Fire safety in high-rise buildings: Is the stay-put tactic a misjudgement or magnificent strategy?

Historically, fire incidents in high-rise buildings reveal that Fire and Rescue Services frequently rely on the stay-put tactic (i.e., occupants of high-rise buildings should remain in their apartments) during an inferno. Recent fire occurrences in high-rise buildings reveal that there are two opposing viewpoints on the stay-put tactic. First, the understanding that the stay-put tactic is a beneficial practice used to protect, control, and facilitate smooth evacuation of occupants during fire incidents. Second, the argument that the stay-put tactic is a misjudgement and futile strategy that leads to fatalities, particularly in high-rise buildings. The aim of this study was to provide awareness and understanding of fire and rescue services use of the stay-put tactic in high-rise buildings. We attempted to answer the questions: is the stay-put tactic a misjudgement or magnificent strategy? The study adopted phenomenological research strategies with various focus groups consisting of seasoned firefighters and survivors with first-hand accounts of stay-put instructions in high-rise buildings. The study also scrutinised three case studies of fire incidents in high-rise buildings in two countries. The study revealed that the stay-put tactic is obsolete; with the potential to cause catastrophic misjudgement, mostly during conflagrations in high-rise buildings. There is a need to advance research on the use of artificial intelligence communication systems and infrared image detectors camera to enhance quick and smooth fire evacuation in high-rise buildings.

