to the acknowledged risk and the time pressure.

Figure 32 Response Behaviour Process Stage 2C: Response Output (Author, 2016)

29

Profile / Role Gender / Age Ability/Limits Vistor,

Student, Teacher

Knowledge Familiar with the building

Fire / Energency

training

Past experiences

Condition of time

Alone Vs with others

Drunk Vs Sobar

Active Vs Passive

Response Behaviour

Stage 1:


Stage 2:

Response Process

Stage 3:

Decision Making

It is within occupant nature to choose the option that maximizes their safety. This is

down to occupant characteristics as shown in figure 33 below. According to Kecklund

(2005, pg.3) and Professional Interviewee No.7 the balance between these two factors is

dependent upon initial knowledge, as many occupants will investigate the fire clarify the

threat of the fire.

Figure 33 Occupant characteristics (Kecklund, 2005, pg.3)

3.5 Decision Making

The final stage is the decision making stage as shown in figure 34 below. From learning

about the fire and processing the information ventures an occupant response decision.

Figure 34 Response Behaviour Process Stage 3: Decision Making (Author, 2016)

30

This response decision can be positive and constructive, according to Williams (2005,

pg.20) by trying to extinguish the fire and form an orderly evacuation or negative and

unhelpful by failing to respond to alarms and unwillingness to help others.

This negative behaviour response attitude towards a fire is agreed with by Cocking,

(2008, pg.3-6) by stating that it is ‘mob-like’ emotion, that if one person reacts

irrationally or panics the crowd will follow.

In the case of small groups, Breznitz (1984, pg.15) states the response decision is more

controlled and calm. This is because the information that recieve can be improved by

providing support and reassurance to each member of the group which in turn

decreases the level of panic. Like-minded Hofinger (2014, pg.608) supports Breznitz

(1984, pg.16) declaring 70% of occupants panic in a fire situation and of that 10-15%

become helpless and erratic with their decision making.

This leads onto leadership decision making by an individual for a group of occupants as

shown in figure 35. The election of this individual is back to occupant characteristics

previously stated by Proulx (2001, pg.4). This is common in situations such as schools

where the student/pupil is reliant upon the teacher to reassure their safety.

According to Williams (1985, pg.3) the decision making process comes down curiosity,

escaping, containing the fire or informing and assisting others. Depending on the

severity of the fire, such as a computer monitor on fire can be easily extinguished unlike

an entire classroom on fire forcing an escape.

Figure 35 Response leadership (Peterson, 2013)

31

Individual Level General

occupant aspects

Individual knowledge

Individual experience

Group Level Groups and

their interrations

Talking and leadership

Motivation

Organisation Level

Building responses i.e. audio

Procedure and rules

Exit strategy

ActiveLevel Sprinklers Vs

Alarms Tasks and

tools Modern

technologies

Environmental Level

Physical environment

Social environment

General constraints

Figure 36 Student presentation (Campus Explorer, 2015)

Surprisingly the decision making by occupants is delayed because of the lack of

confidence in fire alarm systems because of ‘nuisance’ alarms. For example student

presentation in a third level institution; they may wish to wait until the presentation is

finished before leaving. This will decrease their ASET due to their commitment to

finishing as shown in figure 36.

The levels of interrelations regarding response levels have several factors which

influence all response stages. Each level is divided by Hofinger (2014, pg.609) as shown

in figure 37 below. The most complex and most deviated response level is an individual

basis due to the diversity of individual occupant characteristics i.e. information

processing, stress and emotions.

Figure 37 Occupant response levels (Hofinger, 2014, pg.609)

32

Figure 38 Realistic practice fire drill (Fire drill becomes real, 2010)

3.6 Detection

Smoke/heat detection systems are the first indication to alert occupants of their current

situation. This communication prepares occupants for situational awareness according

to Brown (2011).

A study conducted by Proulx (2000, pg.1) showed that 75% of occupants ignored the fire

alarm interpreting it as a practice drill and refusing to leave the building. Broadened KTP

(2012) states this is because of poor fire alarm frequency or lost confidence the system.

KTP’s (2012) states this is a common response by the majority of occupants which

decreases occupants ASET. The calculation of Required Safe Available Time (RSET) as

explained in the previous chapter by Tavares (2010, pg.5) does not consider the data

presented by Proulx (2001) in T de, T alarm and T pre which reduces confidence in the

theory. Therefore what distinguishes a practice alarm from an actual alarm?

According to Professional Interviewee No. 7, to create this

distinguishment goes back to early studies. Likewise

Professional Interviewee No. 6 states that people must

consider the diversity of their situation instead of

interpreting a fire alarm as a ‘annual fire drill’. Furthermore

Professional Interviewee No. 2, declares that non-

emergency situations should have proper signage,

information and fire marshals to make it as realistic as

possible as shown in figure 38.

An example would be a Building Surveying student should be able to interpret a

maintenance alarm from a actual alarm compared to a nursing student in a third level

institution. Consequently does it seem logical that occupant fire training in required for

third level institutions?

33

Figure 39 Staff training (Fire Solves, 2014)

According to Meacham (1999), training and information

integrated into the general management of college

buildings is essential. Professional Interviewee No. 2, No.

3, No. 4 and No. 6 agree with Meacham (1999)

maintaining that staff and occupant training is important

from the outset as shown in figure 39.

This opinion by Professional Interviewees comes back to the decision making as stated

previously by Williams (2005, pg.1-3) and response levels stated previously by Hofinger

(2014, pg. 609); that if occupants are aware of their duties and measures, a much calmer

and efficient evacuation will transpire. This then leads onto modern methods of

determining occupant’s duties using fire engineering software.

3.7 Fire Engineering Techniques

The modernization of designing buildings has evolved rapidly from the 1990’s and is still

growing i.e. BIM. According to Mitchell and Charters (2010, pg.3), fire engineering

software when planning for response behaviour is not a full proof method due to

unknowns and uncertainties in a fire. This has a domino effect on the evacuation and

exit choice.

However Boosman (2015) disagrees stating that it is a practical method for real-life

situations which provides hybrid training for occupants and fire fighters.

Though Mitchell and Charters (2010, pg.6) respond stating that the response behaviour

or T de, T alarm and T pre aspect of the evacuation is unaccountable. The theory expects

occupants to mobilize for a period of time before letting them continue to the exit in a

robotic manner. In reality occupants will investigate the fire or conduct other actions as

stated previously by Williams (1985, pg.3) instead of a robotic manner movement.

34

3.8 Conclusion

Response behaviour is a process of three stages including pre-response behaviour,

response process and decision making. Pre-response behaviour has outlined the actions

and emotions of occupants before knowledge of the fire. From this is the response

process which is broken down into three stages which is an input including fire and

smoke; the process including psychological and decision making process; and an output

including response behaviour. This final stage is decision making by occupants. At this

point, occupants decide whether they should leave the building or stay and continue

with their activities. It is critical that occupants leave even if it is only a practice drill.

Within each stage are the fire and occupant characteristics that determine the fluency of

the process.

This stage of the overall egress from a building determines the occupant behaviour

response that has an effect on the movement out of the building. Therefore it is

important that this stage is successful so that occupant’s movement is more efficient

and effective.

35

3.9 References

Williams, (2005). The Behaviour of People in Fires, Herts: Building Research Department,

Information Paper BRE85. Page No. 1, 2, 3 and 20

Proulx, (2001). Occupant Behaviour and Evacuation, Munich: NRC. Page No. 1 and 4.


Remseck, Germany. Elsevier. Page No. 608 and 609.

Wang, (2013). Pre-Evacuation Movement in Fires: An Attribution Analysis Considering

Phychlogical Process, New York: Elsevier. Page No. 293 and 294.

Kecklund, (2005). Human Behaviour in Crisis Situations, Canada: TGT. Page No. 3 and 4

Cocking, (2008). The Psychology of Crowd Behaviour in emergency evacuations,

Glassgow: s.n. Page No. 3-6.


Hillsdale. Page No. 15 and 16.

Brown, (2011). Fire Drills: Communications Strategy in a Crisis. [Online]

Available at: http://alistapart.com/article/fire-drills-communications-strategy-in-a-crisis


Proulx, (2000). Why Building Occupants Ignore Fire Alarms. Construction Technlogy

Update, 42(3). Page No. 1



London: Elsevier. Page No. 5

36


Watford: BRE516. Page No. 2-5

Boosman, (2015). Why simulation is key for maintaining fire incident preparedness. FPE.

Page No. 11.

Meacham, (1999). Integrating human behaviour and response issues into fire safety

management of facilities. Massachusetts, USA. SPE. Page No. 5

KTP, (2012). What good is a fire alarm if you can’t hear it?. [Online]

Available at: http://www.chair-mate.co.uk/documents/hhms-sales-brochure.pdf


Hartson, (2003). Cognitive, Physical, Sensory and Functional Affordances in Interaction

design. Behavior and Information Technology. 22 (5). Page No. 14

3.10 Image References

Fire Sec, (2011). Confined space training for London’s Crossrail link. [Online]

Available at: http://www.fire-sec.co.uk/news/




Information Paper BRE85

Kecklund, (2005). Human Behaviour in Crisis Situations, Canada: TGT

Peterson, (2013). North West Balkans. [Online]

Available at: https://nwb.savethechildren.net/news/500-konjic-pupils-evacuated-

record-six-minutes-fire-exercise


37

Campus Explorer, (2015). The Explorer. [Online]

Available at: http://blog.campusexplorer.com/2011/11/08/top-5-classes-that-prepare-a-

business-major/studentpresentation/


MPD, (2012). City of Madera. [Online]

Available at: http://www.cityofmadera.org/web/guest/alarm-ordinance


Fire drill becomes real, (2010). Toledo Blade. [Online]

Available at: http://www.toledoblade.com/frontpage/2005/05/02/Fire-drill-becomes-

real.html


Fire Solves, (2014). Staff fire training. [Online]

Available at: http://www.firesolve.co.uk/training/


38

Chapter 4

Evacuation Movement Behaviour

39

Evacuation Movement

Stage 1:


Stage 2:

Movement

Stage 3:

Final Exit

4.0 Chapter 4: Evacuation Movement Behaviour

4.1 Introduction

The aim of this chapter is to evaluate the occupant evacuation movement behaviour

process. Within this process is the physical aspect of occupant behaviour in fires. Each

stage of the evacuation movement is going to be evaluated as well as the relationship

between response and movement behaviour.

4.2 Evacuation Movement Process

According to Monica (2006, pg.341) the stress from the response process continues

throughout the evacuation movement stage until occupants reach a place of safety.

Likewise Proulx (2002, pg.3) states that throughout the egress occupants will gather

additional information from the ambiguous data initially received which may increase or

decrease the level of panic.

The process of occupant movement to reach a place of safety is shown in figure 40

below. For the purpose of this chapter, this process will be used to evaluate the stages

of evacuation movement along with other factors.

Figure 40 Overview of evacuation movement process (Author, 2016)

40

Evacuation Movement

Stage 1:


Stage 2:

Movement

Stage 3:

Final Exit

Figure 42 Reassurance of alarm (Phill Wesson, 2005)

4.3 Stage 1: Pre-evacuation Movement

The first stage is pre-evacuation movement as shown in figure 41 below. The

successfulness of the evacuation is dependent upon the type of response occupants

encountered known as pre-movement time.

Figure 41 Evacuation Movement Process Stage 1: Pre-evacuation (Author, 2016)

The myth that all occupants within a building leave as soon

as the alarm goes off is false and can be seen in many

disasters in history, as stated by McClintock (2001, pg.14).

Breznitz (1984, pg.20) and Professional Interviewee No. 7

agrees, declaring occupant movement before complying

with the alarm can be reassurance of the alarm and look to

see what other occupants doing as shown in figure 42.

Purser (2009, pg.7) furthers Breznitz (1984, pg.20) opinion stating pre-movement

distributions consists of two phases; time from the alarm to the time to movement of

the first few occupants followed by the remaining occupants after a period of time.

The occupant characteristics outlined by BS: 9999 (2008, pg.26) but evaluated by Purser

(2009, pg.17) show that occupants that are awake and familiar have less reliance on

staff or fire management. Contravene to this is occupants that are awake but unfamiliar

require staff assitance but with poor fire or building management increases pre-

evauation times.

41

"Wait and See"

Social motivation from others or instruction on what to do or

reliance on group.

"Information Seeking"

Occupant requires additional

information to lower uncertaintiy i.e. fire emergency

exit plan

"Get out of here"

Leave immedidetly after alarm

sounded with good response behaviour to avoid danger.

Figure 44 Sleeping occupants (Occupants Sleeping, 2015)

Zinke (2014, pg.7) summarizes Purser (2009, pg.11) and Breznitz (1984, pg.23) view-

points into three movement types as shown in figure 43 below.

Figure 43 Evacuation movement types (Zinke, 2014, pg.7)

This pre-movement time is the most complex aspect of the total egress from the

building because of it is improbability. According to

Mitchell and Charters (2010, pg.2) this pre-

evacuation time takes up to 66% of the ASET. This

if furthered by Purser (2009, pg.17) stating that

occupants asleep and unfamiliar do not begin to

move for up to 4 minutes as shown in figure 44.

For example, pre-evacuation movement in a third level institution could vary on several

factors such as waiting on a teacher, under stress, can’t hear alarm or alarms not audible

as shown in figure 45 and 46. This delayed movement lessens occupants/students ASET

(Proulx, 2002, pg.3).

