Fire safety objectives - Revision history

Jan: Remove links to pages that do not exist; retain displayed text (wiki-wide link audit).

2026-11-02T21:32:51Z

Remove links to pages that do not exist; retain displayed text (wiki-wide link audit).

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:32, 2 November 2026
Line 78:		Line 78:
	== See also ==		== See also ==

	* [[Qualitative design review]]		* Qualitative design review
	* [[Performance-based design]]		* [[Performance-based design]]
	* [[Prescriptive design]]		* [[Prescriptive design]]

Mark: Revise against the FSE wiki writing guidelines: attribution of the design process and wording after independent fact-check (revised by Claude Opus 5.5)

2026-11-02T18:39:27Z

Revise against the FSE wiki writing guidelines: attribution of the design process and wording after independent fact-check (revised by Claude Opus 5.5)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:39, 2 November 2026
Line 46:		Line 46:
	== From objectives to acceptance criteria ==		== From objectives to acceptance criteria ==

	Objectives are too broad to be checked directly, so [[Acceptance criteria\|acceptance criteria]] are set for the analysis.<ref name="IFEG-CA-0-2-2" /> The criteria must suit the objectives, the performance requirements and the analysis methods. They must also be numerical, unless the analysis is qualitative, and realistic: zero risk is not an appropriate criterion.<ref name="IFEG-1-2-25">National Research Council of Canada et al. (2005), pp. 1.2-25–1.2-26.</ref> In the ten-step design process of the SFPE Handbook, the scope, goals and objectives are defined before the performance criteria are developed. Design fire scenarios, candidate designs and their evaluation follow after that.<ref name="Notarianni-5-52" />		Objectives are too broad to be checked directly, so [[Acceptance criteria\|acceptance criteria]] are set for the analysis.<ref name="IFEG-CA-0-2-2" /> The criteria must suit the objectives, the performance requirements and the analysis methods. They must also be numerical, unless the analysis is qualitative, and realistic: zero risk is not an appropriate criterion.<ref name="IFEG-1-2-25">National Research Council of Canada et al. (2005), pp. 1.2-25–1.2-26.</ref> In the ten-step design process of the SFPE engineering guide, as tabulated in the SFPE Handbook, the scope, goals and objectives are defined before the performance criteria are developed. Design fire scenarios, candidate designs and their evaluation follow after that.<ref name="Notarianni-5-52" />

	The guidelines give typical criteria for each general objective. Protecting occupants can be judged by the margin between the available and the required escape time, and by the smoke layer height. Other occupant criteria are the temperature and radiant heat of the hot layer, the smoke density and the carbon monoxide level. Facilitating the fire services can be judged by radiant heat, structural failure, water supply and resources at the fire scene. Protecting adjacent property uses the radiant heat from the fire and flame impingement, while limiting damage and keeping a business running use monetary loss, smoke release and corrosive gases. Environmental objectives use the toxicity of the fire gases, the containment of firefighting water and the expected risk to plants and animals.<ref name="IFEG-1-2-25" />		The guidelines give typical criteria for each general objective. Protecting occupants can be judged by the margin between the available and the required escape time, and by the smoke layer height. Other occupant criteria are the temperature and radiant heat of the hot layer, the smoke density and the carbon monoxide level. Facilitating the fire services can be judged by radiant heat, structural failure, water supply and resources at the fire scene. Protecting adjacent property uses the radiant heat from the fire and flame impingement, while limiting damage and keeping a business running use monetary loss, smoke release and corrosive gases. Environmental objectives use the toxicity of the fire gases, the containment of firefighting water and the expected risk to plants and animals.<ref name="IFEG-1-2-25" />
Line 70:		Line 70:
	Fire safety objectives do not aim at absolute safety. For New Zealand and the United States, the International Fire Engineering Guidelines state that absolute safety and zero risk are not achievable. The accepted risk takes into account what the community expects and what safety costs the community.<ref name="IFEG-NZ-0-2-5" /><ref name="IFEG-US-0-2-8" /> The Australian handbook adds that removing all risk would bring the fire safety strategy into conflict with the function and use of the building.<ref name="ABCB-27" /> Objectives therefore aim at an acceptable or tolerable level of [[Fire risk\|fire risk]], not at the absence of risk.<ref name="IFEG-CA-0-2-2" /><ref name="ABCB-27" />		Fire safety objectives do not aim at absolute safety. For New Zealand and the United States, the International Fire Engineering Guidelines state that absolute safety and zero risk are not achievable. The accepted risk takes into account what the community expects and what safety costs the community.<ref name="IFEG-NZ-0-2-5" /><ref name="IFEG-US-0-2-8" /> The Australian handbook adds that removing all risk would bring the fire safety strategy into conflict with the function and use of the building.<ref name="ABCB-27" /> Objectives therefore aim at an acceptable or tolerable level of [[Fire risk\|fire risk]], not at the absence of risk.<ref name="IFEG-CA-0-2-2" /><ref name="ABCB-27" />

