Evacuation strategy - Revision history

Lisa: Add Intermediate SVG figures with Fire Safety Academy watermark at planned locations; preserve article text

2026-11-02T17:14:17Z

Add Intermediate SVG figures with Fire Safety Academy watermark at planned locations; preserve article text

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:14, 2 November 2026
Line 11:		Line 11:

	A fourth group of strategies keeps people where they are. In some buildings occupants go to a fire-safe refuge, a special fire compartment where they wait for rescue by the fire service. A more recent development is the protect-in-place concept, used particularly in fully sprinklered residential buildings. Occupants are encouraged to remain where they are rather than escape through corridors and stairs that may be full of smoke.<ref name="IFEG-2.8-2" /> Such approaches are also called a [[stay-put strategy]] or stay-in-place strategy. In these cases the detection system is used to inform occupants about the location and extent of the fire, and instructions are then given to the people concerned.<ref name="Schif-4-2">Schifiliti et al. (2002), p. 4-2.</ref>		A fourth group of strategies keeps people where they are. In some buildings occupants go to a fire-safe refuge, a special fire compartment where they wait for rescue by the fire service. A more recent development is the protect-in-place concept, used particularly in fully sprinklered residential buildings. Occupants are encouraged to remain where they are rather than escape through corridors and stairs that may be full of smoke.<ref name="IFEG-2.8-2" /> Such approaches are also called a [[stay-put strategy]] or stay-in-place strategy. In these cases the detection system is used to inform occupants about the location and extent of the fire, and instructions are then given to the people concerned.<ref name="Schif-4-2">Schifiliti et al. (2002), p. 4-2.</ref>

			[[File:fse-evacuation-strategy-v1.svg\|thumb\|upright=1.5\|alt=Four building sketches: all leave at once; floors near the fire leave first; patients moved sideways; occupants stay in their flats.\|Four types of evacuation strategy: simultaneous evacuation, phased evacuation, progressive horizontal evacuation and staying in place. Based on National Research Council of Canada et al. (2005), pp. 1.8-2 and 2.8-2.]]

	New Zealand's C/VM2 (second edition, 2025) groups these under delayed evacuation strategies. They apply where occupants must stay in place or move to a place of safety inside the building. Examples are people who are detained or who are being treated in an operating theatre, a hyperbaric chamber or a dialysis unit. Such spaces must meet the definition of a place of safety. Because they are usually climate-controlled, smoke detection and the smoke control of the air handling system need special care.<ref name="MBIE-34">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), p. 34.</ref>		New Zealand's C/VM2 (second edition, 2025) groups these under delayed evacuation strategies. They apply where occupants must stay in place or move to a place of safety inside the building. Examples are people who are detained or who are being treated in an operating theatre, a hyperbaric chamber or a dialysis unit. Such spaces must meet the definition of a place of safety. Because they are usually climate-controlled, smoke detection and the smoke control of the air handling system need special care.<ref name="MBIE-34">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), p. 34.</ref>
Line 24:		Line 26:

	The World Trade Center investigation simulated both strategies for one tower. A phased evacuation of 600 occupants from three floors took 3.5 to 4 minutes when everyone started at once, and 11 to 11.5 minutes with random delays of up to 10 minutes.<ref name="Averill-160">Averill et al. (2005), p. 160.</ref> A total evacuation of a fully occupied tower of 19,800 people would have taken at least 92 to 112 minutes.<ref name="Averill-xxxv" /> NIST concluded that phased evacuation was not appropriate for an emergency on the scale of 11 September 2001. Under certain circumstances, though, it moves the people most at risk to relative safety much more quickly and with less disruption than a full evacuation.<ref name="Averill-164">Averill et al. (2005), p. 164.</ref> It works well for routine emergencies that fall within the design envelope of the life safety systems.<ref name="Averill-160" />		The World Trade Center investigation simulated both strategies for one tower. A phased evacuation of 600 occupants from three floors took 3.5 to 4 minutes when everyone started at once, and 11 to 11.5 minutes with random delays of up to 10 minutes.<ref name="Averill-160">Averill et al. (2005), p. 160.</ref> A total evacuation of a fully occupied tower of 19,800 people would have taken at least 92 to 112 minutes.<ref name="Averill-xxxv" /> NIST concluded that phased evacuation was not appropriate for an emergency on the scale of 11 September 2001. Under certain circumstances, though, it moves the people most at risk to relative safety much more quickly and with less disruption than a full evacuation.<ref name="Averill-164">Averill et al. (2005), p. 164.</ref> It works well for routine emergencies that fall within the design envelope of the life safety systems.<ref name="Averill-160" />

