Structural SurveyAn integrated fire safety assessment of a student housing facilityMuizz O. Sanni-Anibire Mohammad A. Hassanain

Article information:To cite this document:Muizz O. Sanni-Anibire Mohammad A. Hassanain , (2015),"An integrated fire safety assessment of astudent housing facility", Structural Survey, Vol. 33 Iss 4/5 pp. 354 - 371Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SS-03-2015-0017

Downloaded on: 09 December 2015, At: 07:15 (PT)References: this document contains references to 34 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 15 times since 2015*

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:409276 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emeraldfor Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submissionguidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, aswell as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources andservices.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of theCommittee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative fordigital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time ofdownload.

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ing

Fahd

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

trol

eum

and

Min

eral

s A

t 07:

15 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

An integrated fire safetyassessment of a student

housing facilityMuizz O. Sanni-Anibire and Mohammad A. Hassanain

Architectural Engineering Department,King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

AbstractPurpose – The purpose of this paper is to present an integrated approach to fire safety assessment,through combining the outcomes of a checklist tailored to the requirements of the InternationalBuilding Code (IBC), and an evacuation simulation tool (EVACNET4), applied to a student housingfacility as case study.Design/methodology/approach – The authors reviewed relevant literature and previous studiespertaining to fire safety assessment and management. An assessment checklist was developed accordingto the requirements of the IBC. EVACNET4 simulation tool was utilized to model the evacuation of thefacility under review. The results derived from the aforementioned steps were correlated to identifypotential corroborating or conflicting issues pertaining to the safe evacuation of building occupants in theoccurrence of a fire incident.Findings – Fire safety provisions were found to be adequate, and the building can be evacuated safelyin about 190 seconds, should a fire occur. The architectural design aspects of the exit doors whichmight cause potential bottlenecks were identified.Originality/value – A completely fire safe building does not exist, and thus more integrativeapproaches to fire safety assessment and management will reduce to the least extent possible fire risks.A holistic fire safety management of campus housing is of paramount interest to the campus community,and the building industry at large.Keywords Checklist, EVACNET4, Evacuation, Fire safety, Student housingPaper type Research paper

1. IntroductionFire is regarded as both a curse and a blessing to mankind. Though fire is a majorelement and driving force of man’s civilization, its occurrence in buildings could lead totraumatizing whole communities through the loss of lives and properties (Argueta et al.,2009). Modern development in structural safety categorizes fire along with overcrowdingand extreme wind loads as risks. Statistical surveys in most parts of the world demonstratethe frequent occurrences of fires in buildings (Chen et al., 2012). Fatal and non-fatal injuries;and damages to building materials and its contents are results of the occurrence of a fire.Yearly statistics in the UK reveal that 800 people lose their lives and 15,000 sustainnon-fatal injuries due to fires, while material damages are averagely estimated to be about£1,200 million with indirect losses of about £120 million (Ramachandran, 1999).

In general, an absolutely fire safe building does not exist (Ramachandran, 1999).Student housing in particular is considered as a high risk facility where fire can quicklyrage out of control in the absence of appropriate and sufficient control and suppressionsystems. Thus, fire safety in student housing cannot be taken for granted. Though fatalfires do not occur on a daily basis, however when they do occur lifelong scars are left.Structural Survey

Vol. 33 No. 4/5, 2015pp. 354-371©EmeraldGroup Publishing Limited0263-080XDOI 10.1108/SS-03-2015-0017

Received 14 March 2015Revised 26 May 201511 August 2015Accepted 28 September 2015

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-080X.htm

The authors thank King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals for the support and facilitiesthat made this research possible.

354

SS33,4/5

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ing

Fahd

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

trol

eum

and

Min

eral

s A

t 07:

15 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

Steady commitment, careful planning, implementation and maintenance by the studenthousing administrative department is essential to ensure a fire safe student housingfacility (Mowrer, 1999).

A variety of risk assessment approaches have been established to achieve acceptablelevels of fire safety. Some of these approaches are based on compliance with fire coderequirements in the design and operation of a facility, others are based on real life orcomputer aided evacuation simulations. These isolated risk assessment approaches to firesafety assessment create loop holes due to the assumptions made. Some of the built-inassumptions include fuel load remaining unchanged over time, fire resistant doorsoperational at all times, fire detection and signalling systems provide warning at earliesttime and occupants will be ready to evacuate at the sound of the alarm. Theseassumptions however, could be wrong or insufficient resulting in an ambiguous design orassessment. Therefore, there is a need for considering the interaction of the various firesafety systems and the integration of various approaches to fire safety assessments anddesign (Meacham, 1999). The combined outcome derived from two or morecomplimentary approaches will fill in the loop created by an isolated approach. Thus,this paper proposes an integrated approach to fire safety assessment based on thecombination of a checklist tailored to the International Building Code (IBC) (2012)requirements for the given occupancy type, and an evacuation simulation software(EVACNET4) applied to a student housing facility as case study. The result is ofimportance to architects, builders, fire protection engineers and facility managers inenhancing the overall safety of the residential environment in student housing facilities.

2. Research methodologyIn order to achieve the objective of the study, literature has been reviewed pertaining tofire safety evaluation, fire safety management objectives and evacuation studies. Thisis to serve as a theoretical base for conducting the following activities:

• Development of the assessment checklist: the occupancy type of the facility asdefined by the IBC (2012) was used to tailor the elements of the assessmentchecklist. The developed checklist was used to carry out an assessment whilemoving from the upper floors to the lower floors and from wing to wing withinthe building. A camera was used along with the checklist to record observations.Relevant interviews were also carried out with maintenance and safety personnelof the student housing administrative department.

• Modelling and simulation of evacuation: relevant floor plans were used to developthe model in nodes and arcs, in accordance to EVACNET4 users’ guide (Kiskoet al., 1998). The developed model was executed and the results were obtained.

• Finally, the results derived from the aforementioned steps are correlated toidentify potential corroborating or conflicting issues pertaining to the safeevacuation of building occupants in the occurrence of a fire incident.

Figure 1 is a pictorial representation of the methodology adopted by this study.