	Deriving that level from the regulations is difficult, because their actual outcomes differ widely between types of building. In the Netherlands, the chance of dying in a fire per hour of stay is much greater in a residential building than in an assembly building. Yet the requirements for fire detection are stricter for assembly buildings. For an engineering approach, the required performance or the accepted residual risk must therefore be agreed in advance, for example by comparison with a reference situation that follows the rules.<ref name="VR-1-2" /> The Netherlands has no risk-based limit values, ~~which the book names as~~ a drawback of quantitative analysis there.<ref name="VR-1-4" />		Deriving that level from the regulations is difficult, because their actual outcomes differ widely between types of building. In the Netherlands, the chance of dying in a fire per hour of stay is much greater in a residential building than in an assembly building. Yet the requirements for fire detection are stricter for assembly buildings. For an engineering approach, the required performance or the accepted residual risk must therefore be agreed in advance, for example by comparison with a reference situation that follows the rules.<ref name="VR-1-2" /> The Netherlands has no risk-based limit values, a drawback for quantitative analysis there.<ref name="VR-1-4" />

	Objectives also carry values and uncertainty. The SFPE Handbook (2002) notes that no significant work has been done to identify what fire safety is trying to achieve, so lists of objectives are very subjective.<ref name="Watts-5-136" /> Few studies show how society values fire safety risks at the level needed for performance-based trade-offs.<ref name="Notarianni-5-46" /> Uncertainty arises in the science, in human behaviour, in perceptions of risk and values, and in decision making itself. Some people are risk tolerant, while others are risk averse.<ref name="Meacham-5-160">Meacham (2002), p. 5-160.</ref>		Objectives also carry values and uncertainty. The SFPE Handbook (2002) notes that no significant work has been done to identify what fire safety is trying to achieve, so lists of objectives are very subjective.<ref name="Watts-5-136" /> Few studies show how society values fire safety risks at the level needed for performance-based trade-offs.<ref name="Notarianni-5-46" /> Uncertainty arises in the science, in human behaviour, in perceptions of risk and values, and in decision making itself. Some people are risk tolerant, while others are risk averse.<ref name="Meacham-5-160">Meacham (2002), p. 5-160.</ref>

Mark: Revise against the FSE wiki writing guidelines: corrections after independent fact-check (revised by Claude Opus 5.5)

2026-11-02T18:38:31Z

Revise against the FSE wiki writing guidelines: corrections after independent fact-check (revised by Claude Opus 5.5)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:38, 2 November 2026
Line 5:		Line 5:
	== Goals, objectives and criteria ==		== Goals, objectives and criteria ==

	In the SFPE Handbook, a common hierarchy of fire safety decisions has five levels, ~~and objectives~~ form the second ~~of them~~.<ref name="Watts-5-136" /> Above them is the fire safety policy that an organisation adopts to achieve security against fire and its effects. Below them come strategies, each of which contributes wholly or partly to the objectives. The lowest levels are attributes and survey items, which can be measured or estimated in a real building.<ref name="Watts-5-136" /> Broad aims such as fire prevention, fire control and occupant protection usually appear in the introductory sections of building codes and fire safety laws.<ref name="Watts-5-136" />		In the SFPE Handbook, a common hierarchy of fire safety decisions has five levels, although a particular application may have more or fewer. Objectives form the second level.<ref name="Watts-5-136" /> Above them is the fire safety policy that an organisation adopts to achieve security against fire and its effects. Below them come strategies, each of which contributes wholly or partly to the objectives. The lowest levels are attributes and survey items, which can be measured or estimated in a real building.<ref name="Watts-5-136" /> Broad aims such as fire prevention, fire control and occupant protection usually appear in the introductory sections of building codes and fire safety laws.<ref name="Watts-5-136" />

