Egress Modelling and Simulation

JULY 2017
Egress Modelling and Simulation
7/12/2017
1 MAKKAH CIVIL DEFENCE
Egress modelling and simulation
› Why Model Evacuation

› Egress Concepts
› Hydraulic Model
› Human Behavior
› Factors Influencing Human Behavior
› Evacuation Modelling
› Review of Evacuation Models
› Evacuation Simulation
7/12/2017
Why model evacuation
• The principle goal of fire safety engineering (FSE) design is the life safety of
the users of a structure
• The ability to empty heavily populated enclosures quickly is important to the

efficient operation of large enclosures. (Eg. Supermarkets, Passenger
Terminals and transport systems)
• Essential design features for emergencies
7/12/2017
Why model evacuation
Station Club Rhode Island, USA [lecture of FSEG]
– building dimensions 24 m × 21 m
– Fire broke out on the night of 20 Feb 2003
– 100 killed; 230 injured, 132 escaped uninjured
Fire development time Survival time from the start time

(a) Approximately 5 min (a) Approximately 2 min
(b) Less than 10 min (b) Less than 5 min
(c) Less than 20 min (c) Less than 10 min
(d) Less than 30 min (d) Less than 20 min
(e) More than 30 min (e) More than 20 min
7/12/2017
Questions raised
• What are the chances of a fire starting in this environment?
• How quickly would the fire grow?
• How much smoke/heat would be produced?
• Where would the fire/smoke spread to?
• How long before the detectors were activated?
• Is the structure likely to collapse? When?
How to find ways of decreasing the severity and impact of the fire?
• Should fire retardant materials be used in the furnishings?
• Should the steel work have insulating cladding?
• What if the room had sprinkers installed?
• What if the structure was vented?
• What if both sprinklers and vents are used?
7/12/2017
Fire Simulation
Re-creation of ‘the Station night Club fire’ Simulation of fire development in the station night club
7/12/2017
Questions raised
• How long before people moved?
• How many people would remain frozen?
• Would people panic?
• Which exits would they use?
• How long would it take to get out?
• How many people would die?
How could you make the evacuation more efficient?

• What if the passage ways/exites were wider?
• What if an alarm system were provided?
• What if there were more exites?
• What if the exits were more clearly identified?
• What if the travel distances were reduced?
• What if the furniture were arranged differently?
7/12/2017
Evacuation simulation
7/12/2017
What is fire safety engineering?
Design of building
Prescriptive building codes
Fire safety related issues
Experience and knowledge of past fires

under a set of known conditions
• Not based on fundamental knowledge of the physics and chemistry of fire or the psychology and
physiology of human response to fire
• Not particularly useful when dealing with new and novel building designs which are outside of our
present regime of experience
• Unable to quantify the level of safety achieved or to determine if optimal design levels are attained
7/12/2017
What is fire safety engineering?
• Past 20 to 25 years has seen a dramatic increase in fundamental scientific understanding of how fire,
and people subjected to fire, behave.
• Changes in understanding of fire from

Historical/empirical scientific/predictive perspective
• Role of FSE is to investigate performance of building using mathematical

models
• Requires range of disciplines including architecture, engineering,physics, chemistry, computer science,

psychology, physiology, economics, mathematics and statistics
• The FSE is not expected to remove all risk but to identify, manage and to reduce risk to a level deemed
acceptable to society
7/12/2017
Egress concepts
7/12/2017
Performance-based design
How do we know that a building is safe?
7/12/2017
Performance-based design
How do we know that a building is safe?
determined by determined by
evacuation model fire model
7/12/2017
Fire and evacuation simulation
Prediction of fire development in the Rhode Evacuation simulation of the Rhode Island
Island night club nightclub fire
7/12/2017
Required Safe Egress Time (RSET)
Alarm
Pre-evacuation
RSET = td+tn+tp-e+te
period
Pre-alarm Movement or
time Cues evacuation period
Protective
Ignition Actions
Time
7/12/2017
Models
• Approach A: The application of prescriptive
– Adherence to rigid rules
– Primarily based on experience
– Not quantitative →fails to find optimal solution
– Novel structures →no rational answer
• Approach B: The performance of an egress trial

