FIRE ENGINEERING — EVACUATION (EGRESS) MODELLING · CASE STUDY
Los Angeles Hotel Fire Evacuation — Evidence
NATIVE SIMULEX RESULTS (17 runs) — inputs assumed; CP1–CP4 NOT APPROVED; no ASET/fire model
Evidence
Evidence folders (preserved, append-only)
| Folder | Status | Files | SHA-256 of SHA256SUMS.txt |
|---|---|---|---|
| simulex-HXM01-20261024 | current | 310 | a12bdce2be03680cb7c542fa050745e9c8410a2d5a137494117e17c05ad49e38 |
| simulex-HXO01-20261024-r2 | current | 146 | f3d7fa31ce85292df06ab1ac6abcc5af3a79a78bf80741af6befa2160f807d8c |
| simulex-HXO01-20261024 | SUPERSEDED by simulex-HXO01-20261024-r2 (SUPERSEDED.txt present; solver files identical, report regenerated) | 137 | d5aa401874cf377289bc47e598a26eaaed5a06634f3d4ee50d1e030b4ab46ad1 |
| simulex-JOB-20261024 | current (raw archive) | 1287 | 6c54d0ffea856639aa30a2298d7cc11420494750145b34a46f9512dfb30396bb |
Engineering checkpoints
| Checkpoint | Status |
|---|---|
| CP1 inputs | NOT APPROVED |
| CP2 native run | NOT APPROVED |
| CP3 alternatives | NOT APPROVED |
| CP4 issue | NOT APPROVED |
| Baseline vs alternatives | ENGINEER DECISION REQUIRED |
| ASET / safety margin | NOT TESTED |
All four folders' SHA-256 manifests were re-verified on 2026-10-25 with no mismatch. This pack is a sanitised derivative: it holds no Simulex project or playback files, no logs and no full-desktop screenshots.
Native evidence and completeness matrix
| Result | Origin | Software · date | Verdict | Status | Source · evidence hash | Engineering approval |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BASE — Night; hillside footpath exit X3 assumed lost to the fire front; guests asleep (response 60–900 s)Native Simulex runs (hotel)Simulex total evacuation time per run: 886.6 · 878.5 · 894.3 s (HXM01-BASE-A4, HXM01-BASE-S2, HXM01-BASE-S3); mean 886.5 s. 29 occupants all reached an exit; runs hash-verified and checked by the driver. PARTIAL: assumed inputs, no fire/smoke model (no ASET), no engineering approval. evidence_sha256 is the first run's results text. | Native tool output | IES Simulex (IESVE 2026), driven by Hexanta UI automation Simulex32.exe 2026.0.0.02026-10-24 | PARTIAL | exploratory | simulex-HXM01-20261024/raw/HXM01-BASE-A4, HXM01-BASE-S2, HXM01-BASE-S3sha256 8a908398459b… | OUTSTANDING — CP1–CP4 NOT APPROVED; no life-safety or AHJ approval |
| ALT-ALL — Sensitivity: all four exits available; response 60–900 sNative Simulex runs (hotel)Simulex total evacuation time per run: 864.4 · 911.5 · 917.2 s (HXM01-ALT-ALL-A1, HXM01-ALT-ALL-S2, HXM01-ALT-ALL-S3); mean 897.7 s. Δ mean vs BASE +11.2 s (Hexanta-derived). 29 occupants all reached an exit; runs hash-verified and checked by the driver. PARTIAL: assumed inputs, no fire/smoke model (no ASET), no engineering approval. evidence_sha256 is the first run's results text. | Native tool output | IES Simulex (IESVE 2026), driven by Hexanta UI automation Simulex32.exe 2026.0.0.02026-10-24 | PARTIAL | exploratory | simulex-HXM01-20261024/raw/HXM01-ALT-ALL-A1, HXM01-ALT-ALL-S2, HXM01-ALT-ALL-S3sha256 13054e0847ac… | OUTSTANDING — CP1–CP4 NOT APPROVED; no life-safety or AHJ approval |
| ALT-EXIT — Layout alternative: new 2.0 m gate X5 (courtyard to car park); X3 lost; response 60–900 sNative Simulex runs (hotel)Simulex total evacuation time per run: 911.1 · 883.9 · 898.3 s (HXM01-ALT-EXIT-A2, HXM01-ALT-EXIT-S2, HXM01-ALT-EXIT-S3); mean 897.8 s. Δ mean vs BASE +11.3 s (Hexanta-derived). 29 occupants all reached an exit; runs hash-verified and checked by the driver. PARTIAL: assumed inputs, no fire/smoke model (no ASET), no engineering approval. evidence_sha256 is the first run's results text. | Native tool output | IES Simulex (IESVE 2026), driven by Hexanta UI automation Simulex32.exe 2026.0.0.02026-10-24 | PARTIAL | exploratory | simulex-HXM01-20261024/raw/HXM01-ALT-EXIT-A2, HXM01-ALT-EXIT-S2, HXM01-ALT-EXIT-S3sha256 ec91f98aec11… | OUTSTANDING — CP1–CP4 NOT APPROVED; no life-safety or AHJ approval |