3. Fires in student housing facilitiesThe IBC (2012) describes student housing facilities as buildings which contain more thantwo accommodation units with occupants permanent in nature. Campus housing is anintegral component of the university intended to help students attain intellectualcompetence, enliven personal character and aid in forming patterns of behaviour, thought

355

An integratedfire safetyassessment

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ing

Fahd

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

trol

eum

and

Min

eral

s A

t 07:

15 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

and imagination which should lead to a fulfilling living experience. The functions usuallyaccommodated in student rooms are studying, sleeping, dressing and relaxing(Hassanain, 2008a). For students, campus life represents a period of independence andan opportunity for juvenile indulgence, which is a potential threat to their personal safety.The occurrence of campus fires are relatively rare, however when it occurs, it leavesdevastating consequences that can last forever changing lives of not only individuals butfamilies and communities (Mowrer, 1999).

Fire could develop in student housing facilities because of several reasons, includingignorance, lack of concern and awareness about fire safety and prevention, students’pranks and tampering with fire alarms, which results to ignoring the fire alarm when itgoes off (Shan, 2008). Student housing facilities are classified as high risk type facilitiesin fire emergencies due to three factors. The first factor relates to the large number ofstudents potentially exposed at one location. The second relates to the high fire loadattributed to the nature, amount and arrangement of fire fuel that exists in the studentrooms. The third contributing factor is the design configuration of the majority ofstudent housing facilities. Most of these facilities are multi-storey buildings, occupantslocated in upper floors could experience escape problems due to overcrowding andchaos found at exit routes and while going down stairwells (Hassanain, 2008b).

4. Fire safety managementFires are preventable by effective management and occupant’s awareness. Fire safetymanagement has been the subject of research and implementation of numerous firesafety organizations (Argueta et al., 2009). Fire safety management is concerned with thereduction of the potential for harm to life and damage to properties due to the occurrenceof fire in buildings. Although the threat to life and property cannot be completelyeliminated, fire safety management is meant to reduce to the least extent possible fire riskthrough active and passive design features (Canadian Wood Council (CWC), 2000).

Fire safety has three major objectives. The first objective is to “prevent ignition ofbuilding materials and contents”. Achieving this objective involves three activities,namely: controlling ignition sources; controlling fuel characteristics; and controllingfuel/heat interaction by maintaining adequate separation (Watson, 2000). Theseprevention activities require an audit of ignition sources and the amount and nature offuel. Potential fuel in student housing include upholstered furniture, mattresses andbedding, draperies, curtains and other free-hanging decorations, combustible wall,

Checklist Assessment Literature ReviewModeling andsimulation ofEvacuation

(EVACNET4)

Acquire relevant floorplans to create networkmodel and determine

relevant arcs and areasdistances

Execute modelgenerated to derive

total evacuation time,bottlenecks and

evacuation

Evaluate fire safetyprovisions in the facilityand carry out relevant

interviews

Develop checklist inaccordance to IBC code

requirements for R2occupancy

Integrate results

Figure 1.Pictorialrepresentation ofthe researchmethodology

356

SS33,4/5

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ing

Fahd

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

trol

eum

and

Min

eral

s A

t 07:

15 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

ceiling and floor finishes, desks, dressers and bookcases, books, papers, notebooksand reports, trash and recycling materials and clothing. Potential ignition sourcesinclude smoking materials such as cigarettes, matches and lighters, candles andincense, cooking equipment and appliances, electric lamps and appliancesand building services such as electrical and gas distribution and utilizationequipment (Mowrer, 1999). Since fire prevention is never completely assured, thechances of preventing a fire are increased by ensuring building codes compliance ofthe design, construction and operation stages. The building operation stage is themost significant in preventing the occurrence of fire. Good housekeeping, forexample, ensures that combustible materials are separated from heat sources (CWC,2002). The second objective is to “control fire development”. This involves detectingfires by means of heat, smoke and flame detectors, controlling combustion andlimiting the rate of development, spread and severity of fire (Watson, 2000). In smallerbuildings, the provision of a fire extinguisher might suffice. Larger buildings requiremore, like the deployment of sprinkler systems (CWC, 2000). The third objectiveis to “protect the exposed”. This involves notifying occupants of the building,providing avenues for egress and protecting in-place occupants (Watson, 2000).Heat of the fire is not the main reason for injuries and deaths, rather the toxic fumesfrom smoke; this makes it extraordinarily important to evacuate occupants froma building where fire has occurred (CWC, 2000).

Fire safety management is plagued with faulty design issues, due to an ineffectivecorrelation between design and fire safety management plans. The fire protectionengineer does not consider the operational issues that could take place in the facility,while the facilities manager does not fully comprehend the design and operation of firesafety systems. Additionally, issues of human behaviour and occupants characteristicsare usually not considered in designing fire safety systems, in the fire safetymanagement plan, or in both cases (Meacham, 1999). Thus there is a need to strike abalance between fire safety design and fire safety management to achieve as minimalrisk as possible (CWC, 2002).

5. Evaluation of fire safety provisionsThe overall appraisal of building fire safety has not received enough attention.The primary focus is usually on the performance of selected fire safety systems.Frank et al. (2014), for example, focused on the effectiveness of sprinkler systems inNew Zealand. The losses due to a fire are however not exclusively attributed to theperformance of these safety systems, but rather a combination of various factors. Asidethe performance of fire safety systems provided in buildings, issues such as humanbehaviour, occupants’ characteristics and the building’s spatial characteristics anddesign should be put in the right perspective. The aim of evaluating a building’sfire safety performance is to assess the building’s compliance with fire safety codes andascertaining a satisfactory level of maintenance with building systems (Santos-Reyesand Beards, 2001).

A key step in this process is to ensure the existence of an effective emergencymanagement plan to avoid and/or reduce deaths and injuries in the event of occupants’evacuation of a building on fire. Facility managers and building maintenanceprofessionals consider the evacuation system as the most important aspect of firesafety management of buildings; this is because fire risk is probabilistic and thuscannot be completely eliminated (Lo and Cheng, 2003).

357

An integratedfire safetyassessment

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ing

Fahd

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

trol

eum

and

Min

eral

s A

t 07:

15 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

Code provisions however can prove to be too restrictive. This has led to manycountries adopting a performance-based fire safety design approach. Such an approachuses computer-based evacuation simulation models as quantification tools to helparchitects to adjust their building layout at the beginning of the design. It also aids fireofficials, building managers and hazard control officials in taking proper measures toplan and control the evacuation flow in the case of a fire accident (Yuan et al., 2009).A comprehensive review of 30 building evacuation models was published byKuligowski et al. (2005). Common simulation tools include; EXODUS, SIMULEX,EGRESS, EXIT, EVACSIM and EVACNET (Yuan et al., 2009).

