Architectural Design and Fire Safety: An Assessment of Engineering in Commercial Buildings

3. Findings

1.1. Descriptive

The descriptive analysis sought to establish average values for key architectural design indicators on preparedness of the case study’s shopping mall. Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and minimum–maximum values for key indicators.

The descriptive results in Table 1 indicate that T-Mall generally meets basic architectural fire-safety provisions, though with varying adequacy. On average, each floor had slightly more than two fire exits (\(M = 2.10\), \(SD = 0.62\)), but the distance to the nearest exit averaged 14.55 m, which exceeds the recommended 10 m in several international codes (NFPA, 2019). Fire extinguishers were moderately distributed (\(M = 5.70\), \(SD = 1.83\)), yet water points were relatively fewer (\(M = 2.05\), \(SD = 0.97\)), suggesting a reliance on portable extinguishers rather than fixed systems. Exit accessibility scored just above average (\(M = 3.15\)), reflecting partial obstruction or locked doors. Staff awareness was moderately high (\(M = 6.35\), \(SD = 1.95\)), but variability indicates uneven preparedness across personnel.

Most respondents (78%) reported that the mall has escape routes in case of fire, while 22% disagreed. A large majority (94%) observed that the design adequately provided fire-fighting equipment, though 5% disagreed. Almost all respondents (99%) noted that escape routes were well positioned, and 98% affirmed the presence of sufficient water points. Similarly, 89% agreed that the design considered straight-line distances to exits, while 99% confirmed the clear location of escape routes and 97% endorsed their adequacy. However, 64% reported that most escape routes were locked, with 36% disputing this. Additionally, 89% stated that each floor had enough escape routes, and 83% confirmed adequate fire-fighting equipment. Finally, 82% believed water points were sufficient, although 18% disagreed.

1.2. Empirical Findings

Exploratory factor analysis, the minimum factor loading was set to \(.50\), and the scale commonality, which represents each dimension’s variance was assessed to ensure the levels of explanation are acceptable as presented in Table 3.

Based on the results in Table 3, total commonalities were \(>.50\) (Beavers et al.). The Bartlett's test for sphericity in the factor analysis was significant, \(\chi^2(36) = 704.059\) (\(p < .05\)), meaning that the selected variables have correlations with each other. The first KMO measure of sampling adequacy (RMSEA), was \(.741\). Also, the test for commonalities, showed that majority of the factors were significant except for the positive sentiments that showed an extraction loading were (\(<.5\)). That said, the lower commonality had no effect on the overall vector structure by inspection.

The preliminary factor solution had 12 factors, accounting for 74.4% of the overall data variation. The results suggest that generally, the data that was used in the factor extraction was generally good. Additionally, the data showed a 36.2% non-redundant residuals with values \(>.005\), further confirming that this was an acceptable model fit. The rotated component matrix showed the constructs in which the selected factors for the three tools loaded. The analysis showed that sentiments representing the same constructs load together.

All the factors that could not load in their respective hypothesized constructs were removed iteratively. In phases. The iterative process of removing incorrectly-loading constructs retained only five factors with various sentiments. The main goal was to reduce the number of variables of measuring the disorders into fewer components, considering variable differences and converting them into single scores. The $\text{Bartlett's test}$ for sphericity to \(8059.75\) (\(P < .05\)). The final model of the constructs, together with the associated eigenvalues was created. The Results for the factor analysis using this scoring are presented in Table 3.

The systematic exploratory factor analysis sought to establish the shared constructs (factors) that were correctly incorporated in the T-mall’s fire safety engineering design. In this case, the exploratory factor analysis was based on the crucial domains of assessing how fire safety engineering design of the structure influence fire preparedness of T-mall. The results showed that the final model representing a series of sentiments for assessing the 12 fire safety engineering design of the structure statements could contain four factors. In Table 3 the factors, together with the correct sentiment scores associated with each are illustrated. The associated scree plot for the test results are presented in Figure 1.

The fire safety engineering design of the structure sentiments that correctly represented the domains for measuring fire preparedness across the selected tools are shown on the scree plot. The sentiment eigenvalues, which are akin to sentiments show that fire preparedness can be best assessed using the following statements: Fire-fighting equipment are located in the appropriate places, design of the building has adequate provisions for fire fighting equipment, and design of the building provided for enough water points in and around the building. The sentiments that are significant and more likely to influence fire preparedness since they obtain high Eigenvalues with respondents rating them with more than 3 components. More importantly, there is an overlap in the sentiments.