Figure 45 Pre-evacuation movement (Samuel Fricchione, 2014)

Figure 46 Pre-evacuation movement (Samuel Fricchione, 2014)

42

Stage 2A:

Horizontal Movement

Movement out of a room

Movement along a corridor

Movement towards final

exit

Stage 2B:

Vertical Movement

Protected Vs unprotected

areas

Movement through staircase

Disable occupant

consideration

Evacuation Movement

Stage 1:


Stage 2:

Movement

Stage 3:

Final Exit

4.4 Stage 2: Movement

The second stage is the occupant movement as shown in figure 47 below. The RSET for

this stage will depend on the amount of pre-evacuation time consumed from the ASET.

Figure 47 Evacuation Movement Stage 2: Movement behaviour, (Author, 2016)

This phase integrates with response behaviour at different stages of the movement

phase i.e. occupants coming across smoke in escape route. At each point there are

different levels of risks. This stage has two segments – horizontal movement and

vertical movement as shown in figure 48.

Figure 48 Stages of Movement (Author, 2016)

43

Evacuation Movement

Stage 1:


Stage 2:

Movement

Stage 2A:

Horizontal Movement

Stage 2B:

Vertical Movement Stage 3:

Final Exit

4.4.1 Horizontal Movement

The majority of the total egress is horizontal movement as shown in figure 49.

Throughout this movement stage there are several occupant decisions that will

determine their safe/unsafe egress.

Figure 49 Evacuation Movement Stage 2A: Horizontal Movement (Author, 2016)

4.4.1.1 Horizontal Speed of Movement

According to Hofinger (2014, pg.606) the speed of movement from occupants during an

evacuation is characterised by the human body physical limits i.e. shoulder width,

height, etc. This speed of movement is categorizes the into age brackets by Zinke (2014,

pg.18) as shown in table 5 below. These figures vary in different occupancies i.e.

purpose groups.

Occupancy Type Horizontal Movement speed per meter/second

18-29 year olds 1.2 – 1.6

30 – 50 year olds 1.2 – 1.5

> 50 year olds 0.9 – 1.3

Table 5 Horizontal movement speed per meter/second (Zinke, 2014, pg.18)

44

Profile / Role Gender/age Ability/limits Vistor,

Student, Teacher

Knowledge Familiar with the building

Fire or emergency

training

Past experiences

Condition of time

Alone Vs with others

Drunk Vs Sobar

Active Vs Passive

This is supported by Proulx (2001, pg.4), Zinke, (2014, pg.24) and Hofinger (2014,

pg.609) outlining that occupant characteristics influence the speed of movement as

shown below in figure 50. However Proulx (2001, pg.3) and Professional Interviewee

No.4 state that speed of movement is often over-optimistic or too conservative.

Figure 50 Occupant characteristics (Proulx, 2001, pg.4)

4.4.1.2 Choice of Exit Route

This stage of the movement phase occurs when occupants have left a room or are at the

bottom of a staircase. This choice/response is determined on an individual, group,

organisation, active or environmental level as stated previously by Hofinger (2014,

pg.609) which is influenced by motivation and/or the information provided.

According to Nilsson, (2010, pg.342) this motivation on an individual level is often

influenced by the way occupants entered the building. This if furthered by Sime (1985,

pg.100) and Interviewee No.7 stating that occupants use a ‘common path of travel’

which is an unconscious decision according to Rasmussen (1983, pg.27).

Canter (1990, pg.6) agrees stating that occupant’s non-adaptive behaviour due to their

familiarity of their surroundings causes them to deviate from the safest exit to a longer

possibly more dangerous route.

45

Building type Residential or

office College or

cinema

Factory, shopping centre or

hotel

Architecture No. of floors

and floor area

Location of exits and

stairs

Complexity, shape and circulation

Activities Working or

sleeping Eating or studying

Shopping or studying

Fire safety features

Auidability, No. of alarms

per year

Evacuation plan and staff

training

Voice system and refuage

areas

Figure 51 Deviation through smoke (Escape Consult, 2006)

A common dangerous deviation, as stated by Canter (1990, pg.15) is movement through

smoke. As smoke is a lethal facet of fire that causes

breathing difficultly and slows down the occupant’s

speed of movement significantly, occupants still

proceed. According to Proulx (2001, pg.5-6) the

reason occupants proceed through smoke knowing it

may kill them is for curiosity, to help others, fight the

fire or it is their only familiar route as shown in figure 51.

A questionnaire carried out on a third level institution by Hofinger (2014, pg.606)

showed on both a individual and social response level that students were willing to

travel through a smoke filled area to escape.

4.4.1.3 Building type, Architecture & Activities

The level of complexity of architecture within an institute along with the level of fire

safety systems is what differentiates each buildings means of escape according to Shen

(2003, pg.167). This is broadened by Proulx, (2001, pg.4) who outlines these as shown in

figure 52 below.

Figure 52 Building characteristics (Proulx, 2001, pg.4)

46

Evacuation Movement

Stage 1:


Stage 2:

Movement

Stage 2A:

horizontal Movement

Stage 2B:


Final Exit

The key factors that influence the building characteristics within evacuation movement

is signalling occupants, door widths and corridors widths up to the final exit as shown

below in figures 54 and 55.

For example, a third level institution may have a minimum corridor width of 1200mm to

comply with legislation. However in a fire situation, all occupants moved down the

corridor it was cause panic and stress resulting in inappropriate actions. This example

shows that the design stage must take account of unanticipated actions of occupants.

4.4.2 Vertical Movement

The second segment is vertical movement as shown in figure 55 below. This phase has

the same behaviour density as outlined in horizontal movement i.e. building

characteristics, occupant characteristics, etc. which is a consideration for this phase.

Figure 54 College final exit (Author, 2016)

Figure 53 College final exit (Author, 2016)

Figure 55 Evacuation Movement Stage 2B: Vertical Movement (Author, 2016)

47

4.4.2.1 Disability Egress

According to Technical Guidance Document B1 – Means of Escape for disable occupants

who may be blind, wheelchair users, hearing impaired or mobile impaired require

additional assistance when they reach the refuge area within a protected fire shaft. This

area is most problematic in staircases according to Kilkenny County Council (2012).

To overcome these, products/elements that could be implemented into the design such

as vibrating alarms or strobes for hearing impaired occupants as shown below in figure

56. Additionally the use of refuge areas, ambulant staircases or an evacuation chair is

helpful as shown below in figure 57. This will ensure more rapid response and

recognition time and increase ASET for disable occupants (BS: 5839, 2002, pg.65).

Figure 56 Vibrating alarms (MFS, 2001) Figure 57 Evacuation Chair (Stryker, 2015)

4.4.2.2 Vertical Speed of Movement

The vertical speed of movement using a staircase is less compared to horizontal speed of

movement as shown in table 6 below. Purser (2009, pg.15) states the reason for this is

that occupants feel within a place of safety in a protected area and are more certain

about their evacuation movement direction.

Occupancy Type Vertical Movement speed per meter/second

18-29 year olds 0.8 – 1.2

30 – 50 year olds 0.6 – 1.0

>50 year olds 0.4 – 0.9

Table 6 Vertical movement speed per meter/second (Zinke, 2014, pg.8)

48

Evacuation Movement

Stage 1:


Stage 2:

Movement

Stage 3:

Final Exit

According to Purser (2009, pg.18) the efficiency of vertical speed per meter/second

depends on the staircase flow rate. For example, a third storey third level institution

may have a designed flow rate of 100%, if each floor is evacuated using a phased

evacuation per floor. However if all three floors evacuated together there is only a 33%

flow rate. This type of scenario has crowd control issues and panicking by occupants.

In relation to crowd control behaviour during the vertical egress phase, BS: 9999 (2008,

pg.231) states that large volumes of people in assembly buildings can make them over-

excited causing irrational behaviour.

This is furthered by Boyce (2009, pg.5) stating that to have successful movement, staff

training is essential in large crowded building such as third level institutions.

Furthermore Boyce (2009, pg.7) states that the setting/design of the building can

influence how a crowd exits a building particularly the selection of the final exit.

4.5 Stage 3: Final Exit

The third and final stage of the evacuation movement process is the occupant

movement towards and through the final exit as shown in figure 58 below.

Figure 58 Evacuation Movement Stage 3: Final Exit, (Author, 2016)

4.5.1 Interpretation of Final Exit

The main aim for occupants at this stage of the evacuation movement process is to

egress safely. As stated previously by Nilsson (2010, pg.341) and Professional

49

Figure 59 Misleading information (McClintock, 2001)

Escape Occupancy

type Travel

distance Rescue and

lighting

Prevention Ignition

prevention Fuel

limitations Fire safety

manage

Communicate Detection

and signage

Difficulty level i.e.

audio

Type of alarm used

Containment Structural protection

Passive measures-envelope

Active measures - sprinklers

Extinguishment Manual

fire fighting

Auto suppresion

system

Fire service

facilities

Interviewee No.7, some occupants may exit a building the way they entered. Similarly

emergency exits interpretation is an issue even if occupants walk past them on a daily

basis according to Boyce (2009, pg.9). This is broadened by McClintock (2001, pg.14)

and Breznitz (1984, pg.23) stating fire exits with alarms may encourage occupants not to

use that exit as they may seem to be ‘breaking a rule’.

Other interpretation that can affect occupant behaviour is

misleading signage as shown in figure 59. Hofinger (2014,

pg.606) states a sign such as ‘No Admittance’ forces conflict

towards occupants cognitive affordances as how they

interrupt this information at a critical stage. Professional

Interviewee No.4 and No.5 furthers this stating that it is down

to building management of an institute that ensures this

mistake is avoided.

4.6 Strategic Recap

From the literature review there is two stages – Response process and Evacuation

Movement, of which several stages follow. However Stollard and Abrahams (1995) state

the strategic viewpoint of occupant behaviour are under five tactics as shown in figure

60 below.

Figure 60 Tactics of Occupant Behaviour (Stollard and Abrahams, 1999, pg. 14-15)

50

The relationship between these tactics is shown below in figure 61. It is down to the

individual response and movement process along with group motivation and assistance

that determine occupants’ safe egress from a building.

Figure 61 Relationship between tactics (Stollard and Abrahams, 1999, pg.15)

Communicate

Extinguishment

Containment

Escape

Prevention

Property

Protection

Life

Safety

Death

Destruction

Success

Success

Succ

ess

Succe

ss

Failure Failure

Success

Failure

Failu

re

Failure

Failure

Succe

ss Su

ccess

Pre-Ignition Post-Ignition

51

4.7 Conclusion

Evacuation movement is a three stage process including pre-evacuation behaviour,

movement behaviour (Horizontal and Vertical) and the final exit. At each stage of the

process, occupants must process a behavioural response. Each response, as previously

discussed in the last chapter, can cause occupants to have a successful egress or possible

deviation off the anticipated means of escape. This relationship between response and

movement behaviour is essential for successful occupant behaviour in fire.

The pre-evacuation movement and movement stages are parallel but interrelate when

occupants begins to move. This movement is divided into horizontal and vertical stages

until occupants reach the final exit. This final exit can be unnoticed even when

occupants see it on a daily basis.

Finally evacuation movement behaviour is the physical aspect of the strategic occupant

behaviour in fire. It is this physical movement that must relate successfully to a

response at each stage for a successful egress.

52

4.8 References

Monica, (2006). Using Stress, Appraisal, and Coping Theories in Clinical Practice:

Assessments of Coping Strategies After Disasters. [Online]

Available at: http://btci.edina.clockss.org/cgi/reprint/6/4/337.pdf


Page No: 341

Proulx, (2002). Understanding human behaviour in stressful situations. [Online]

Available at:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.5.4517&rep=rep1&type=pdf


Page No: 3

Purser, (2009). Structural fire engineering design: aspects of lift safety - BRE Digest 490.

Watford: Building Research Establishment. Page No: 7, 11, 15, 17 and 18.



Symposium on Human Behaviour in Fire. Page No: 14


Hillsdale. Page No: 20 and 23

England, (2008). BS: 9999, Code of Practice for the fire safety in design, management

and use of buildings. London. ICS. Page No: 26 and 231.


Field experiments. Weidmann, Schreckenberg. Page No: 7, 18 and 24.


Watford: BRE516. Page No: 2.

Hofinger, (2014). Human factors in evacuation simulation, planning, and guidance. Delft:

Elsevier. Page No: 606 and 609.

53

Proulx, (2001). Occupant Behaviour and Evacuation, Munich: NRC. Page No. 3, 4 and 5-6.

Sime, (1985). Movement toward the Familiar: Person and Place Affiliation in a Fire

Entrapment Setting. Environment and Behaviour 17(6). Page No: 100.

Nilsson, (2010). Influencing Exit Choice in the Event of a Fire Evacuation. Lund: SE Ltd.

Page No: 342.

Rasmussen, (1983). Skills, rules, knowledge: signals, signs and symbols and other

distinctions in human performance models. IEEE Trans Systems, Man and Cybernetics,

volume SMC 13. Page No: 27.

Canter, (1990) Fires and human behaviour (pp. 15-30). London: David Fulton. Page No: 6

and 15.

Shen, (2003). Building Planning Evaluations for Emergency Evacuation. Maryland:

Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Page No: 167.

Kilkenny County Council, (2012). Promoting Safe Egress for people with disabilitues.

[Online]

Available at:

http://www.kilkennycoco.ie/resources/NDA,%20national%20disability%20Authority%20

-%20promoting%20safe%20egress%20and%20evacuation%20-%202008.pdf


BS: 5839, (2002). Guide to fire alarm systems, London: British Standard. Page No: 65.

Boyce, (2009). Human Behavior in Mercantile Occupancies, London: Fire Protection

Engineering. Page No: 5 and 7.

Stollard and Abrahams, 1999. Fire from first Principals: A design guide to fire safety.

third ed. London: FN Spon. Page No: 14 and 15.