6. Previous studiesSeveral studies have been carried out to evaluate fire safety of buildings of variousoccupancies. Some of these studies have focused on the comparison of real lifeevacuation exercises to results derived from computer simulations. These studies varyin nature of occupancy such as adult and children occupancies and also in the type ofbuildings studied. Klüpfel et al. (2003) and Ulriksen and Dederichs (2014) employed thiscomparative method. The objective of these two studies was to validate modelassumptions and simulation results with a real life evacuation exercise that focuses onchildren. The specific advantage of such an approach is to identify the extent at whichcomputer simulations represent real life scenarios and consequently the level ofreliability of such simulations. Though a novel approach, the overall fire safety of abuilding depends on other factors other than the total egress time which is the focalpoint of these studies. Another weakness of such an approach is that the ideal case isusually assumed, that is a situation where occupants are fully prepared to evacuate thebuilding at the sound of the alarm, since they have been informed that it is an exercise,and all hazards and obstructions have been removed.

Lo et al. (2006) further reinforced the fact that physical movement of people andboundary geometry are the parameters usually considered in computer simulations,while behavioural rules are largely ignored. An example of such study was carried outby Tashrifullahi and Hassanain (2013) with the use of EVACNET4 and FPETool todetermine the optimal evacuation time of a university library facility in Saudi Arabia.In this study the results of two simulation tools have been compared, this offers theadvantage of having two evacuation times, a minimum and a maximum value. Asidefrom not giving consideration to occupants’ behaviour, it is a study of the occupants’optimal evacuation time, ignoring all other factors that ensures the overall fire safety ofthe library, such as the estimate of fire load density in the building to control thepossibility of fire occurrences. Khorasani et al. (2014) presented probabilistic models topredict the fire load density in office buildings. The study concluded that both fire loaddensity and maximum temperature probabilistic models are well suited for applicationin a probabilistic performance-based approach to fire design. This approach is equallylimited to an aspect of the overall fire safety.

While computer simulations are popular in investigating evacuation patterns andtime, some researchers have relied solely on real life simulations. Chen et al. (2013)presented the results obtained from a student evacuation experiment performed ina four-story building at Tsinghua University. The observations were made using digitalvideos and CCTV cameras. Considerable density, speed and flow rate data at exits and instairwells were obtained, analysed and compared with data from SFPE Handbooks. Thestudy investigated occupants’ familiarity, distribution and movement within thebuilding. It can be argued that this study presents a real life understanding of occupants’

358

SS33,4/5

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ing

Fahd

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

trol

eum

and

Min

eral

s A

t 07:

15 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

behaviour under emergency compared to a computer simulation. It highlights the factthat human behaviour varies with physical features, cultural backgrounds, habitsand emergency training and thus cannot be assumed to be universal. It can be of greatvalue if such exercises are repeated and used to form a database of occupants’ behaviour.The study does not however justify this claim by comparing its results with a computersimulation. This study like other studies is also limited occupants’ evacuation duringan emergency.

Other researchers have established models for estimating the minimum time foremergency evacuation. Lo et al. (2006) presented a model that demonstrated that theinteraction of evacuees influences the evacuation pattern and clearance time of a multi-exit zone. Lin et al. (2008) established a multi-stage time-varying quickest flowapproach to estimate the minimal clearance time for evacuating the occupants of abuilding in an emergency situation. Di Gangi (2013) presented a model for the design ofescape routes based on a comparative analysis of the evacuation time of variousalternatives. The model was used to identify critical points for the evacuation from thebuilding, as well as validate effective evacuation plans. These models, as is the casewith computer simulations, ignore other fire safety management objectives while theyfocus on the optimum time for evacuation.

Assessment checklists tailored according to code requirements have been developedto facilitate fire safety inspections of various facilities. These assessment checklistsinclude indicators pertaining to causes of fire, fire detection and notification system, firesuppression and extinguishing systems, egress and evacuation systems andmanagement and maintenance measures (Hassanain and Hafeez, 2005; Hassanain,2008b). These checklist assessments are carried out regularly onsite by qualifiedevaluators, and thus provide qualitative data of operating performance of fire safetysystems, maintenance and housekeeping and compliance with safety coderequirements. However, these studies ignore practical evaluation of the effectivenessof occupants’ evacuation in the case of an emergency.

Ranking techniques have been used in several studies as well. Chow (2002) proposeda fire safety ranking system for assessing the fire safety provisions in existing high-risenon-residential buildings in Hong Kong. Zhao et al. (2004) also presented a simulationapproach for establishing the ranking of fire safety attributes, which in turn is used toestablish a comparison of different buildings for fire safety. Chen et al. (2012) proposed afire management plan by adopting three fire safety strategies for the overall safety ofexisting multipurpose hotels, combining the Delphi and AHP methods and concludingthat this technique could help improve the fire safety of buildings. Ranking techniquespresent the specific advantage of classifying buildings into different safety categories,and subsequently recommending the appropriate safety measures. Likewise, checklistassessments, practical assessments of the occupants’ emergency evacuation are ignored.

In a bid to offer more integrative approaches to fire safety assessment, as is the casewith this paper, Copping (2004) presented a protocol for an integrative assessment of firesafety for historic buildings. In it, two outcomes are produced: a fire safety assessment forlife safety and an independent assessment of the vulnerability of the property to fire.Their study is an integration of objectives rather than approaches. Also, Yuan et al. (2009)presented an integration of two network approaches to emergency evacuation whichprovides detailed evacuation information for the critical location of the building. Itidentifies potential crowding at exits and thus allows building designers to make therequired modification to their designs for an effective evacuation process. Also,Rao (2014) presented the model “CUrisk” to investigate how building design conditions

359

An integratedfire safetyassessment

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ing

Fahd

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

trol

eum

and

Min

eral

s A

t 07:

15 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

affect evacuation efficiency in a fire emergency. CUrisk has the advantage of providingfour different categories of evacuation times and it also take into consideration all firesafety strategies. The study assumed which fire suppression systems will be activerather than an actual onsite evaluation. Park et al. (2015) presented a conceptualframework to facilitate better incorporation of building fire safety performance optionsinto the building design process. Moving away from the evaluation of fire protectionmeasures. Park et al. (2015) took into consideration building design (architectural)features and occupant characteristics. The study proposed a quantitative model utilizingthe parameter ranking method and weighted sum method as a tool to help evaluatebuilding fire safety performance and to assist decision-making process of developing firesafety design solutions.