			[[File:fse-evacuation-strategy-v2.svg\|thumb\|upright=1.5\|alt=Range bars: phased evacuation of 600 people in 4 to 11 minutes against full evacuations of 8,800 to 25,500 people taking 52 to 142 minutes.\|Simulated times for a phased evacuation of three floors and for full evacuations of one World Trade Center tower. Based on Averill et al. (2005), pp. xxxv and 160.]]

	== Alarm and communication ==		== Alarm and communication ==
	A managed strategy needs a way to tell different groups of people different things. In Australia, alarm systems for phased evacuation commonly use two tones. An alert tone means prepare for evacuation, for example by switching off equipment and waiting for instructions, and an evacuation tone means leave immediately.<ref name="ABCB-D1-243">Australian Building Codes Board (2020a), Data Sheet D1, pp. 243–244.</ref> Because the alarm then reaches some areas later, those delays must be included in the evacuation analysis.<ref name="ABCB-D1-243" /> On floors far from the fire, access to the stair may be delayed on purpose to give priority to the fire floor.<ref name="ABCB-D1-246">Australian Building Codes Board (2020a), Data Sheet D1, p. 246.</ref>		A managed strategy needs a way to tell different groups of people different things. In Australia, alarm systems for phased evacuation commonly use two tones. An alert tone means prepare for evacuation, for example by switching off equipment and waiting for instructions, and an evacuation tone means leave immediately.<ref name="ABCB-D1-243">Australian Building Codes Board (2020a), Data Sheet D1, pp. 243–244.</ref> Because the alarm then reaches some areas later, those delays must be included in the evacuation analysis.<ref name="ABCB-D1-243" /> On floors far from the fire, access to the stair may be delayed on purpose to give priority to the fire floor.<ref name="ABCB-D1-246">Australian Building Codes Board (2020a), Data Sheet D1, p. 246.</ref>

			[[File:fse-evacuation-strategy-v3.svg\|thumb\|upright=1.5\|alt=Section of a ten-storey building: fire floor and adjacent floors hear the evacuation tone and use the stair; other floors hear an alert tone and wait.\|In a phased evacuation, floors at risk receive the evacuation tone while other floors receive an alert tone and wait for instructions. Based on Australian Building Codes Board (2020a), Data Sheet D1, pp. 243–244 and 246.]]

	The way the message is given matters. The book ''Introduction to Fire Safety Engineering'' notes that a slow-whoop alarm signal is known to be less effective than the spoken word. An automatic [[evacuation alarm system]] is generally less effective than a live announcement, by public address, in person or by telephone.<ref name="VR-7.3">Van Rossum (2027), §7.3.</ref> The effect of an automatic alarm depends strongly on the culture of the people in the building. Where a well-trained evacuation organisation is present, the chance that the alarm is taken seriously is many times greater.<ref name="VR-7.3" />		The way the message is given matters. The book ''Introduction to Fire Safety Engineering'' notes that a slow-whoop alarm signal is known to be less effective than the spoken word. An automatic [[evacuation alarm system]] is generally less effective than a live announcement, by public address, in person or by telephone.<ref name="VR-7.3">Van Rossum (2027), §7.3.</ref> The effect of an automatic alarm depends strongly on the culture of the people in the building. Where a well-trained evacuation organisation is present, the chance that the alarm is taken seriously is many times greater.<ref name="VR-7.3" />

