Skip to main content
Log in

Egress Parameters Influencing Emergency Evacuation in High-Rise Buildings

  • Published:
Fire Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Fire in buildings pose a significant threat to occupants, first responders as well as the structural system. Rapid spread of fire and smoke in buildings can hinder the process of evacuation resulting in loss of human life. Such situations call for a reliable egress system that provides safe evacuation of occupants in minimal time. Updating the occupants and first responders with much-needed situational awareness such as accessible stairwells and exits during the disaster can not only lead to efficient evacuation but also shorten the duration of evacuation in some scenarios. This paper examines occupant evacuation scenarios in fire exposed high-rise buildings. A parametric study is carried out on evacuation strategies in a 32-story typical office building during different fire exposure scenarios. The movement of occupants with and without situational awareness is simulated. The effect of critical parameters such as number of stories, width of the egress paths, location and number of exits on the evacuation process is evaluated. The time required for occupants to evacuate the building is estimated under normal conditions (to simulate fire evacuation drill) and under realistic fire exposure. Results from the study indicate that the two most significant factors that influence evacuation time are the location of stairway within the building and the floors at which fire starts. When fire starts at the lower levels of the building, the evacuation time is the highest. More importantly, if situational awareness is incorporated in emergency evacuation procedure, it can improve the evacuation efficiency in a fire exposed high-rise building; wherein up to 24% reduction in evacuation time is achieved.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bivens J (2014) The short- and long-term impact of infrastructure investments on employment and economic activity in the U.S. Economy. In: Economic Policy Institute (EPI). https://www.epi.org/publication/impact-of-infrastructure-investments/. Accessed 25 June 2018

  2. McNichol E (2017) It’s time for states to invest in infrastructure. In: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/its-time-for-states-to-invest-in-infrastructure

  3. Ronchi E, Nilsson D (2014) Modelling total evacuation strategies for high-rise buildings. Build Simul 7:73–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-013-0132-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ahrens M (2016) High-rise building fires. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), Quincy

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hurley MJ, Gottuk DT, Hall Jr JR, Harada K, Kuligowski ED, Puchovsky M, Watts Jr JM, Wieczorek CJ (2015) SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering, 5th edn. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  6. IBC (2019) 2018 International building code. ICC, Country Club Hills

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kobes M, Helsloot I, de Vries B, Post JG, Oberijé N, Groenewegen K (2010) Way finding during fire evacuation; an analysis of unannounced fire drills in a hotel at night. Build Environ 45:537–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.07.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kobes M, Helsloot I, de Vries B, Post JG (2010) Building safety and human behaviour in fire: A literature review. Fire Saf J 45:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2009.08.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kuligowski ED (2004) Review of 28 egress models. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Gaithersburg

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ronchi E, Kuligowski ED, Reneke PA, Peacock RD, Nilsson D (2013) The process of verification and validation of building fire evacuation models. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Soltanzadeh A, Alaghmandan M, Soltanzadeh H (2018) Performance evaluation of refuge floors in combination with egress components in high-rise buildings. J Build Eng 19:519–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.05.029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Naser MZ, Kodur VKR (2018) Cognitive infrastructure—a modern concept for resilient performance under extreme events. Autom Constr 90:253–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Yang L, Yang SH, Plotnick L (2013) How the internet of things technology enhances emergency response operations. Technol Forecast Soc Change 80:1854–1867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.07.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Peña‐Mora F, Son J, Aziz Z (2008) Supporting disaster response and recovery through improved situation awareness. Struct Surv 26:411–425. https://doi.org/10.1108/02630800810922757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Thunderhead Engineering (2018) Pathfinder 2018.3.0730 version technical reference. Thunderhead Engineering, Manhattan

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gwynne SMV, Kuligowski ED, Kinsey MJ, Hulse LM (2017) Modelling and influencing human behaviour in fire. Fire Mater 41:412–430. https://doi.org/10.1002/fam.2391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Purkiss JA, Li L-Y (2013) Fire safety engineering design of structures, 3rd edn. CRC Press, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Thompson KD (2010) Fire dynamics. In: NIST. https://www.nist.gov/el/fire-research-division-73300/firegov-fire-service/fire-dynamics. Accessed 27 Aug 2018