Given the statement "fire-fighting equipment are located in the appropriate places" recorded the highest importance ranking a follow Least Ordinal regression was performed on the variable. The level of agreement and disagreement for this variable was used as independent variable for Ordinal Least Square Multiple Regression test with fire preparedness being dependent variable. The dependent variable used time take to respondent to fire drilling incident, time taken to put off fire, and the intensity of fire at the time of containments. The OLS Multiple regression results are present in Table 4.

In Table 4 findings, the model explained 58.1% of the variance in preparedness (\(R^2 = .58\)), with time taken to contain a fire and time taken to respond to a fire drill emerging as significant predictors (\(p < .05\)). The statistically significant \(F\)-test (\(F(1,34) = 2.66\), \(p = .002\)) indicates that the overall model provides a good fit, supporting the alternative hypothesis. These findings suggest that well-placed fire-fighting equipment, efficient escape routes, and design considerations directly enhance evacuation efficiency and containment speed, thereby strengthening fire preparedness in T-Mall and by extension, similar commercial facilities in Kenya. The regression analysis confirms the study’s hypothesis that the appropriateness of fire safety design significantly influences fire preparedness in malls.

1.3. Architectural Design Analysis

The architectural configuration of T-Mall shown in Figure 2 reveals partial compliance with Kenya’s fire safety requirements as outlined in the Fire Risk Reduction Rules (Legal Notice No. 59, 2007), the Kenya Building Code (2015), and related international standards such as the NFPA 101: Life Safety Code.

Escape Routes and Egress Widths. The plan illustrates multiple escape routes strategically distributed across all floors, which conforms to Rule 36 of the Fire Risk Reduction Rules requiring more than one exit for buildings with large occupancy. However, the evacuation routes appear narrow in some sections, which may not comply with the minimum 1.2 m width stipulated in the Building Code for commercial occupancies (Government of Kenya, 2015). International benchmarks such as NFPA 101 similarly require exit widths scaled to occupant load, raising concerns about possible congestion during peak evacuation.

Exit Accessibility and Locked Routes. Despite the presence of numerous exits, survey results indicated that 64% of escape routes are often locked, undermining compliance with Rule 37 of the Fire Risk Reduction Rules that mandates unobstructed and unlocked exits during occupancy. NFPA 101 (2021) also prohibits locking of egress doors except in highly controlled access systems, highlighting a significant design and management gap.

Staircases and Vertical Evacuation. The mall incorporates staircases positioned near key circulation points. These largely conform to the Building Code provisions requiring enclosed staircases with fire-resistant construction. However, the evacuation plan does not explicitly indicate smoke-proof enclosures or pressurisation systems, which are critical in preventing vertical smoke spread (NFPA 92). This represents a design shortfall in high-rise fire protection.

Fire-Fighting Equipment Placement. The plan highlights dedicated points for fire extinguishers and hose reels on each floor. This aligns with Rule 21 of the Fire Risk Reduction Rules requiring accessible fire-fighting equipment within a 30 m travel distance. Survey findings corroborated this adequacy, with 94% of respondents affirming provisions for fire-fighting installations. The arrangement thus meets both local and international guidelines (NFPA 10, BS EN 3).

Water Points and Hydrant Systems. The building design incorporates water points distributed within and around the premises. This is consistent with Rule 22 of the Fire Risk Reduction Rules mandating reliable water supply for fire suppression. Respondents (98%) confirmed adequacy of these points, supporting the plan’s conformity with code requirements. Nonetheless, absence of clearly marked hydrant connections on the plan raises questions on compliance with external fire brigade operations.

Travel Distances. The plan shows relatively short and direct routes to exits, consistent with the Building Code requirement limiting travel distance in assembly and mercantile buildings to 30 m without sprinklers and 45 m with sprinklers. Although 89% of respondents confirmed the design considers straight-line access, the locked exit concern significantly negates this strength. Signage and Evacuation Visibility. While exit points are well positioned (reported by 99% of respondents), the plan lacks explicit indication of emergency signage. The Building Code (2015) and NFPA 101 require illuminated exit signs and directional signage to guide evacuation during low visibility, an area where the mall may be underperforming.

Source: T-mall (2024)

The architectural layout of T-Mall was benchmarked against Kenya’s National Building Code (NBC, 2024), the Fire Risk Reduction Rules (2007), and the Physical and Land Use Planning (Building) Regulations (2021), which collectively define minimum requirements for means of escape, firefighting systems, lighting, and structural egress design. This evaluation systematically compares the features captured in the submitted evacuation plan with statutory provisions, highlighting areas of conformity and gaps. The results are presented in a compliance matrix (Table 5), which specifies the applicable standard, observed evidence from the T-Mall plan and a judgement of compliance status.