– Enthical: Threat of injury→lack of realism
– Practical: Usually only 1 test→not representative
– Financial: test expensive→many tests more so
• Approach C: The application of an Engineering calculation (Hydralic model)
• Approach D: The application of a (computer-based) simulation model
16
Models
>
Factors that actually influence Factors that can be
occupant performance during an empirically or theoretically
evacuation supported
>
Factors that can be
Factors that can be represented
represented by sophisticated
within the hydraulic approach
computer models
The number of factors that can actually The number of factors that can
affect an evacution be modelled
17
Hydraulic Model
18
Hydraulic model Basic hydraulic model
Alarm Determine tesc = tp-e + te
Pre-evacuation
period
Pre-alarm
time Cues
Movement or
Protective evacuation period
Ignition Actions
Time
7/12/2017
Hydraulic model
• All persons start to evacuate at the same time
• Occupant flow does not involve interruptions caused by evacuee decisions
• The evacuees are free of impairments/disabilities that impede their

movement
20
Model Limitations
• Behaviors that detract from movement are not explicitly considered
• The numbers of people in a structural component are considered rather than

their identity and their individaul attributes
• Movement between egress components is considered, rather than within

them
• The results are deterministic and will therefore remain the same unless
changes are made to the scenario or the assumptions employed
21
Fundamental Movement Calculations
A set of equations are deemed to represent a simplified version of evacuation
movement, where the results are largely determined by the physical attributes of the
components involved
• Effective width
• Population density
• Speed
• Specific flow
• Calculated flow
• Time for passage through a component
• Transitions between components
Relation between speed and density on stairs in

22
uncontrolled total evacuations
Effective Width
• The effective width is the usable
width of the component.
23
Population Density
• Is the measurement of the degree of crowdedness in an evacuation route
• Is expressed in the number of people per unit of space
› persons /ft2 or persons/m2
• The size of the individuals are assumed to be uniform or averaged across the
population
• D < 0.54 persons/m2, individuals will move at their own pace
• D > 3.8 persons/m2 , no movement will take place
• 𝐷 = 4 persons/m2, crush conditions might develop

24
Speed
• Is defined as the movement velocity of exiting individuals, or S.
• S is a function of the population density D:

S=k(1-aD) if 0.54< D < 3.8 persons/m2
where a=0.266
25
Specific flow
• Is the flow of evacuating persons past a point in the exit route per unit of
time per unit of effective width of the route involved.
Fs = SD = (1-aD)kD
• Unit is persons/min/ft or persons/s/m
• The maximum flow rate is achieved if density, D = 1.9 persons/m2
26
Calculated flor and Time for passage
• The calculated flow is the predicted flow rate of persons passing a
particular point in an exit route
Fc = Fs We = (𝟏 − 𝒂D ) 𝒌D 𝑾e
𝐹s = specific flow
𝑊𝑒 = effective width of the component being traversed
D = population density
• Unit: persons/s
• Time for passage is the time for a group of persons to pass a point in an exit
route. P = population size.
𝑷 𝑷
t𝒑 = c =
27
F (𝟏 − 𝒂D)𝒌D𝑾 e
Transitions
At any points in th exit system where the character or dimension of a route
changes or where routes merge or branch:
– where an exit becomes wider or narrower
– wherer the terrain changest
– where two or more exit flows merge
– where a flow branches into several other flows
28
Human Behaviour
29
Human Behaviour
Human response in fire includes peoples’
Awareness, beliefs, attitudes, motivations, decisions, behaviours, and coping
stategies in exposure to fire and other similar emergencies in buildings,
structures and transportation systems
Timeline of a human response to a building fire emergency