54


Phill Wesson, (2005). B2B is still P2P. [Online]

Available at: http://www.philwesson.com/blog/2014/11/26/b2b-is-still-p2p



Field experiments. Weidmann, Schreckenberg.

Occupants Sleeping, (2015). Guts 2 fit. [Online]

Available at: http://www.guts2fit.com/types-sleep-sleeping-patterns/


123 RF, (2009). Occupied People. [Online]

Available at: http://www.123rf.com/photo_6439725_occupied-the-person-holds-a-card-

in-a-hand.html


Proulx, (2001). Page No. 2, 6 and 20. Occupant Behaviour and Evacuation, Munich: NRC.



Symposium on Human Behaviour in Fire, pp. 23-33.

Kenlauher, (2014). The Do's and Don't of NTC Apartments. [Online]

Available at: http://www.kenlauher.com/feng-shui-tips/bid/67806/Do-s-and-Don-ts-for-

Feng-Shui-NYC-Apartment-Building-Entrances


Escape Consult, (2006). iEvac. [Online]

Available at: http://www.escapeconsult.biz/articled.php?id=24


55

Stryker, (2015). Evacuation Chair. [Online]

Available at: http://ems.stryker.co.uk/products/evacuation-equipment/evacuation-chair


MFS, (2001). Deaf Gard. [Online]

Available at: http://www.mfs-fire-extinguishers.co.uk/deafgard.htm


Samuel Fricchione, (2014). Twin Brook Assoc. [Online]

Available at: http://www.twinbrookassoc.com/?p=143


56

Chapter 5

Case Study – Dundalk Institute of Technology

57

5.0 Chapter 5: Case Study – Dundalk Institute of Technology

5.1 Introduction

The aim of this dissertation case study is to demonstrate the practical effectiveness of

theoretically concepts of occupant behaviour. This chapter will focus on evaluating

occupant’s response and evacuation movement behaviour in a live investigation.

The approach used is the same as the previous literature chapters which is six stages to

analyse occupant behaviour in fire. Outcomes from this primary research will be put

forward to the managers of the third level institution as well as assisting further

research concepts in the near future.

5.2 Outline of Study

The approach taken for this chapter was to practically implement the literature review

and evaluate its value. The most effective way to do this was to carry out a fire drill on a

third level institution. Inspiration for this form of research came from Shen (2003) who

had a similar approach.

Additionally an analysis of ‘Intended Vs Actual’ occupant behaviour was conducted. This

included pre-drill questionnaires to two groups of participants asking ‘What would you

do in the event of a fire?’ followed by a post-drill questionnaire asking ‘What did you do

in the fire drill?’ as shown in Appendix B (Section 9.1). This will show the difference of

anticipated behaviour from realistic behaviour by occupants as shown below.

Figure 62 Intended Behaviour (Author, 2016) Figure 63 Actual Behaviour (Author, 2016)

58

Figure 67 North Automatic Doors (Author, 2016)

5.3 The Building’s

For convenience the DKIT North Block and DKIT Regional Development Centre (RDC) was

used because the researcher’s familiarity of the campus as shown in figure 64 below.

The buildings are in a centralised position of the campus and facilitate business (RDC)

and engineering students (North Block) on a daily basis.

Figure 64 DKIT Campus Site Plan (Google Maps, 2016)

5.3.1 DKIT North Block

Originally built in the 1970’s, the DKIT North Block

has a complex passive design that is below the

modern design standards, particularly vertical

circulation routes and signage as shown in figure 65

to 67. A pre-drill assessment was carried out on the

DKIT North Block which is in Appendix A (Section 8.2).

Figure 65 North Block Passive Layout (Author, 2016)

Figure 66 DKIT North Block Site Location in red (Author, 2016)

DKIT North

Block

DKIT

RDC

Key

Red = Site

Boundary

Blue =

Buildings

59

Building Type College with

lecturing

Science lab rooms for

experiments

Computer labs with high

volume of PC's

Architecture Two storey with approx

1300m2

Series of staircases

strategically located

Complex layout in

block format

Activities Studying and

working environment

Experiments and note

taking

Computing and lecturing

Fire safety Features

Annual alarm with report

Sufficent signage and

alarm system

Refuge areas and non-ambulant staircases

Figure 70 DKIT RDC Site Location in red (Author, 2016)

Only a small section of the North Block was required for the research. The building

characteristics as stated previously by Proulx (2001, pg.4) have an input into the

apprehension of participant’s response and movement behaviour. In the case of DKIT

North Block fire drill, the building characteristics are shown below in figures 68 and 69.

Figure 68 Building characteristics for DKIT North Block (Author, 2016)

Figure 69 DKIT North Block front elevation (Author, 2016)

5.3.2 DKIT Regional Development Centre

The DKIT RDC was opened in 1989 along with small

extensions and alterations up until present as shown in

figure 70. The ground floor is open planned with three

light wells on a mezzanine floor. There are three fire

escape routes, two protected escape stairwells and one

unprotected escape as shown in figures 70 to 72.

60

Building Type Business

employees and students

Offices with general facilities

Computer labs with high

volume of PC's

Architecture Two storey with approx

900m2

Three staircases

strategically located

Complex layout using light wells

Activities Working

Environment

Business work on daily

basis

Computing and meetings

Fire safety Features

Annual alarm with report

Sufficent signage and

alarm system

Refuage areas and ambulant

staircases

Again only a small section of the building was required for research. The building

characteristics as previously stated by Proulx (2001, pg.4) for the North Block have the

similar constrictions on the DKIT RDC which is shown in figures 73 and 74 and explained

further in Appendix A (Section 8.2) pre-drill assessment.

Figure 73 Building characteristics for DKIT RDC (Author, 2016)

Figure 74 DKIT Regional Development Centre front elevation (Author, 2016)

Figure 71 DKIT RDC Unprotected staircase (Author, 2016)

Figure 72 DKIT RDC protected staircase (Author, 2016)

61

Figure 75 DKIT North Block fire drill (Author, 2016)

Figure 77 Group A Age Range (Author, 2016)

5.4 The Participant’s

The participants who took part in the drill were occupants within DKIT North Block and

DKIT RDC at the time of the alarm as shown in figures 75 and 76. The fire alarm and bell

was activated throughout both buildings.

However emphasis was only on a group of 34 first year building surveying students from

the DKIT North Block (Thereinafter known as Group A) and 17 business students from

DKIT RDC (Thereinafter known as Group B) who were also a part of the questionnaire

analysis. The age and gender range of participants varied as shown in figures 77 to 80

below. This gave a broad perspective from different types of occupants.

Figure 80 Group A Sex Range (Author, 2016)

Figure 79 Group B Sex Range (Author, 2016)

Figure 78 Group B Age Range (Author, 2016)

Figure 76 DKIT RDC fire drill (Author, 2016)

62

Profile / Role 18 to 35 age (Average 18)

No disable participants

Students and lectures

Knowledge Only using

building for 3 weeks

Unaware of DKIT

emergency exit plan

Some occupants with past

experiences

Condition of time

Individual and group response

level

Awake and unfamilar

Active Systems

Profile / Role 18 to 50 age (Average 29)

No disable participants

Business people and

students

Knowledge Familar with

building layout

Partially aware of

emergency exit

Some occupants with past

experiences

Condition of time

Individual and group response

level

Awake and familar

Active Systems

Figure 82 DKIT RDC Participants familiarity (Author, 2016)

The occupant characteristics as stated by Proulx (2001, pg.3) are influential particularly

the movement and physical condition of participants according to Zinke (2014, pg.18).

In the case of Group A and Group B, participant characteristics are shown below.

Both participant groups are similar in some areas however

the most influential difference in the familiarity with the

building, age range and awareness of the exit strategy by

Group B as shown in figure 82. This would indicate a more

fluent egress in the fire drill but post drill questionnaires

clearly show that participants were familiar with the building

layout but unaware of the fire evacuation procedure.

Figure 81 Group A characteristics in DKIT North Block (Author, 2016)

Figure 83 Group B characteristics in DKIT RDC (Author, 2016)

63

Visual Cues Emergency

Lighting Beacons in lab rooms

Lighting Deflection off

a wall

Cented Cues No cented cues as no real fire.

Audible Cues Alarm and bells.

5.5 The Drill

The DKIT North Block’s annual fire drill took place on 7th October 2015 at 9.45am. The

DKIT RDC fire drill took place on 10th February 2016 at 9.57am. Data collection from

both drills is shown in table 7 below and in Appendix A (Section 8.2). Apparatus used

throughout the drill was a video recorder via iPhone, camera and a clipboard.

DKIT Participant Evacuation Time Data

Stages North Block (Group A)

RDC (Group B)

Time of alarm began 9.45am 9.57am

Time of total evacuation to place of safety

9.51am 10.01am

Time of total accountability of all occupants

9.52am. 10.02am

Expected time of total evacuation

9.52am 10.01am

General Notes Re-enter at 9.58am. Total travel distance was

105.31m.

Re-enter at 10.02am. Total travel distance

was 125.53m.

Table 7 DKIT participant evacuation time data (Author, 2016)

The fire characteristics previously stated by Proulx (2001, pg.4) was implemented into

both drills is shown in figure 84 below. These characteristics are not as intense as a real

fire drill but for economic and safety reasons the fire cues were limited for both drills.

Figure 84 DKIT North Block and RDC fire drill cues (Author, 2016)

64

Figure 86 First floor travel path in red (Author, 2016)

5.6 Means of Escape

5.6.1 DKIT North Block Means of Escape

The means of escape used by Group A was from classrooms NC217 and NC218, opposite

each other on the first floor. Participants travelled out of the classrooms along an

unprotected corridor into a protected stairwell. At the bottom of the stairwell was a fire

warden at a final exit door directing occupants towards assembly point ‘A’. Below

illustrates each stage of participants movement.

Figure 85 First floor corridor (Author, 2016)

Figure 87 First floor stairwell (Author, 2016)

Figure 91 Ground floor final exit (Author, 2016)

Figure 88 Ground floor travel path in red (Author, 2016)

Figure 90 Final Exit (Author, 2016)

Figure 89 Assembly Point (Author, 2016)

65

Figure 92 First floor travel path in red (Author, 2016)

Figure 93 First floor corridor (Author, 2016)

Figure 94 First floor stairs (Author, 2016)

Figure 98 Ground floor stairs (Author, 2016)

5.6.2 DKIT RDC Means of Escape

The means of escape used by Group B participants was from room D234 on the first

floor of the building. Participants travelled out of the room and ignored two fire exits

escapes. Group B continued along an unprotected corridor and down an unprotected

staircase. At the bottom of the staircase was the final exit with a fire warden directing

participants towards assembly point ‘C’. The participants travel path is in red below

however the ideal travel path is shown in green. Below illustrates each stage of

participants’ movement.

Figure 95 Ground floor travel path in red (Author, 2016)


Figure 97 Assembly Point (Author, 2016)

66

Response Behaviour

Stage 1:


Stage 2:

Response Process

Stage 3:

Decision Making

5.7 Evaluation of the Drill

The evaluation of the participant’s responses and evacuation movement behaviour will

be evaluated in the same context as previous literature chapters using a three step

approach for each phase as well as a comparison of each participant group.

5.7.1 Participants Response Behaviour

The participants’ response to the fire drill begins with actions prior to the drill as shown

below in figure 99. As stated by Williams (2005, pg.1) the pre-response behaviour at

pre-fire stage such as inattentiveness or carelessness was not the case.

Instead both participant groups were engaged with a DKIT lectures as shown in figure

100. This goes against Williams (2005, pg.3) argument that irrational pre-response

behaviour will affect responses in later stage of the drill.

Figure 99 Participant Response Stage 1: Pre-response behaviour (Author, 2016)

Figure 100 NC216 Pre-response behaviour (Author, 2016)

67

Response Behaviour

Stage 1:


Stage 2:

Response Process

Stage 2A: Input

Alarms and bells

Stage 2B: Process

Physiological

Stage 2C: Output

Response

Stage 3:

Decision Making

Subsequent of this was participant’s response process as shown in figure 101. Due to

the limitation of active systems in both drills, the only input was fire alarms and bells.

However these minor inputs did audibly alert both participant groups immediately.

Figure 101 Participant Response Stage 2: Response Process (Author, 2016)

Next was the physiological processing of information. The fluency of processing the

information provided varied significantly at this stage which backs up Hofinger (2014,

pg.608) that occupants’ deviate the most at the risk perception stage on an individual

basis.

The age range of participants supported Hofinger (2014, pg.607) and Kecklund (2005,

pg.3) stating that the cognitive dissonance will depend on their life experiences as far

back as their childhood and how they perceive the alarm and bell signals.

However Williams (2005, pg. 1-2) perspective on constructive responses stating mature

students reacts appropriately in less time was ill-advised by Group B participants who

used the unprotected escape route compared to a less mature Group A who didn’t as

shown below in figure 102.

Figure 102 Constructive Response by Group A (Author, 2016)

68

Response Behaviour

Stage 1:


Stage 2:

Response Process

Stage 3:

Decision Making

The constructive response by Group A supports Hofinger (2011, pg.607) and Breznitz

(1984, pg.11) perspective on the class group response providing support and guidance

to each other. Overall the response process was successful by Group A when placed

under realistic conditions which goes against adverse data. However Group B was

partially successful in context of the initial responses.

Figure 103 Participant Response Stage 3: Decision making (Author, 2016)

The final stage accumulated to decision making by participants as shown above in figure

103. All of the North Block participants had group responses which supports Zinke

(2014, pg.7), Purser (2009, pg.11) and Breznitz (1984, pg.23) for participants to ‘Get up

and leave’. This backups Proulx (2001, pg.4) in the election of a figure head to show

leadership to each group which in this case was a DKIT lecture.