	New Zealand's C/VM2 reflects this in its design values. For retail shops and restaurants, a voice alarm halves the pre-travel activity time from 60 to 30 s in the room of fire origin. For sleeping hotel guests away from the fire, it halves the time from 600 to 300 s.<ref name="MBIE-30">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), p. 30.</ref>		New Zealand's C/VM2 reflects this in its design values. For retail shops and restaurants, a voice alarm halves the pre-travel activity time from 60 to 30 s in the room of fire origin. For sleeping hotel guests away from the fire, it halves the time from 600 to 300 s.<ref name="MBIE-30">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), p. 30.</ref>

			[[File:fse-evacuation-strategy-v4.svg\|thumb\|upright=1.5\|alt=Grouped bars of pre-travel times: shops 60 and 120 s with a standard alarm against 30 and 60 s with voice; hotels 600 s against 300 s for remote guests.\|Design pre-travel activity times in C/VM2 for a standard alarm signal and a voice alarm signal. Based on Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), p. 30.]]

	Announcements can also fail. In 1971, one of the first large controlled selective evacuation drills was held in a 21-storey office building in Ottawa, with the fire assumed on the third floor.<ref name="Proulx-3-356" /> Because of an incorrectly set switch, the first announcement came through only after nearly 3 minutes, and it was ambiguous. Up to 350 people left their floors too early, which delayed the floors that should have gone first.<ref name="Proulx-3-356" /> With only the alarm bell ringing, 17 % of the people surveyed thought there was a fire, nearly 60 % thought it was a fault and 16 % a drill.<ref name="Proulx-3-356" /> In the World Trade Center in 2001, an announcement in the second tower telling people to return to their offices was cited by many survivors as a constraint on their evacuation.<ref name="NIST-160">National Institute of Standards and Technology (2005), p. 160.</ref>		Announcements can also fail. In 1971, one of the first large controlled selective evacuation drills was held in a 21-storey office building in Ottawa, with the fire assumed on the third floor.<ref name="Proulx-3-356" /> Because of an incorrectly set switch, the first announcement came through only after nearly 3 minutes, and it was ambiguous. Up to 350 people left their floors too early, which delayed the floors that should have gone first.<ref name="Proulx-3-356" /> With only the alarm bell ringing, 17 % of the people surveyed thought there was a fire, nearly 60 % thought it was a fault and 16 % a drill.<ref name="Proulx-3-356" /> In the World Trade Center in 2001, an announcement in the second tower telling people to return to their offices was cited by many survivors as a constraint on their evacuation.<ref name="NIST-160">National Institute of Standards and Technology (2005), p. 160.</ref>

Daan: New FSE wiki article: Evacuation strategy (written by Claude Opus 5.5)

2026-11-01T22:44:19Z

New FSE wiki article: Evacuation strategy (written by Claude Opus 5.5)

New page

An '''evacuation strategy''' is the planned way in which the occupants of a building respond to a fire: who leaves, in what order, by which route and to which place of safety. The main types are simultaneous evacuation of the whole building, phased evacuation of the most threatened floors first, progressive horizontal evacuation to an adjacent fire compartment, and strategies in which occupants stay where they are.<ref name="IFEG-1.8-2">National Research Council of Canada et al. (2005), p. 1.8-2.</ref><ref name="IFEG-2.8-2">National Research Council of Canada et al. (2005), p. 2.8-2.</ref> The chosen strategy determines the alarm and communication systems a building needs, the capacity of its stairs and the role of staff during a fire.<ref name="ABCB-D1-247">Australian Building Codes Board (2020a), Data Sheet D1, p. 247.</ref>