30
Behavioural facts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jz4b4nuAvFw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyP6RCfVCjI
31
Behavioural facts
• Rather than panic, people´s first instinct is to feel safe
• Information provided does not mean that it is perceived, paid attention to and comprehended
• Occupants must perceive a credible threat and personalize the risk before
protective action is taken
• People will engang in information seeking activities, especially when cues are
ambigious and/or inconsistent
• People are likely to engage in preparation activities before beginning evacuation
• Generally people act rationally and altruistically during building fires
32
Behavioural facts
• The surrounding population will influence the individual´s decision making process
• Stress can narrow a person´s field of perception, causing individuals to miss or ignore certain
cues or information
• People move to the familiar. The relationships with the structure and people that existed
prior to the incident influence response during the incident
• People do not instantaneously switch to a different set of roles in a building fire event. The rules
and roles prior to the event form the basis of those employed during the event
• People are heterogenous and these individual differences in characteristics (or demographics)
can influence behavior
33
Factors Influencing Human
Behaviour
34
What to or not to model
• Unrealistic to assume individual occupant behaviour could be simulated to
a high degree of accuracy
• However, likely behavioural activities of representative populations can be

represented
– What behavioural factors needs to be included?
– What behavioural factors can be excluded?
Factors that actually Factors that can Factors that can be
> >
influence occupant be empirically or represented by
performance during theoretically sophisticated
an evacuation supported computer models
35
What not to model
• Panic: act irrationally and possibly in self-destructive manner
• Make modelling evacuation conditions extramly difficult and essentially “non-

predictive”
• Non-adaptive behaviour is now considered to represent only a small proportion of

behavour in fire incidents, even under serous and life- threatening condition
(Wood, 1990: Pauls, 1996: Bryan,1996)
• When viewed in context of event and the amount of information available to

participants, behaviour is seen as logical response to the rapidly evolving situation
36
What to model
Configuration
Behaviour
Environment Procedures
37
Four main interacting aspects which control
evacuation performance (public lecturer, FSEG)
What to model
•A number of factors influence evacuation performance:
– Configuration: #Exits, Exits Width, Travel distances, etc.
– Procedures: Training, Knowledge, Signage, etc.
– Environment: Smoke, Toxic gases, Debris, etc.
– Behaviour: Response Times, Travle speeds, Bonding, Route finding, ect.
• Configuration, procedures and environment all influence behavior

• All these factors interact and contribute in a complex maner to evacuation performance
• Currently no model exists that completely represents all of these factors and their
interaction
38
Configuration
• Configurational consideration generally covered by traditional building codes and involve: building
layouts, # of exits, exit width, travel distance, number of dead end corridors, occupant load, ect.
• Here we will consider how structural configuration impacts movement rates. Analysis will
consider movement appropriate for:
– Exit
– Flat space
– Stairs
– Disabled
• Useful concept for determing flows through corridor, on stair and through doors:
– Speed, density, effective width
39
Configurational influences on behaviour
• Exits • Disabled
- Can be a limiting factor in evacuation, Various ages, genders, movement
- Exit flow capability dependent upon density, type of exit disabilities and using a range of aids
• Flat space
- As pop density ↑ ability to select speed ↓
- ‘edge gap’ between moving crowd and enclosure
- Gender, age, body size, Level of clothing
• Stairs
- Dimensions of stairs i.e. angle, tread depth, riser height, width of stairs,
presence of handrail
- Gender and age of population
- Direction of travel
- Stair accident injuries
40
Configurational influences on behaviour
Summary:
• Majority of movement data is based on non-emergency situations
• Ranges of accepted travel speeds have been documented, however considerable

differences occur in the various data sets
• Occupant movement is dependent on

– Age, gender, density, level of disability and
– Terrain effects are important e.g. stairs and horizontial movement
– Edge effects and effective width should be considered
• Occupants may become disabled during the evacuation
41
Procedural influences on behaviour
• For models to predict occpant behaviour in emergency situations it's essential
to understand likely human response to procedural measures.
• This should encompass response to