4. Discussion

This paper sought to evaluate the extent to which the fire safety engineering design of T-Mall influences its level of fire preparedness. Findings confirmed that the building has been structurally designed to meet most of the critical provisions of the National Building Code (NBC, 2024), the Fire Risk Reduction Rules (2007), and the Physical and Land Use Planning (Building) Regulations (2021). Respondents overwhelmingly indicated that T-Mall is fitted with sufficient firefighting equipment (94%), well-placed escape routes (78%), and adequate water points around the premises, findings that directly affirm the architectural layout analysis. These results align with Ogajo (2013), who reported that poor fire design in many malls across Kenya has historically undermined disaster response. Unlike the Kisumu CBD case, however, the current study demonstrates that T-Mall has integrated labelled escape routes and sufficient equipment distribution, with only isolated concerns such as locked exit doors noted by 64% of respondents. Aligula (1990) had earlier emphasized that appropriate fire design is inseparable from preventive practices such as routine inspections, fire drills, and exit signage elements which the T-Mall plan partly reflects, though operational enforcement remains inconsistent.

The regression analysis (See Table 4) showed that proper location of firefighting equipment significantly improved fire containment and reduced response time, with coefficients above 1.9. This echoes Song et al. (2022), who established that architectural features such as compartmentalization, smoke control, and optimized evacuation routes substantially determine both the speed and safety of occupant evacuation. Similarly, Kodur, Kumar, and Rafi (2019) demonstrated statistically significant correlations between the adoption of modern fire safety codes and overall preparedness levels, arguing for strict code enforcement, robust suppression systems, and rational design methods. The compliance matrix findings that T-Mall largely conforms to Kenya’s NBC provisions validate this argument, showing that structural code compliance translates into measurable preparedness benefits.

Yet, as Arablouei and Kodur (2016) caution, the absence of comprehensive performance-based fire design frameworks in many jurisdictions limits the ability of architects and engineers to optimize structural fire resistance. While T-Mall demonstrates basic compliance, its reliance on prescriptive code requirements rather than performance-based simulations suggests a need for further investment in advanced fire design modelling. In this respect, Kenya’s safety regime still mirrors the global gap in developing cost-effective, logic-based fire resistance solutions.

Respondent recommendations such as additional exits (33.4%), wider assembly points (6.1%), and enhanced compartmentalisation reinforce the need for continuous upgrading of fire designs. These echo the prescriptions of Maluk, Woodrow, and Torero (2017), who argue for the installation of adequate fire doors, physical barriers, and efficient escape routes to minimise evacuation times and reduce the likelihood of uncontrolled fire spread. T-Mall satisfactorily addresses these requirements but still shows deficits in the number and width of exit points (Table 5). Taken together, the findings demonstrate that while T-Mall has incorporated adequate fire design in conformity with Kenya’s NBC and related standards, critical operational gaps (locked exits, inadequate assembly areas) limit full preparedness. Consistent with Ogajo (2013) and Kodur et al. (2019), the study highlights that structural compliance alone does not guarantee effective fire safety ongoing maintenance, operational enforcement, and integration of performance-based design are equally essential.

5. Conclusion

This study examined how architectural design influences fire safety in commercial buildings, using TMall as a case study. Findings show that while the mall broadly complies with Kenyan fire safety standards such as the Fire Risk Reduction Rules (2007) and the Occupational Safety and Health Act (2007) critical weaknesses remain. Escape routes are generally well positioned, supported by adequate water points and fire-fighting equipment. However, limited accessibility of some exits and the potential for congestion during evacuation raise concerns about operational readiness. These results highlight that compliance on paper does not always translate to effective fire safety in practice. For practice, the findings emphasise the need for continuous safety audits, enforcement of unobstructed escape routes, and expansion of assembly points. Mall managers should integrate simulation-based evacuation drills and adopt performance-based fire design methods to strengthen preparedness. Regulatory authorities must enforce compliance beyond design approvals to ensure functionality during emergencies. For academia, the study contributes to evidence on the role of architectural design in fire preparedness within African urban settings. It supports the argument that physical infrastructure is central to emergency outcomes and calls for further research into simulation-based evacuation modelling and socio-behavioural aspects of fire safety.

6. Limitations

This study was limited to a single mall, meaning the findings may not be generalizable to other contexts. Reliance on observational data may have introduced possible bias, as observers may lack full technical knowledge of architectural designs fire safety systems. In addition, the absence of technical audits or fire simulations means the results are indicative rather than conclusive. Caution should therefore be exercised in applying these findings, and future research should use multiple sites and technical assessments for stronger validation.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from public, commercial, or not-for-profit funding agencies.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation, to any qualified researcher.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all the participants who contributed their valuable time and insights to this study.