| ALT-WARN — Operational alternative: staff wake-up warning (response 30–300 s); X3 lostNative Simulex runs (hotel)Simulex total evacuation time per run: 327.0 · 318.3 · 309.3 s (HXM01-ALT-WARN-A1, HXM01-ALT-WARN-S2, HXM01-ALT-WARN-S3); mean 318.2 s. Δ mean vs BASE -568.3 s (Hexanta-derived). 29 occupants all reached an exit; runs hash-verified and checked by the driver. PARTIAL: assumed inputs, no fire/smoke model (no ASET), no engineering approval. evidence_sha256 is the first run's results text. | Native tool output | IES Simulex (IESVE 2026), driven by Hexanta UI automation Simulex32.exe 2026.0.0.02026-10-24 | PARTIAL | exploratory | simulex-HXM01-20261024/raw/HXM01-ALT-WARN-A1, HXM01-ALT-WARN-S2, HXM01-ALT-WARN-S3sha256 4e7c1b341048… | OUTSTANDING — CP1–CP4 NOT APPROVED; no life-safety or AHJ approval |
| ALT-WARN-EXIT — Sensitivity: staff warning plus gate X5 (response 30–300 s); X3 lostNative Simulex runs (hotel)Simulex total evacuation time per run: 335.2 · 321.0 · 316.0 s (HXM01-ALT-WARN-EXIT-A1, HXM01-ALT-WARN-EXIT-S2, HXM01-ALT-WARN-EXIT-S3); mean 324.1 s. Δ mean vs BASE -562.4 s (Hexanta-derived). 29 occupants all reached an exit; runs hash-verified and checked by the driver. PARTIAL: assumed inputs, no fire/smoke model (no ASET), no engineering approval. evidence_sha256 is the first run's results text. | Native tool output | IES Simulex (IESVE 2026), driven by Hexanta UI automation Simulex32.exe 2026.0.0.02026-10-24 | PARTIAL | exploratory | simulex-HXM01-20261024/raw/HXM01-ALT-WARN-EXIT-A1, HXM01-ALT-WARN-EXIT-S2, HXM01-ALT-WARN-EXIT-S3sha256 7038e58aabb0… | OUTSTANDING — CP1–CP4 NOT APPROVED; no life-safety or AHJ approval |
| Office engine test — BASE (both exits)Native Simulex runs (office engine test)Hypothetical 30 × 14 m corridor office, 42 occupants: Simulex total 103.5 s; persons per exit XW 22, XE 20. One run per scenario: the 1.7 s difference between the two office scenarios is not distinguishable from randomness. Purpose: show the same engine and driver run a second geometry. | Native tool output | IES Simulex (IESVE 2026), driven by Hexanta UI automation Simulex32.exe 2026.0.0.02026-10-24 | PARTIAL | exploratory | simulex-HXO01-20261024-r2/raw/HXO01-BASE-A1/HXO01-BASE-A1.txtsha256 ce0b5f95c222… | OUTSTANDING — CP1–CP4 NOT APPROVED; no life-safety or AHJ approval |
| Office engine test — ALT-EBLK (east exit blocked)Native Simulex runs (office engine test)Hypothetical 30 × 14 m corridor office, 42 occupants: Simulex total 105.2 s; persons per exit XW 42. One run per scenario: the 1.7 s difference between the two office scenarios is not distinguishable from randomness. Purpose: show the same engine and driver run a second geometry. | Native tool output | IES Simulex (IESVE 2026), driven by Hexanta UI automation Simulex32.exe 2026.0.0.02026-10-24 | PARTIAL | exploratory | simulex-HXO01-20261024-r2/raw/HXO01-ALT-EBLK-A1/HXO01-ALT-EBLK-A1.txtsha256 10d6fe03748b… | OUTSTANDING — CP1–CP4 NOT APPROVED; no life-safety or AHJ approval |
| Office engine test — first-generation evidence (superseded)Native Simulex runs (office engine test)Superseded by simulex-HXO01-20261024-r2 (SUPERSEDED.txt present): the report was regenerated with the final engine code; the Simulex solver files are identical. Not used for any figure here. evidence_sha256 is the folder's SHA256SUMS.txt. | Native tool output | IES Simulex (IESVE 2026), driven by Hexanta UI automation Simulex32.exe 2026.0.0.02026-10-24 | PARTIAL | superseded | simulex-HXO01-20261024sha256 d5aa401874cf… | OUTSTANDING — CP1–CP4 NOT APPROVED; no life-safety or AHJ approval |