– Alarms
– Signage
– Staff
– Usage of sturcture
– Familiarity with structure
– Response time
– Interactive behaviour
• However, it is essential to understand that people will not necessarily function as
intended
42
Human response to procedural measures
• Alarms
- Can alarm bell be heard?
- Can alarm signal be understood?
17% respond to traditional alarm system
45% could not distinguish between the occurrence of a fire alarm
and other alarms.
- What about other type of alarm systems? Voice alarm is for more effective
but it must be ensured that the correct message is broadcasted.
• Signage (reduce amount of time spent wayfinding)
- How likely is someone see the emergency exit sign?
See the sign –Visibility, size, location of signs, internal configuration
Recognise information –presence of smoke, level of lighting, attentiveness of
the occupant, presence of other occupants
43
Interpret information— Information quality
• Staff –act as a source of information and guidance
Reinforce the occupants’ belief of the severity of the incident
Relay structure-specific evacuation procedures Provide directional guidance
• Usage of structure—the relationship that the occupant has with the enclosue
Multiple occupancies/hotels—less familar
Domestic environments—re-entry, notification of others, fire-fighting
Hospitals—an occupant populaiton of mixed abilities
• Familiarity with structure
Actions—tend to fight fire (familiar occupants), attempt to evacuate (unfamiliar
occupants)
Routes taken—use familiar routes instead of the optimal approach to exit
Success in reaching the exit—customers evacuate through main exits, staff use fire exits
44
• Response time (pre-evacuation time)
• Pre-evacuation time from a university structure: 361 occupants recorded evacuating during
trial. University employed procedure - once alarm sounded nominated members of staff swept
each of the rooms for evacuees.
Occupant type Average (s) [min-max] count
Staff 70.8 s [0-240] 17
Student 73.7s [8-200] 228
• Number of actions conducted prior to evacuating was examined as an indicator as to the level
of ‘disengagement’ required prior to evacuation
Number of prior actions Average (s) [min-max] count
≤1 59.6s [8-141] 62
2 71.0s [14-167] 121
≥3 104.0s [17-200] 41
45
Summary
• Procedural factors are instrumental in determining occupant behaviour during an
evacuation
• They are vital in understaing the possible actions which might be available
to the occupant during the different stages of the event
• In many cases they are structure specific
• A feature common to all procedural aspects, is that they will have been
determined prior to the evacuation
• Building usage, the placement of the alarm/signage systems, the training and familiarity
of the staff and the familiarity of the occupants with the enclosure, will all have been
determined prior to the fire event
46
Environmental influences on behaviour
• Human response to environmental conditions
– Smoke
– narcotic gases
– irritant gases
– heat
• These factors reduce the evacuation ability of individuals
• These substances have a psychological and physiological effect upon the occupants’
behaviour
• Level of effect dependent on various occupant attributes, including age, gender, state of
health and level of activity
47
Smoke
• Initially, smoke can altert occupants hastening their response
• Smoke causes visual obscuration and psychological impairments which impact wayfinding abilities
and slows occupants. Factors effecting movement Probability of
through smoke moving through
• The presence of smoke influence reaction by smoke %
Gender Male 64
– Increasing perceived risk female 54
– Introducing potential barriers to Smoke Extensive 64
spread
movement Less extensive 53
Environment Domestic 64
• Walking speed ↓ as intensity of smoke ↑ Employment 52
Time Day 65
Night 56
Familiarity Complete 61
Less than 51
complete
48
Narcotic gases
• Physiological effect of narcotic gases can be modelled using one of the Fractional
Effective Dose (FED) models.
• These models assume that the effects of certain fire hazards are related to the dose
received rather than the exposure concentration.
• The model calculates the ratio of the dose received over time to the effective dose which
causes incapacitation or death, and sums these ratios during the exposure.
• As FED ↑1, occupant’s abilities ↓ making it more difficult to escape
• When FED =1, the toxic effect is predicted to occur
49
Irritant gases
Most immediate impact is sensory irritation
- Extremely sore eyes
- Coughing
- Burning sensation in the upper throat and lungs
• This form of irritation is unlikely to be fatal, but ↓ wayfinding abilities and mobility
• Unlike narcotic gases, the effect of the irritant gases is concentration related.
• Fractional Irritant Concentration (FIC) represents the level of irritatant gases as
function of that required to cause severe irritation.
Irritant gas HCL HBr HF SO2 NO2 Acrolein HCHO

Concentration(ppm)-impaire half of 200 200 200 24 70 4 6
population
50
Heat
• Exposure to heat can cuase incapacitation and death FIHC= t*2.0*10-8*T3.4
• Incapacitation can be caused by where t is the exposure in minutes
– Skin burns (T>120°C)
– Hyperthermia (T<120°C)
• Two main sources of heat, radiative and convective
• Radiative tenability limit is considered to be 2.5 kW/m2