Traditional practice is to evacuate everyone as soon as the alarm sounds. This is simple, but in tall buildings it can leave the people most at risk queuing behind everyone else.<ref name="IFEG-1.8-2" /><ref name="Proulx-3-356">Proulx (2002), p. 3-356.</ref> Managed strategies move those people first, but they rely on reliable detection, clear announcements and trained staff.<ref name="Proulx-3-356" /><ref name="ABCB-D1-250">Australian Building Codes Board (2020a), Data Sheet D1, p. 250.</ref> In Australia, the 2020 data sheets for the Fire Safety Verification Method require the evacuation management strategy to be specified as part of the fire safety strategy.<ref name="ABCB-D1-248">Australian Building Codes Board (2020a), Data Sheet D1, p. 248.</ref> Its expected performance must also be stated, because evacuation procedures can change during the life of a building.<ref name="ABCB-D1-249">Australian Building Codes Board (2020a), Data Sheet D1, p. 249.</ref>

== Types of strategy ==
The International Fire Engineering Guidelines (2005) describe the traditional practice as starting the [[evacuation]] of occupants in response to fire alarms, following an evacuation management plan.<ref name="IFEG-1.8-2" /> In this simultaneous or total evacuation, every occupant leaves at once. Proulx calls it uncontrolled total evacuation, because the order of movement depends mainly on how people give way to one another on the stairs.<ref name="Proulx-3-355">Proulx (2002), p. 3-355.</ref>

In high-rise buildings with an emergency warning and intercommunication system, trained personnel can manage the evacuation instead. Occupants on floors far from the fire are first placed on alert and evacuated progressively only if the fire continues to develop.<ref name="IFEG-1.8-2" /> This is known as [[phased evacuation]] or controlled selective evacuation. Its success depends on the type of control and on a voice communication system.<ref name="Proulx-3-355" /> In the World Trade Center investigation, phased evacuation meant that the occupants of the fire floor and the floors immediately around it went down to three floors below the fire floor. The report notes that this approach is also known as defend-in-place.<ref name="Averill-xxxv">Averill et al. (2005), p. xxxv.</ref>

In hospitals the first response is different. Nursing staff move patients horizontally to an adjacent smoke zone or fire compartment, and they are moved further, or other floors evacuated, only if the fire threat keeps developing.<ref name="IFEG-2.8-2" /> This [[progressive horizontal evacuation]] relies on staff, because in hospitals and aged care nearly all residents may need help to leave.<ref name="ABCB-D1-261">Australian Building Codes Board (2020a), Data Sheet D1, p. 261.</ref>

A fourth group of strategies keeps people where they are. In some buildings occupants go to a fire-safe refuge, a special fire compartment where they wait for rescue by the fire service. A more recent development is the protect-in-place concept, used particularly in fully sprinklered residential buildings. Occupants are encouraged to remain where they are rather than escape through corridors and stairs that may be full of smoke.<ref name="IFEG-2.8-2" /> Such approaches are also called a [[stay-put strategy]] or stay-in-place strategy. In these cases the detection system is used to inform occupants about the location and extent of the fire, and instructions are then given to the people concerned.<ref name="Schif-4-2">Schifiliti et al. (2002), p. 4-2.</ref>

New Zealand's C/VM2 (second edition, 2025) groups these under delayed evacuation strategies. They apply where occupants must stay in place or move to a place of safety inside the building. Examples are people who are detained or who are being treated in an operating theatre, a hyperbaric chamber or a dialysis unit. Such spaces must meet the definition of a place of safety. Because they are usually climate-controlled, smoke detection and the smoke control of the air handling system need special care.<ref name="MBIE-34">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), p. 34.</ref>

== Total versus phased evacuation ==
Proulx compares the two strategies for a hypothetical 15-storey office building with 70 people per floor and two stairs 1,120 mm wide. In a total evacuation, each stair discharges about one person per second, and people descend at about 3.6 floors per minute, or 0.5 m/s along the stair.<ref name="Proulx-3-355" /> In both cases about 9 minutes are needed to move everyone below a presumed fire on the tenth floor. The selective procedure takes about as long to bring 490 people below the ninth floor as the total evacuation takes to bring all 980 people to the ground. Starting and controlling a selective evacuation takes time.<ref name="Proulx-3-355" />

