make a comprehensive note.

explain key concept

in detail
This lecture introduces performance-based fire safety engineering, focusing on how to use
ASET/RSET analysis and fire/egress modelling to design and justify fire services in buildings. It
shows how tenability criteria, computer models, and human behaviour are combined to
ensure occupants can escape before conditions become untenable. [1]

Fire safety engineering and performance-based approach

Fire safety engineering is defined as the application of engineering principles, rules and
expert judgement based on a scientific understanding of fire phenomena, fire effects, and
human behaviour in fire situations. The aims are to save life, protect property, preserve the
environment and heritage, quantify fire hazards and risks, and evaluate the best protective
and preventive measures to limit fire consequences within prescribed levels. [1]

A performance-based (fire engineering) approach assesses whether the design meets these
aims using analysis and modelling, rather than simply following prescriptive codes. It is
typically applied when a design deviates from prescriptive guidance (e.g. code-compliant
layouts), and relies on explicit performance criteria such as ASET > RSET instead of fixed rules
like minimum stair widths alone. [1]

Core acceptance criterion: ASET vs RSET

The basic acceptance criterion for means of escape in alternative fire safety designs is that the
Available Safe Egress Time (ASET) must be greater than the Required Safe Egress Time (RSET).
When ASET exceeds RSET, the margin of safety is positive, meaning occupants can evacuate
before conditions become untenable. [1]

ASET is defined as the time from ignition until fire-induced conditions in the development
become untenable, based on tenability limits like temperature, visibility and toxic gases. RSET
is defined as the time required for occupants to evacuate safely from the fire location to a
place of ultimate safety, including detection, alarm, pre-movement, and physical evacuation
times. [1]

Analysis of ASET: concept and timeline

Analysis of ASET looks at the timespan between ignition and the moment when tenability
criteria are first violated under a given fire scenario. A time line of fire development and
evacuation is used, aligning fire growth, smoke conditions and occupant response to check
when conditions become critical compared with when people can leave. [1]
The key to realistic fire engineering assessment is choosing a “worst credible case” fire size
and scenario, not an arbitrary extreme that is physically unrealistic nor an overly mild fire. In
reality, fires do not instantly reach peak heat release rate ; instead, after effective ignition
there is an incubation period and a growth period, and the incubation period may range from
seconds to hours and is difficult to predict. [1]

Tenability criteria for ASET

In the lecture, tenability criteria used to define ASET include: clear smoke layer height greater
than 2 m, room temperature less than 60 °C, radiative heat flux less than 2.5 kW/m², carbon
monoxide (CO) concentration less than 1000 ppm, and visibility greater than 10 m. These
criteria reflect the limits beyond which occupants are likely to experience disorientation, heat
stress, pain, or toxic effects that prevent safe evacuation. [1]

In an FDS example later in the slides, similar tenability limits are used operationally to identify
when conditions in the modelled space become unacceptable for occupants. By monitoring
when any of these thresholds are crossed at occupant height, the engineer determines the
end of ASET for that scenario. [1]

Conservative treatment of fire incubation

The incubation period is described as typically involving smouldering combustion that still
produces smoke and may be enough to activate smoke detection systems or be perceived
visually or by smell. Because the incubation phase is highly variable and difficult to predict,
some assessments conservatively assume that the fire begins to grow immediately after
effective ignition and ignore the incubation period. [1]

This approach tends to shorten the calculated ASET, because it assumes earlier onset of
significant fire growth and smoke production. Such conservatism helps ensure that the
design remains safe even if the real fire develops faster than average. [1]

Role of modelling in ASET assessment

Computer fire modelling is commonly used to verify ASET in performance-based designs. The
conditions resulting from a fire can be quantitatively predicted using zone models such as
CFAST or computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software such as Fire Dynamics Simulator
(FDS). [1]

These tools originated from research at the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) and are widely accepted in fire engineering studies. They allow engineers to predict
smoke layer height, temperatures, gas concentrations, and visibility over time in complex
spaces, which feeds directly into ASET determination. [1]
Types of modelling approaches
The slides list four main modelling/assessment approaches: full-scale experiments, statistical
and probabilistic methods, zone modelling, and field (CFD) modelling. Full-scale burning tests
are considered too expensive and impractical for routine design work, so they are not usually
the primary design tool. [1]

Statistical and probabilistic approaches rely on empirical correlations and rule-of-thumb

relationships, which may lack clear causal basis and are often used in prescriptive guidance,
with acceptance criteria like “95% reliable.” Zone modelling represents the system with a
finite number of mathematical domains, while field/CFD modelling is described as the most
powerful method currently available, aimed at capturing fundamental physics in a holistic
way. [1]

Advantages of using models

Models help identify the most important parameters in determining the outcome of a fire in a
given configuration. They provide a faster and cheaper way to “test” a structure or
configuration than conducting a full-scale fire test, provided the model is adequate. [1]

Because model parameters can be varied systematically, they can be used to design and
optimise criteria and protective measures (e.g. vent sizes, sprinkler layouts, smoke control
settings). This optimisation capability is central to performance-based design, where different
design options are compared in silico before choosing a solution. [1]

Zone models: structure and assumptions

A typical zone model represents the compartment using about six domains or zones: the
smoke layer and plume, the lower/cool layer, hot walls, cold walls, fuel, and the surrounding
atmosphere. The most common implementations are two-zone models that split the room
into a hot upper layer and a cooler lower layer. [1]