– Below this figure, exposure can be tolerated for several minutes
– Above this figure, exposure tolerance is measured in seconds
• For exposure to convective heat the following expression describes the Fractional
Incapacitating Dose of Heat:
51
Heat
• Exposure to heat can cuase incapacitation and death FIHC= t*2.0*10-8*T3.4
• Incapacitation can be caused by where t is the exposure in minutes
– Skin burns (T>120°C)
– Hyperthermia (T<120°C)
• Two main sources of heat, radiative and convective
• Radiative tenability limit is considered to be 2.5 kW/m2

– Below this figure, exposure can be tolerated for several minutes
– Above this figure, exposure tolerance is measured in seconds
• For exposure to convective heat the following expression describes the Fractional
Incapacitating Dose of Heat:
52
Summary
• Environmental factors are instrumental in determining occupant behaviour and whether

fatalicits are likely to occur during an evacuation
• They are scenario specific
• The process of moving through a smoke filled environment will impact the occupants
physiologically and psychologically
• The physiological decline of the occupant is important, as it effects evacuation

capabilities
53
Evacuation Modelling
54
What is Evacuation modelling?
The study and investigation of people’s movement and egress behaviour
from a structure assuming emergency conditions using simulation tools
• Evacuation modelling can aid the fire safety engineer to determine the evacuation efficiency of a
structure
• Helps assess the safety for the occupants of a particular structure
• Novel structures
– Demonstrate that novel concepts in building design capable of attaining acceptable
safety standars
• Traditional structures
– Provide means for determining modifications and optimal solutions
55
Modelling approaches
• Research into quantifying and modelling human movement and behaviour has been
underway for more than 40 years.
• Within adopted modelling methodology, there are a number of ways in which to

represent the enclosure, population and the behaviour of the population
• Nature of models dependent on:

– Method used to represent the enclosure
– Population perspective adopted
– The behavioural perspective used
• Pre-evacuation time modelling
• Representation of route choice (path-finding)
– Output
56
How is the building represented?
Four types of models
– Course network models
– Fine network models
– Continuous models
– Hybrid models = Fine network + continuous models
57
Course network models
- A network with nodes which are connected with arcs,
represents the geometry.
- Each node represents an area of the geometry, e.g., a room or a
corridor
- Nodes connected by arcs representing actual connectivity
Advantages
– Quick
– Simple
Disadvantages
– Exat location of occupants not represented
– Deterministic
– Not possible to get detailed information
58
Fine network models
• Entire floor space of the enclosure covered in a
collection of tiles or nodes
• Size and shape of node varies from model to model
• Each cell can be occupied by a maximum of one agent
• Connectivity of nodes also vaires
Advantages
– Relatively quick
– Possible to accurately represent the
geometry and its interanl obstacles,
– Possible to accurately locate each individual
– Presents detailed individual movement
Disadvantages
59 – Each cell or node can only contain one gent
Continuous models
• Applies a two-dimensional space to the floor plans of the
structure
• Allowing the occupants to move freely in the continuous space
Advantages
– Use approximation of human body shape and size
– Presents actual people movement
Disadvantages
– Relatively complex (calculation time)
– Too complicated to simulate some people
movement
60
How to represent population
The population can be represented in one of two approaches:
– Individual perspective
– Global perspective
Individual perspective
– Allows personal attributes to be assigned to population
– These attributes may be used in the movement and decision-marking
process
– This process is typically independent of other occupants involved in the
simulaitons
– Allows for individual trajectories/histories to be followed
– Possible to represent a diverse population
61
How to represent population
Global perspective
– Do not recognise the individual
– Delineate a population as a homogenous ensemble without different
identities
– Represent evacuation details on the basis of numbers of occupants who
escaped
– Lacks much of the detail available to individual perspective
– Difficult to model effects of events on individual occupants
– Only average effect can be established throughout population
– Provides no indication of survival rates of specific groups of individual,
e.g. elderly or the disabled
– Seriously hinders an accurate understanding of the behaviour of the
population
62
What is behavioural perspective?
Models can be separated into 3 behavioural systems:
– Movement models
– Partial behaviour models
– Behavioral models
Movement models:
• Treat people as unthinking objects
• Concentrate on the simulation of occupant movement
• No behavioral component
– Ignore the population’s individuality, evacuation is determined solely by
• Physical movement of the population
• Physical representation of the geometry
63
What is behavioural perspective?
Partial behaviour models
– Simulate ocupant behaviour to some degree
– Possible to represent population as individuals
– Possible behaviour could be implicitly represented by pre-evacuation: time
distributions among the occupants, overtaking behaviour, and the introduction of
smoke and its effects on the occupants
Behavioural models (Rule based behaviour)
– Incorporate occupants performing actions in addition to movement toward a
specified goal (exit)
– Incorporate decision making by occupants and/or actions that are
performed due to condition in the building
– Interaction influence behaviour during evaction
• People-people, people-structure, people-environment
64 • Psychological, sociological, physiological
How to determine pre-evacuation time
Approaches for the simulation of the pre-evacuation time
– Assignment of a single delay/waiting time
– Assignment of two single delay/waiting times (recognition and response)
– Assignment of a specific behavioural itinerary (a set of actions)
The time is a fixed value or a pseudo-casual number obtained from a distribution