| Derived statistics (means, deltas, peak flow, occupant-mean time)Hexanta-derived from native outputMeans and ranges per scenario; ALT-WARN vs BASE −568.3 s (−64 %), ranges not overlapping; layout changes +11.2 s / +11.3 s within randomness; peak specific flow ≤ about 0.47 person/(s·m) (report rounds to 0.46) against a 1.3 queueing indicator; occupant-mean time out from 5-second bin midpoints (BASE 417.3 s, ALT-WARN 172.6 s). Congestion and density are NOT available from the Simulex output. | Hexanta offline | Hexanta evacuation engine (hx.evac.analysis rules v1, no language model)2026-10-24 | PARTIAL | exploratory | simulex-HXM01-20261024/results/study.jsonsha256 1abb6f758368… | OUTSTANDING — CP1–CP4 NOT APPROVED; no life-safety or AHJ approval |
| Hand estimate (first-order hydraulic cross-check)Hexanta-only calculationsRSET bands (s): BASE 959.0–960.9; ALT-ALL 921.8–934.8; ALT-EXIT 940.1–946.4; ALT-WARN 359.0–360.9; ALT-WARN-EXIT 340.1–346.4. Coefficients ASSUMED and not verified against the held handbook edition; a cross-check only, not a simulation result. | Hexanta offline | Hexanta evacuation engine (hx.evac.hydraulic_estimate v1)2026-10-24 | NOT TESTED | exploratory | simulex-HXM01-20261024/report/study-report.md (section 7)sha256 251ab04c4194… | OUTSTANDING — CP1–CP4 NOT APPROVED; no life-safety or AHJ approval |
| Prescriptive egress checks (2025 California code, Group R-1 rebuild)Hexanta-only calculationsRun on parameters NOT VERIFIED against the adopted code text: sprinklers required for a rebuild and none in the hypothetical design (FAIL on an unverified parameter); door widths and egress capacity PASS on unverified parameters; single-door cabins need an engineer / AHJ reading; travel distance NOT ASSESSED. Not a compliance determination. | Hexanta offline | Hexanta evacuation engine (codes.run_checks)2026-10-24 | NOT TESTED | exploratory | simulex-HXM01-20261024/report/study-report.md (section 4)sha256 251ab04c4194… | OUTSTANDING — CP1–CP4 NOT APPROVED; no life-safety or AHJ approval |
| Safety margin (ASET vs RSET)Not performedUNAVAILABLE: no fire, smoke or wildfire-exposure model; no safety margin is claimed. | Hexanta offline | Not recorded | NOT TESTED | exploratory | simulex-HXM01-20261024/report/study-report.md (section 13)sha256 251ab04c4194… | OUTSTANDING — CP1–CP4 NOT APPROVED; no life-safety or AHJ approval |
Evidence folders
| Folder | Date | Purpose | Status | Manifest SHA-256 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| simulex-HXM01-20261024 | 2026-10-24 | Hotel study: 15 native Simulex samples (projects, playback, results text), study report, results JSON, figures, screenshots, logs | current | a12bdce2be03680c… |
| simulex-HXO01-20261024-r2 | 2026-10-24 | Office engine-reuse test (2 native runs), report regenerated with the final engine code | current | f3d7fa31ce85292d… |
| simulex-HXO01-20261024 | 2026-10-24 | Office engine-reuse test, first generation | SUPERSEDED by simulex-HXO01-20261024-r2 (SUPERSEDED.txt present; solver files identical, report regenerated) | d5aa401874cf3772… |
| simulex-JOB-20261024 | 2026-10-24 | Complete native job record: inputs, all runs including aborted attempts, playback frames, logs | current (raw archive) | 6c54d0ffea856639… |
Engineering findings
- Pre-movement (response) time governs in this model: every run's total is close to the upper limit of the assumed response-time range (60–900 s scenarios: totals 864.4–917.2 s; 30–300 s scenarios: totals 309.3–335.2 s). The Simulex results text does not report each occupant's drawn response time, so the walking time after the last response cannot be measured from the output; the study's rule-based note ("movement after the last occupant responds is about 0 s") compares the mean with the range limit, not with the drawn maximum, and is not repeated here as a measurement.