	The terms are not used consistently, and an objective is sometimes simply called a goal. The International Fire Engineering Guidelines (2005) define an objective as the desired overall safety outcome, expressed in qualitative terms.<ref name="IFEG-US-0-5-4">National Research Council of Canada et al. (2005), Part 0 (United States), pp. 0.5-4–0.5-5.</ref> A functional statement is more specific and states what the building, its systems or its occupants must achieve for an objective to be met. A performance requirement gives the criteria, in engineering terms, by which a trial design is judged.<ref name="IFEG-US-0-5-4" /> In the SFPE Handbook, stakeholders first identify broad goals, such as protecting people and property. These goals are then refined into objectives that can be quantified in engineering terms.<ref name="Notarianni-5-52" />		The terms are not used consistently, and an objective is sometimes simply called a goal. The International Fire Engineering Guidelines (2005) define an objective as the desired overall safety outcome, expressed in qualitative terms.<ref name="IFEG-US-0-5-4">National Research Council of Canada et al. (2005), Part 0 (United States), pp. 0.5-4–0.5-5.</ref> A functional statement is more specific and states what the building, its systems or its occupants must achieve for an objective to be met. A performance requirement gives the criteria, in engineering terms, by which a trial design is judged.<ref name="IFEG-US-0-5-4" /> In the SFPE Handbook, stakeholders first identify broad goals, such as protecting people and property. These goals are then refined into objectives that can be quantified in engineering terms.<ref name="Notarianni-5-52" />
Line 11:		Line 11:
	A simple chain shows how the levels connect, starting from the goal of protecting the occupants. A matching objective may be to keep the gas concentrations in a corridor tenable. The performance criterion then sets the numerical limit against which the expected performance of the design is compared.<ref name="Notarianni-5-52" /> New Zealand's Building Code uses the same ladder of objectives, functional requirements and performance criteria.<ref name="CVM2-2">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), p. 2.</ref> A report for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission notes that performance-based designs state their goals explicitly, whereas prescriptive requirements contain them only implicitly.<ref name="NUREG-1-9">Iqbal and Salley (2004), p. 1-9.</ref>		A simple chain shows how the levels connect, starting from the goal of protecting the occupants. A matching objective may be to keep the gas concentrations in a corridor tenable. The performance criterion then sets the numerical limit against which the expected performance of the design is compared.<ref name="Notarianni-5-52" /> New Zealand's Building Code uses the same ladder of objectives, functional requirements and performance criteria.<ref name="CVM2-2">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), p. 2.</ref> A report for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission notes that performance-based designs state their goals explicitly, whereas prescriptive requirements contain them only implicitly.<ref name="NUREG-1-9">Iqbal and Salley (2004), p. 1-9.</ref>

	Objectives can be secured in two ways. In a rule-based approach, the design follows predefined rules and limit values, such as legislation, the conditions of an insurer or company rules. Such rules are generic and inflexible, and only partly tailored to the building, its users and its surroundings. In a risk-based or goal-based approach, fire safety is assessed for the specific project, so that more factors can be weighed together. In the Netherlands, such an alternative to the Dutch Buildings Decree (Bbl) is called equivalence. ~~It must achieve~~ at least the same level of fire safety as the prescribed measure that it replaces.<ref name="VR-1" />		Objectives can be secured in two ways. In a rule-based approach, the design follows predefined rules and limit values, such as legislation, the conditions of an insurer or company rules. Such rules are generic and inflexible, and only partly tailored to the building, its users and its surroundings. In a risk-based or goal-based approach, fire safety is assessed for the specific project, so that more factors can be weighed together. In the Netherlands, such an alternative to the Dutch Buildings Decree (Bbl) is called equivalence. Article 4.7 of the Environment and Planning Act (Omgevingswet) allows it on condition that it achieves at least the same level of fire safety as the prescribed measure that it replaces.<ref name="VR-1" />

	== Typical objectives ==		== Typical objectives ==
Line 27:		Line 27:
	[[Building regulations]] set the public objectives that every building must meet, usually in broad words rather than in numbers.<ref name="VR-1-4">Van Rossum (2027), §1.4.</ref><ref name="ABCB-14">Australian Building Codes Board (2020b), p. 14.</ref> In the Netherlands, the explanatory notes to the Dutch Buildings Decree (Bbl) give two aims for its fire safety rules. These are preventing casualties, both injured and dead, and preventing a fire from spreading to another plot. Preserving the building and preventing damage to the environment, monuments or social facilities or interests are explicitly not objectives of the decree. The rules work these aims out in sub-goals, such as keeping the structure standing, limiting fire and smoke spread, and keeping escape and firefighting routes usable.<ref name="VR-1-2" />		[[Building regulations]] set the public objectives that every building must meet, usually in broad words rather than in numbers.<ref name="VR-1-4">Van Rossum (2027), §1.4.</ref><ref name="ABCB-14">Australian Building Codes Board (2020b), p. 14.</ref> In the Netherlands, the explanatory notes to the Dutch Buildings Decree (Bbl) give two aims for its fire safety rules. These are preventing casualties, both injured and dead, and preventing a fire from spreading to another plot. Preserving the building and preventing damage to the environment, monuments or social facilities or interests are explicitly not objectives of the decree. The rules work these aims out in sub-goals, such as keeping the structure standing, limiting fire and smoke spread, and keeping escape and firefighting routes usable.<ref name="VR-1-2" />

