Protected escape route - Revision history

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

2026-11-02T17:14:40Z

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 5:		Line 5:
	== Definition and terminology ==		== Definition and terminology ==
	C/VM2 (second edition, 2025) defines an escape route as a continuous, unobstructed route from any occupied space to a final exit, so that occupants can reach a safe place.<ref name="MBIE25-63" /> An escape route consists of open paths, safe paths or both.<ref name="MBIE25-63" /> An open path is the part within a firecell where occupants may be exposed to fire or smoke while they escape.<ref name="MBIE25-67" /> The exitway is the part of the escape route protected by fire or smoke separations, or by distance where it is open to the outside air, and it ends at a final exit.<ref name="MBIE25-63" /> A safe path is the part of an exitway that is protected from the effects of fire by fire separations, external walls or distance in the open air.<ref name="MBIE25-69" />		C/VM2 (second edition, 2025) defines an escape route as a continuous, unobstructed route from any occupied space to a final exit, so that occupants can reach a safe place.<ref name="MBIE25-63" /> An escape route consists of open paths, safe paths or both.<ref name="MBIE25-63" /> An open path is the part within a firecell where occupants may be exposed to fire or smoke while they escape.<ref name="MBIE25-67" /> The exitway is the part of the escape route protected by fire or smoke separations, or by distance where it is open to the outside air, and it ends at a final exit.<ref name="MBIE25-63" /> A safe path is the part of an exitway that is protected from the effects of fire by fire separations, external walls or distance in the open air.<ref name="MBIE25-69" />

			[[File:fse-protected-escape-route-v1.svg\|thumb\|upright=1.5\|alt=Floor plan: a dashed route crosses an office firecell (open path), enters a fire-separated corridor and stair (exitway) and ends at a final exit.\|The parts of an escape route: the open path inside the firecell and the protected exitway that leads to the final exit. Based on Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), pp. 63, 67 and 69.]]

	The final exit is the point where the escape route gives direct access to a safe place, such as a street or open space where people can disperse.<ref name="MBIE25-63" /><ref name="MBIE25-69" /> C/VM2 also allows a place of safety inside a building. Such a place must be enclosed by fire separations that withstand burnout, lie in a sprinklered building, hold the intended number of people and have its own means of escape to the outside.<ref name="MBIE25-68">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), p. 68.</ref>		The final exit is the point where the escape route gives direct access to a safe place, such as a street or open space where people can disperse.<ref name="MBIE25-63" /><ref name="MBIE25-69" /> C/VM2 also allows a place of safety inside a building. Such a place must be enclosed by fire separations that withstand burnout, lie in a sprinklered building, hold the intended number of people and have its own means of escape to the outside.<ref name="MBIE25-68">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), p. 68.</ref>
Line 32:		Line 34:

	In practice, doors do not always work as intended. In a New Zealand survey quoted in the Australian data sheets, 4.8 percent of fire doors and 10.3 percent of smoke control doors had missing smoke seals.<ref name="ABCB-C7-215">Australian Building Codes Board (2020a), Data Sheet C7, p. 215.</ref> About 2 percent of the doors were wedged or blocked, and 2.9 percent did not close fully.<ref name="ABCB-C7-215" /> Estimated reliabilities in the same data sheet range from about 65 to 93 percent, with a mean of about 80 percent. The British draft DD240 gives 90 percent for a self-closing door to a protected stair.<ref name="ABCB-C7-215" />		In practice, doors do not always work as intended. In a New Zealand survey quoted in the Australian data sheets, 4.8 percent of fire doors and 10.3 percent of smoke control doors had missing smoke seals.<ref name="ABCB-C7-215">Australian Building Codes Board (2020a), Data Sheet C7, p. 215.</ref> About 2 percent of the doors were wedged or blocked, and 2.9 percent did not close fully.<ref name="ABCB-C7-215" /> Estimated reliabilities in the same data sheet range from about 65 to 93 percent, with a mean of about 80 percent. The British draft DD240 gives 90 percent for a self-closing door to a protected stair.<ref name="ABCB-C7-215" />

			[[File:fse-protected-escape-route-v4.svg\|thumb\|upright=1.5\|alt=Bar chart of estimated fire door reliability from nine surveys, from 66 % in a UK study to 92.6 % in US nuclear data, mean about 80 %.\|Estimated reliability of fire and smoke doors from surveys and guidance documents. Based on Australian Building Codes Board (2020a), Data Sheet C7, p. 215.]]