Figure 104 Group A beginning to exit (Author, 2016)

Figure 105 Group B beginning to exit (Author, 2016)

69

Individual Level Individual

participant characteristics

Knowledge and common

sence

Individual participant experience

Group Level Lecture and

student relationship

Leadership by mature

participants

Motivation as a group

Organisation Level

DKIT fire safety AGM

DKIT exit strategy

Mandatory for lectures to exit with

class

Environmental Level

Complex building

difficult to exit

Social issues both

participants and lectures

General constraints

Figure 107 Group B Participants response process (Author, 2016)

This leads onto the interrelations of the response process stages at different response

levels as previously stated by Hofinger (2011, pg.608). In the case of Group A and B,

figure 106 below shows the levels of interrelations.

The physiological response stage was on an individual basis with support from peers.

This made the process clear for participants but the decision making was made on a

group level by the selection of a figure head which was a DKIT lecture.

Overall the response process was successful and

lasted 10 seconds for Group A and 12 seconds for

Group B. The inputs were limited but gave a

comparable real life scenario. If this stage of the

occupant behaviour in fire case study was repeated,

the lecture in the North Block fire drill would not be

present to analyse participants without leadership

and less communication.

Figure 106 Group A and Group B Response levels (Author, 2016)

70

Evacuation Movement

Stage 1:


Stage 2:

Movement

Stage 3:

Final Exit

Figure 109 Group A Participants leaving (Author, 2016)

5.7.2 Participants Evacuation Movement

The next stage of participant’s egress was the evacuation movement phase. The aim is

to evaluate participant’s physical behaviour and the relationship between movement

and responses at different stages of this phase. The first stage of the three stage

approach is pre-evacuation movement by participants as shown in figure 108 below.

Figure 108 Participant Movement Stage 1: Pre-evacuation behaviour (Author, 2016)

The perspective from McClintock (2001, pg.14) that occupants will not leave the room

immediately was incorrect in both drills. The logic being that the occupants were awake

and familiar (BS: 9999, pg.26) therefore was capable of reassuring their threat level as

previously stated by Breznitz (1984) and Professional Interviewee No. 7.

The pre-evacuation time was 30 seconds for Group A and 42

seconds for Group B which is considerably less than the

potential 4 minutes previously stated by Purser (2009, pg.17)

as shown in figure 109.

Additionally the pre-evacuation time percentage of total

egress time was 8.3% for Group A and 14% for Group B which

is incomparably less that the 66% stated by Mitchell and

Charters (2010, pg.2). The primary reason being participant’s

confidence in the alarm system was greater than expected.

71

Evacuation Movement

Stage 1:


Stage 2:

Movement

Stage 2A:

Horizontial Movement

Stage 2B:


Final Exit

Stage 2A:

Horizontal Movement

Movement out room

NC216 and NC217

Movement along NC228

corridor


exit doors

The pre-evacuation movement by participants was successful with little/no misused

time investigating the fire. In the DKIT North Block drill this was supported by the

lectures acting as group leaders for the participants who subsequently decreased

participants pre-movement time.

Following pre-evacuation movement was the horizontal and vertical evacuation

movement towards the final exit by both participant groups as shown in figure 110

below.

Figure 110 Participant Movement Stage 2: Movement (Author, 2016)

The relationship between response behaviour and evacuation behaviour become

apparent in the movement phase. The first stage was the horizontal movement by

participants. Each stage of horizontal movement the participants had to make a

response decision as shown in figures 111 and 112 on both a group and individual level.

Figure 111 Stages of Group A Horizontal Movement (Author, 2016)

Figure 112 Stages of Group B Horizontal Movement (Author, 2016)

Stage 2A:

Horizontal Movement

Movement out room

D234

Movement along

unprotected corridor


exit doors

72

The movement out of room NC216/NC217 for Group A and room D243 for Group B into

the corridor by participants was delayed because participants were awaiting

confirmation of from a lecture and other participants. This preserves Hofinger (2014,

pg.609) levels of interrelated responses towards participant’s movement on an

organisational level.

Entrance onto the corridor by participants boosted confidence in the threat level of the

fire when seeing other classrooms/offices evacuating as shown below. The choice of

exit made by Group B illustrates Nilsson (2010, pg.342) and Sime (1985, pg.100) outlook

on occupants common path of travel by using an unprotected staircase.

Likewise Group B’s exit choice was an unconscious decision which supports Rasmussen

(1983, pg.27) and Professional Interviewee No. 7 as shown in figure 116. However

Canter’s (1990, pg.6) non-adaptive behaviour concept was incorrect in the case of Group

A because participants relied on their lecture to lead them to safety as shown below.

Figure 114 Group A in corridor (Author, 2016)

Figure 113 Group B in corridor (Author, 2016)

Figure 116 Group A group movement (Author, 2016)

Figure 115 Group B Individual movement (Author, 2016)

73

Stage 2B:

Vertical Movement

Behaviour within

protected area


Disable occupant

consideration

Stage 2B:

Vertical Movement

Behaviour within

unprotected area


Disable occupant

consideration

Continual from this was the vertical movement phase by both participant groups. The

critical aspects of this vertical movement phase are shown in figures 117 and 118 below

for both participant groups. Each stage, participants were subject to crowd control,

disability circulation and slower movement per meter/second.

Figure 117 Stages of Group A Vertical Movement (Author, 2016)

Figure 118 Stages of Group B Vertical Movement (Author, 2016)

As there were no disable participants in either drill, no analysis of this aspect was

possible. A noticeable missing feature was no call point at the top of the North Block

corridor stairway in the protected shaft which is required under Part B1 of the Technical

Guidance Documents for wheelchair users.

Movement down the staircase was controlled and participants were patient to wait until

the crowd moved down the stairs in single file fashion. The drawback of participant

vertical movement was the congested capacity of the North Block staircase due to the

poor building characteristics as shown in figure 119 below and previously stated by

Proulx (2001, pg.4).

Figure 119 North Block congested non-ambulant staircase (Author, 2016)

74

5.7.3 Speed of Movement

The horizontal and vertical movement speed was under-estimated prior to the drill. The

total 105.31 meters Group A and 125.53 meters Group B had to travel was completed by

the author while considering pre-response and pre-evacuation time.

Below in table 8 shows the comparison of total egress speed of movement by the

researcher, participants and theoretical speed stated by Zinke (2014, pg.11). The

breakdown of these results can be seen in Appendix C (Section 10.0).

Assessor Speed of Movement (North Block) Speed of Movement (RDC)

Zinke

(2014)

Total movement time = 2 min 42

seconds

Speed per meter = 1.40 m/s


seconds


Researcher

(2016)


seconds

Speed per meter= 1.17 m/s


seconds


Participants

(2015 and

2016)


seconds

Speed per meter= 3.47 m/s


seconds


Table 8 Overview of three researchers’ evacuation calculation (2016)

The data in table 8 clearly shows that participants RSET is greater that Zinke’s theoretical

viewpoint. Controversy to this shows the theoretical and researchers calculations are

similar. This indicates that Zinke (2014, pg.11) did not consider crowd control or

participant knowledge of the building particularly when the Group A were only enrolled

in DKIT for 3 weeks and the complexity of the RDC.

Figure 120 Crowd control in Group A fire drill (Author, 2016)

75

Evacuation Movement

Stage 1:


Stage 2:

Movement

Stage 3:

Final Exit

The final stage of participants evacuation movement was the final exit as shown in figure

121 below. The choice of final exit was constructive by Group A by using a protected

escape route. However Group B used an unprotected escape path but used the

appropriate final exit. The interpretation of the final exits stood out because a DKIT fire

warden was located at the fire exit directing people towards the assembly point.

Figure 121 Participant Movement Stage 3: Final Exit (Author, 2016)

Fire wardens present was an advantage for lowering the RSET, however in a real fire

would participants have this assistance? Most likely not therefore reliance on fire

wardens when practicing the college evacuation can present issues. This supports

McClintock (2001, pg.14) and Breznitz (1984, pg.23) stating fire exits motivate occupants

not to use that exit as they may seem to be ‘breaking a rule’ as shown below.

Figure 122 Group A final exit (Author, 2016)

Figure 123 Group B final exit (Author, 2016)

76

A final issue for Group A was movement from the final exit doors to external ground

level. Ideally a direct level transition would be appropriate for wheelchair users but was

a stepped final exit as shown below. These suited participants of the research however

in general terms a ramp or level passage should be provided.

Figure 125 Group A final escape steps (Author, 2016)

Figure 124 Group A final escape steps (Author, 2016)

77

68%

6% 15% 12%

91%

3% 0% 6%

76%

0%

24%

0%

82%

18%

0% 0%

Escape Call the Police Call the fire brigade Try to put the fire out

Question No.1 Pre-Drill Question: If a fire broke out would you:

Post-Drill Question: When the fire drill began did you:

North Block Pre-Drill North Block Post-Drill

Regional Centre Pre-Drill Regional Centre Post-Drill

5.8 Evaluation of Questionnaire Data

The second half of the case study is an evaluation of participants ‘Intended Behaviour Vs

Actual Behaviour’. The aim is to evaluate the difference of participant’s behaviour

before a fire and during a fire. The 102 questionnaires given to participants and

interviews with participants are in this section and in Appendix B (Section 9.1 and 9.3).

Figure 126 Question 1: If a fire broke out (Author, 2016)

As shown above 68% of Group A and 76% of Group B stated they would escape pre-drill.

While during the fire drill 91% of Group A and 82% of Group B escaped immediately.

According to RDC Interviewee No.1, it was assumed that it was a fire drill therefore not

required to call the Garda

or fire brigade. This

supports Zinke (2014,

pg.7) that occupants will

leave the building rather

than investigating which

successively decreases

participants RSET time as

shown in figures 127 and

128.

Figure 128 Group A Escaping (Author, 2016)

Figure 127 Group B Escaping (Author, 2016)

78

82%

9% 6% 0% 3%

68%

24%

3% 3% 9%

94%

6% 0% 0% 0%

29%

65%

6% 0% 0%

The nearest exit Follow the crowd Wait patiently onhelp

Go a longer routethat you arefamiliar with

Other

Question No.2 Pre-Drill Question: If a fire broke out would yout exit by:

Post-Drill Question: How did you exit in the fire drill?



50% 53%

79%

21% 0%

100%

29%

71%

Yes No

Question No.3 Pre-Drill Question: Do you have any fire safety training?

Post-Drill Question: Do you feel fire safety training would have made your reactions better?



Figure 129 Question 2: Exit Choice (Author, 2016)

Question No.2 above shows that 94% of RDC participants intended to use the nearest

exit and only 29% actually used that exit. This clarifies that the majority of RDC

participants decided to follow the crowd. This illustrates Canter (1990, pg.4)

observation of non-adaptive behaviour to use and exit that you are not familiar with.

According to RDC Interviewee No.1, this was due to the limited knowledge of the

building as she was only a visitor during the drill. Moreover none of RDC participants

had fire safety training but stated it would have helped during the fire drill as shown in

figure 130 below.

Figure 130 Question 3: Fire Safety Training (Author, 2016)

79

88%

12%

76%

24%

100%

0%

71%

29%

Yes No

Question No.4 Pre-Drill Question: Would you be able to exit the building more easily

if you knew its layout? Post-Drill Question: Did knowing the school layout make it easier?



Figure 131 Question 4: Building Knowledge (Author, 2016)

Question No.4 above shows participants’ understanding of the building layout makes it

easier to egress in a fire drill. However Proulx, (2001, pg.4) gives a broad diverse range

of building characteristics that were not obvious to participants during participants

egress.

For example the RDC participants walked past two fire exits to use a common path of

travel exit. This shows poor situational awareness by RDC participants thus extending

the total travel length consequently increasing RSET and decreasing ASET as shown in

figure 133 below. Whereas the North Block participants used the shortest escape route

and the correct final exit with a successful 6 minute RSET as shown in figure 132 below.

Figure 133 Open Plan RDC Layout (Author, 2016)

Figure 132 North Block Complex layout (Author, 2016)

80

35%

65% 76%

24%

53% 47%

71%

29%

Yes No

Question No.5 Pre-Drill Question: Do you know DKIT exit plan?

Post-Drill Question: Did you follow DKIT exit plan?



71%

32%

76%

24%

71%

29% 47% 53%

Yes No

Question No.6 Pre-Drill Question: Can you locate your nearest emergency exit in

each room? Post-Drill Question: Did you use your nearest emergency exit in the

fire drill?



Figure 134 Question 5: Exit Plan (Author, 2016)

Question 5 and 6 illustrates the knowledge of responses by using the DKIT exit plan that

is located around the campus as well as using this information when the fire drill began.

The results show that 76% of North Block participants knew the exit plan and used that

to locate their nearest exit. However according to North Block participant interviewee

No.1 and No.2 the majority of occupants panicked and followed the crowd. The RDC

was a much calmer and fluent egress and the results show this above and below.

Figure 135 Question 6: Situational Awareness (Author, 2016)

81

15%

56%

35%

9%

88%

3%

71%

29%

0%

35% 47%

18%

Panic Remain calm Assist other

Question No.7 Pre-Drill Question: If a fire broke out, would you:

Post-Drill Question: When the alarm went off, did you:



88%

12%

35%

65%

94%

6%

29%

71%

Yes No

Question No.8 Pre-Drill Question: Would you assist others in the event of a fire?

Post-Drill Question: Did you assist others in the fire drill?



Figure 136 Question 7: Initial Reactions (Author, 2016)

Question 7 above shows that 71% of RDC participants would panic in a fire scenario

unlike the 15% of North Block Participants. However post-drill results showed that only

35% of RDC participants and 9% of North Block participants panicked.