	In New Zealand, Verification Method C/VM2 (second edition, 2025) relates all its design scenarios to three fire objectives of the Building Code.<ref name="CVM2-7">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), pp. 7–8.</ref> They are to safeguard people from an unacceptable risk of injury or illness caused by fire, and to protect other property from damage caused by fire. The third is to facilitate firefighting and rescue operations.<ref name="CVM2-58">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), pp. 58–59.</ref> In Australia, the 2020 handbook to the Fire Safety Verification Method summarises the broad fire objectives of ~~the National Construction Code~~. They are life safety of occupants, protection of other property, facilities for firefighting and fire safety during construction. The protection of the building itself and its contents is addressed only to a limited extent for some building classes.<ref name="ABCB-27">Australian Building Codes Board (2020b), pp. 27–28.</ref>		In New Zealand, Verification Method C/VM2 (second edition, 2025) relates all its design scenarios to three fire objectives of the Building Code.<ref name="CVM2-7">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), pp. 7–8.</ref> They are to safeguard people from an unacceptable risk of injury or illness caused by fire, and to protect other property from damage caused by fire. The third is to facilitate firefighting and rescue operations.<ref name="CVM2-58">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), pp. 58–59.</ref> In Australia, the 2020 handbook to the Fire Safety Verification Method, written for the 2019 edition of the National Construction Code (NCC 2019), summarises the broad fire objectives of that code.<ref name="ABCB-2">Australian Building Codes Board (2020b), p. 2.</ref> They are life safety of occupants, protection of other property, facilities for firefighting and fire safety during construction. The protection of the building itself and its contents is addressed only to a limited extent for some building classes.<ref name="ABCB-27">Australian Building Codes Board (2020b), pp. 27–28.</ref>

	The International Fire Engineering Guidelines describe two further systems as they were in 2005. The 2005 National Building Code of Canada was the first edition in an objective-based format, in which every provision serves at least one stated objective. Its objectives are worded as limiting the probability of undesirable situations, because a code cannot prevent them completely. The risk that remains after the code is complied with is regarded as the acceptable risk.<ref name="IFEG-CA-0-2-2">National Research Council of Canada et al. (2005), Part 0 (Canada), p. 0.2-2.</ref> For the United States, the guidelines note that choosing the intended level of performance is a value judgement that should ultimately be made by policy makers rather than by designers.<ref name="IFEG-US-0-2-6">National Research Council of Canada et al. (2005), Part 0 (United States), p. 0.2-6.</ref>		The International Fire Engineering Guidelines describe two further systems as they were in 2005. The 2005 National Building Code of Canada was the first edition in an objective-based format, in which every provision serves at least one stated objective. Its objectives are worded as limiting the probability of undesirable situations, because a code cannot prevent them completely. The risk that remains after the code is complied with is regarded as the acceptable risk.<ref name="IFEG-CA-0-2-2">National Research Council of Canada et al. (2005), Part 0 (Canada), p. 0.2-2.</ref> For the United States, the guidelines note that choosing the intended level of performance is a value judgement that should ultimately be made by policy makers rather than by designers.<ref name="IFEG-US-0-2-6">National Research Council of Canada et al. (2005), Part 0 (United States), p. 0.2-6.</ref>

Mark: Revise against the FSE wiki writing guidelines: verified and corrected citations, See also, links, style (revised by Claude Opus 5.5)

2026-11-02T17:50:46Z

Revise against the FSE wiki writing guidelines: verified and corrected citations, See also, links, style (revised by Claude Opus 5.5)

Show changes

Sanne: Add diagrams fse-fire-safety-objectives-v1.svg, fse-fire-safety-objectives-v2.svg, fse-fire-safety-objectives-v3.svg (level-1 visual plan)

2026-11-02T07:13:38Z

Add diagrams fse-fire-safety-objectives-v1.svg, fse-fire-safety-objectives-v2.svg, fse-fire-safety-objectives-v3.svg (level-1 visual plan)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:13, 2 November 2026
Line 12:		Line 12:

	Regulatory objectives establish mandatory outcomes within a jurisdiction. New Zealand's framework, as described by IFEG, separates the legal Building Code from documents that offer ways to comply. This allows the required outcome to remain stable while different evidence or solutions are considered.<ref name="IFEG-0-2-2">Australian Building Codes Board et al. (2005), p. 0.2-2.</ref>		Regulatory objectives establish mandatory outcomes within a jurisdiction. New Zealand's framework, as described by IFEG, separates the legal Building Code from documents that offer ways to comply. This allows the required outcome to remain stable while different evidence or solutions are considered.<ref name="IFEG-0-2-2">Australian Building Codes Board et al. (2005), p. 0.2-2.</ref>
			[[File:fse-fire-safety-objectives-v1.svg\|thumb\|upright=1.5\|alt=Building law, other law and stakeholders contribute distinct objectives to one project.\|Fire-safety objectives arise from different requirements and stakeholder goals. Based on Australian Building Codes Board et al. (2005), pp. 1.2-7–1.2-8.]]

	Other regulatory objectives can come from occupational safety, environmental protection, fire-service or dangerous-goods requirements. These may overlap with building objectives but have their own legal context. Their applicability must be checked rather than assumed.<ref name="IFEG-1-2-7" />		Other regulatory objectives can come from occupational safety, environmental protection, fire-service or dangerous-goods requirements. These may overlap with building objectives but have their own legal context. Their applicability must be checked rather than assumed.<ref name="IFEG-1-2-7" />
Line 46:		Line 47:

	Criteria can include escape-time margins, smoke conditions, structural performance, radiation, water supply and monetary loss. The list must be selected for the particular objective rather than copied indiscriminately. Each parameter should correspond to a meaningful consequence.<ref name="IFEG-1-2-25" />		Criteria can include escape-time margins, smoke conditions, structural performance, radiation, water supply and monetary loss. The list must be selected for the particular objective rather than copied indiscriminately. Each parameter should correspond to a meaningful consequence.<ref name="IFEG-1-2-25" />
			[[File:fse-fire-safety-objectives-v2.svg\|thumb\|upright=1.5\|alt=Objective, exposed group, scenario, criterion and evidence form a traceable assessment chain.\|Objectives must be translated into assessable criteria and evidence. Based on Australian Building Codes Board et al. (2005), pp. 1.2-25–1.2-26.]]