The above surveyed studies have described several approaches to fire safetyassessment. The strengths and limitations of these studies have been presented. Ingeneral, none of these studies presents an integrative fire safety assessment of theresidential environment through the combination of two or more approaches directedtowards the three fire safety objectives. This study is meant to demonstrate thisconcept through a case study.

7. Case studyThe use of case studies provides real information and greater depth of qualitative data.The case study for this research is a student dormitory managed by a university withinits campus in Dhahran, Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. A student dormitory wasselected as a case study due to its being a high risk facility. Also the occurrence of a firehazard in a student housing facility is more severe compared to other facilities oncampus. The building selected for this study is relatively new, L-shaped and consists ofthree floors with 26 rooms on each floor of double occupancy, 3 washrooms on eachfloor, 3 stairwells and 4 exits. The dimensions of each room are 4.8 metres by 5.2 metres(25 square metres) and floor to floor height of 3.5 metres. The building is classifiedaccording to IBC (2012) as R-2 occupancy: this is a residential occupancy containingsleeping units or more than two dwelling units where the occupants are primarilypermanent in nature, such as boarding houses, dormitories, apartment houses, etc.The floor plans for the building were obtained from the university’s student housingadministrative department (see Figure 2).

7.1 Assessment checklist design and administrationThe IBC (2012) provides minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safetyand general welfare of the occupants of new and existing buildings and structures. TheIBC applies to all types of buildings and occupancies except exempted. The IBCclassifies buildings based on use and occupancy, thus for this research the residentialgroup R-2 was referenced. The minimum safety requirements identified were classifiedunder three categories according to the fire safety management objectives, these are:preventing the occurrence of fire; controlling the spread of fire; and protectingoccupants. Additional resources have been consulted such as fire safety assessmentchecklists and previous literature to identify other potential fire safety requirements.The results of this exercise formed the basis for a checklist presented in Tables I-III.The questions for the assessment are presented in the “description” column. IBC coderequirements are also provided to support the questions where applicable.

The developed checklist was thus used to carry out the assessment of the studenthousing facility. This was done by moving from the upper floors to the lower floors and

360

SS33,4/5

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ing

Fahd

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

trol

eum

and

Min

eral

s A

t 07:

15 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

from wing to wing within the building. Whenever safety requirements are fulfilled atick was made in the “yes” column, and when not fulfilled in the “no” column. A digitalcamera was used to capture still images supporting the checklist assessment. Relevantinterviews were also carried out with maintenance and safety personnel of the studenthousing administrative department. The results of the interviews were checked on thechecklist. It was a simple interview to cover issues that could not be observed by thefire safety assessor, e.g. “Do you have an up to date fire safety policy?”

7.2 Checklist observations and findings7.2.1 Preventing the occurrence of fire. The checklist assessment for the fire safetyobjective “preventing the occurrence of fire” is presented in Table I. Under the section“control ignition sources”, it is observed that electrical installations were observed to beproperly installed with correctly rated fuses and are kept tidy. Other issues regardingsafe installation, testing and signage of electrical equipment where observed to besatisfactory. However, the use of temporary wiring, multipoint adaptors and occupants’smoking in their rooms which are potential risks to fire safety where also observed.Temporary wiring through the use of exterior cords and multipoint adaptors couldresult in friction and ignition if overloaded or handled carelessly, while smoking is oneof the major causes of fires in student housing facilities. Proper signage of switches andelectrical provisions are well observed.

DS03.001

100 mm WIDE, 900mm HIGHPAINTED FAIR FACE CONCRETE CURB

WP04.001

ELECTRONICALLYOPERATEDSLIDING DOORS

DS01.001

DS02.001

WP11.001

DS04.001

Figure 2.EVACNET4

network model forground floor

361

An integratedfire safetyassessment

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ing

Fahd

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

trol

eum

and

Min

eral

s A

t 07:

15 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

As for “controlling fuel characteristics”, it was observed that combustible materials layon egress routes and at exits. Although a waste control system is available, it can beperceived as ineffective. The fire load in rooms is quite substantial, since curtains,carpets, mattresses and furniture are all made of combustible materials. As regardscontrolling fuel/heat interaction by maintaining adequate separation between them, itis observed that the surrounding area is kept clean; also the students’ housing

Description Yes No Reference

Controlling ignition sourcesDo you have an up to date fire safety policy? | IBC (2012)Has electrical installation been subject to aninsulation test in accordance to regulations?

| Occupational Safety, and HealthAdministration (OSHA) (2014)

Are electrical motors kept tidy? | Maintained free from accumulations of oil,dirt, waste and debris (IBC, 2012)

Is temporary wiring present? | To be attached in an approved manner(IBC, 2012)

Are all items of electrical equipment workingproperly, inspected regularly and fitted withcorrectly rated fuses?

| Approved covers shall be provided for allswitch and outlet boxes (IBC, 2012)

Is the use of electrical extension leads andmultipoint adaptors kept to a minimum?

| Except for approved multi-plug extensioncords, each extension cord shall serve onlyone portable appliance (IBC, 2012)

Are extension cords in good condition? | Extension cords shall not contain splices ordamage (IBC, 2012)

Are extension cords used to replace permanentwiring?

| Extension cords shall not be a substitute forpermanent wiring and shall not be affixed tostructures, extended through walls, ceilingsor floors (IBC, 2012)

Are cables and leads run in safe places to protecttripping hazards and damage to cable and leads?

| OSHA (2014)

Are isolators and mains electricity switchesclearly signed?

| Doors shall be marked with a plainly visibleand legible sign stating “ELECTRICALROOM” (IBC, 2012)

Is smoking prohibited, or is there a smokingarea?

| IBC (2012)

Control fuel characteristicsIs there a waste control system and is it workingto keep the space clear of combustible waste andrubbish?

| Storage of combustible materials in buildingsshall be maintained in a neat, orderly manner(IBC, 2012)

Are there combustible materials on exits? | Combustible material shall not be stored inexits or exit enclosures (IBC, 2012)

Are curtains made of incombustible materials? | Curtains, draperies, hangings and otherdecorative material shall be flame resistant orbe non-combustible (IBC, 2012)

Control fuel/Heat interaction by maintaining adequate separationAre all occupants instructed to keep their spacetidy?

| IBC (2012)

Is there adequate separation between heatsources and storage/combustibles?

| Storage shall be separated from heaters orheating devices by distance or shielding sothat ignition cannot occur (IBC, 2012)

Are all areas outside the premises kept clear ofwaste and combustible materials?

| IBC (2012)

Are all heaters fitted with suitable guard andkept away from combustible material?

| IBC (2012)Table I.Preventingoccurrence of fire

362

SS33,4/5

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ing

Fahd

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

trol

eum

and

Min

eral

s A

t 07:

15 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

administrative department requires occupants to keep their rooms tidy. It is alsoobserved that occupants keep heat sources such as electric kettles and water pipeswhich pose risk of a fire hazard considering the amount of fire load in rooms.