  19. Ronchi E, Nilsson D (2013) Fire evacuation in high-rise buildings: a review of human behaviour and modelling research. Fire Sci Rev 2:7. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-0414-2-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Daniel N, Rein G (2016) The fire navigator: forecasting the spread of building fires on the basis of sensor data. FPE extra issue 3, Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE)

  21. Floor Plans. In: block 162. http://www.block162.com/stacking-plan/. Accessed 25 June 2018

  22. Thunderhead Engineering (2018) Pathfinder 2018.3.0730 version verification and validation. Thunderhead Engineering, Manhattan

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ronchi E, Colonna P, Capote J, Alvear D, Berloco N, Cuesta A (2012) The evaluation of different evacuation models for assessing road tunnel safety analysis. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 30:74–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2012.02.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ronchi E (2013) Testing the predictive capabilities of evacuation models for tunnel fire safety analysis. Saf Sci 59:141–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.05.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lovreglio R, Ronchi E, Maragkos G, Beji T, Merci B (2016) A dynamic approach for the impact of a toxic gas dispersion hazard considering human behaviour and dispersion modelling. J Hazard Mater 318:758–771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.06.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kodur VKR (2004) Role of fire resistance issues in the first ever collapse of a steel-framed building—WTC 7. In: CIB World building congress, Toronto, Canada

  27. NFPA 101 (2018) Life safety code. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), Quincy

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge partial support from United States Agency for International Development (through Pakistan-US Science and Technology Cooperative Program grant PGA-2000003665) and Michigan State University for undertaking this research. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the institutions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. K. R. Kodur.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

The computation of evacuation time of the building evaluated in this study using the hydraulic model is carried out in the following steps. Refer to Fig. 4 for dimensions of the egress components.

1.1 Flow Capacity of Corridors

Effective width, \(W_{e} = 1981 - \left( {2 \times 152} \right) = 1677\,{\text{mm}} (5.5 {\text{ft)}}\)

Density, \(D = 125\, {\text{persons/245 m}}^{ 2} (125\,{\text{persons/2635 ft}}^{ 2} ) {\text{corridor area}}\)

\(= 0.51\,{\text{persons/m}}^{ 2} \left( {0.047\,{\text{persons/ft}}^{ 2} } \right)\)

As the density is less than 0.54 persons/m2 (0.05 persons/ft2), all occupants will have a speed (S) of 1.19 m/s (235 ft/min) [5].

Specific flow, \(F_{s} = SD = 0.607\,{\text{persons/s/m}} (11.139\,{\text{persons/min/ft) effective width}}\) (governs)

Maximum specific flow, \(F_{sm} = 1.3\, {\text{persons/s/m}} (24\, {\text{persons/min/ft) effective width}}\) [5]

Calculated flow for the corridors, \(F_{c} = F_{s} \times W_{e} \approx 61\, {\text{persons/min}}\)

The calculated flow (Fc) is an initial value for the corridors and can be sustained only if the next transition point (stairway doors) can accommodate this flow.

1.2 Flow Capacity of Stairway Doors

Effective width, \(W_{e} = 813 - 305 = 508 \,{\text{mm}}\, (20\, {\text{in.)}}\)

Specific flow, \(\begin{aligned} F_{{s\left( {door} \right)}} & = \frac{{F_{{s\left( {corridor} \right)}} W_{{e\left( {corridor} \right)}} }}{{W_{{e\left( {door} \right)}} }} = \frac{0.607 \times 1677}{508} \\ & = 2\, {\text{persons/s/m (}}36.76 \,{\text{persons/min/ft) effective width}} \\ \end{aligned}\)

Maximum specific flow, \(F_{sm} = 1.3\, {\text{persons/s/m}} \,(24\, {\text{persons/min/ft) effective width}}\) [5] (governs)

Calculated flow for the corridors, \(F_{c} = F_{sm} \times W_{e} \approx 40\, {\text{persons/min}}\)

As \(F_{{c\left( {door} \right)}} < F_{{c\left( {corridor} \right)}}\), queuing of occupants occurs at the doorway entrance.