	Comparative evaluation uses a reference or prescriptive design as a benchmark. The trial design should not perform less well than that benchmark under compatible criteria. Absolute evaluation instead uses criteria agreed for the project and addresses uncertainty directly.<ref name="IFEG-1-2-25" /><ref name="ABCB-preface">Australian Building Codes Board (2020), pp. i–ii.</ref>		Comparative evaluation uses a reference or prescriptive design as a benchmark. The trial design should not perform less well than that benchmark under compatible criteria. Absolute evaluation instead uses criteria agreed for the project and addresses uncertainty directly.<ref name="IFEG-1-2-25" /><ref name="ABCB-preface">Australian Building Codes Board (2020), pp. i–ii.</ref>
Line 60:		Line 62:

	The [[Fire safety concepts tree]] represents this distinction through its primary branches of preventing fire ignition and managing fire impact. It can help examine whether proposed measures address the intended objective and where gaps remain. It is a representation of professional judgements, not a guarantee of safety.<ref name="Watts-5-158" />		The [[Fire safety concepts tree]] represents this distinction through its primary branches of preventing fire ignition and managing fire impact. It can help examine whether proposed measures address the intended objective and where gaps remain. It is a representation of professional judgements, not a guarantee of safety.<ref name="Watts-5-158" />
			[[File:fse-fire-safety-objectives-v3.svg\|thumb\|upright=1.5\|alt=Fire-safety objectives branch into preventing ignition and managing fire impact.\|Prevention and impact management provide complementary paths towards objectives. Based on Watts and Hall (2002), pp. 5-158–5-159.]]

	Risk acceptability also involves values and uncertainty. Watts and Hall discuss scientific uncertainty, human variability and differing attitudes to risk. Stakeholders should therefore be involved in setting criteria and understanding what the analysis leaves unresolved.<ref name="Watts-5-159" /><ref name="IFEG-0-2-8" />		Risk acceptability also involves values and uncertainty. Watts and Hall discuss scientific uncertainty, human variability and differing attitudes to risk. Stakeholders should therefore be involved in setting criteria and understanding what the analysis leaves unresolved.<ref name="Watts-5-159" /><ref name="IFEG-0-2-8" />

Jan: New FSE wiki article: Fire safety objectives (written by Kimi Code CLI)

2026-11-02T02:48:24Z

New FSE wiki article: Fire safety objectives (written by Kimi Code CLI)

New page

'''Fire safety objectives''' are the outcomes that a building's fire-safety provisions are intended to achieve. They can concern occupants, emergency responders, property, neighbouring buildings, the environment, heritage or continuity of operations. Objectives provide the starting point for selecting measures and judging whether a design is acceptable.<ref name="IFEG-1-2-7">Australian Building Codes Board et al. (2005), pp. 1.2-7–1.2-8.</ref><ref name="IFEG-0-3-1">Australian Building Codes Board et al. (2005), pp. 0.3-1–0.3-3.</ref>

Some objectives come from building regulation, while others arise from other legislation or project stakeholders. They must be distinguished and recorded so that a design is not assessed against the wrong target. Non-fire goals can also influence the building and its fire risks.<ref name="IFEG-1-2-7" /><ref name="IFEG-1-2-8">Australian Building Codes Board et al. (2005), p. 1.2-8.</ref>

An objective is broader than a product requirement or a calculation output. It explains the intended safety result, while acceptance criteria define how that result will be evaluated. Clear objectives make it possible to compare alternative protective measures without assuming that one technology is always required.<ref name="IFEG-1-2-25">Australian Building Codes Board et al. (2005), pp. 1.2-25–1.2-26.</ref>

== Purpose and levels of objectives ==

Objectives describe what is valued and what the fire-safety system must protect. IFEG identifies occupants, emergency services and property as recurring concerns. It also includes prevention of fire spread between buildings among building-regulatory objectives.<ref name="IFEG-1-2-7" />

At a broad level, [[Fire safety engineering]] applies scientific and engineering methods to those outcomes. The engineer selects scenarios, evidence and measures in response to them. The technical analysis is therefore a means of serving objectives, not an objective in itself.<ref name="IFEG-0-3-1" />

Regulatory objectives establish mandatory outcomes within a jurisdiction. New Zealand's framework, as described by IFEG, separates the legal Building Code from documents that offer ways to comply. This allows the required outcome to remain stable while different evidence or solutions are considered.<ref name="IFEG-0-2-2">Australian Building Codes Board et al. (2005), p. 0.2-2.</ref>