» Normal distribution
» Log-normal distribution
» Truncated normal distribution, …..
Pre-evacuation time can depend on several internal and external factors: level of perceived
urgency, personal and cultural background, past fire experiences, training level, type of
installations available in the building, emergency signage etc.
65
How to represent Path-finding
• Routes may be calculated in accordance to different criteria
– Fastest rout
– Shortest rout
– User defined
• The path-finding algorithms vary substantially in relation to the type of space of

representation
66
What is the output?
A variety of output, including
– Textual output
– Two-dimensional graphical output
– Three dimensional/virtual reality interface
67
Validation
• No degree of sucessful validation will prove an evacuation model correct, however, confidence in
technique is established the more frequently it is shown to be successful in a wide range of
applications.
• Validation is one of the most often used and abused terms in computer modelling
• We will take validation to mean the systematic comparison of model predictions with reliable
information
• Note, it has not been stated how information is generated, only that it is reliable
– Experimental data
– Numerical data
– Experiential insight
– Combination of these sources
68
Validation
• Lack of quantitative validation for evacuation model due, for most part, to scarcity
of suitable experimental benchmark evacuation data
• Majority of evacuation trials not conducted for model validation purposes. Most of these
cases insufficient data recorded to allow detailed ‘validation’ of evacuation models
• Software validation is an on-going activity
• At least four forms of validation that evacuation models should undergo

– Component testing
– Functional validation
– Qualitative validation
– Quantitative validation
69
Uncertainties in evacuation modelling
‘’Evacuate the same building with the same

people starting in the same places on consecutive
days and the answers could vary significantly’’
[Averill, 2011]
70
Most of the models are not deterministic
Distributions for inputs and results
Inability to confidently reprsent all cues and factors affecting human behaviour
The ‘human element’ introduces factors The current knowledge on human behaviour
that are not entirely predictable (we is limited and there is not enough
will never completely assess information to predict human response with
experimental behavioral uncertainty) any degree of certainty (we can not assess
experimental behavioral uncertainty now)
71
• How many runs for each scenario?
• Average total evacuation time (TET) and standard deviation for arbitrary number of runs
(IMO, 2007)
– Arbitrary number of runs (e.g. 50 runs in IMO Guidelines)
– Resutls are presented in terms of average evacuation time and standard
deviation
• Used today in most applications of

evacuation models
72
Review of evacuation models
73
Introduction List of models
The lost users
60+ models
74
How do we choose a model?
• NIST review of model capabilities (Kuligowski et al., 2010)
• What a user should know when selecting an evacuation model (Kuligowski

and Gwynne, 2005)
75
Survey
• Ronchi E & Kinsey M (2011). Evacuation models of the future. Insights