Additionally 88% of North Block and 94% of RDC participants stated they would assist

occupants but only 35% of North Block and 29% RDC participants did. Both North Block

participant interviewees No.1 and No. 2 stated reasons for this were occupants cared

about themselves leaving safely and did not worry about other occupant’s welfare.

Figure 137 Question 8: Apprehensive Reactions (Author, 2016)

82

44%

15% 0%

79%

12% 6% 0% 9% 0%

97%

0% 0% 6% 0% 0%

82%

12% 0% 0% 6% 12%

82%

0% 0%

Smell of smoke Unusaualmovement

Strange Noises Alarms Seeing Smoke Other

Question No.9 Pre-Drill Question: How would you know if a fire broken out?

Post-Drill Question: How did you know a fire had broken out during the fire drill?



50% 32%

18% 9%

0%

65%

21% 3% 3% 9% 12%

76%

0% 12%

0%

47% 35%

6% 6% 6%

Wait to be toldwhat to do by your

lecture

Leave the buildingas quickly as

possible no matterwhat

See how big thefire is and is it a big

problem to yoursafety

Warn others Ignore the firealarm and continue

studying

Question No.10 Pre-Drill Question: If the alarm went off, would you:

Post-Drill Question: When the alarm went off, did you:



Figure 138 Question 9: Fire Cues (Author, 2016)

Question 9 above shows that the vast majority of both participant groups relied on the

alarm to alert them of their situation which supports KTP (2012) viewpoint on reliant

active systems. Furthermore the alarm responses showed that 65% of North Block

participants relied on their lecture while 76% of RDC independently exited. This shows

the organisation/group responses by North Block participants while individual responses

by RDC participants. This supports Hofinger (2014, pg.609) range of response levels.

Figure 139 Question 10: Pre-evacuation Movement (Author, 2016)

83

12%

50%

12%

29%

9%

74%

6% 12%

0%

71%

6%

24% 18%

71%

12% 0%

Maintiance on thealarm system

Practice drill False alarm Real fire

Question No.11 Pre-Drill Question: If the alarm went off, would you think it was:

Post-Drill Question: When the alarm went off, did you think it was:



Figure 140 Question 11: Confidence in Alarm System (Author, 2016)

Question No.11 above shows that a significant number of both participant groups

interpreted the alarm as a practice drill at both pre-drill and post-drill intervals. This

supports Proulx (2000, pg.1) prespective that 75% of building occupants interpt the

alarm as not an actual fire.

Additionally Professional interviewees No.2, No.6 and No.7 states this is a lack of

confidence in the active system which extends the unwanted pre-evacuation movement.

This is supported by North Block interviewees No.1 and No.2 who state the prime

reason for this is the familiarity with practice drills as far back as primary school.

In addition an observation of both drills showed

insufficient appreciation of the DKIT practice fire drill.

The atmosphere by both groups was calm as stated by

North Block and RDC Interviewees however no

participant had an urgency to leave the building.

Instead participants were using mobile phones or having

social conversations as shown in figure 141. This is the

undesirable negative calm manner that is shown by

participants. Figure 141 Group A calm (Author, 2016)

84

6%

24% 21%

47%

3% 3% 6% 3%

26%

59%

6% 0%

6% 18%

47%

29%

0% 0% 12%

18%

65%

0% 6%

0%

Investigate tofight the fire

Investigate forcuriosity

Turn back Try to get adifferent way

out of thebuilding

Continuethrough smoke

because youknow that exit

best in DKIT

Other

Question No.12 Pre-Drill Question: If you came accross smoke, would you:

Post-Drill Question: In the fire drill, if you had seen smoke, would you have:



9%

38% 47%

9% 3% 12% 9%

68%

12% 0% 6%

18%

53%

24%

0%

29%

59%

12% 0% 0%

Fight the fire Turn back Try to get adifferent way out

of the building

Ask for help Other

Question No.13 Pre-Drill Question: If you seen a fire that broke out, would you:

Post-Drill Question: In the fire drill, if you seen a fire that broke out, would you:



Figure 142 Question 12: Smoke Reaction (Author, 2016)

Question 12 and 13 shows the majority of both participant groups’ reactions if they

came across smoke or fire would be to turn back or find an alternative escape route.

This was a surprising result from the North Block less mature group that goes against

Canter (1990, pg.15) deviation through smoke and Proulx (2001, pg.5-6) movement

through smoke for curiosity to see the fire. According to RDC Interviewee No.1, stated

that they would travel through smoke but it would depend on the initial meeting of the

smoke i.e. if close to final exit then travel through it.

Figure 143 Question 13: Fire Reaction (Author, 2016)

85

5.9 Conclusion

To conclude on the overall participant response behaviour and evacuation movement

behaviour was partially successful. Reasons being that Group A relied on a DKIT lecture

to compose a safe egress from the building which was successful. Whereas Group B had

poor leadership and had poor responses and evacuation movement behaviour. This

suggested that occupants within third level institutions require better communication to

ensure a safe egress.

A positive outcome from the two fire drills was the confidence in the alarm system. A

large majority of participants stated they knew it was a practice drill but still evacuated

the building as quickly as possible. This supports DKIT’s policy for all occupants to

evacuate the building when the alarm is sounded. Primarily this is the main proity in the

event of a fire.

The 13 pre-drill and post-drill questionnaire results have shown that participants of the

fire drills can respond in a positive or negative manner. Areas that emerged were

assisting others. The majority stated that they would assist in a fire situation but in

reality they were self-conscious of their own well-being. Like-wise the response levels in

Question No.9 and No.10 showed different response levels in the same fire scenario.

Overall the aim of the quantitative data research has been a success however there are

a number of recommendations that would be purposed to the DKIT Estates

Management for future fire safety drills.

86

5.10 References


Worcester Polytechnic Instituate. Page No: 17-23

Proulx, (2001). Occupant Behaviour and Evacuation, Munich: NRC. Page No: 3 and 4

Hofinger, (2014). Human factors in evacuation simulation, planning, and guidance. Delft:

Elsevier. Page No:607, 608 and 609.

Williams, (2005). The Behaviour of People in Fires, Herts: Building Research

Department, Information Paper BRE85. Page No: 1, 2 and 3.

Kecklund, (2005). Human Behaviour in Crisis Situations, Canada: TGT. Page No. 3


Hillsdale. Page No: 11 and 23.



Symposium on Human Behaviour in Fire. Page No: 14


use of buildings. London. ICS. Page No: 26


Watford: Building Research Establishment. Page No: 4 and 17.


Watford: BRE516. Page No: 2 and 5.


Field experiments. Weidmann, Schreckenberg. Page No:7 and 11.


Page No: 342.

87


Entrapment Setting. Environment and Behaviour 17(6), Page No: 100.



volume SMC 13. Page No: 27.

Canter, (1990) Fires and human behaviour (pp. 15-30). London: David Fulton. Page No: 6


GC, (2014). Fire Drill Successfully Held at Production Base in Airport Part of NGC. [Online]

Available at: http://www.ngctransmission.com/en/employee-detail/fire-drill-

successfully-held-at-production-base-in-airport-part-of-ngc.html

[Accessed 02 02 2016].

88

Chapter 6

Conclusion & Recommendations

89

6.0 Chapter 6: Conclusion and Recommendations

The aim of this dissertation was to evaluate the current occupant behaviour in fires

literature and practically demonstrate its successfulness using a third level institute

practice fire drill. The objectives included outlining the legislation processes as well as

an analysis of the 6 stages of response and movement behaviour of occupants. This

accumulated to a case study at Dundalk Institute of Technology.

One of the highlights from this dissertation was the heavy influence legislation in Ireland

has on occupant behaviour in fire. Irish legislation has presented Technical Guidance

Documents on Fire Safety for industry professionals. This provides professionals with a

straight forward approach to fire safety as well as a National fire safety standard.

Furthermore if guidance documents cannot satisfy the Building Regulations, a fire

engineering solution can be used as prima facia compliance. Generally only used on

larger complex projects, it is a technical and detailed approach to fire safety design.

Transpiring from legislation is the 6 stage process of occupant behaviour in fires. This

was sub-divided into two stages; response behaviour and evacuation movement

behaviour.

Occupant response behaviour levies on a three stage process including pre-response

behaviour, response process and decision making. Within each stage is the occupant’s

independent cognitive affordance to interrupt a situation from fire cues i.e. smoke,

alarms, sprinkler, etc. This process is more effortless if it is on a group or organisation

response level.

Once a response to the fire cues has been completed, this emerges into egress

movement out of this building. The relationship between response behaviour and

evacuation movement behaviour continues until the occupants have reached a place of

safety. Furthermore occupants must response to different aspects of the fire along their

egress such as choice of exit route, seeing smoke, seeing the fire, etc.

90

Following this was an evaluation of the evacuation movement behaviour of occupants in

a fire. This was broken down into three stages including pre-movement behaviour,

movement behaviour (Horizontal and Vertical) and the final exit.

Throughout the evacuation movement, there are several factors that isolated occupants

successful from one another including building characteristics, occupant characteristics,

speed per meter/second and response behaviour at each stage.

From the literature review, it indicated that for occupants to behave in the anticipated

manner, they must:

Be attentive prior to learning about the fire i.e. not disobedient or careless.

Interrupt the active systems as a real fire drill and not an annual fire drill. This

will make the psychological process for efficient.

Respond to the fire cues without panicking and assist/communicate with others

if within a group.

Do not misuse time investigating the active system to determine if a fire actually

exists or confirm with others within a group.

Be aware of the exit route from your room, and follow these when exiting the

building. Occupants must not use the common path of travel.

Use emergency exits when available to decrease the Required Safe Egress time

as well as travel distance to a place of safety.

When this was practically demonstrated in the Case Study at Dundalk Institute of

Technology, the anticipated behaviour was not present. Instead the Regional

Development Centre participants used the common path of travel as well as passing two

fire escape stairways on the first floor.

Contradictory to this was the North Block participants used the nearest exit unlike the

Regional Development Centre participants who followed the crowd in the unanticipated

direction. Furthermore a noticeable issue within the Dundalk Institute of Technology

fire drills was the presence of fire wardens. This ensures occupants know where the

final exit is however in a real fire, would this facility be available? Most likely not.

91

To improve on Dundalk Institute of Technology’s evacuation strategy, it would be

purposed that a fire drill be completed without fire wardens. Recommended

advancement from this would be a full fire drill if economically viable by Dundalk

Institute of Technology Estates Department. This would include the Garda, Dundalk fire

department and fire wardens.

If the case study research was repeated, the lecture would not be present in the North

Block drill for a better technical analysis of participant’s response process. Additionally

less communicating throughout the drill so participants would require better response

processes to have successful egress.

92

Bibliography

93

7.0 Bibliography

BBC, (2015). Dubai Hotel Fire. [Online]

Available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35213541




Symposium on Human Behaviour in Fire.


Hillsdale.


Canter, (1990) Fires and human behaviour. London: David Fulton.



Field experiments. Weidmann, Schreckenberg.

Fleming, (2010). ASET and RSET, a flawed concept for fire risk Assessment. Boston: Wiley

Online Livery.


Watford: BRE516.


England, (1997). BS 5588 Fire precautions in the design, construction and use of

buildings. London. ICS.


use of buildings. London. ICS.

94


evacuation, behaviour and condition (Sub-system 6). London. ICS.



London: Elsevier.



[Accessed 01 10 2015].


Information Paper BRE85.


Remseck, Germany. Elsevier.

Wang, (2013). Pre-Evacuation Movement in Fires: An Attribution Analysis Considering

Phychlogical Process, New York: Elsevier.

Kecklund, (2005). Human Behaviour in Crisis Situations, Canada: TGT.

Cocking, (2008). The Psychology of Crowd Behaviour in emergency evacuations,

Glassgow: s.n.

Brown, (2011). Fire Drills: Communications Strategy in a Crisis. [Online]

Available at: http://alistapart.com/article/fire-drills-communications-strategy-in-a-crisis


Proulx, (2000). Why Building Occupants Ignore Fire Alarms. Construction Technlogy

Update, 42(3).

Boosman, (2015). Why simulation is key for maintianing fire incident preparedness. FPE.

Meacham, (1999). Integrating human behaviour and response issues into fire safety

management of facilities. Massachusetts, USA. SPE

95

KTP, (2012). What good is a fire alarm if you can’t hear it?. [Online]

Available at: http://www.chair-mate.co.uk/documents/hhms-sales-brochure.pdf


Hartson, (2003). Cognitive, Physical, Sensory and Functional Affordances in Interaction

design. Behavior and Information Technology. 22 (5).

Monica, (2006). Using Stress, Appraisal, and Coping Theories in Clinical Practice:

Assessments of Coping Strategies After Disasters. [Online]

Available at: http://btci.edina.clockss.org/cgi/reprint/6/4/337.pdf


Proulx, (2002). Understanding human behaviour in stressful situations. [Online]

Available at:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.5.4517&rep=rep1&type=pdf



Watford: Building Research Establishment.


Entrapment Setting. Environment and Behaviour 17(6).



volume SMC 13.


Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

BS:5839, (2002). Guide to fire alarm systems, London: British Standard.

Boyce, (2009). Human Behavior in Mercantile Occupancies, London: Fire Protection

Engineering.

96

BB100, (2007). Building Bulleting 100: Design for Fire Safety in Schools. First ed. London:

RIBA Enterprises.

Close, (2005). Fire Behaviour vs. Human Behaviour, Missoula, MT: B. W. Buttler.

Erica, (2009). The Process of Human Behaviour in Fires, US: National Institute of

Standards and Technology.