Other regulatory objectives can come from occupational safety, environmental protection, fire-service or dangerous-goods requirements. These may overlap with building objectives but have their own legal context. Their applicability must be checked rather than assumed.<ref name="IFEG-1-2-7" />

Project objectives can extend beyond minimum regulation. IFEG gives examples including business continuity, infrastructure, corporate image, heritage and limiting releases of hazardous materials. These objectives should be explicit because they may require additional scenarios or criteria.<ref name="IFEG-1-2-8" /><ref name="IFEG-0-3-3">Australian Building Codes Board et al. (2005), p. 0.3-3.</ref>

== Occupants and emergency responders ==

Occupant objectives commonly concern safe escape and avoidance of unacceptable fire effects. C/VM2's stated Building Code objective is to safeguard people from an unacceptable risk of injury or illness caused by fire. The wording belongs to the New Zealand regulatory context.<ref name="CVM2-37">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025), p. 37.</ref>

A related objective is maintaining viable escape routes. C/VM2's exit-blocking scenario asks whether one or more routes remain available under its stated conditions. This turns the broad occupant objective into a particular design question.<ref name="CVM2-37" />

Smoke and toxicity also belong to occupant objectives. IFEG lists escape-time margin, layer height, hot-layer temperature, optical density and carbon monoxide among possible acceptance parameters. The selected criteria must match the occupants and fire scenario being analysed.<ref name="IFEG-1-2-25" />

Emergency-responder objectives address safe and effective operations. C/VM2 includes facilitating firefighting and rescue among its code objectives and examines access, water delivery, information and structural stability. Those needs differ from occupant evacuation even where the same systems are used.<ref name="CVM2-53">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025), p. 53.</ref>

These groups should not be merged into one generic life-safety claim. An arrangement that protects occupants during evacuation may not provide safe firefighter access, and an effective suppression system may not provide intelligible warning. Separate scenarios help reveal those different requirements.<ref name="CVM2-7">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025), pp. 7–9.</ref><ref name="CVM2-53" />

== Property, environment and continuity ==

Property objectives can concern the building itself, its contents or adjacent property. IFEG includes structural and fabric damage, equipment damage and fire spread between buildings among possible stakeholder concerns. These are distinct consequences requiring different evidence.<ref name="IFEG-1-2-8" />

C/VM2's external-spread scenario uses radiation criteria and unprotected areas to address fire spread towards other property. Its numerical values belong to that New Zealand verification method. They are not universal targets for every property-protection objective.<ref name="CVM2-44">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025), pp. 44–45.</ref>

Heritage objectives introduce the value of historic fabric and significant places. Standard building measures may have different consequences for that value, so alternatives may need assessment. The fire strategy should protect life without unnecessarily destroying what the project intends to preserve.<ref name="IFEG-0-3-3" /><ref name="IFEG-1-2-8" />

Environmental objectives can include smoke toxicity and impoundment of firefighting water. IFEG lists these among possible acceptance parameters. They extend the analysis beyond immediate injury and property damage to wider releases and effects.<ref name="IFEG-1-2-25" />

Continuity objectives concern the ability to maintain operations and financial viability. Fire suppression or compartmentation may limit interruption, but the required recovery outcome must be defined. A building that meets minimum life-safety criteria does not automatically satisfy those additional objectives.<ref name="IFEG-0-3-3" /><ref name="IFEG-1-2-25" />

== From objectives to acceptance criteria ==

[[Acceptance criteria]] specify how the evaluation will decide whether objectives are met. They should be appropriate to the objectives, performance requirements and analysis method. IFEG calls for numerical criteria in quantitative analysis and rejects zero risk as a realistic target.<ref name="IFEG-1-2-25" />

Criteria can include escape-time margins, smoke conditions, structural performance, radiation, water supply and monetary loss. The list must be selected for the particular objective rather than copied indiscriminately. Each parameter should correspond to a meaningful consequence.<ref name="IFEG-1-2-25" />

Comparative evaluation uses a reference or prescriptive design as a benchmark. The trial design should not perform less well than that benchmark under compatible criteria. Absolute evaluation instead uses criteria agreed for the project and addresses uncertainty directly.<ref name="IFEG-1-2-25" /><ref name="ABCB-preface">Australian Building Codes Board (2020), pp. i–ii.</ref>

Criteria should be established before the final analysis. Selecting a favourable threshold after seeing the results would obscure whether the original objective was met. The Fire Engineering Brief records these decisions and their stakeholder context.<ref name="IFEG-1-2-2">Australian Building Codes Board et al. (2005), pp. 1.2-2–1.2-3.</ref>

[[Building regulations]] influence but do not eliminate this translation work. Performance requirements can use terms such as adequate or appropriate, which require project-specific interpretation. IFEG recommends stakeholder involvement to reduce variation in those judgements.<ref name="IFEG-0-2-8">Australian Building Codes Board et al. (2005), pp. 0.2-7–0.2-8.</ref>