from an online survey on user’s experiences and needs. In Capote J (ed) et
al: Advanced Research Workshop Evacuation and Human Behaviour in
Emergency Situations EVAC11, Santander, pp. 145-155.
• 198 participants - Available in 6 languages (Eng, Ger, Chi, Spa, Ita, Rus).
• 36 different countries
76
Survey
A list of factors Participants were asked to state how important they thought each
factor was when selecting/using a model
77
Survey
Model awareness
78
Survey
Most used models
79
Survey
Summary
• Validation & Verification is the most important factor (93.9% of participants having
some knowledge of V&V)
• Infrequent usage—the majority of participants only use evacuation models at least once a month
• The lack of awareness—many model users are UNAWARE of other models
• Reviews need to be constantly
80
Review of egress models
5 most known models
• FDS+Evac
• buildingEXODUS
• Pathfinder
• STEPS
• Simulex
81
Grid/Structure—Method of occupant movement throughout the building Course Network,
Fine Network, Continuous, Hybrid
Exit choice—The method employed by the model to represent the agents’ choice of the exits This includes different
criteria:
• Distance (e.g., shortest, distance maps, etc),
• Optimal time (e.g., calculated queuing time)
• Conditions (e.g., visibility, available exits, familiarity, etc.)
• User-defined
Validation &Verification
• Fire drills or people movement trials, Evacuation experiments, Comparison with other models
Fire-human interaction—How the evacuation model represents the interactions between fire and agents’behaviour
• Importing output from fire models
• FED—response to narcotic gases
• Smoke impact on walking speed
82
• Smoke impact on exit choice
FDS+Evac
Version 2.5.0 in FDS6
• Grid/structure
– Continuous model
• Exit choice
– Optimal, conditional, user defined
• V&V
– IMO tests + case studies on buildings, stations, tunnels, etc
• Fire-human interaction
– Smoke affects exit choice and speed. Fractional and
absolute speed reduction based on both F&N , Jin and
custom.
– FED can be calculated.
83
FDS+Evac
Advantages Limitations
• Transparency (Open source) • Model input set up is time

• Support from the community consuming
• Not easy to use for complex
• Complex scenarios can be
scenarios
modelled
• Computationally expensive
• Sub-models • Only partial documentation for the newest
• Group interactions (leaders- version embedded in FDS6
followers)
• Direct interaction with fire (FDS)
• Constant development
• Significant quantity of research studies
available for reference
• Free
84
BuildingEXODUS
• Grid/structure
– Fine Network and hybrid
• Exit choice
– Optimal, conditional, shortest, user defined
• V&V
– IMO tests + case studies on buildings, ships, aircrafts,
stations, etc.
– Smoke affects exit choice and speed. Fractional reduction
based on Jin in v5.0, a curve with both Jin and F&N in later
versions.
– FED can be calculated.
85
BuildingEXODUS
• Closed source
• Fast computational time (with fine network approach) • No user support (only developer support)
• One of the most used commercial models • Expensive
• Complex scenarios can be modelled
• Advanced sub-models
• Direct interaction with a fire model (SMARTFIRE)
• Significant quantity of research studies available for
reference
86
Pathfinder
• Grid/structure
– Continuous based on Steering behaviors
• Exit choice
– Optimal, shortest, user defined
• V&V
– IMO tests, case studies (including buildings, tunnels, etc.), NIST Tech Note 1822
– No direct fire-human interaction, only visual representation of slices (e.g. visibility, temperature, etc.)
87
PathFinder
• Fast model input set up • No access to the source code (commercial
• It easily permits to simulate complex buildings software)
• no direct fire-human interaction
• One of the most used models (user and developer • No advance sub-model for exit choice in smoke
support) • Relative new model, not many research studies
• Constant development available for reference
88
STEPS
• Grid/structure
– Fine Network
• Exit choice
– Optimal, Conditional
• V&V
– Against NFPA 130 and case studies for buildings, stations etc.
– Smoke affects speed. Absolute reduction of speed based on Jin by default (or custom).
– FED data can be imported
89
STEPS
• It permits to simulate complex buildings
• No access to the source code (commercial software)
• One of the most used commercial models • No complex modelling of exit choice in smoke
• Direct interaction with fire output (e.g., FDS, • No users’ support (only developer)
CFAST)
• Significant quantity of case studies available for
reference
90
Simulex
• Grid/structure
– Continous
• Exit choice
– Shortest or user defined (based on distance maps)
• V&V
– IMO tests and case studies (mostly for buildings)
– No direct impact of smoke on agent behaviors
91
Simulex
• Fast model input set up
• No user support (only developer)
• One of the most used models • No access to the source code (commercial software)
• Fast computational time • No direct fire-human interaction
• No advanced sub-model for exit choice
• Significant quantity of case studies available for
reference
92
References
• Lecture PPT at Stort/Haugesund University College Nov 2016, Dr. Xiaoqin Vicky Hu
• Chapter 56-61, The SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering (5nd ed), Hurley M.J. (ed.), National
Fire Protection Association, 2016
• Principles and Practice of Evacuation Modelling, E.R.Galea (ed.), Fire Safety Engineering Group,
University of Greenwich, London
• Lecture note at Stord/Haugesund University College 16-17/11/2015, Enrico Ronchi, Lund University,
Sweden
• Ronchi, E., Nilsson, D., 2016. Basic Concepts and Modelling Methods, in: Cuesta, A., Abreu, O.,Alvear,
D. (Eds.), Evacuation
• Ronchi E & Kinsey M (2011). Evacuation models of the future. Insights from an online survey on user‘s
experiences and needs.
• McGrattan, K. B., Hostikka, S., & Floyd, J. E. (2010). Fire dynamics simulator, user’s guide. NIST special
publication, 1019.
93