References

1. Aligula, E. (1990). Fire safety in public buildings in Kenya. Government Printer.
2. Alonso, M., & Alvear, D. (2020). Modelling occupant evacuation in complex buildings: Implications for fire safety design. Fire Safety Journal, 113, 102975.
3. Arablouei, A., & Kodur, V. (2016). Performance-based fire resistance design of structures: Gaps and opportunities. Journal of Structural Fire Engineering, 7(4), 322–336.
4. Beavers, J. E., Prasad, P., & Richard, R. (2019). Designing for fire safety in commercial buildings. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 25(2), 04019007. \(\text{https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000367}\)
5. British Standards Institution. (2019). BS 9999: Fire safety in the design, management and use of buildings – Code of practice. BSI Standards.
6. British Standards Institution. (2020). BS EN 1991-1-2: Eurocode 1: Actions on structures – Part 1-2: General actions – Actions on structures exposed to fire. BSI Standards.
7. Buys, F. (2021). Sustainable architecture and fire safety: Balancing innovation with regulation. International Journal of Sustainable Building, 12(4), 210–225.
8. Chan, W. K. (2019). Building codes and fire safety in high-rise structures: Lessons from global case studies. Fire Safety Journal, 108, 102834. \(\text{https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2019.102834}\)
9. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
10. Green, M. (2020). The impact of building regulations on fire safety in commercial developments. Journal of Construction Safety, 15(3), 155–170.
11. Gu, Y., Xu, X., & Ping, L. (2023). Impact of occupant load on building thermal and energy performance. Energy and Buildings, 285, 112922.
12. Hadjisophocleous, G., & Mehaffey, J. (2021). Integrated fire safety design in large buildings. Fire Technology, 57(3), 951–973.
13. Hong, T., & Lee, M. (2018). Fire safety considerations in modern architectural design. Journal of Building Engineering, 20, 539–547. \(\text{https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.08.012}\)
14. International Code Council. (2021). International Fire Code (IFC® 2021). International Code Council.
15. International Organization for Standardization. (2018). ISO 23932-1: Fire safety engineering — General principles. ISO.
16. International Organization for Standardization. (2020). ISO 23932-1: Fire safety engineering – General principles. ISO.
17. Kenya Bureau of Standards. (2012). KS EAS 153:2012 Fire safety—Code of practice. KEBS.
18. Kodur, V., Kumar, P., & Rafi, M. (2020). Role of passive and active fire protection in resilient building design. Journal of Fire Protection Engineering, 30(2), 89–106.
19. Maluk, C., Woodrow, M., & Torero, J. (2017). Fire safety strategies in high-occupancy buildings: The role of fire doors and compartmentation. Fire Safety Journal, 91, 245–256.
20. Meacham, B. (2016). Fire safety challenges of tall wood buildings. Fire Technology, 52, 133–158.
21. Mishra, A., & Aithal, P. S. (2022). Assessment of fire suppression systems in commercial complexes. International Journal of Applied Engineering and Management, 6(1), 33–47.
22. Mugenda, O. M., & Mugenda, A. G. (2003). Research methods: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Acts Press.
23. National Building Code of Kenya. (2024). National Building Code. Government of Kenya.
24. National Fire Protection Association. (2018). NFPA 101: Life Safety Code. NFPA.
25. National Fire Protection Association. (2019). NFPA 101: Life Safety Code. NFPA.
26. National Fire Protection Association. (2021). NFPA 5000: Building Construction and Safety Code. NFPA.
27. Obasa, O., Mbamali, I., & Okolie, K. (2020). Integration of firefighting installations in commercial buildings. Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 9(2), 177–188.
28. Ogajo, J. (2013). Fire disaster preparedness in shopping malls: The Kenyan experience. African Safety Science Journal, 2(1), 11–23.
29. Ogajo, S. (2013). Building fire safety management in Kenya: A case of commercial buildings in Nairobi CBD [Unpublished master's thesis]. University of Nairobi.
30. Physical and Land Use Planning (Building) Regulations. (2021). Kenya Gazette Supplement No. 44. Nairobi: Government of Kenya.
31. Republic of Kenya. (2007). Occupational Safety and Health Act, 2007 (OSHA). Government Printer.
32. Smith, D. (2020). Integration of fire safety into architectural design. Architectural Science Review, 63(5), 456–468. \(\text{https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2020.1716298}\)
33. Song, W., Ma, J., Liao, Y., & Fang, Z. (2022). Architectural design features and their effect on fire evacuation performance. Safety Science, 149, 105679.
34. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
35. Zhao, Y., Li, H., & Wang, J. (2020). Performance-based fire safety design in commercial buildings. Fire Technology, 56, 2453–2473. \(\text{https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-019-00923-1}\)