Fahy, (2009). 'Panic' and Human Behaviour in Fire. Institute for Research in Construction,

13 07, Volume 51384,

Horasan, (2002). Investiagation of a Behavioural Response Model for Emergency

Situations in Secondary Schools, Victoria: MMC Melbourne.

Stanley, (1984). Human Factors in Emergency Evacuation, Oklahoma: Federal Aviation

Agency.

Gwynne, (2005). Developing Inclusive Emergency Procedures, Boston: Hughes

Associates Inc.

Kholshevinkov, (2010). Pre-School and School Children Building Evacuation, Moscow,

Russia: Academy of Fire Research.

Erica, (2005). What a User Should Know When Selecting an Evacuation Model. [Online]

Available at: http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire06/PDF/f06067.pdf

[Accessed 05 09 2015].

Ding, (2005). Studies on Human Behaviour in fires in China. [Online]

Available at:

http://www.bse.polyu.edu.hk/researchCentre/Fire_Engineering/summary_of_output/jo

urnal/IJAS/V6/p.133-143.pdf


Stollard and Abrahams, 1999. Fire from first Principals: A design guide to fire safety.

third ed. London: FN Spon.

97

Fessler, (2006). A Burning Desire: Steps Toward an Evolutionary Psychology of Fire

Learning. [Online]

Available at: http://www.danielmtfessler.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Fessler-

2006-Burning-Desire.pdf


Gamberini, (2006). Psychological response to an emergency in virtual reality: effects of

victim ethnicity and emergency type on helping behavior and navigation. [Online]

Available at: http://hcilab.uniud.it/images/stories/publications/2015-

01/Psychological_response_CHB2015.pdf


Lund, (1996). Fire alarm in a public building: How do people evaluate information and

choose evacuation exit?. [Online]

Available at: http://www.frocc.org/pdf/building_eva/evacuation_behaviour.pdf


Thompson, (2013). Social, Institutional, and Psychological Factors Affecting Wildfire

Incident Decision Making. [Online]

Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2014_thompson_m001.pdf


Brennan, (2001). Modelling Cue Recognition and Pre-Evacuation. [Online]

Available at: http://www.iafss.org/publications/fss/6/1029/view


Smyth, (2016). Integrated Group Project - Fire. [Online]

Available at: file:///C:/Users/d00152274/Downloads/IGP%20Fire.pdf


98

Appendices

99

8.0 Appendix A: Fire Drill Analysis

8.1 DKIT’s Fire Drill Reports

Figure 144 DKIT RDC Fire Drill Assessment form (DKIT, 2016)

100

Figure 145 DKIT North Block Fire Drill Assessment form (DKIT, 2015)

101

8.2 Evaluation Report on DKIT North Block and RDC Fire

Drills

DKIT North Block and Regional Centre Fire Drill

Assessment 2015/2016

Patrick Reel

Dundalk Institute of Technology

D00152274

School of Engineering

Department of Built Environment

Year 4

Stage 7/8

Dissertation

102

General Information

Information North Block Regional Centre

Date of drill 07.10.2015 10.02.2016

Time 9.45am to 9.52am 9.57am to 10.01

Inspector Name Patrick Reel Patrick Reel

Type of Drill Practice fire drill Practice fire drill

Associate Supervisors Jean Connelly, Denise

Quigley and Conor Liat Conor Liat

Other staff member’s Enda Fields None

Weather

Temperature 8oC

Wind Speed 6 Km/h

Condition Sunny/dry

Temperature 9oC

Wind Speed 14 Km/h

Condition Sunny/dry

Building Name DKIT North Block DKIT Regional Development

Centre

Location of drill NC216 and NC217 D234

Address

Dundalk Institute of

Technology, Dublin Road,

Dundalk, Co. Louth

Dundalk Institute of

Technology, Dublin Road,

Dundalk, Co. Louth

Participants First year B. Sc. (Honours) in

Building Surveying students

17 mature Business Studies

students and employees

Table 9 Fire Drill Assessment - General Information (Author, 2016)

Pre-Drill Assessment - General


Is there evacuation

routes signage on walls?

Condition/ are they up-

to-date/other?

Yes and clearly signed. Clear signage at correct

height.

Are exit signs marked

clearly?

Yea very clear. Direction towards escape

routes signage clearly viable.

Are the Illuminated Yea they are located in the Two escape stairways clearly

103

signs in correct

position? If any

escape stairway. marked.

Are final exit doors

operating correctly?

Yes they open properly and

close off a magnetic sensor.

Final exit doors clear with

magnetic sensors.

Is all egress routes free

from obstruction?

Minor obstructions when fire

drill went off which left

occupants surprised with the

noise of the bell and some

items left unoccupied i.e.

brushes, trolleys, etc.

Some escape routes have

planting located in the open

space mezzanine floors that

decrease the clear corridor

width in some areas.

Do all egress routes

have sufficient lighting?

All lighting throughout the

section surveyed was the

correct bulk fitting at height

level throughout the building.

However the drawback was

that there was not the

sufficient amount of

emergency lighting the North

Block purpose group.

The one unprotected

stairway has emergency

lighting which is unusual as it

may indicate to occupants

that this is a safe exit route.

General Notes

Overall successful active and

passive measures throughout

DKIT North block but the

stairwells do not comply with

Part B1 of an enclosed

stairwell and it is part of the

circulation route. This may

be due to original

construction in the 1970’s

and limitation to comply.

Good fire safety features

however the open plan

layout may be an issue with

compartmentation

particularly because there

are lab rooms on the first

floor.

Table 10 Fire Drill Assessment - Pre-Drill Assessment - General (Author, 2016)

104

Pre-Drill Assessment – Maintenance Management


General observation of

escape routes

All circulation routes are

wide enough for the

calculated occupant of the

section surveyed. One

drawback is inner room

circulation as there is no

concern for disability access

or disability means of escape

regulations in part M of the

technical guidance

documents.

Modern building therefore

compliant to regulations.

Very open plan with balconies

and internal light wells.

Sufficient space for fire

service access and occupant

egress.


fire detection and alarm

system

The current system in the

North block is a ‘L1 system’

that is required under

section 1.2.14.2 of part B1 of

the technical guidance

documents for an institution

building. The first part of the

L1 system is detection which

in the section surveyed

showed compliance by using

smoke detectors.

The next section was the

break glass units. Any break

glass units were located

correctly at final vertical exits

and the correct type of unit

The current system in the

North block is a ‘L1 system’

that is required under section

1.2.14.2 of part B1 of the

technical guidance

documents for an institution

building. The first part of the

L1 system is detection which

in the section surveyed

showed compliance by using

smoke detectors.

Several break glass units

strategically located around

the centre in the correct

locations. Next is the fire

alarm. Within the section

105

at the right height off floor

level. Next is the fire alarm.

Within the section surveyed

there were two types of

alarms, a fire bell and a fire

alarm.

surveyed there were two

types of alarms, a fire bell and

a fire alarm.


emergency lighting

All lighting throughout the

section surveyed was the

correct bulk fitting at height

level throughout the

building. However the

drawback was that there was

not the sufficient amount of

emergency lighting for the

North Block purpose group.

Lack of emergency lighting

throughout the building

particularly the unprotected

staircase as there was only

one emergency light for such

an open area.


firefighting equipment

Three types of extinguishers

are wall mounted

strategically outside of high

risk areas and on final exits

of the North block which are

foam, water and carbon

extinguishers. Each

extinguisher is mounted at

the correct height on the

correct bracket.

Three types of extinguishers

are wall mounted

strategically outside of high

risk areas and on final exits of

the Regional Centre which are

foam, water and carbon

extinguishers. Each

extinguisher is mounted at

the correct height on the

correct bracket.


management systems

The alarm system within the

North Block was audible

throughout the building and

fully functional.

The alarm system within the

Regional Centre was audible

throughout the building and

fully functional.

General Notes Good up to date systems Good system that look to be

106

within North block but

attention required in series

of areas.

maintained on regular 6

month basis.

Table 11 Fire Drill Assessment - Pre-Drill Assessment – Maintenance (Author, 2016)

Time


Time of alarm began Alarm began at 9.45am. Alarm began at 9.57am.

Time of total

evacuation to place of

safety

All occupants evacuated

externally at 9.50am.

Arrived at assembly point at

front of school at 9.51am.

All occupants evacuated

externally at 9.59am. Arrived

at assembly point at front of

school at 10.01am.

Time of total

accountability

Total accountability at

9.52am.

Total accountability at

10.02am.

Expected time of total

evacuation

Expected time was 9.52am. Expected time was 10.01.

General Notes

At 9.58 people started to re-

enter the building.

At 10.02 people started to re-

enter the building.

Table 12 Fire Drill Assessment - Time (Author, 2016)

Construction Aspects – Internal Stairs (Protected Stairway)


No. of risers 20 18

Riser height 187mm 175mm

Going length 290mm 300mm

Clear width of stairs 1080mm 1100mm

Handrail width 75mm 75mm

Half landing width 1095mm 1100mm

Total width of staircase 1180mm 1300mm

Table 13 Fire Drill Assessment - Construction Aspects –Stairs (Author, 2016)

107

Construction Aspects – External Stairs


No. of risers 5 N.A.

Riser height 150mm N.A.

Going length 4 N.A.

Clear width of stairs 1400mm N.A.

Handrail width 75mm N.A.

Half landing width 1765mm N.A.

Total width of staircase 1600mm N.A.

Table 14 Fire Drill Assessment - Construction Aspects – Steps (Author, 2016)

Analysis – Occupants


No. Evacuated:

Students

Staffs

Visitors

Other

34 students

2 staff

N.A.

The whole DKIT North Block.

20 students

2 staff

N.A.

The whole DKIT Regional

Centre.

No. of Care Takers N.A. N.A.

No. of Assembly Points:

Internally:

Externally:

1 assembly point at top of

stairs.

1 assembly point before final

exit down stairs.

1 assembly point at top of

stairs.

1 assembly point in car park.

No. of Fire drills

annually

1 fire drill. 2 fire drills.

No. of Primary

Supervisors

15 fire staff in total. 2 fire staff in total.

No. of Secondary

Supervisors

All lectures of DKIT North

Block.

All lectures of DKIT Regional

Centre.

108

No. of disable

occupants

None. None.

General Notes

Participants followed crowd

until final exit.

At final exit there was a fire

officer waiting to direct

occupants.

Final exit was down set of

steps only and no safe

disable exit for disable

occupants. Externally there

were fire officers there to

direct occupants to assembly

point outside the North

Block.

Participants followed crowd

until final exit.

No fire warden at final exit.

Final assembly point was

through a car park.

Additionally participants had

to cross a road to get to the

assembly point.

Table 15 Fire Drill Assessment - Analysis – Occupants (Author, 2016)

Analysis – Fire Department


Was the fire brigade

present? or where they

notified?

No fire brigade present for

drill only DKIT fire offices.

No fire brigade present for

drill only DKIT fire offices

Who was in charge of

notifying the fire

department? Or what

system is in place for

this?

Conor Laid – Chief Estates

Manager of DKIT North

Block.

Conor Laid – Chief Estates

Manager of DKIT North Block.

Table 16 Fire Drill Assessment - Analysis – Fire Service (Author, 2016)

109

Analysis – Fire Drill


Furthest area of room

to top of staircase

26.40m

18.32m

Top of staircase to

bottom of staircase

5.51m 6.22m

Bottom of staircase to

final exit

2.35m

8.34m

Final exit to assembly

point

71.05m

92.65m

Total egress distance 105.31m 125.53m

Table 17 Fire Drill Assessment - Analysis – Fire Drill (Author, 2016)

Analysis – Active Arrangements and Communication


Were doors closed and

latched to confine the

fire and reduce smoke

spread?

Yes all automatic doors on

secondary escape routes

closed immediately when

alarm went off. No smoke

present so could not

examine if there was any

leaks to allow smoke to pass

through.

Yes all automatic doors on

secondary escape routes

closed immediately when

alarm went off. No smoke

present however the

mezzanine floors were a clear

issue from pre-drill survey.

How was the fire alarm

activated?

Fire alarm was manually set

off as it was a scheduled fire

drill. If this was an actual

fire, according to the fire

officer, the smoke detectors

would pick up the smoke and

set the alarm off.

Manually activated by fire

warden.

110

Was the following used:

Fire alarm

Voice communication

Self-closing doors

Electro-magnetic

devices on doors

Hoses, extinguishers,

sprinklers

Other?

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Fire bells and beckons.

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Fire bells and beckons.

Does the fire

alarm/system have a

back-up power source?

Yes there is a backup power

source but it was not used in

the drill as there was primary

power available.

Yes there is a backup power

source but it was not used in

the drill as there was primary

power available.

Did the fire alarm go off

correctly? Was it

audible throughout all

areas?

Yes alarm was heard clearly

in the area being surveyed

and the rest of the building.

Yes alarm was heard clearly

in the area being surveyed

and the rest of the building.

Were people in

immediate danger

evacuated?

No major danger but

occupants did get up

immediately in hearing the

alarm and left the building.

No major danger but

occupants did get up

immediately in hearing the

alarm and left the building.

General Notes N.A. N.A.

Table 18 Fire Drill Assessment - Analysis – Active Measures (Author, 2016)

Analysis – Staff Behaviour


Did sufficient staff respond

and evacuate endangered

occupants in an organized

and timely manner?

Staff and students in each

classroom left straight away

when the alarm was

sounded.

No single file order was

used on corridor or down

stairs but was not rushed

or aware of the

seriousness of the

111

Left and proceeded down the

corridor, one lecture in front

and one at the rear of the

class.

However no single file order

was used on corridor or

down stairs but was not

rushed or aware of the

seriousness of the situation.

situation.

Was scene supervision

appropriate?