7.2.2 Controlling the spread of fire. Table II presents the results for the checklistassessment of the second fire safety objective “control spread of fire”. In the section“detect fire through heat, smoke and flame detectors”, observations show thatall requirements are satisfactory. Smoke alarms are available at the middle ofhallways and are in good working condition as indicated by a blinking red light. Inthe section “control combustion”, it is observed that there is sufficient fire fightingappliances in the premises. Though there are no sprinkler systems available in thebuilding, there is sufficient amount of fire extinguishers, which are easily accessible,properly colour coded and regularly tested and certified for quality. Stand-pipes, hosereels and hydrants are also sufficiently provided at desired locations and areregularly tested and in good condition. Staffs are also well trained on the use ofthis equipment.

7.2.3 Protecting occupants. The results for the fire safety assessment for the thirdfire safety objective “protect exposed building occupants” is presented in Table III.

Description Yes No Reference

Detect fire (Heat, smoke and flame detectors)Are there smoke alarms available and arethey operational?

| Smoke alarms shall be installed in existingdwelling units (IBC, 2012)

Control combustionAre there sufficient fire fightingappliances throughout the premises?

| IBC (2012)

Are there sprinkler systems available? | An automatic sprinkler system shall beprovided throughout all buildings with agroup R fire area (IBC, 2012)

Are fire extinguishers positioned properlyand located near to sites of high fire risk?

| One 2A fire extinguisher per 6,000 sq. ft. inlow hazard (offices) and one 2A per 3,000 sq. ft.in a moderate hazard (R-1, R-2 and R-4 only)(IBC, 2012)

Are fire extinguishers easily accessiblefrom any location within the building?

| Maximum travel distance to a fireextinguisher is 75 feet (IBC, 2012)

Are there portable extinguishers of thecorrect type for the fire risk and properlycolour coded?

| IBC (2012)

Are fire extinguishers stored in cabinet oron hangers?

| Hand-held portable fire extinguishers, nothoused in cabinets, shall be installed onhangers or brackets supplied (IBC, 2012)

Are all fire fighting appliances certified forquality, and is the last date of inspectiondisplayed on the extinguisher?

| Fire extinguishers shall be serviced annuallyand shall have a current service tag attached(IBC, 2012)

Is there sufficient offset of walls from fireextinguisher?

| A 3-foot clear space shall be maintainedaround the circumference of fire hydrants(IBC, 2012)

Are all fire extinguishers, hose reels andsprinkler systems regularly tested?

| IBC (2012)

Have employees been instructed on whento use equipment?

| IBC (2012) Table II.Control spread of fire

363

An integratedfire safetyassessment

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ing

Fahd

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

trol

eum

and

Min

eral

s A

t 07:

15 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

Description Yes No Reference

Notify occupantsAre there fire alarms available and are theyoperational?

| To be installed in existing Group R-2apartment buildings with more than threestories or with more than 16 dwelling orsleeping units (IBC, 2012)

Does the building require an electrical orautomatic fire alarm, and does it have back-up power?

| IBC (2012)

Can the alarm be heard throughout thebuilding?

| IBC (2012)

Are the fire alarm points clearly visible andunobstructed?

| IBC (2012)

Is the fire alarm connected to a monitoringstation that contacts the fire brigade?

| IBC (2012)

Are maintenance staffs been trained in howto operate the fire alarm system?

| IBC (2012)

Provide avenues for egressAre there sufficient exits of suitable widthfor people likely to be present?

| Two exits or exit access doorways from anyspace in Group R shall be provided if theoccupant load of the space exceeds10 persons (IBC, 2012)

Are escape routes and exits, the locations offire fighting equipment and emergency firetelephones indicated by appropriate signs?

| Exit signs are required in rooms or areaswhich require two or more exits (IBC, 2012)

Is the visibility of exit signs along corridorsatisfactory?

| Exit sign placement shall be such that nopoint in an exit access corridor is more than100 feet from the nearest visible exit sign(IBC, 2012)

Is exit sign illumination operational? | Exit signs shall be internally or externallyilluminated at all times. In existingbuildings approved self-luminous signs maybe used (IBC, 2012)

Are there fire, emergency and evacuationprocedures in place which are:Readily available and displayed?Approved by fire and rescue service?Reviewed at least annually or when theymay become invalid?

| In Group R-2 occupancies, each tenant shallbe given a copy of the emergency guideprior to occupancy (IBC, 2012)

Are exit routes continuous? | Exits shall be continuous from the point ofentry into the exit to the exit discharge(IBC, 2012)

Are all fire exit routes and the points of exits(including stairways and corridors) from thebuilding clear of obstructions?

| Obstruction to exits shall not be placed inthe required width and exits shall not beobstructed in any manner (IBC, 2012)

Are all floor surfaces and stairs on escaperoutes free from tripping and slippinghazards?

| IBC (2012)

Are all fire resisting self-closing doors onescape routes clearly labelled, closing fully,in good state of repair and not wedged open?

| IBC (2012)

(continued )

Table III.Protect exposedbuilding occupants

364

SS33,4/5

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ing

Fahd

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

trol

eum

and

Min

eral

s A

t 07:

15 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

In the section of “notifying occupants” it is observed that fire alarms are tested everysix months and are provided at mid-distances of hallways in every wing of the buildingso it can be heard by all occupants within the building and its surroundings. A visit tothe safety department confirmed that fire alarms are connected to a monitoring stationwhich is in turn connected to the fire brigade office. Pull stations are also located atexits, clearly visible and unobstructed.