	C/VM2 therefore treats fire doors and smoke control doors as key fire safety systems, whose failure must be checked in a separate design scenario. Doors on hold-open devices released by the fire alarm in sprinklered buildings are an exception.<ref name="MBIE25-58">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), p. 58.</ref> In that scenario, each key system is assumed to fail in turn, and the design must still show that the available safe egress time exceeds the required time.<ref name="MBIE25-59">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), p. 59.</ref>		C/VM2 therefore treats fire doors and smoke control doors as key fire safety systems, whose failure must be checked in a separate design scenario. Doors on hold-open devices released by the fire alarm in sprinklered buildings are an exception.<ref name="MBIE25-58">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), p. 58.</ref> In that scenario, each key system is assumed to fail in turn, and the design must still show that the available safe egress time exceeds the required time.<ref name="MBIE25-59">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), p. 59.</ref>
Line 37:		Line 41:
	== Pressurisation and smoke control ==		== Pressurisation and smoke control ==
	Smoke control combines barriers such as walls, floors and doors with airflows and pressure differences generated by fans.<ref name="Klote-278" /> The high-pressure side of a barrier can be a refuge area or an escape route. Air flowing through the cracks around a closed door then prevents smoke from entering.<ref name="Klote-278" /> When the door is opened, smoke can flow against a slow airflow into the escape route. A high enough velocity through the doorway prevents this backflow.<ref name="Klote-278" />		Smoke control combines barriers such as walls, floors and doors with airflows and pressure differences generated by fans.<ref name="Klote-278" /> The high-pressure side of a barrier can be a refuge area or an escape route. Air flowing through the cracks around a closed door then prevents smoke from entering.<ref name="Klote-278" /> When the door is opened, smoke can flow against a slow airflow into the escape route. A high enough velocity through the doorway prevents this backflow.<ref name="Klote-278" />

			[[File:fse-protected-escape-route-v2.svg\|thumb\|upright=1.5\|alt=Door details between a smoky floor and a stair: air leaks out through a closed door; through an open door, slow air lets smoke in, fast air keeps it out.\|Pressurisation of an escape route: air leaking through a closed door, and smoke backflow through an open door at low and at high air velocity. Based on Klote (2002), p. 4-278.]]

	Pressurised stairs are designed to provide a smoke-free escape route and, as a secondary aim, a smoke-free staging area for firefighters.<ref name="Klote-286">Klote (2002), p. 4-286.</ref> Klote estimates that stopping smoke backflow through an open door needs about 4 m/s for an intense fire of 2.4 MW, and about 1.5 m/s for a fire of 125 kW.<ref name="Klote-286" /> In a sprinklered building, where the smoke is cooled, 0.25 to 1.25 m/s may be used.<ref name="Klote-286" /> Australian deemed-to-satisfy provisions refer to AS 1668.1. It requires at least 1 m/s through each open doorway to the fire-affected compartment when those doors and the main discharge doors of the stairs are open.<ref name="ABCB-C4-127">Australian Building Codes Board (2020a), Data Sheet C4, p. 127.</ref>		Pressurised stairs are designed to provide a smoke-free escape route and, as a secondary aim, a smoke-free staging area for firefighters.<ref name="Klote-286">Klote (2002), p. 4-286.</ref> Klote estimates that stopping smoke backflow through an open door needs about 4 m/s for an intense fire of 2.4 MW, and about 1.5 m/s for a fire of 125 kW.<ref name="Klote-286" /> In a sprinklered building, where the smoke is cooled, 0.25 to 1.25 m/s may be used.<ref name="Klote-286" /> Australian deemed-to-satisfy provisions refer to AS 1668.1. It requires at least 1 m/s through each open doorway to the fire-affected compartment when those doors and the main discharge doors of the stairs are open.<ref name="ABCB-C4-127">Australian Building Codes Board (2020a), Data Sheet C4, p. 127.</ref>
Line 46:		Line 52:

	Where two escape routes are required, they must not both be blocked by one fire. C/VM2 (second edition, 2025) requires alternative escape routes to remain separated until they reach a final exit.<ref name="MBIE25-37" /> They must diverge at an angle of at least 90° until they are 8 m apart, or 20 m apart when more than 250 people use only two routes. Smoke separations and smoke control doors are an alternative to these distances.<ref name="MBIE25-37" /> A route with a single direction of travel may be at most 50 m long for occupants familiar with the building and 40 m for others.<ref name="MBIE25-38">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), p. 38.</ref>		Where two escape routes are required, they must not both be blocked by one fire. C/VM2 (second edition, 2025) requires alternative escape routes to remain separated until they reach a final exit.<ref name="MBIE25-37" /> They must diverge at an angle of at least 90° until they are 8 m apart, or 20 m apart when more than 250 people use only two routes. Smoke separations and smoke control doors are an alternative to these distances.<ref name="MBIE25-37" /> A route with a single direction of travel may be at most 50 m long for occupants familiar with the building and 40 m for others.<ref name="MBIE25-38">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), p. 38.</ref>

			[[File:fse-protected-escape-route-v3.svg\|thumb\|upright=1.5\|alt=Plan of a room with two exits: routes leave a common point at an angle of at least 90 degrees and are 8 m or 20 m apart at the exits.\|Alternative escape routes in C/VM2: they diverge at 90° or more until 8 m apart, or 20 m apart when more than 250 people use only two routes. Based on Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), p. 37.]]

	The World Trade Center showed the importance of separation between protected stairs. On floors 83 and higher, two stairs were only about 21 m apart, while on floors 77 to 82 they were 54 to 63 m apart.<ref name="Averill-44">Averill et al. (2005), p. 44.</ref> In the first tower, where the stairs in the impact zone were clustered in the core, all were destroyed. In the second tower, where they were furthest apart, one stair remained marginally passable.<ref name="NIST-xl" /> NIST therefore recommended that egress systems maximise the remoteness of stairs and keep their functional integrity in foreseeable emergencies.<ref name="NIST-216">National Institute of Standards and Technology (2005), pp. 216–217.</ref>		The World Trade Center showed the importance of separation between protected stairs. On floors 83 and higher, two stairs were only about 21 m apart, while on floors 77 to 82 they were 54 to 63 m apart.<ref name="Averill-44">Averill et al. (2005), p. 44.</ref> In the first tower, where the stairs in the impact zone were clustered in the core, all were destroyed. In the second tower, where they were furthest apart, one stair remained marginally passable.<ref name="NIST-xl" /> NIST therefore recommended that egress systems maximise the remoteness of stairs and keep their functional integrity in foreseeable emergencies.<ref name="NIST-216">National Institute of Standards and Technology (2005), pp. 216–217.</ref>

Daan: New FSE wiki article: Protected escape route (written by Claude Opus 5.5)

2026-11-01T22:51:22Z

New FSE wiki article: Protected escape route (written by Claude Opus 5.5)

New page

A '''protected escape route''' is the part of an escape route that is separated from the rest of the building by fire- or smoke-resisting construction, or by open air. Occupants in it can reach a final exit without being exposed to the fire. In New Zealand, C/VM2 (second edition, 2025) calls these protected parts exitways and safe paths. In Australia they are known as fire-isolated exits, such as fire-isolated stairs and passageways.<ref name="MBIE25-63">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), p. 63.</ref><ref name="MBIE25-69">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), p. 69.</ref><ref name="ABCB-D1-246">Australian Building Codes Board (2020a), Data Sheet D1, p. 246.</ref> The protected part follows the open path through the room or floor where the fire may be, and it ends at a final exit to a safe place outside.<ref name="MBIE25-67">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), p. 67.</ref>

Protected escape routes are a core element of the [[means of escape]] in multi-storey buildings. They rely on [[fire compartmentation]], on [[fire door]]s that close behind the occupants and, in many tall buildings, on [[stair pressurisation]] or other [[smoke control]] systems. The aim is that people who have left the open path need not walk through smoke, because smoke is what most often prevents escape.<ref name="VR-7">Van Rossum (2027), §7.</ref> Design rules therefore set requirements for the fire resistance of the enclosure, the doors, the linings, the separation between alternative routes and the [[travel distance]] to the protected route.<ref name="MBIE25-37">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), p. 37.</ref><ref name="MBIE25-51">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), p. 51.</ref>