Yes aquatic number of fire

officers externally and at

assembly points however

DKIT North Block has a

complex layout and it would

have been more satisfactory

if a small number of fire

officers were internally seen

in the building.

Fire wardens on site

during drill.

Were instructions clear?

Verbal instructions at

beginning of exit from the

building from lectures were

clear however once into the

corridors and stairwells it

was a ‘follow the crowd’

procedure/instructions.

Poor instructions as all

participants of the drill

proceeded on their own

individual path. This

supports the individual

response level.

Did designated staff

respond correctly to

provide fire department

assistance and access?

Yes satisfactory staff

response however there is an

argument that arose is

lectures reasonable for

112

students like in a high school

because it was more casual

i.e. mature students etc.

Did teachers/staff check:

All rooms

All corridors

Store equipment rooms

Other?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

All rooms were deemed clear

before re-entry.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

All rooms were deemed

clear before re-entry.

Was there a number count

after all had been

evacuated?

No number count as DKIT did

not know how many students

were evacuated.

No number count as DKIT

did not know how many

students were

evacuated.

Were all occupants directed

sufficiently?

Externally there were a

number of sufficient fire

officers however internally

there was only fire officers at

assembly points at each final

exit.

Yes there were two fire

wardens on site at both

exits.

When were occupants

aloud to re-enter the

building? What gave this

indication of re-entry? How

did staff deal with pre-

mature re-entry?

Yes occupants were allowed

to re-enter shortly after the

full evacuation. Fire officers

gave permission to the

people at the front of the

assembly point and everyone

else followed. There was no

pre-mature entry into the

building.

Yes occupants were

allowed to re-enter

shortly after the full

evacuation.

113

What are the primary

supervisor’s

responsibilities/procedures?

I.e. teacher, head teacher,

principal, etc.

Primary supervisors were fire

officers who coordinated the

exit from the building and

tried not to have any panic in

the evacuation.

Primary supervisors were

fire officers who

coordinated the exit from

the building and tried not

to have any panic in the

evacuation.

Is a buddy system for any

particular occupant or area

of the building?

No buddy system was used

on any part of the North

Block.

No buddy system was

used on any part of the

Regional Development

Centre.

Table 19 Fire Drill Assessment - Analysis – Staff Behaviour (Author, 2016)

Analysis – Evacuation Movement Behaviour


How was horizontal

evacuated conducted?

Participants responded to the

fire alarm on an organisation

level. All participants left the

room behind the lecture.

Through a protected corridor

and into a protected stairwell

and down the staircase.

Through the final exit and

towards the assembly point

as directed by the fire

warden.

Participants responded to

alarm and began to move out

of the room as a group.

Out of room and towards and

down the unprotected

staircase.

Through the final exit and

towards the assembly point.

How was vertical

evacuated conducted?

Straight forward movement

down the staircase but did

not form a single line instead

went in pairs and continued

Decided to use an

unprotected staircase which

was a failure by the

participants not to use a

114

with their personal

conversations. Poor exit

along this phase of the

evacuation procedure.

protected stairwell at the

west side of the building.

How was disable

occupants dealt with?

N.A.

N.A.

What information was

available to occupants

during the evacuation?

Yes clear indication of

procedures to follow.

Poor information and

guidance for participants.

How did occupants exit

the building? Walk,

run? Any injuries or

panic present?

Walked in a calm manner

with just difficult to focus due

to the noise from the bells

and alarm, all occupants

wanted to exit as quickly as

possible but in a safe

manner.

Walked in calm manner.

Table 20 Fire Drill Assessment - Analysis –Movement (Author, 2016)

Analysis – Evacuation Procedure


Step-Step outline of the

procedure for school, if

any?

DKIT policy deals with this

aspect and as stated

previously.

DKIT policy deals with this

aspect and as stated

previously.

Table 21 Fire Drill Assessment - Analysis –Procedure (Author, 2016)

115

Analysis - Success of the fire drill (North Block)

Responses within

the drill

Very Good Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor

Personal response

X

Participant

response X

Visitor response

X

Staff response

X

Communication

during drill X

Familiarity with

active and passive

measures

X

Evacuation speed

X

Evacuation

movement X

Noise level of

evacuation X

Table 22 Fire Drill Assessment - Analysis - Fire drill (North Block) (Author, 2016)

116

Analysis - Success of the fire drill (Regional Centre)

Responses within

the drill

Very Good Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor

Personal response

X

Participant

response X

Visitor response

X

Staff response

X

Communication

during drill X

Familiarity with

active and passive

measures

X

Evacuation speed

X

Evacuation

movement X

Noise level of

evacuation X

Table 23 Fire Drill Assessment - Analysis - Fire drill (Regional Centre) (Author, 2016)

117

Analysis – Utilities


Was all electrical

appliances turned off?

No appliances were turned

off in the labs.

No appliances were turned off

in the labs.

Was all lights turned

off?

No all lighting remained on


No all lighting remained on


Was all equipment

shut down?

No equipment was shut

down for this drill.

No equipment was shut down

for this drill.

Table 24 Fire Drill Assessment - Analysis – Utilities (Author, 2016)

Analysis – Misc.


How were unaccounted

people dealt with, if

any?

All people accounted for so

unaware of the policy for this

situation.

All people accounted for so

unaware of the policy for this

situation.

Date of last fire risk

assessment?

Unknown information. 07.10.2015

Was there any issues,

delays, etc. with disable

occupants?

N.A. N.A.

Does the school have an

evacuation plan?

Yes and is clearly seen in

various areas around the

North Block.

Yes and is clearly seen in

various areas around the

Regional Centre.

General Notes N.A. N.A.

Table 25 Fire Drill Assessment - Analysis – Misc. (Author, 2016)

118

9.0 Appendix B: Questionnaires and Interviews

9.1 Fire Drill Participant Questionnaires

119

9.1.1 Pre-Drill Questionnaire

Questionnaire 1 – In the event of a fire at DKIT

Year Group ______________________________

Age ______________________________

Please fill out this questionnaire honestly, all questionnaires will remain anonymous.

Question 1: If a fire broke out, would you:

Escape

Call the police

Call the fire brigade

Try to put the fire out

Question 2: If a fire broke out, would you exit by:

The nearest exit

Follow the crowd

Wait patiently on help

Go a longer route that you are familiar with

Other_____________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Question 3: Do you have any fire safety training?

Yes

No

Question 4: Would you be able to exit a building more easily if you knew its layout?

Yes

No

Question 5: Do you know DKIT exit plan in the event of a fire?

Yes

No

120

Question 6: Can you locate your nearest emergency exit in each classroom?

Yes

No

Question 7: If a fire broke out, would you:

Panic

Remain calm

Assist others

Question 8: Would you assist others in the event of a fire?

Yes

No

Question 9: How would you know if a fire had broken out?

Smell of smoke

Unusual movement around the classroom and other classrooms

Strange noises

Alarm

Seeing smoke

Other_____________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Question 10: If the fire alarm went off, would you:

Wait to be told what to do by your lecture

Leave the building as quickly as possible no matter what

See how big the fire is and is it a big problem to your safety

Warn others

Ignore the fire alarm and continue studying

Question 11: If the fire alarm went off, would you think it was:

Maintenance on alarm system

Practice drill

False alarm

Real fire

121

Question 12: If you came across smoke would you:

Investigate to fight the fire

Investigate for curiosity

Turn back

Try to get a different way out of the building

Continue through the smoke because you know that exit the best in DKIT

Other_____________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Question 13: If you seen the fire that broke out, would you:

Fight the fire

Turn back


Ask for help

Other_____________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Any additional comments please state:

122

9.1.2 Post-Drill Questionnaire

Questionnaire 2 – Reactions in Fire Drill at DKIT

Year Group ______________________________

Age ______________________________

Please fill out this questionnaire honestly, all questionnaires will remain anonymous.

Question 1: When the fire drill began did you:

Escape

Call the police

Call the fire brigade

Try to put the fire out

Question 2: How did you exit in the fire drill?

The nearest exit

Follow the crowd

Wait patiently on help

Go a longer route that you are familiar with

Other_____________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Question 3: Do you feel fire safety training would have made your reactions to the fire

better?

Yes

No

Question 4: Did knowing the school layout make the exit simpler?

Yes

No

Question 5: Did you follow DKIT exit plan?

Yes

No

123

Question 6: Did you use the nearest emergency exit in the fire drill?

Yes

No

Question 7: When the alarm went off, did you:

Panic

Remain calm

Assist others

Question 8: Did you assist others in the fire drill?

Yes

No

Question 9: How did you know a fire had broken out in the fire drill?

Smell of smoke

Unusual movement around the classroom and other classrooms

Strange noises

Alarm

Seeing smoke

Other_____________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Question 10: When the alarm went off did you:

Wait to be told what to do by your lecture

Leave the building as quickly as possible no matter what

See how big the fire is and is it a big problem to your safety

Warn others

Ignore the fire alarm and continue studying

Question 11: When the alarm went off, did you think it was:

Maintenance on alarm system

Practice drill

False alarm

Real fire

124

Question 12: In the fire drill, if you had seen smoke, would you have:

Investigate to fight the fire

Investigate for curiosity

Turn back


Continued through the smoke because you know that exit the best in DKIT

Other_____________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Question 13: In the fire drill, if you had seen the fire that broke out, would you:

Fight the fire

Turn back


Ask for help

Other_____________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Any additional comments please state:

125

9.2 Professional Questionnaires

9.2.1 Professional Questionnaire

Disclaimer: Before completing any questions, you must tick the box below that you

agree to DKIT Ethical Policy as attached and you have read the DKIT Ethical Participant

Consent Form and you are giving the right to Patrick Reel to use the information

provided as part of dissertation research ‘Occupant Behaviour in Fire’.

I agree

I disagree

Questionnaire

Please fill out the following and return via email to senders address. Thank you.

Question 1:

What is your understanding of the title, “Human Behaviour in Fire Situations?”

Question 2:

Does your firm design buildings in accordance with regulations using fire safety design or

human evacuation modelling?

Question 3:

What is the best practice method for lowering the amount of panic for occupants if a fire

was to break out?

Question 4:

Any other information on this topic area?

126

9.2.2 Professional Questionnaire Answers

Question 1: What is your understanding of the title, “Human Behaviour in Fire

Situations?”

Professional

Interviewee No.1

It is the study of human response in fire situations.

Professional

Interviewee No.2

We consider 3 types of behaviour regarding fire: behaviours that

cause or prevent fires, behaviours that affect fires and behaviours

that increase or reduce harm from fires.

Professional

Interviewee No.3

Your question is very broad. A lot of our understanding relates to

ASET versus RSET from BS: 7974 series. In talks I often quote a

district officer after Kings Cross fire – “Panic doesn’t kill people; it’s

often the lack of panic”. In most large death fires people do not use

the time at the start of the fire and often wait till it’s too late to

evacuate. Look at any study on pre-movement times.

Professional

Interviewee No.4

Human Behaviour in fire situations is the study of occupant

behaviour in a building fire which may influenced by the following:

Initial complacency, querying of emergency, disbelief.

Panic

Familiarity with the building layout and drill procedures

Person’s ability / age, etc.

Presence of smoke / fire etc. and visibility and effect on escape routes.

Emergency warning, light and signage systems in place.

Etc.

Professional

Interviewee No.5

It is how people react in the event of a fire.

Professional

Interviewee No.6

The response of persons to a situation arising from a fire event that

they recognise to be threatening to their safety.

Professional

Interviewee No.7

Well, it’s your research but I assume you are looking into how

people react to fire alarms or witnessed fires. Some are calm and

leave the building; others look around themselves and confirm that

it is not a false alarm. Apparently there is some old research (but I

127

have no citations) that people like to leave the way that they

entered. They may derive some comfort from that familiarity. At

home people are with their families and may have different

priorities – especially at night. Our model is to advocate

preparation and protection rather than trying to fight the fire.

Situations where neighbours saw smoke and called another family

member rather than 999/112 have occurred.

Table 26 Interviews with Industry Professionals - Q1 (Author, 2016)

Question 2: Does your firm design buildings in accordance with regulations using fire

safety design or human evacuation modelling?

Professional

Interviewee No.1

We use the building regulations but accept engineering designs

which may include evacuation modelling.

Professional

Interviewee No.2

Wicklow fire service primarily assess designs and the constructed

environment in terms of regulations e.g. TGD Part B. In complex

buildings we will consider submissions that include elements based

on human evacuation modelling.

Professional

Interviewee No.3

Modelling is very questionable following the Glasgow trials. As a

Fire Authority we promote compliance with Building Regs. The Regs

also allow for fire engineering and modelling solutions but these

would normally be isolated.

Professional

Interviewee No.4

We design in accordance with regulations.

Professional

Interviewee No.5

We do not use modelling. As long as it complies with regulations

and it is a good design then we are satisfied. Modelling is too hard

and need to do a separate course to learn the software.

Professional

Interviewee No.6

We have done so but generally do not.

Professional

Interviewee No.7

Dublin Fire Brigade does not design buildings. Specialist staff

examines plans and discuss with architects etc. to ensure that

passive and active fire protection measures are in place. Largely

128

these are based on the building regulations and Technical Guidance

Document B


Question 3: What is the best practice method for lowering the amount of panic for

occupants if a fire was to break out?

Professional

Interviewee No.1

Adequate clear well signed exits.

Professional

Interviewee No.2

Best practice includes training of occupants under non-emergency

conditions, signage, way finding guides, and fire alarms, fire

marshals acting as ushers and to provide information in relation to

the nature of the alarm.

Professional

Interviewee No.3

Training, training, training. Also having someone in authority to

make clear decisions.