Observations made in the section “provide avenues for egress” show that exit routeshave suitable width, and fire fighting equipment are present and properly signed. Exitsigns are also available, but not illuminated. Also there is no existence of an emergencyevaluation procedure displayed in the building. The exit routes are also observed to be

Description Yes No Reference

Are escape routes adequately lit and is alllighting on escape routes operational?

| The means of egress, including the exitdischarge, shall be illuminated at all timesthe building space served by the means ofegress is occupied (IBC, 2012)

Is the width of the exit route constant? | The required capacity of means of egressshall not be diminished (reduced) along thepath of egress travel (IBC, 2012)

Is emergency lightning tested regularly andall test recorded?

| IBC (2012)

Is there back-up power for emergencylightning?

| In the event of power supply failure, exitillumination shall be automatically providedfrom an emergency system except where theguest room or living unit has direct access tothe outside at grade level (IBC, 2012)

Do all exits lead to a place of safety? | Exterior exit doors shall lead directly to theexit discharge or the public way (IBC, 2012)

Are steps and stairs in a good state of repair? | IBC (2012)Are final exit routes always unlocked whenthe premises is in use?

| Entrance doors in Group R-1, R-2occupancies shall not be secured from theegress side during period that the buildingis open to the general public (IBC, 2012)

Are devices securing final exits capable ofbeing opened immediately and easilywithout a key-push bar?

| Egress doors shall be openable from theegress side without the use of a key orspecial knowledge or effort (IBC, 2012)

Are self-closers on fire doors operatingcorrectly?

| Door closer shall exert enough force to closeand latch the door from any partially openposition (IBC, 2012)

Do exit doors have sufficient width? | Doorways shall not be less than 32 inch inclear width (IBC, 2012)

Do the doors on escape routes open in thedirection of travel?

| Doors shall swing in the direction of egresstravel where serving an occupant load of 50or more persons (IBC, 2012)

Protect occupants in placeHave measures been taken to ensure thatsmoke and flames do not spread from onepart of the building to another?

| IBC (2012)

Are there fire doors/smoke barriersavailable?

| Fire doors and smoke barrier doors shall notbe blocked or obstructed or otherwise madeinoperable (IBC, 2012) Table III.

365

An integratedfire safetyassessment

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ing

Fahd

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

trol

eum

and

Min

eral

s A

t 07:

15 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

continuous with constant width, well light with back-up power for emergency lighting,though some bulbs are no longer operational. Three of four major exits that lead to aplace of safety have obstructions due to faulty design while fire resisting doors onegress routes are kept partially open. The main exit is designed with an electronicallyoperated sliding door that is a potential source of overcrowding and bottlenecks since itis not connected to the fire alarm. Two other exits at the wings of the building leadingto point of destination DS03.001 and DS04.001 (see Figure 2) have 900 mm highconcrete curbs as shown in the drawing, this is also a potential source of obstructionduring evacuation. The doors on exit routes open in the direction of travel with a pushbar mechanism, the self-closers are operational and they have sufficient widths.

In the section “protect occupants in place”, it is observed that the removal of falseceiling panels damaged by mould formation due to leakages from the HVAC system isobserved; this will allow smoke and flames to spread from affected areas of the buildingin the case of a fire to other areas, jeopardizing compartmentalization and the efficiencyof the fire resistant doors.

7.3 Evacuation simulation using EVACNET4EVACNET4 is a movement optimization model and has the limitation of notincorporating occupants’ pre-movement time and occupants’ behaviour. Models thatincorporate occupants’ behaviour do not show areas of congestion and bottlenecksduring an evacuation which are necessary to study the buildings spatial andarchitectural influence on fire safety (see Kuligowski, 2004). EVACNET4 was selecteddue to it being a user friendly, interactive computer programme, in addition to: itsavailability for public use; flexibility to handle any type and size of building; and itdetermines the optimal building evacuation plan.

The floor plans acquired from the student housing administrative department wereused to develop a network description model of the building in accordance toEVACNET4 user’s guide (Kisko et al., 1998). The network model for the groundfloor is presented in Figure 2. A network description model consists of nodes and arcs.Nodes represent defined spaces containing occupants at the time of evacuation, such as:rooms (WP); hallways (HA); stairs (SW); lobbies (LO); and evacuation destinations (DS).Arcs represent passages between nodes on the path of egress. The number of people in anode at the initiation of evacuation: “initial content” (IC) for each node must be specifiedas well as the “node capacity” (NC) which is the upper limit on the number of people thatcan be contained in the node. The NC, Dynamic Capacity (DC) and Traversal Times (TT)are calculated using formulas presented in EVACNET4 user’s guide (Kisko et al., 1998).The following are the data used to execute the model:

• level of service (nodes and arcs)¼Queuing level A;• IC¼ 2;• usable area ¼ 9 m2 (for rooms);• average pedestrian area occupancy¼ 1.2 m2/person or more;• average inter-person spacing¼ 1.22 m, or more;• seconds per time period¼ 5 seconds;• TT¼ varies;• DC¼ varies;

366

SS33,4/5

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ing

Fahd

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

trol

eum

and

Min

eral

s A

t 07:

15 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

• width restriction¼ Actual width of door way – 0.31 m;• average flow volume¼ 2.17 PMM (Persons per metre minute) or less; and• average speed¼ 79.25 m/min.

Table IV shows the summary of EVACNET4 simulation results with a total evacuationtime of 190 seconds which is considered as satisfactory since the maximum timeallowed for evacuation is 300 seconds. The table also shows that it takes 76 seconds foran evacuee to evacuate the facility and 55 seconds for uncongested evacuation.

The evacuation routes at the wings from the lobbies to exit destinations (see Figure 2):LO02.001-DS03.001; and LO03.001-DS04.001 resulted into bottlenecks which will last for65 seconds and 95 seconds, respectively. Even more critical is the evacuation route:LO01.002-SW02.002 which is the passage between the lobby on the first floor to thestairwell that leads to the major exit (DS01.001) and exit DS02.001 on the ground floor,the potential bottleneck at this point could last for 170 seconds. The implication of theseresults becomes more critical when the number of evacuees that will probably choosethese routes for evacuation is considered. The destination allocation presented in Table Vshows that 92 evacuees (who represent 53 per cent of the total number of evacuees) willprobably evacuate through major exit DS01.001. The next most favourable exitdestination is DS04.01 and then DS04.03 with 42 and 30 probable evacuees, respectively.