== Definition and terminology ==
C/VM2 (second edition, 2025) defines an escape route as a continuous, unobstructed route from any occupied space to a final exit, so that occupants can reach a safe place.<ref name="MBIE25-63" /> An escape route consists of open paths, safe paths or both.<ref name="MBIE25-63" /> An open path is the part within a firecell where occupants may be exposed to fire or smoke while they escape.<ref name="MBIE25-67" /> The exitway is the part of the escape route protected by fire or smoke separations, or by distance where it is open to the outside air, and it ends at a final exit.<ref name="MBIE25-63" /> A safe path is the part of an exitway that is protected from the effects of fire by fire separations, external walls or distance in the open air.<ref name="MBIE25-69" />

The final exit is the point where the escape route gives direct access to a safe place, such as a street or open space where people can disperse.<ref name="MBIE25-63" /><ref name="MBIE25-69" /> C/VM2 also allows a place of safety inside a building. Such a place must be enclosed by fire separations that withstand burnout, lie in a sprinklered building, hold the intended number of people and have its own means of escape to the outside.<ref name="MBIE25-68">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), p. 68.</ref>

The Australian data sheets for the Fire Safety Verification Method use the term "protected exit", with a fire-isolated stair or passageway as examples.<ref name="ABCB-D1-246" /> The Building Code of Australia (BCA) states the matching performance requirement. As quoted in the International Fire Engineering Guidelines (2005), exits must be fire-isolated "to the degree necessary", depending on the storeys connected, the fire safety systems, the use of the building and fire brigade intervention.<ref name="IFEG-AU-0.2-5">National Research Council of Canada et al. (2005), Part 0 – Australia, p. 0.2-5.</ref> In the Netherlands, maintaining the escape routes for building users is one of the sub-goals of the fire safety rules in the Bbl, the Dutch building regulations.<ref name="VR-1.2">Van Rossum (2027), §1.2.</ref>

== Why escape routes are protected ==
In a fire, escape is usually prevented because hot smoke makes visibility poor, although temperature and toxicity can also play a part.<ref name="VR-7" /> Visibility inside a smoke layer can fall very quickly. In an example in the ''Introduction to Fire Safety Engineering'', a lit exit sign is visible from only 0.57 m two minutes after the fire starts. Escaping through such a layer is not a realistic option.<ref name="VR-6.5">Van Rossum (2027), §6.5.</ref> Several forces drive smoke into other spaces. The expanding gases push smoke through seams, gaps and holes, and stack effect, wind and building services spread it further.<ref name="VR-6.6">Van Rossum (2027), §6.6.</ref>

Smoke often travels far from the fire. Klote notes that stairs and lift shafts frequently become smoke-logged, which blocks or hinders evacuation.<ref name="Klote-274">Klote (2002), p. 4-274.</ref> Proulx describes how stairs in high-rise buildings become contaminated when occupants of the fire floor and of upper floors open the stair doors during a simultaneous evacuation.<ref name="Proulx-362">Proulx (2002), p. 3-362.</ref> This happens even if the stair is pressurised. Proulx concludes that the stairs may be the most dangerous place in a high-rise fire after the room of origin and the fire floor.<ref name="Proulx-362" /> In the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, 94 percent of the occupants of the first tower moved through smoke.<ref name="Proulx-362" />

A protected route is designed to remain usable for as long as occupants need it. In New Zealand, C/VM2 (second edition, 2025) requires tenability to be assessed in the escape routes over the period in which occupants are escaping.<ref name="MBIE25-57">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), p. 57.</ref> The tenability criteria are the fractional effective dose of carbon monoxide, the fractional effective dose of heat and the visibility, all measured 2.0 m above the floor.<ref name="MBIE25-17">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), p. 17.</ref> The explanatory notes to the Dutch Bbl give comparable criteria. For a non-enclosed space through which an escape route runs, they include a smoke-free height of 2.5 m above the route and at most 2 kW/m² of radiation below the smoke layer.<ref name="VR-7.7">Van Rossum (2027), §7.7.</ref>

== Enclosure and construction ==
The enclosure of a protected route is formed by fire separations and smoke separations. Klote explains that the effectiveness of such barriers depends on their leakage paths, such as cracks around doors and holes for pipes, and on the pressure difference across them.<ref name="Klote-278">Klote (2002), p. 4-278.</ref> For smoke modelling, C/VM2 assumes that fire and smoke separations have no leakage apart from their doors.<ref name="MBIE25-17" /> A smoke control door is assumed to leak through a 10 mm gap under the door. A fire door without smoke seals is modelled with a 10 mm gap over its full height.<ref name="MBIE25-17" />