The comparison does not show that total evacuation is better. If there really were a fire on the tenth floor and everyone left at the same time, the people on the most threatened floors would queue near those floors for several minutes.<ref name="Proulx-3-355" /> With the stair doors open on the fire floor, smoke would reach all the upper floors, and people coming down from above would have to move through it.<ref name="Proulx-3-356" /> Uncontrolled total evacuation makes few demands on building management systems. It is, however, increasingly seen as too disruptive for occupants who are evacuated indiscriminately, if they can be persuaded to leave at all with ambiguous alarms. Selective evacuation needs more sophisticated systems and training, which are expensive and can delay the moment at which the right people are told to leave.<ref name="Proulx-3-356" />

Drills give practical numbers. In 1972, 1,453 people left a 15-storey office building by four stairs 1,140 mm wide in a total evacuation. The stairs emptied after 6.6 to 9.3 minutes, 7.8 minutes on average, against a predicted 7.0 minutes.<ref name="Proulx-3-356" /> In the same drill, 73 people who would have found the stairs too arduous, together with their assistants, used a fifth stair reserved for them.<ref name="Proulx-3-356" /> The time differences between the stairs came mainly from unequal numbers of people using each stair.<ref name="Proulx-3-356" />

For the 21-storey building of the Ottawa drill described below, Proulx estimates that an uncontrolled total evacuation of its 2,100 occupants by two stairs would take a minimum of nearly 20 minutes. If everyone stood at the stair doors at once, there would be only 0.17 m² of stair, about half a tread, per person.<ref name="Proulx-3-356" /> The selective procedure used in that drill could have been stopped after 6 minutes, once the presumed fire floor and the two adjacent floors were clear.<ref name="Proulx-3-356" />

The World Trade Center investigation simulated both strategies for one tower. A phased evacuation of 600 occupants from three floors took 3.5 to 4 minutes when everyone started at once, and 11 to 11.5 minutes with random delays of up to 10 minutes.<ref name="Averill-160">Averill et al. (2005), p. 160.</ref> A total evacuation of a fully occupied tower of 19,800 people would have taken at least 92 to 112 minutes.<ref name="Averill-xxxv" /> NIST concluded that phased evacuation was not appropriate for an emergency on the scale of 11 September 2001. Under certain circumstances, though, it moves the people most at risk to relative safety much more quickly and with less disruption than a full evacuation.<ref name="Averill-164">Averill et al. (2005), p. 164.</ref> It works well for routine emergencies that fall within the design envelope of the life safety systems.<ref name="Averill-160" />

== Alarm and communication ==
A managed strategy needs a way to tell different groups of people different things. In Australia, alarm systems for phased evacuation commonly use two tones. An alert tone means prepare for evacuation, for example by switching off equipment and waiting for instructions, and an evacuation tone means leave immediately.<ref name="ABCB-D1-243">Australian Building Codes Board (2020a), Data Sheet D1, pp. 243–244.</ref> Because the alarm then reaches some areas later, those delays must be included in the evacuation analysis.<ref name="ABCB-D1-243" /> On floors far from the fire, access to the stair may be delayed on purpose to give priority to the fire floor.<ref name="ABCB-D1-246">Australian Building Codes Board (2020a), Data Sheet D1, p. 246.</ref>

The way the message is given matters. The book ''Introduction to Fire Safety Engineering'' notes that a slow-whoop alarm signal is known to be less effective than the spoken word. An automatic [[evacuation alarm system]] is generally less effective than a live announcement, by public address, in person or by telephone.<ref name="VR-7.3">Van Rossum (2027), §7.3.</ref> The effect of an automatic alarm depends strongly on the culture of the people in the building. Where a well-trained evacuation organisation is present, the chance that the alarm is taken seriously is many times greater.<ref name="VR-7.3" />