Furthermore, these results are based on the assumption that the routes to these exitdestinations will be functional and kept unobstructed. However observations from thechecklist assessment highlight potential obstructions on the routes to these exitdestinations. The major exit (DS01.001) has been designed with a double electronicallyoperated sliding door that has an isolation chamber, which is a consideration for energyefficiency. This design however could create delays and potential bottlenecks during anevacuation process. Though in some cases, electronically operated sliding doors stayopen during a power outage and when the fire alarm triggers. Observations made fromthe checklist assessment also show that the wing exits DS03.001 and DS04.001 havenarrow widths and a 900 mm high “painted fair face concrete curb” at the exit doorwhich is a potential obstruction. Thus these exit routes should be considered as faultydesign from the perspective of fire safety. This should be modified in the current andavoided in future designs.

Description Time (sec)

Maximum time allowed for evacuation 300Time to evacuate building 190Time for uncongested building evacuation 55Average time for an evacuee to evacuate 76

Table IV.Summary of

EVACNET4 results

Destination Code No. of evacuees

DS01.001 92DS02.001 10DS03.001 30DS04.001 42

Table V.EVACNET4destination

allocaion results

367

An integratedfire safetyassessment

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ing

Fahd

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

trol

eum

and

Min

eral

s A

t 07:

15 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

This type of observation of critical locations of the building attained through anintegrative process will help building designers make the required modification to theirdesigns for an effective evacuation process, and also facility managers validateeffective emergency evacuation plans. Ultimately, the facility manager is able tomanage the facility more effectively through decisions made by integrating two ormore assessment methods.

8. DiscussionDifferent approaches are employed in evaluating fire safety of facilities. Some of theseinclude evaluations based on: code requirements; computer simulations of evacuationtimes; and ranking techniques. Risk however cannot be totally eliminated and thus acompletely fire safe building does not exist! Previous studies assert that the use of moreintegrative processes will enable a holistic view to be considered when deriving firesafety strategies, these studies however did not take into consideration the combinationof two or more approaches rather a combination of objectives or a focus on one of thefire safety management objectives is what has been witnessed. The main idea of ourresearch is to show that having more approaches employed in fire safety assessment,will reduce the assumptions that are made. An assumption that was avoided in thisstudy is “fire resistant doors at exit routes being operational and unobstructed at alltimes”. This is based on literature that confirms that the design configuration of themajority of student housing facilities could cause escape problems due to overcrowdingand chaos found at exit routes and while going down stairwells (Hassanain, 2008b).

This research presents a three-storey student housing facility as a case study torepresent an integrated assessment. This assessment employs the use of a checklist(Tables I-III) tailored according to the minimum requirements of the IBC (2012) for firesafety. The checklist was used to assess the design and maintenance of fire safetyprovisions. Interviews were also conducted with safety and maintenance staff of thecampus housing administrative department. A computer simulation tool EVACNET4was used to determine the minimum evacuation time and evacuation pattern of the casestudy. The evacuation simulation was an ideal case, meaning that all occupants areable bodied and ready to evacuate the building at the sound of the alarm. The checklistobservations and evacuation simulation are two independent approaches. The resultsof both approaches were integrated to identify potential conflicting as well ascorroborating issues.

Major issues in the architectural design, building systems design, housekeeping andfacilities maintenance management where highlighted in the integrated results. Thedesign of exit doors was considered as a faulty design from the perspective of firesafety. Exit doors have been designed with obstructions which result in bottlenecksduring evacuation, while waste bins littering passages and exit routes are due to poorhousekeeping. These issues are not assessed with simulation software, and areidentified through physical observations. EVACNET4 destination allocation results inTable V shows the major exit that would probably be selected by evacuees during anevacuation process. Egress destination DS01.001 is a critical location in the buildingand should be kept unobstructed and fully operational, it was identified to be a sourceof potential delays and crowding.

The building fulfils most of the code requirements in its design and maintenance,except for three of four exit doors that could cause congestion due to its design. Alsoissues like waste control and housekeeping in general needs to be more emphasized. Theresults of the simulation also show that the building can be evacuated in adequate time.

368

SS33,4/5

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ing

Fahd

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

trol

eum

and

Min

eral

s A

t 07:

15 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

9. ConclusionsThe evaluation of fire risk is not a new field; studies have been carried out on varyingtypes of facilities with varying levels of fire load, sources of ignition and occupancy.These assessments have employed different approaches which highlight differentfeatures and ignore others, issues of human behaviour, mobility, occupancy profile allneed to be put into consideration to achieve the minimal risk possible, since no facility iscompletely fire safe. Though fire is not a daily occurrence in student housing facilities, ifit does occur it leaves live long scars and affects the campus community and the nationas a whole. Therefore to prevent and control the occurrence of fire and thus improve firesafety, comprehensive and innovative techniques should be employed. An integration ofmultiple methods will present holistic results for building design and management.

This study presents relevant literature and previous studies pertaining to fire safety,especially in student housing facilities. It follows that with the results of a checklistassessment tailored to the requirements of the IBC (2012) and an evacuation simulationtool (EVACNET4) applied to a student housing facility as a case study. Though a casestudy presents more qualitative information on a subject, its results cannot begeneralized since each case study has its own unique characteristics. Also, this researchis delimited to two approaches: checklist assessment; and evacuation simulation which issufficient to show the potential benefits of a combined approach to fire safety assessment.A real life simulation of evacuation can however be investigated as a follow up paper.

Fire safety provisions were found to be adequate in the student housing facility, andthe building can also be evacuated safely in about 190 seconds should a fire occur.Issues regarding exit doors that might cause potential overcrowding and bottleneckswere however identified. Though only two approaches to fire safety has been employedin this study, it is believed that expanding the scope to cover other approaches wouldprovide more interesting results. Such integrated methods will reduce the risk andconsequence of a fire hazard to the least extent possible. This is of potential value to allstakeholders of the built environment.

Thus, this study recommends the adoption of more comprehensive techniqueswhich takes into consideration two or more approaches to fire safety assessment andmanagement. Lessons learnt from such assessments should be transferred as feedforward to improve future design and management of student housing facilities.Architects, builders and facility managers can use results from such holisticassessments to enhance the overall safety of the residential environment.

References

Argueta, J., Mittelman, D., Salvatori, R., Brown, N., Renda, B. and Smeal, A. (2009),“An assessment of fire safety in Australia’s international student housing”, QualifyingProject report, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA.

Canadian Wood Council (CWC) (2000), “Fire safety in residential buildings”, BuildingPerformance Series: No. 2, Technical Report, Canadian Wood Council, Ottawa.

Canadian Wood Council (CWC) (2002), “Fire safety and insurance in commercial buildings”,technical report, Canadian Wood Council, Ottawa.