== Risk, prevention and consequence ==

[[Fire risk]] connects possible fire events with their consequences and likelihood. Objectives help define which consequences matter and to whom. Without that definition, a numerical probability or fire-size estimate does not establish acceptability.<ref name="Watts-5-159">Watts and Hall (2002), pp. 5-158–5-160.</ref><ref name="VR-1-2">Van Rossum (2027), §1.2.</ref>

Prevention and consequence management are complementary ways of pursuing objectives. Preventing ignition addresses the initiating event, while managing fire impact addresses events that still occur. A strategy should not assume that one branch makes the other unnecessary.<ref name="Watts-5-158">Watts and Hall (2002), pp. 5-158–5-159.</ref>

The [[Fire safety concepts tree]] represents this distinction through its primary branches of preventing fire ignition and managing fire impact. It can help examine whether proposed measures address the intended objective and where gaps remain. It is a representation of professional judgements, not a guarantee of safety.<ref name="Watts-5-158" />

Risk acceptability also involves values and uncertainty. Watts and Hall discuss scientific uncertainty, human variability and differing attitudes to risk. Stakeholders should therefore be involved in setting criteria and understanding what the analysis leaves unresolved.<ref name="Watts-5-159" /><ref name="IFEG-0-2-8" />

A low calculated frequency does not by itself demonstrate that objectives are met. The consequence measures, data quality and exposed population must still be examined. Similarly, a severe scenario does not establish its likelihood without an appropriate basis.<ref name="Watts-5-159" />

== Strategy and design integration ==

The [[Fire safety strategy]] translates objectives into a coordinated set of preventive and protective measures. It can include fuel control, compartmentation, detection, suppression, smoke control, evacuation and firefighting provisions. The selected combination should address all relevant objectives.<ref name="IFEG-1-2-9">Australian Building Codes Board et al. (2005), pp. 1.2-9–1.2-10.</ref>

Multiple objectives can compete in a design. Security, open layouts, natural lighting and future flexibility may change fire exposure or escape arrangements. The engineering review should integrate these aims while preserving the required fire performance.<ref name="IFEG-1-2-8" />

One measure can serve several objectives. Suppression may reduce occupant exposure, property damage and fire spread, but its performance depends on activation and supply. Those dependencies should be evaluated rather than claiming every benefit automatically.<ref name="NUREG-10-2">U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2005), p. 10-2.</ref><ref name="ABCB-131">Australian Building Codes Board (2020), p. 131.</ref>

Objectives also need separate scenarios. C/VM2 evaluates life safety, external spread, surface linings, firefighting and robustness through different design scenarios. Satisfying one scenario does not remove the need to satisfy the others within that method.<ref name="CVM2-7" />

Robustness testing helps determine whether objectives depend too heavily on one feature. C/VM2 considers key systems ineffective in turn under its stated conditions. This can reveal whether alternative protection is needed to preserve the intended outcome.<ref name="CVM2-58">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025), pp. 58–59.</ref>

== Documentation and stakeholder agreement ==

The Fire Engineering Brief should record the agreed objectives and their origins. Building-regulatory, other-regulatory and non-regulatory objectives can then be traced to suitable criteria. The record also shows which goals were not included in the analysis.<ref name="IFEG-1-2-7" /><ref name="IFEG-1-2-2" />

Stakeholder agreement helps clarify what is valued and which trade-offs are acceptable. This is relevant where property, heritage or continuity aims extend beyond life safety. Agreement does not replace technical evidence, but it defines the questions that evidence must answer.<ref name="IFEG-0-2-8" /><ref name="IFEG-1-2-7" />

Documentation should connect each objective to scenarios and acceptance criteria. A reviewer should be able to follow the path from desired outcome to design measure and evaluation result. Missing links can reveal an objective that was stated but not actually assessed.<ref name="IFEG-1-2-25" /><ref name="CVM2-7" />

Operational requirements should be included when a measure depends on management. Fuel limits, staff roles, maintenance and route availability can all affect the outcome. Those requirements must be communicated to the people responsible for the building.<ref name="IFEG-0-3-7">Australian Building Codes Board et al. (2005), pp. 0.3-7–0.3-8.</ref><ref name="IFEG-1-8-14">Australian Building Codes Board et al. (2005), pp. 1.8-13–1.8-14.</ref>

Changes in ownership or project priorities can alter the desired objectives. A previous analysis may no longer address the relevant property or continuity goals. Review should distinguish changed objectives from changes in the physical building.<ref name="IFEG-0-3-8">Australian Building Codes Board et al. (2005), p. 0.3-8.</ref>

== Review and limitations ==

Objectives should be reviewed as the design develops. A rejected trial design can require revised measures or clarification of the acceptance basis. IFEG treats this as an iterative process rather than a one-time declaration at project start.<ref name="IFEG-1-2-2" />