1. Westgarth, C.C. Cladding Design in High Rise Buildings: Rethinking the Approach. 2017. Available online: http://ecomms.corrs.com.au/s/2c41364179f90277609543107198ed20eda273e... (accessed on 8 January 2018).
2. GTI. Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 3 Report-1. Report of the Public Inquiry into the Fire at Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017; APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office: London, UK, 2019; pp. 34–36.
Buildings 2021, 11, 339 15 of 16
3. National Institute of Standard and Technology (NIST). Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. NIST NCSTAR1; Technology Administration U.S. Department of Commerce: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; pp. 11–15.
4. Xin, J.; Huang, C. Fire risk analysis of residential buildings based on scenario clusters and its application in fire risk management. Fire Saf. J. 2013, 62 Pt A, 72–78. [CrossRef]
5. Zhang, X.H. Study on rapid evacuation in high-rise buildings. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 2017, 20, 1203–1210. [CrossRef]
6. CFBT. The USA Compartment Fire Behaviour Training. Archive for the ‘Fire Behaviour Training’ Category. 2012. Available
online: www.http://cfbt-us.com/wordpress/?cat=5 (accessed on 11 May 2020).
7. Boyce, K.E.; Purser, D.A.; Shields, T.J. Experimental studies to investigate merging behaviour in a staircase. Fire Mater. 2012, 36, 383–398. [CrossRef]
8. Fishlock, M. An issue with Cladding in High Rise? 2017. Available online: http://www.highrisefire.co.uk/reccyasses.html
(accessed on 6 June 2020).
9. Ronchi, E.; Nilsson, D. Fire evacuation in high-rise buildings: A review of human behaviour and modelling research. Fire Sci. Rev. 2013, 2, 7. [CrossRef]
10. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Employee Fire and Life Safety: Developing a Preparedness Plan and Conducting Emergency Evacuation Drills. 2001. Available online: https://www.nfpa.org/-/media/Files/Public-Education/By-topic/Occupan... (accessed on 29 May 2020).
11. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. OSHA Fact Sheet: Fire Safety. 2020. Available online: https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3527.pdf (accessed on 24 July 2019).
12. Health and Safety Executive. Controlling Fire and Explosion Risks in the Workplace A Brief Guide to the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations (Number 01/13 INDG370); Health and Safety Executive: Bootle Merseyside, UK, 2001; pp. 22–25.
13. Levy, J.K. Multiple criteria decision making and decision support systems for flood risk management. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2005, 19, 428–437. [CrossRef]
14. Levy, J.K.; Taji, K. Group decision support for hazards planning and emergency management: A Group Analytic Network Process (GANP) approach. Math. Comput. Model. 2007, 46, 906–917. [CrossRef]
15. The National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC). National Operational Guidance. 2021. Available online: https://www.ukfrs.com/pdf/print/node%3A30355 (accessed on 10 January 2021).
16. Local Government Association. Fire Safety In Purpose-Built Blocks Of Flats; Hme Office: London, UK, 2012.
17. Antell, J.H. Fundamentals of High-Rise Fire Safety. Journal of International Fire Protection (JIFP). April 2019. Available online: https://ifpmag.mdmpublishing.com/fundamentals-of-high-rise-fire-safe... (accessed on 11 June 2020).
18. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Fire Service Features of Buildings and Fire Protection Systems; OSHA Publication: Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
19. GTI. Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 3 Report-2. Report of the Public Inquiry into the Fire at Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017; APS Group on Behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office: London, UK, 2019; pp. 11–14.
20. Scott, G. Grenfell Tower tragedy echoes the public safety issues of Mid Staffs. Nurs. Stand. 2017, 31, 3. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. The UK Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Removing Unsafe Cladding. 2017. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-bring-an-end-to-uns... (accessed on 2 February 2020).
22. National Audit Office. Investigation into Remediating Dangerous Cladding on High-Rise Buildings; Comptroller and Auditor General for Ministry of Housing: London, UK, 2020.
23. Sun, B.; Ma, W.; Li, B.; Li, X. Three-way decisions approach to multiple attribute group decision making with linguistic
information-based decision-theoretic rough fuzzy set. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 2018, 93, 424–442. [CrossRef]
24. Dong, Y.; Liu, Y.; Liang, H.; Chiclana, F.; Herrera-Viedma, F. Strategic weight manipulation in multiple attribute decision making. Omega 2018, 75, 154–164. [CrossRef]
25. Jonassen, D.H. Designing for decision-making. Educ. Tech. Res. Dev. 2012, 60, 341–359. [CrossRef]
26. Eismann, K.; Posegga, O.; Fischbach, K. Collective Behaviour, Social Media, and Disasters: A Systematic Literature Review. In Proceedings of the Conference: European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2016), Istanbul, Turkey, 9 June 2016.
27. Funke, J. Complex Problem Solving: A Case for Complex Cognition? Cogn. Process. 2010, 11, 133–142. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Comfort, L.K.; Sungu, Y.; Johnson, D.; Dunn, M. Complex Systems in Crisis: Anticipation and Resilience in Dynamic Environments. J. Contingencies Crisis Manag. 2001, 9, 145–158. [CrossRef]
29. Sellnow, T.L.; Seeger, M.W.; Ulmer, R.R. Chaos Theory, Informational Needs, and Natural Disasters. J. Appl. Commun. Res. 2002, 30, 269–292. [CrossRef]
30. Kapucu, N.; Garayev, V. Collaborative Decision-Making in Emergency and Disaster Management. Int. J. Public Adm. 2011, 34, 366–375. [CrossRef]
31. Scott, J.H.; Reinhardt, E.D. Assessing Crown Fire Potential by Linking Models of Surface and Crown Fire Behavior; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2001; pp. 3–5.
32. Leedy, P.D.; Ormrod, J.E. Practical Research: Planning and Design, 10th ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2013.
33. Babbie, B. The Practice of Social Research, 13th ed.; Thomson Wadsworth: Belmont, CA, USA, 2013.
34. Krueger, R.A. Designing and conducting focus group interviews. Psychology 2002, 20, 3.
Buildings 2021, 11, 339 16 of 16
35. Gaskell, G.; Bauer, M.W. Towards Public Accountability: Beyond Sampling, Reliability and Validity. In Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2016; pp. 336–350.
36. Kvale, S. The 1000-page question. Qual. Inq. 1996, 2, 275–284. [CrossRef]
37. Kuzmani´c, M. Validity in qualitative research: Interview and the appearance of truth through dialogue. Horiz. Psychol. 2009, 18, 39–50.

N/A