Chen, T., Pan, L., Zhang, H., Narayanan, S. and Soldner, N. (2013), “Experimental study ofevacuation from a 4-storey building”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 62, pp. 538-547.

Chen, Y.Y., Chuang, Y.J., Huang, C.H., Lin, C.Y. and Chien, S.W. (2012), “The adoption of firesafety management for upgrading the fire safety level of existing hotel buildings”, Buildingand Environment, Vol. 51, pp. 311-319.

369

An integratedfire safetyassessment

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ing

Fahd

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

trol

eum

and

Min

eral

s A

t 07:

15 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

Chow, W.K. (2002), “Proposed fire safety ranking system EB-FSRS for existing high-risenonresidential buildings in Hong Kong”, Journal of Architectural Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 4,pp. 116-124.

Copping, A.G. (2004), “Introducing a protocol for an integrated fire safety evaluation procedurefor historic buildings”, International Journal on Engineering Performance-Based Codes,Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 72-77.

Di Gangi, M. (2013), “Designing escape routes for buildings through an aggregate approach”,WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Vol. 173, pp. 791-802.

Frank, K., Spearpoint, M. and Challands, N. (2014), “Uncertainty in estimating the fire controleffectiveness of sprinklers from New Zealand fire incident reports”, Fire Technology,Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 611-632.

Hassanain, M.A. (2008a), “On the performance evaluation of sustainable student housingfacilities”, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 212-225.

Hassanain, M.A. (2008b), “Fire safety in the design and operation of student housing facilities”,Structural Survey, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 55-62.

Hassanain, M.A. and Hafeez, M.A. (2005), “Fire safety evaluation of restaurant facilities”,Structural Survey, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 298-309.

International Building Code (IBC) (2012), International Building Code, International Code Council,Cengage Learning, Boston, MA.

Khorasani, N.E., Garlock, M. and Gardoni, P. (2014), “Fire load: survey data, recent standards,and probabilistic models for office buildings”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 58,pp. 152-165.

Kisko, T.M., Francis, R.L. and Nobel, C.R. (1998), EVACNET4 User’s Guide, University of Florida,Gainesville, FL, available at: www-old.ise.ufl.edu/kisko/files/evacnet/ (accessed 1 February 2011).

Klüpfel, H., Meyer-König, T. and Schreckenberg, M. (2003), “Comparison of an evacuationexercise in a primary school to simulation results”, in Fukui, M., Sugiyama, Y.,Schreckenberg, M. and Wolf, D.E. (Eds), Traffic and Granular Flow’01, Springer, Berlin,Heidelberg, pp. 549-554.

Kuligowski, E.D. (2004), “Review of 28 egress models”, NIST SP No. 1032, Gaithersburg, MD.

Kuligowski, E.D., Peacock, R.D. and Hoskins, B.L. (2005), A Review of Building EvacuationModels, National Institute of Standards and Technology, US Department of Commerce,Gaithersburg, MD.

Lin, P., Lo, S.M., Huang, H.C. and Yuen, K.K. (2008), “On the use of multi-stage time-varyingquickest time approach for optimization of evacuation planning”, Fire Safety Journal,Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 282-290.

Lo, S.M. and Cheng, W.Y. (2003), “Issues of site inspections for fire safety ranking of multi-storeybuildings”, Structural Survey, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 79-86.

Lo, S.M., Huang, H.C., Wang, P. and Yuen, K.K. (2006), “A game theory based exit selection modelfor evacuation”, Fire Safety Journal, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 364-369.

Meacham, B.J. (1999), “Integrating human behavior and response issues into fire safetymanagement of facilities”, Facilities, Vol. 17 Nos 9/10, pp. 303-312.

Mowrer, F.W. (1999), Fire Safe Student Housing: A Guide for Campus Housing Administrators,United States Fire Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency,College Park, MD.

Occupational Safety, and Health Administration (OSHA) (2014), “Electrical safety participantguide”, Construction Safety and Health, Focus 4, US Dept. of Labor, Washington, DC.

370

SS33,4/5

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ing

Fahd

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

trol

eum

and

Min

eral

s A

t 07:

15 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

Park, H., Meacham, B.J., Dembsey, N.A. and Goulthorpe, M. (2015), “Conceptual modeldevelopment for holistic building fire safety performance analysis”, Fire Technology,Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 173-193.

Ramachandran, G. (1999), “Fire safety management and risk assessment”, Facilities, Vol. 17Nos 9/10, pp. 363-377.

Rao, P. (2014), “Fire risk analysis of combustible and non-combustible mid-rise residentialbuildings using Curisk”, doctoral dissertation, Department of Civil and EnvironmentalEngineering, Carleton University, Ottawa.

Santos-Reyes, J. and Beard, A.N. (2001), “A systemic approach to fire safety management”,Fire Safety Journal, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 359-390.

Shan, M.A.H.U. (2008), “A risk assessment approach to fire safety ranking of student housingfacilities”, master thesis, Architectural Engineering Department, King Fahd University ofPetroleum and Minerals, Dhahran.

Tashrifullahi, S.A. and Hassanain, M.A. (2013), “A simulation model for emergency evacuationtime of a library facility using EVACNET4”, Structural Survey, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 75-92.

Ulriksen, L. and Dederichs, A.S. (2014), “Evacuation of day care centres for children 0-6 years:simulation using simulex”, in Weidmann, U., Kirsch, U. and Schreckenberg, M. (Eds),Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics 2012, Springer International Publishing, pp. 959-969.

Watson, D. (2000), Detection Devices, Time-Saver Standards for Building Materials and Systems:Design Criteria and Selection Data, D4-1-7, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Yuan, J.P., Fang, Z., Wang, Y.C., Lo, S.M. and Wang, P. (2009), “Integrated network approachof evacuation simulation for large complex buildings”, Fire Safety Journal, Vol. 44 No. 2,pp. 266-275.

Zhao, C.M., Lo, S.M., Lu, J.A. and Fang, Z. (2004), “A simulation approach for ranking of firesafety attributes of existing buildings”, Fire Safety Journal, Vol. 39 No. 7, pp. 557-579.

Corresponding authorDr Mohammad A. Hassanain can be contacted at: mohhas@kfupm.edu.sa

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htmOr contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

371

An integratedfire safetyassessment

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ing

Fahd

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

trol

eum

and

Min

eral

s A

t 07:

15 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)