Pre-Warning Staff Delay: A Forgotten Component in ASET/RSET Calculations

Conference paper


In this article, the Pre-Warning (warning time) concept is developed: the time between an incident being noted by a member of staff (either directly or indirectly) and the raising of a general alarm. This represents the potential delay in staff response as they interpret their provision of cues and respond; a delay that may be procedural and/or cognitive. The theoretical basis of this concept is discussed, examples of incidents involving this factor are described, and data is examined from experiments and incidents to quantify the extent of the impact and the effect of this concept upon the ASET/RSET calculation. Examples of how Pre- Warning delay can influence RSET will be presented, along with a discussion of those procedures that are particularly susceptible to the delay and suggestions as to how this might be remedied.


Fire Safety Smoke Alarm Procedural Response Warning Time Staff Response 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    The application of fire safety engineering principles to fire safety design of buildings – Part 6: Human factors: Life safety strategies – Occupant evacuation, Behaviour and Condition, BS PD 7974-6. British Standards Institution, London, UK (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fire-safety engineering – Technical Information on Methods for Evaluating Behaviour and Movement of People, ISO TR16738 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Purser, D.A.: ASET and RSET: Addressing Some Issues in Relation to Occupant Behaviour and Tenability. FIRE SAFETY SCIENCE – Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium On Fire Safety Science, 16 – 21 June 2002, Worcester Polytechnic Institute – Worcester Massachusetts, USA, pp. 91-102. International Association for Fire Safety Science (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nelson, H.E., Mowrer, F.W.: Emergency Movement. In: DiNenno, P.J., et al (eds.), The SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, (3rd edition), pp. 3-367-3-380. National Fire Protection Association, Quincy (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bryan, J.: A Selected Historical Review of Human Behavior in Fire. Fire Protection Engineering. 16, pp 4-10 (Fall 2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sekizawa, A., Kakegawa, S., Ebihara, M.: Review of A Real Multi-story Store Fire by Applying Evacuation and Smoke Movement Interactive Simulation Model. Fire Safety Science. 9: 477-488 (2009). doi:10.3801/IAFSS.FSS.9-477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Samochine, D.A., Boyce, K., Shields, J.: An Investigation into Staff Behaviour in Unannounced Evacuations of Retail Stores – Implications for Training and Fire Safety Engineering. Fire Safety Science. 9: 519-530 (2005). doi:10.3801/IAFSS.FSS.9-477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shields, T.J., Boyce, K.E.: A Study of Evacuation from Large Retail Stores. Fire Safety Journal, Elsevier Science Ltd. 35, pp. 25-49 (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ebihara, M., Notake, H., Yashiro, Y.: Fire risk assessment method for building consideration of actions of security staffs by using an idea of fire phase. Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Human Behaviour in Fire, 31 August – 2 September, Belfast, UK, pp. 421-428 (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ebihara, M., Notake, H., Yashiro, Y.: Study of the security staff’s action taken in the event of a building fire. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Human Behaviour in Fire, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 26-28 March, Boston, USA, pp. 341-348. Interscience Publications, UK (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hughes Associates UKLondonUK
  2. 2.Hughes Associates, Inc.BoulderUSA
  3. 3.Hartford Environmental ResearchHartfordUSA

Personalised recommendations