Professional

Interviewee No.4

The best practice methods for lowering the amount of panic for

occupants if a fire was to break out is use of passive and active

measures to include the following:

Provision of fire resistant construction to contain fire and protect escape routes.

Occupant familiarity with safety equipment and fire drills in the event of an emergency along with provision of escape signage, lighting and alarm systems.

Good housekeeping in relation to: o Staff training o Maintenance of fire safety equipment, systems and

lighting, etc. o Ensuring escape routes are kept free from obstacles

and exit doors are readily operable.

Professional

Interviewee No.5

Active measures

Staff training

Management plan

Have somebody in charge

Professional

Interviewee No.6

Generally occupants will never be exposed to fire and most interest

is focused on their response to alarms. I am not sure if that is your

intent here. Measures can be introduced to assist their

129

interpretation of alarms and influence their behaviour through

provision of information and/or ideally human

intervention/leadership. Structural arrangements such as avoiding

design arrangements as would give rise to confusion (complicated

routes, absence of or conflicting signage), lack of perceived safety

(intended distance of travel, corralling into unfamiliar or narrower

spaces) etc.

If you really mean their response to exposure to fire i.e. they

directly witness flames and/or smoke then to my mind same can

only be influenced by immediate local human intervention and

societal wide education programmes.

Professional

Interviewee No.7

I suppose it would be the assurance that everybody was going to be

safe. This starts way back with lessons in primary schools and

community groups. I don’t believe that there is very much about

fire safety on the Leaving Cert Construction Studies curriculum,

there may be even more on the Home Economics side. People need

to be able to turn their back on a fire and walk to a place of safety.

The fire brigade arrives after this so we don’t often see this stage.


Question 4: Any other information on this topic area?

Professional

Interviewee No.1

None.

Professional

Interviewee No.2

None.

Professional

Interviewee No.3

BS: 7974 Part 6 gives a good overview of the issues with human

behaviour and designing for them.

Professional

Interviewee No.4

My understanding of Human evacuation modelling is that it is a

relatively new tool in the design of building as theories and models

are still being developed on human behaviour in order to predicate

130

and reduce the assumptions and estimates which can either be too

conservative or too optimistic.

Professional

Interviewee No.5

A good design will stand time.

Professional

Interviewee No.6

See attached files.

Professional

Interviewee No.7

None.


131

9.3 Fire Drill Participant Interviews

9.3.1 DKIT North Block Participant Interviews

Before completing any questions, you must tick the box below that you agree to DKIT

Ethical Policy as attached and you have read the DKIT Ethical Participant Consent Form

and you are giving the right to Patrick Reel to use the information provided as part of

dissertation research ‘Occupant Behaviour in Fire’.

I agree

I disagree

Question 1:

Why do you think 36% of participants did not go for an emergency exit as soon as the

alarm went off?

Question 2:

Pre-drill 88% of participants stated that they would assist others in the event of a fire

but only 35% of participants actually did assist other.

What do you think is the major cause of this difference during the drill?

Question 3:

Post drill 92% of participants stated that alarms was the indication that a fire drill was

taking place or that a fire had broken out. Why do you think this?

Question 4:

Any other comments on the drill?

132

Question 1: Why do you think 36% of participants did not go for an emergency exit as

soon as the alarm went off?

Participant

Interviewee No.1

I think that 36% of the participants didn’t go for the emergency exit

because they were so used to going in the same pathway from

going into college every day.

Participant

Interviewee No.2

Well I think a lot of the students were unsure of their situation or a

lot of them panicked and didn’t quite know what was going on

around them.

Table 30 Interviews with North Block Participants – Q1 (Author, 2016)

Question 2: Pre-drill 88% of participants stated that they would assist others in the

event of a fire but only 35% of participants actually did assist other. What do you think

is the major cause of this difference during the drill?

Participant

Interviewee No.1

I thought that everyone probably thought they care about

themselves and their own priorities and they may have panicked at

this time.

Participant

Interviewee No.2

Well a lot of them were panicking while they were all worried about

getting out themselves and weren’t too worried about other

people.


Question 3: Post drill 92% of participants stated that alarms was the indication that a fire

drill was taking place or that a fire had broken out. Why do you think this?

Participant

Interviewee No.1

I’d say that throughout the all the years at primary school and secondary school they were so used to this type of drill.

Participant

Interviewee No.2

Well I think it was because usually it’s just another annual drill and

just haven’t been often that a fire has actually happened in a while.


Question 4: Any other comments on the drill?

Participant

Interviewee No.1

No I think everything went calm and went well.

Participant Drill was successful enough and teachers were directing students

133

Interviewee No.2 where to go and nobody left inside.


(Note: All answers shown above are word-for-word DKIT North Block participant

interviewee answers.)

134

9.3.2 DKIT Regional Development Centre Participant Interviews

Before completing any questions, you must tick the box below that you agree to DKIT

Ethical Policy as attached and you have read the DKIT Ethical Participant Consent Form

and you are giving the right to Patrick Reel to use the information provided as part of

dissertation research ‘Occupant Behaviour in Fire’.

I agree

I disagree

Interview Questions

Question 1:

Why do you think 65% of the Regional Development Centre Participants chose to follow

the crowd during the fire drill compared to the 94% of North Block Participants who

used the nearest exit?

Question 2:

Why did 82% of Regional Development Centre Participants chose to escape straight

away instead of calling the Garda or calling the fire brigade or try to extinguish the fire?

Question 3:

65% of Regional Development Centre Participants would turn back if they came across

smoke during the drill which is a major advantage to occupant safety. However 12%

said they would escape through the smoke. Why do you think this and could this be

changed?

Question 4:

Any other comments on the fire drill?

135

Question 1: Why do you think 65% of the Regional Development Centre Participants

chose to follow the crowd during the fire drill compared to the 94% of North Block

Participants who used the nearest exit?

Participant

Interviewee No.1

I think that basically the reason why was, because I was one of

those people. I would tend to use the North Block more frequently

so therefore I would be much more aware of the current and

correct exits that would exist within the building. Rather than when

I was using the Regional Development Centre exits, I wasn’t fully

aware. I suppose I was in some ways I kind of knew that it was a fire

drill and therefore I kind of just followed the crowd.

In other case though, I mean, you know, if I was here and I was

actually using the North Block I would be more inclined to go out

and use the exit that I know more frequently and therefore it’s likely

the best exit. However when I get out I don’t actually know the

assembly point.

If I didn’t have a fire warden outside and I didn’t have anybody

directing me towards the assembly point I would have to admit I am

one hundred percent sure. I think that the assembly points are

quite clear outside because they have got A, B, C and D marked on

them and they’re quite obvious but whether or not that’s where I’m

supposed to go because I’m in a particular part of the building I’m

not fully aware of.

Table 34 Interviews with RDC Participants – Q1 (Author, 2016)

Question 2: Why did 82% of Regional Development Centre Participants chose to escape

straight away instead of calling the Garda or calling the fire brigade or try to extinguish

the fire?

Participant

Interviewee No.1

Now I know I’m included within this list as well and there is a bit of

humour in there. I feel like if you’re a little bit more mature or

136

maybe or little bit more adult or life experience. I’m actually more

aware that they’re people on site usually that have these roles so

your main aim in any instances whether that be in a drill or in an

actual fire is to actually leave the building in a safe way and to

escape basically without having to worry about the particular roles

of ringing you know the fire brigade in terms of that. Also certainly

not trying to challenge the fire itself.

In terms of the Garda as well. I suppose what I would say would be

that I would suggest when you get out that perhaps then if you note

that the fire warden wasn’t out there or somebody that was such as

the Garda then people would start asking “Did anybody ring, Did

anybody ring?” I think in that case then if you feel that nobody has

communicated then you might do it but only when you’re safely out

of the building and it has been clearly established that nobody else

has done that.

I think it’s because we are actually aware of the processes and

procedures for fire and the escape routes. So that’s problem why.


Question 3: 65% of Regional Development Centre Participants would turn back if they

came across smoke during the drill which is a major advantage to occupant safety.

However 12% said they would escape through the smoke. Why do you think this and

could this be changed?

Participant

Interviewee No.1

Ok, well I think when I see the twelve percent, I know that I have

asked you about what other kind of options were there so we have

discussed then. So I’m looking at the twelve percent here now and

their comfortable. I suppose I think it all depends on what; at what

stage you meet the smoke.

137

So if you were going out of the building first and you immediately

came out of the room you’re in, for example my office. I wouldn’t

go in the direction of smoke of course because I would take the

alternative route. If I was on the way out of the building and I

actually came across smoke I suppose it would be determined by

whether or not I knew that the exit was quite close or otherwise. If

the exit is quite close, I probably would continue in the knowledge

that I would hope out.

This maybe not the right way but I think that the closer I would be

then the more likely I would be to sub-consciously to take the exit.

You know and it just means that you know that as long as it is safe

to proceed then again it depends on when it happens.


Question 4: Any other comments on the fire drill?

Participant

Interviewee No.1

I think the drill on the day that I was actually from the last fire drill

that we did here, I was actually in the RDC just short of a few weeks.

Basically I found that it ran efficiently and was actually one of the

days I found that the fire warden was evident on the day outside

when we went out.

It was also useful to know that we all did go to an assembly point

together. I think it was quite calm and it was well done and it was

really, really efficient on that day we were informed when we could

go back into the building and so forth. I found it really, really good.


(Note: All answers shown above are word-for-word DKIT Regional Development Centre

participant interviewee answers.)

138

10.0 Appendix C: Participant Speed of Movement Breakdown

Zinke (2014)

DKIT North Block DKIT Regional Centre

Theoretical

assumptions when

designing/analysing a

building as a desk top

study.

Horizontal Movement:

1.40 m/s x 99.81m = 139.73

Vertical Movement:

1.0 m/s x 5.51m = 5.51

Total movement time:

139.73 + 5.51 = 145.24

seconds

145.24 / 60 = 2 minutes and

42 seconds

Horizontal Movement:

1.40 m/s x 121m = 169.4

Vertical Movement:

1.0 m/s x 4.53m = 4.53

Total movement time:

169.4 + 4.53 = 173.93

seconds

173.93 / 60 = 2 minutes and

53 seconds

Researcher (2016)

In a calm and

controlled atmosphere

and not subject to

crowd control issues.

Also good knowledge

of the building.

Horizontal and Vertical

Movement:

Travel Time

1 minutes and 45 seconds

travel time= 105 seconds

Response and pre-evacuation

40 seconds

Total egress time

6 minutes = 105 seconds

105s / 105.31m = 1.17 meters

per second per participant


Movement:

Travel Time



Response and pre-

evacuation

45 seconds

Total egress time

2.5 minutes = 150 seconds

150s / 125.53m = 1.19

meters per second per

participant

Participants (2016)

In an emergency

atmosphere and

subject to crowd


Movement:

Travel Time


Movement:

Travel Time

139

control issues. Also

poor knowledge of the

building.



Response and pre-evacuation

40 seconds

Total egress time


360s / 105.31m = 3.41 meters

per second per participant



Response and pre-

evacuation

40 seconds

Total egress time


240s / 125.53m = 1.91

meters per second per

participant

Table 38 Overview of three researchers evacuation calculation (Author, 2016)

Actual Vs Theory Vs Researchers Views

DKIT North Block DKIT Regional Centre

Theory Vs Actual

145.24 seconds theory view

on required Egress time. 360

seconds actual required

Egress Time. Difference of

214.76 seconds total egress

time or 247%.

1.40 speeds per meter second

theory view. Actual speed per

meter second was 3.41.

Difference of 2.01 speeds per

meter second or 243%.

173.93 seconds theory view





time or 263%.

1.40 speeds per meter

second theory view. Actual

speed per meter second was

1.91. Difference of 0.51

speeds per meter second.

Researcher Vs Actual

105 seconds researcher view




173.93 seconds researcher

view on required Egress time.

240 seconds actual required


140

255 seconds total egress time

or 342%.


researcher’s view. Actual



speeds per meter second or

248%.


time.


second researcher’s view.

Actual speed per meter

second was 1.91. Difference

of 0.80 speeds per meter

second.

Theory Vs Researcher 105 seconds researcher view

on required Egress time.

145.24 seconds theory’s view

on required Egress Time.

Difference of 40.24 seconds

total egress time or 38%.


researcher’s view. Theory



speeds per meter second or

2%.

173.93 seconds researcher

view on required Egress time.

240 seconds theory’s view on

required Egress Time.

Difference of 66.07 seconds

total egress time or 38%.


second researcher’s view.

Theory speed per meter

second was 1.40. Difference

of 0.21 speeds per meter

second.

Table 39 Comparison of three researchers’ evacuation calculation (Author, 2016)

141

11.0 Appendix D: Photos

142

11.1 DKIT North Block Fire Drill

143

Figure 147 North Block Participants exiting (Author, 2016)

Figure 146 Moving towards final exit (Author, 2016)

Figure 148 Vertical Movement (Author, 2016)

Figure 149 Movement towards Assembly Point ‘A’ (Author, 2016)

144

Figure 150 Assembly Point ‘A’ (Author, 2016)



Figure 153 Participants re-entering the North Block (Author, 2016)

145

11.2 DKIT Regional Development Centre Fire Drill

146

Figure 155 Participants leaving offices (Author, 2016)

Figure 154 Movement towards Vertical Escape (Author, 2016)

Figure 156 Vertical Movement (Author, 2016)

Figure 157 Movement towards final exit (Author, 2016)

147


Figure 159 Movement towards Assembly Point ‘C’ (Author, 2016)

Figure 160 Movement towards Assembly Point ‘C’ (Author, 2016)

Figure 161 Assembly Point ‘C’ (Author, 2016)

Final Dissertation

Documents

Transcript of Final Dissertation