New Zealand's C/VM2 reflects this in its design values. For retail shops and restaurants, a voice alarm halves the pre-travel activity time from 60 to 30 s in the room of fire origin. For sleeping hotel guests away from the fire, it halves the time from 600 to 300 s.<ref name="MBIE-30">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), p. 30.</ref>

Announcements can also fail. In 1971, one of the first large controlled selective evacuation drills was held in a 21-storey office building in Ottawa, with the fire assumed on the third floor.<ref name="Proulx-3-356" /> Because of an incorrectly set switch, the first announcement came through only after nearly 3 minutes, and it was ambiguous. Up to 350 people left their floors too early, which delayed the floors that should have gone first.<ref name="Proulx-3-356" /> With only the alarm bell ringing, 17 % of the people surveyed thought there was a fire, nearly 60 % thought it was a fault and 16 % a drill.<ref name="Proulx-3-356" /> In the World Trade Center in 2001, an announcement in the second tower telling people to return to their offices was cited by many survivors as a constraint on their evacuation.<ref name="NIST-160">National Institute of Standards and Technology (2005), p. 160.</ref>

== Strategy and building design ==
The evacuation strategy and the physical fire safety measures must fit together. The Australian data sheets point out that the deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the National Construction Code assume typical strategies. Patient care areas in hospitals and aged care buildings must be divided into smoke compartments of at most 500 m². Horizontal exits there need a clear area of at least 2.5 m² per patient on the far side of the fire wall. These rules match a phased evacuation with staff assistance.<ref name="ABCB-D1-247" /> Emergency warning and intercommunication systems are required, among other cases, in buildings with an effective height of more than 25 m.<ref name="ABCB-D1-248" />

The strategy also affects other systems. The number of stair doors open at the same time, and therefore the design of [[Stair pressurisation|stair pressurisation]], depends on whether a staged evacuation or refuge concept is part of the emergency plan. Dividing a tall stair into pressurised compartments only works with a staged evacuation, not when the whole building leaves by the stairs at once.<ref name="Klote-4-286">Klote (2002), p. 4-286.</ref><ref name="Klote-4-287">Klote (2002), p. 4-287.</ref> For very tall buildings, the Australian handbook mentions protect-in-place or partial evacuation strategies and the use of lifts as possible enhancements.<ref name="ABCB-H-49">Australian Building Codes Board (2020b), p. 49.</ref>

The evacuation strategy is therefore a part of the wider [[fire safety strategy]]. The Australian data sheets state that the description of the fire safety strategy must include clear details of the evacuation management strategy and the performance expected from it.<ref name="ABCB-D1-249" /> They also warn that changes to the evacuation management strategy should not be used on their own to justify relaxing the prescriptive requirements. Both the proposed design and the reference building are expected to have an optimised strategy.<ref name="ABCB-D1-249" />

== Use in evacuation analysis ==
In a time-based analysis, the strategy changes the inputs. New Zealand's C/VM2 takes the notification time as 30 s for standard evacuation strategies. For non-standard strategies, such as management investigating the activation of a single detector before raising the alarm, the longer notification time must be included.<ref name="MBIE-29">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), p. 29.</ref> In Australia, the data sheets describe levels of emergency management organisation. These range from long-term occupants with floor wardens and regular drills to small residential buildings with no permanent staff, where managing the evacuation falls to the fire brigade.<ref name="ABCB-D1-252">Australian Building Codes Board (2020a), Data Sheet D1, p. 252.</ref>

Training, drills and a reliable intercom system make occupant behaviour more uniform and predictable, as is common in health care, most workplaces and larger public buildings. With simple alarms and an informal organisation, human behaviour varies much more, which is typical of small and medium-sized residential buildings.<ref name="ABCB-D1-250" /> The analysis must therefore reflect the strategy that will actually be in place. Scenarios with a failed alarm or intercom system also need to be considered.<ref name="ABCB-D1-250" />