In two-zone models, physical properties in each layer such as gas temperature and species
concentrations are assumed to be uniform. Their main advantages are ease of use and short
CPU times, and examples given include ASET, CFAST and FPETOOL. [1]

Field (CFD) models

CFD models aim to account for the most fundamental physics possible in modern science, and
they are intended to apply across a broad range of problems in a holistic way. Their
mathematical formulation does not need to be easily tractable by hand analysis because they
are solved numerically on computers. [1]

A CFD model predicts detailed temperature fields and flow patterns throughout the domain
of interest, providing spatial distributions of temperatures and velocities instead of average
layer values. However, CFD simulations require tremendous CPU time ; in complicated cases,
several days of computation may be needed for only one minute of simulated fire
development. [1]
Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) and Smokeview
FDS is described as a CFD model for buoyancy-driven flows, developed by NIST, a U.S.
government agency. It is widely used worldwide as a preferred fire CFD model and is
designed as a mixture-fraction-based combustion model for fire safety applications. [1]

FDS is specifically intended for fire protection practitioners and is accompanied by

Smokeview, a graphics program for visualising FDS output with powerful 3D graphics on
standard PCs. Smokeview allows engineers and stakeholders to see smoke movement,
temperature fields, and tenability conditions over time in an intuitive way. [1]

Tenability criteria in FDS examples

In the FDS example slides, tenability criteria are reiterated: smoke clear height less than 2.5 m,
visibility greater than 10 m, radiant heat flux less than 2.5 kW/m², temperature less than 60 °C,
and CO less than 1000 ppm. By examining when these limits are breached in the FDS results,
engineers identify the time at which conditions become untenable for occupants. [1]

This time is then used as the end of ASET for the particular fire scenario being analysed.
Sensitivity studies can vary fire size, ventilation, or protection systems to see how ASET
changes. [1]

Analysis of RSET: overall concept

RSET is the calculated time between ignition and completion of occupant evacuation from the
fire-affected development. To ensure safety, each component of RSET must be carefully
estimated and then compared with ASET for each critical scenario. [1]

The components of RSET explicitly listed are detection time, alarm time, pre-movement (pre-
evacuation) time, and physical evacuation time. Each component is influenced by both system
characteristics (e.g. detection technology) and human factors (e.g. training and perception of
risk). [1]

Detection time and alarm time

Detection time is the interval between ignition and detection of the fire by the smoke
detection system. It is broken into three components: smoke transport time to the detector,
verification time, and the detector’s own response time. [1]

Alarm time is the time between detection and activation of the alarm system that notifies
occupants. Shorter detection and alarm times reduce RSET and increase the margin of safety
relative to ASET. [1]

Factors affecting detection time

Several factors affect detection time: height of smoke detectors, protective radius of
detectors, ambient temperature, activation temperature of detectors, Response Time Index
(RTI) of detectors, and the characteristic growth time of the fire. Higher detector mounting
heights and larger coverage radii can delay smoke reaching the detector, while high
activation temperatures or sluggish RTI values can slow detector response. [1]
Faster-growing fires with shorter characteristic growth times may actually trigger detectors
sooner than slow, smouldering fires, because they generate smoke and heat more rapidly.
Designers must consider these factors when specifying detector type, spacing, and set-points
in performance-based analysis. [1]

Pre-movement time
Pre-movement (or pre-evacuation) time is the interval between alarm activation and the
moment people start to move towards exits. It captures recognition, decision-making, and
initial response delays rather than physical walking time. [1]

Factors affecting pre-movement time include the level of occupant commitment to ongoing
activities, their mental and physical state, their training to respond to warnings, the degree to
which they feel endangered by the fire, and their roles and responsibilities. For example, staff
with defined roles may delay their own movement to assist others, prolonging pre-movement
but improving overall safety for vulnerable occupants. [1]

Physical evacuation time

Physical evacuation time is the time from when people start moving until evacuation is
completed. It consists of walking time and queuing time, i.e. periods when people are
stationary in queues at doors, stairs, or other bottlenecks. [1]

This component is typically assessed using evacuation models such as buildingEXODUS,

Simulex and STEPS, which are described as well-verified software for modelling the egress of
large numbers of individuals in buildings. These models track the instantaneous positions of
people, allowing detailed analysis of crowding, route choice, and exit usage. [1]

Evacuation patterns and human behaviour

The lecture notes emphasise that evacuation patterns depend on occupant distribution,
knowledge of the building geometry, familiarity with exits, environmental factors inside the
building, and human behaviour. Different distributions of occupants by floor, room, or
function can significantly change queuing and overall evacuation times. [1]

Lack of knowledge of exit locations or poor environmental conditions such as low visibility
can lead to inefficient route choice and slower evacuation. Human behaviour—including
tendencies to seek familiar exits, help others, or retrieve belongings—must be accounted for
when interpreting evacuation model outputs. [1]

Putting it all together in performance-based design

In a performance-based fire safety design, engineers choose credible worst-case fire
scenarios, model fire development and smoke spread to estimate ASET, and use egress
models and behavioural assumptions to estimate RSET. They then check that for each critical
scenario, ASET remains greater than RSET by an adequate safety margin. [1]

If the margin of safety is insufficient, design changes such as improving detection, increasing
alarm coverage, adding or widening exits, or enhancing smoke control and suppression are
explored using the same modelling tools. In this way, performance-based fire services design
becomes an iterative process of modelling, assessment, and optimisation guided by explicit
tenability and evacuation criteria. [1]

1. [Link]