The required fire resistance depends on the building and on the scenario. In the challenging fire scenario of C/VM2, the floors, stairs and walkways that form escape routes must keep their structural adequacy, integrity and insulation for the whole required safe egress time.<ref name="MBIE25-56">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), p. 56.</ref> The fire and smoke separations that protect these routes must do the same.<ref name="MBIE25-56" /> When this construction is assessed, the effect of sprinklers in controlling the fire must be ignored.<ref name="MBIE25-56" /> For firefighting access, buildings with an escape height above 10 m need stairs designed as exitways, fire separated from the rest of the building and able to resist fire spread until burnout.<ref name="MBIE25-55">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), p. 55.</ref>

The materials inside the route also matter. C/VM2 sets its strictest wall and ceiling lining class, Group 1-S, for exitways in unsprinklered buildings, the same as for sleeping areas where care is provided.<ref name="MBIE25-51" /> In most buildings, floor coverings in exitways must have a critical radiant flux of at least 2.2 kW/m².<ref name="MBIE25-52">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), p. 52.</ref> The commentary explains that linings in exitways may be the largest fire load in those spaces, while the spaces themselves are critical paths for escape.<ref name="MBIE25-52" />

Openings in the enclosure are a weak point. The International Fire Engineering Guidelines give the example of a window in the wall between an apartment and an internal stair in a multi-storey residential building in Australia.<ref name="IFEG-AU-0.2-5" /> Such a window does not comply with the deemed-to-satisfy provisions, because the wall no longer has the required fire rating.<ref name="IFEG-AU-0.2-5" /> The structural strength of the enclosure can matter as well.

In the World Trade Center towers, the stairs were enclosed by cast gypsum panels covered with gypsum board.<ref name="NIST-12">National Institute of Standards and Technology (2005), p. 12.</ref> These enclosures were fire rated but not required to withstand accidental loads. On 11 September 2001, all stairs in the impact zone of the first tower were destroyed, and debris from damaged enclosures obstructed stairs in both towers.<ref name="NIST-xl">National Institute of Standards and Technology (2005), pp. xxxix–xl.</ref>

== Doors ==
Doors are the most frequent openings in a protected route and must close again after use. C/VM2 assumes that fire doors and smoke control doors with self-closers are closed unless occupants are using them.<ref name="MBIE25-15">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), p. 15.</ref> When few people use a door, it is taken to be open for 3 s per occupant. When queuing is expected, the door is assumed open for the whole time of queuing.<ref name="MBIE25-15" /> If 20 people pass a door one by one, it is therefore open for 60 s in total. Open doors count as half their width in smoke flow calculations.<ref name="MBIE25-15" />

In practice, doors do not always work as intended. In a New Zealand survey quoted in the Australian data sheets, 4.8 percent of fire doors and 10.3 percent of smoke control doors had missing smoke seals.<ref name="ABCB-C7-215">Australian Building Codes Board (2020a), Data Sheet C7, p. 215.</ref> About 2 percent of the doors were wedged or blocked, and 2.9 percent did not close fully.<ref name="ABCB-C7-215" /> Estimated reliabilities in the same data sheet range from about 65 to 93 percent, with a mean of about 80 percent. The British draft DD240 gives 90 percent for a self-closing door to a protected stair.<ref name="ABCB-C7-215" />

C/VM2 therefore treats fire doors and smoke control doors as key fire safety systems, whose failure must be checked in a separate design scenario. Doors on hold-open devices released by the fire alarm in sprinklered buildings are an exception.<ref name="MBIE25-58">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), p. 58.</ref> In that scenario, each key system is assumed to fail in turn, and the design must still show that the available safe egress time exceeds the required time.<ref name="MBIE25-59">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), p. 59.</ref>

== Pressurisation and smoke control ==
Smoke control combines barriers such as walls, floors and doors with airflows and pressure differences generated by fans.<ref name="Klote-278" /> The high-pressure side of a barrier can be a refuge area or an escape route. Air flowing through the cracks around a closed door then prevents smoke from entering.<ref name="Klote-278" /> When the door is opened, smoke can flow against a slow airflow into the escape route. A high enough velocity through the doorway prevents this backflow.<ref name="Klote-278" />