Rate of queue buildup is \(61 - 40 = 21\, {\text{persons/min}}\)

1.3 Flow Capacity of Stairways

Effective width, \(W_{e} = 1118 - 305 = 813\,{\text{mm}} \,(32\,{\text{in.)}}\)

Specific flow, \(F_{{s\left( {stairs} \right)}} = \frac{{F_{{s\left( {door} \right)}} W_{{e\left( {door} \right)}} }}{{W_{{e\left( {stairs} \right)}} }} = \frac{1.3 \times 508}{813}\)

\(= 0.822\, {\text{persons/s/m}} \,(15.04\, {\text{persons/min/ft) effective width}}\) (governs)

Maximum specific flow, \(F_{sm} = 1.01\, {\text{persons/s/m (1}}8.5\, {\text{persons/min/ft) effective\,width}}\) [5]

Density, \(D = 1.1\,{\text{persons/m}}^{ 2} \left( {0.1\,{\text{persons/ft}}^{ 2} } \right)\)

Speed, \(S = k - akD = 1.08 - 0.266 \times 1.08 \times 1.1 = 0.76\,{\text{m/s}}\, (149.6\,{\text{ft/min)}}\)

Length of stairways on each floor, \(L = 9.67\,{\text{m}} (31.73\,{\text{ft)}}\)

Time to descend from one floor to another is \(\left( {\frac{9.67}{0.76}} \right) = 0.21\,{ \hbox{min} }\left( {13\,{\text{s}}} \right)\)

After 13 s, 8 \(\left( { \approx 0.21 \times 40} \right)\) occupants will be in each stairway to produce a total of 256 \(\left( { = 8 \times 32} \right)\) occupants in all the floors. The remaining 117 \(\left( { = 125 - 8} \right)\) occupants will remain in queue in front of each stairways.

In each of the floors, merging of stairway flow and stairway entry flow occurs.

Merging flow, \(F_{{s\left( {out-stairs} \right)}} = \frac{{\left[ {F_{{s\left( {door} \right)}} W_{{e\left( {door} \right)}} + F_{{s\left( {in-stairs} \right)}} W_{{e\left( {in-stairs} \right)}} } \right]}}{{W_{{e\left( {in-stairs} \right)}} }}\)

$$= \frac{{\left( {1.3 \times 508} \right) + \left( {0.822 \times 813} \right)}}{813} = 1.6 3\,{\text{persons/s/m}} (30.0 8\,{\text{persons/min/ft) effective width}}$$

Maximum specific flow, \(F_{sm} = 1.01 {\text{persons/s/m}} \,(18.5\, {\text{persons/min/ft) effective width}}\) [5] (governs)

1.4 Calculation of Evacuation Time

Under normal conditions, a duration of 0.5 min is assumed to be required for the flow of occupants to reach the stairway door [5]. This is a conservative estimate as the exit stairways are placed at an average distance of 22.86 m (75 ft) from all the occupants and the occupants are moving at a speed of 1.19 m/s (235 ft/min). At the end of 43 s (30 s + 13 s), 256 occupants will occupy the stairways.

Time taken by the end of flow to reach the 31st floor

$$= 43 + \left( {\frac{117}{40}} \right) \times 60 + 13 = 231.5\, {\text{s}}$$

Similarly, the time taken for the flow to reach the each of the lower floors can be added to obtain the total time required for all the occupants to exit the building.

\({\text{Evacuation time}} = 231.5 + \left[ {\left( {\frac{117}{0.813 \times 1.01}} \right) + 13} \right] \times 31 = 5052\, {\text{s}}\) (84.2 min)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kodur, V.K.R., Venkatachari, S. & Naser, M.Z. Egress Parameters Influencing Emergency Evacuation in High-Rise Buildings. Fire Technol 56, 2035–2057 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-020-00965-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-020-00965-3

Keywords

Navigation