- Earlier warning had the largest measured effect: ALT-WARN mean 318.2 s vs BASE 886.5 s (−568.3 s, −64 %); the run ranges do not overlap. This is a result of the assumed response-time ranges, not a measured human response.
- Layout changes were within run-to-run randomness: ALT-ALL (+11.2 s) and ALT-EXIT (+11.3 s) vs BASE, and ALT-WARN-EXIT vs ALT-WARN (+5.9 s), with overlapping ranges. More exits did not shorten the total because the total is set by the latest responder.
- Exits were far from queueing: the highest Hexanta-derived peak specific flow is about 0.47 person/(s·m) (2 persons in one 5-second bin through the 0.86 m office door X4, ALT-WARN-EXIT; the study report rounds it to 0.46), against the 1.3 queueing indicator used by the analysis.
- Reopening a saved Simulex project and running it again reproduced the result exactly (10 reruns), so the spread comes only from independent builds (new random response draws), three per scenario.
- The same engine and Simulex driver ran a second hypothetical building (corridor office, 42 occupants): 103.5 s with both exits, 105.2 s with the east exit blocked — one run each, difference not distinguishable from randomness.
Conclusions
- Hexanta automation ran a native IES Simulex evacuation study end to end: 15 hotel runs (5 scenarios x 3 independent builds) and 2 office engine-test runs, each checked by the driver.
- With the assumed response-time ranges, an earlier staff warning had the largest effect (mean 318.2 s vs 886.5 s, -64 %); layout changes stayed within run-to-run randomness and exits were far from queueing. These are results of assumed inputs, not measured human behaviour.
- There is no fire or smoke model, so no ASET or safety margin; checkpoints CP1-CP4 are NOT APPROVED and no life-safety or AHJ approval is claimed. The building is hypothetical.
Limitations
- Hypothetical building and assumed inputs: response times and speeds are development placeholders that a fire engineer must set; the population (29) is assumed.
- Simulex's own occupant types replaced the scenario walking speeds (a hotel population mix; a disabled type stands in for a wheelchair user — Simulex has no wheelchair body type).
- Single storey; no stairs; no furniture or obstructions; distances end at the site exits, not at a public way or assembly point; no site roads or vehicles.
- No fire, smoke or wildfire-exposure model: no ASET and no safety margin.
- Exit times are known only to Simulex's 5-second bins; per-occupant times, densities and congestion are not in the Simulex output.
- Three independent builds per hotel scenario and one per office scenario: small samples.
- Code checks and the hand estimate are Hexanta calculations on parameters NOT VERIFIED against the adopted code text; the AHJ is not identified or engaged.
- Engineering checkpoints CP1 (inputs), CP2 (native run), CP3 (alternatives) and CP4 (issue) are all NOT APPROVED.
- No further Simulex runs are possible at present (the solver licence has ended).
What this case study does not claim
- Not professionally approved: no fire engineer, life-safety or AHJ approval of the building, the scenarios or the results.
- Not a real hotel or real building, and not a model or reconstruction of any existing or former building.
- No statement about any real fire, any real evacuation, or the cause of any fire.
- No code compliance, permit readiness, AHJ approval or engineer approval.
- No safety margin, survivability or lives-saved claim (no ASET, fire or smoke model).
- Inputs (population, response times, speeds) are not real or validated data.
- Congestion, density and per-occupant times are not Simulex outputs.
- No claim that the new gate or more exits improves evacuation; the measured differences are within randomness.
- The −64 % applies only to this hypothetical model and its assumed response-time ranges; it is not a general effect of warnings.
- No measurable effect is claimed for the office test (one run per scenario).
- No endorsement by, or partnership with, the solver vendor; no Simulex API integration (Hexanta drives the Simulex user interface).
- No claim that new Simulex runs can be made now (licence ended).
- Not validated against real evacuations; 'verified' refers only to the provenance of solver output files.
- The evacuation engine is not a live product feature; this is a case study from preserved evidence.
- The prescriptive checks are not a compliance determination.
Sanitised derivative of preserved evidence (simulex-HXM01-20261024, simulex-HXO01-20261024-r2, simulex-JOB-20261024). Plots and the report were drawn by Hexanta from values in the Simulex results files; screenshots are cropped and visually reviewed. Nothing was re-simulated. · Pack la-hotel-evacuation-r3 (built 2026-10-25); every file is checked against its SHA-256 before it is shown.