== Limits and failure modes ==
Every strategy rests on assumptions that can fail. A phased evacuation assumes that the fire stays on the floor of origin. The Australian data sheets warn that it may be sensitive to rapid fire spread over several floors via the façade, and that procedures for that case should be described.<ref name="ABCB-D1-250" /> At the World Trade Center in 2001, the scale of the event made a phased approach unsuitable.<ref name="Averill-164" /> In the first stages a full-building evacuation took place from all floors not badly affected by the impacts. Had stair pressurisation been installed, this would have lowered the pressure in the stairs below the required value.<ref name="FS-111">Ferreira and Strege (2005), p. 111.</ref>

Strategies in which people stay put depend on the protection around them and on reliable information about the fire.<ref name="Schif-4-2" /> NIST observed that current strategies generally required mobility-impaired occupants to shelter in place and wait for assistance. It recommended that new procedures should consider full building evacuation, so that these occupants have a way to leave on their own.<ref name="NIST-216">National Institute of Standards and Technology (2005), p. 216.</ref> The Australian data sheets state more generally that the fire safety strategy must show how the safety of all occupants is achieved, usually by combining physical fire safety features with evacuation management procedures.<ref name="ABCB-D1-251">Australian Building Codes Board (2020a), Data Sheet D1, p. 251.</ref>

== See also ==
* [[Fire safety management]]
* [[Evacuation of people with disabilities]]
* [[Evacuation lift]]
* [[Pre-movement time]]

== Notes ==
<references />

== References ==
* Australian Building Codes Board. (2020a). ''Data sheets: Fire Safety Verification Method'' (Handbook annex, Print version 1.1).
* Australian Building Codes Board. (2020b). ''Handbook: Fire Safety Verification Method'' (Print version 1.1).
* Averill, J. D., Mileti, D. S., Peacock, R. D., Kuligowski, E. D., Groner, N., Proulx, G., Reneke, P. A., & Nelson, H. E. (2005). ''Occupant behavior, egress, and emergency communications'' (NIST NCSTAR 1-7). National Institute of Standards and Technology.
* Ferreira, M. J., & Strege, S. M. (2005). ''Smoke management systems'' (NIST NCSTAR 1-4D). National Institute of Standards and Technology.
* Klote, J. H. (2002). Smoke control. In P. J. DiNenno, D. Drysdale, C. L. Beyler, W. D. Walton, R. L. P. Custer, J. R. Hall Jr., & J. M. Watts Jr. (Eds.), ''SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering'' (3rd ed., pp. 4-274–4-291). National Fire Protection Association; Society of Fire Protection Engineers.
* Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. (2025b). ''Verification Method C/VM2: Framework for fire safety design'' (2nd ed.).
* National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2005). ''Final report on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers'' (NIST NCSTAR 1).
* National Research Council of Canada, International Code Council, Department of Building and Housing, & Australian Building Codes Board. (2005). ''International fire engineering guidelines'' (2005 ed.). Australian Building Codes Board.
* Proulx, G. (2002). Movement of people: The evacuation timing. In P. J. DiNenno, D. Drysdale, C. L. Beyler, W. D. Walton, R. L. P. Custer, J. R. Hall Jr., & J. M. Watts Jr. (Eds.), ''SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering'' (3rd ed., pp. 3-342–3-366). National Fire Protection Association; Society of Fire Protection Engineers.
* Schifiliti, R. P., Meacham, B. J., & Custer, R. L. P. (2002). Design of detection systems. In P. J. DiNenno, D. Drysdale, C. L. Beyler, W. D. Walton, R. L. P. Custer, J. R. Hall Jr., & J. M. Watts Jr. (Eds.), ''SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering'' (3rd ed., pp. 4-1–4-43). National Fire Protection Association; Society of Fire Protection Engineers.
* Van Rossum, E. (2027). ''Introduction to Fire Safety Engineering''. Fire Safety Academy.

[[Category:Human Behaviour & Evacuation]]