Construction and use can affect whether the intended outcomes are realised. Installed systems must match the assessed configuration, and the building must be operated consistently with its assumptions. Approval alone does not demonstrate continuing achievement of the objectives.<ref name="IFEG-0-3-7" /><ref name="IFEG-1-8-14" />

Changes of use can introduce new occupants, hazards and operational goals. IFEG calls for the existing fire evaluation to be checked in those circumstances. The original objectives and criteria may need to be revisited together with the physical analysis.<ref name="IFEG-0-3-8" />

No objective should be used to claim absolute safety. IFEG and the regulatory examples recognise uncertainty and reject zero risk as a practical acceptance criterion. A defensible assessment states the achieved performance and the conditions under which it was demonstrated.<ref name="IFEG-0-2-8" /><ref name="IFEG-1-2-25" />

Clear objectives therefore remain important throughout the building life cycle. They guide the initial strategy, the evaluation and later management. Without them, technical outputs can appear precise while failing to answer what the fire-safety work was intended to achieve.<ref name="IFEG-0-3-5">Australian Building Codes Board et al. (2005), pp. 0.3-4–0.3-5.</ref><ref name="IFEG-1-2-7" />

An objective-to-evidence matrix can help expose omissions in a design review. Each objective can be linked to the exposed group, scenario, measure, criterion and supporting evidence. An objective without a corresponding assessment would then remain visibly unresolved.<ref name="IFEG-1-2-25" /><ref name="CVM2-7" />

Occupant objectives should be tested for the population actually expected. Sleeping occupants, visitors and people needing assistance can have different response times and support requirements. A general statement about protecting people does not show that those groups have been represented.<ref name="CVM2-30">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025), pp. 29–31.</ref><ref name="Proulx-3-350">Proulx (2002), p. 3-350.</ref>

Property objectives also need a defined subject. Protection of the building frame, contents, neighbouring property and historic fabric can lead to different scenarios and acceptance measures. Grouping them under one damage label would hide those differences.<ref name="IFEG-1-2-8" /><ref name="CVM2-44" />

Acceptance criteria should not be confused with the measures selected to achieve them. A smoke-layer criterion describes an environmental condition, while a fan is one possible means of influencing it. Keeping that distinction allows different systems to be compared against the same objective where appropriate.<ref name="IFEG-1-2-25" /><ref name="Cooper-3-219">Cooper (2002), p. 3-219.</ref>

Uncertainty should remain visible in the objective assessment. A model can produce an exact-looking time or temperature while relying on uncertain fire, occupant and equipment inputs. The result should be interpreted through sensitivity and evidence limits rather than presented as a guaranteed outcome.<ref name="IFEG-1-2-24">Australian Building Codes Board et al. (2005), pp. 1.2-24–1.2-25.</ref><ref name="Watts-5-159" />

Redundancy can support objectives where failure would have severe consequences, but it must be genuine. Two components that depend on the same power, detection or control path may fail together. C/VM2's robustness scenario provides a method-specific way to examine key-system failures.<ref name="CVM2-58" /><ref name="ABCB-131" />

Review after commissioning should examine whether the assessed objectives were translated into operational requirements. Staff instructions, fuel limits and maintenance actions need to match the analysis. A technically accepted design can otherwise lose its intended performance through everyday use.<ref name="IFEG-0-3-7" /><ref name="IFEG-1-8-14" />

The record should also identify objectives that remain open because evidence is unavailable. Such limitations should not be removed by silently narrowing the objective or inventing a criterion. They belong in the project decisions and, where relevant, in the scope of further analysis. Explicitly recording those limits preserves the meaning of the objective and keeps unresolved evidence needs visible during later review.<ref name="IFEG-1-8-10">Australian Building Codes Board et al. (2005), pp. 1.8-9–1.8-11.</ref><ref name="VR-1-2" />

== See also ==

* [[Fire safety engineering]]
* [[Fire safety strategy]]
* [[Qualitative design review (QDR)]]

== Notes ==

<references />

== References ==

* Australian Building Codes Board. (2020). ''Fire safety verification method data sheets'' (Version 1.1). Author.
* Australian Building Codes Board, National Research Council of Canada, International Code Council, & Department of Building and Housing New Zealand. (2005). ''International fire engineering guidelines'' (2005 ed.). Australian Building Codes Board.
* Cooper, L. Y. (2002). Smoke and heat venting. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), ''SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering'' (3rd ed.). National Fire Protection Association.
* Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. (2025). ''C protection from fire: Verification method C/VM2'' (2nd ed.). New Zealand Government.
* U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (2005). ''Fire dynamics tools: Quantitative fire hazard analysis methods for the U.S. nuclear regulatory commission fire protection inspection program'' (NUREG-1805). Author.
* Van Rossum, E. (2027). ''Introduction to Fire Safety Engineering''. Fire Safety Academy.
* Watts, J. M., Jr., & Hall, J. R., Jr. (2002). Building fire risk analysis. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), ''SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering'' (3rd ed.). National Fire Protection Association.

[[Category:Fire Safety Design & Regulation]]