Pressurised stairs are designed to provide a smoke-free escape route and, as a secondary aim, a smoke-free staging area for firefighters.<ref name="Klote-286">Klote (2002), p. 4-286.</ref> Klote estimates that stopping smoke backflow through an open door needs about 4 m/s for an intense fire of 2.4 MW, and about 1.5 m/s for a fire of 125 kW.<ref name="Klote-286" /> In a sprinklered building, where the smoke is cooled, 0.25 to 1.25 m/s may be used.<ref name="Klote-286" /> Australian deemed-to-satisfy provisions refer to AS 1668.1. It requires at least 1 m/s through each open doorway to the fire-affected compartment when those doors and the main discharge doors of the stairs are open.<ref name="ABCB-C4-127">Australian Building Codes Board (2020a), Data Sheet C4, p. 127.</ref>

Pressure creates its own problem: occupants must still be able to open the doors. For a door of 2.13 m by 0.91 m, a pressure difference of 75 Pa and a closer force of 53 N give a total opening force of 133 N.<ref name="Klote-282">Klote (2002), p. 4-282.</ref> Pressurisation systems also need relief openings, so that excessive pressures do not make doors hard to open or stop them from closing automatically.<ref name="ABCB-C4-127" /> The Australian data sheets give a typical reliability of only 50 percent for pressurisation of fire-isolated exits, with a range of 30 to 60 percent.<ref name="ABCB-C4-134">Australian Building Codes Board (2020a), Data Sheet C4, p. 134.</ref>

== Layout, distance and alternative routes ==
The travel to safety is often considered in two stages: the travel to a protected exit, and the travel through it.<ref name="ABCB-D1-246" /> The length of the first stage, on the open path, is the part most exposed to the fire. In an example in the Australian handbook for the Fire Safety Verification Method, the deemed-to-satisfy travel distance from an apartment door to a fire-isolated stair is 6 m. A proposed design extends it to 12 m.<ref name="ABCB-46">Australian Building Codes Board (2020b), p. 46.</ref>

Where two escape routes are required, they must not both be blocked by one fire. C/VM2 (second edition, 2025) requires alternative escape routes to remain separated until they reach a final exit.<ref name="MBIE25-37" /> They must diverge at an angle of at least 90° until they are 8 m apart, or 20 m apart when more than 250 people use only two routes. Smoke separations and smoke control doors are an alternative to these distances.<ref name="MBIE25-37" /> A route with a single direction of travel may be at most 50 m long for occupants familiar with the building and 40 m for others.<ref name="MBIE25-38">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025b), p. 38.</ref>

The World Trade Center showed the importance of separation between protected stairs. On floors 83 and higher, two stairs were only about 21 m apart, while on floors 77 to 82 they were 54 to 63 m apart.<ref name="Averill-44">Averill et al. (2005), p. 44.</ref> In the first tower, where the stairs in the impact zone were clustered in the core, all were destroyed. In the second tower, where they were furthest apart, one stair remained marginally passable.<ref name="NIST-xl" /> NIST therefore recommended that egress systems maximise the remoteness of stairs and keep their functional integrity in foreseeable emergencies.<ref name="NIST-216">National Institute of Standards and Technology (2005), pp. 216–217.</ref>

== Use, maintenance and limits ==
A protected route only helps if people use it. The ''Introduction to Fire Safety Engineering'' notes that emergency doors and routes reserved for incidents are hardly used in practice. A practical approach is to integrate escape routes with the routes used every day.<ref name="VR-7.3">Van Rossum (2027), §7.3.</ref> The International Fire Engineering Guidelines place the duty to keep egress paths clear, doors working and signs in good condition with building management.<ref name="IFEG-1.8-14">National Research Council of Canada et al. (2005), p. 1.8-14.</ref>

Protected routes can also become the place of a fire. The Australian handbook notes that fire-isolated stairs are sometimes used to store rubbish or furniture, and that combustibles may be brought in and ignited deliberately. It treats a fire at the base of a fire-isolated stair as a reference scenario for this reason.<ref name="ABCB-67">Australian Building Codes Board (2020b), p. 67.</ref> For sprinklered sleeping occupancies with a single vertical escape route, C/VM2 (second edition, 2025) requires visibility in that route of at least 5.0 m for the whole required safe egress time.<ref name="MBIE25-59" />

== See also ==
* [[Evacuation strategy]]
* [[Phased evacuation]]
* [[Exit capacity]]
* [[Emergency lighting]]
* [[Escape signage]]

== 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.
* 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.
* Van Rossum, E. (2027). ''Introduction to Fire Safety Engineering''. Fire Safety Academy.

[[Category:Human Behaviour & Evacuation]]