Egress Modelling and Simulation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Egress Modelling and Simulation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JULY 2017

Egress Modelling and Simulation

› Why Model Evacuation

• The ability to empty heavily populated enclosures quickly is important to the

• Essential design features for emergencies

Fire development time Survival time from the start time

How could you make the evacuation more efficient?

Experience and knowledge of past fires

• Changes in understanding of fire from

• Role of FSE is to investigate performance of building using mathematical

• Requires range of disciplines including architecture, engineering,physics, chemistry, computer science,

• Approach B: The performance of an egress trial

• Approach C: The application of an Engineering calculation (Hydralic model)

• Approach D: The application of a (computer-based) simulation model

• All persons start to evacuate at the same time

• Occupant flow does not involve interruptions caused by evacuee decisions

• The evacuees are free of impairments/disabilities that impede their

• The numbers of people in a structural component are considered rather than

• Movement between egress components is considered, rather than within

Relation between speed and density on stairs in

• D < 0.54 persons/m2, individuals will move at their own pace

• D > 3.8 persons/m2 , no movement will take place

• 𝐷 = 4 persons/m2, crush conditions might develop

• S is a function of the population density D:

• The maximum flow rate is achieved if density, D = 1.9 persons/m2

Timeline of a human response to a building fire emergency

• People are likely to engage in preparation activities before beginning evacuation

• Generally people act rationally and altruistically during building fires

• However, likely behavioural activities of representative populations can be

Factors that actually Factors that can Factors that can be

• Make modelling evacuation conditions extramly difficult and essentially “non-

• Non-adaptive behaviour is now considered to represent only a small proportion of

• When viewed in context of event and the amount of information available to

• Configuration, procedures and environment all influence behavior

• Ranges of accepted travel speeds have been documented, however considerable

• Occupant movement is dependent on

• Occupants may become disabled during the evacuation

• This should encompass response to

• In many cases they are structure specific

• These factors reduce the evacuation ability of individuals

• As FED ↑1, occupant’s abilities ↓ making it more difficult to escape

• When FED =1, the toxic effect is predicted to occur

Irritant gas HCL HBr HF SO2 NO2 Acrolein HCHO

• Two main sources of heat, radiative and convective

• Radiative tenability limit is considered to be 2.5 kW/m2

• Two main sources of heat, radiative and convective

• Radiative tenability limit is considered to be 2.5 kW/m2

• Environmental factors are instrumental in determining occupant behaviour and whether

• They are scenario specific

• The physiological decline of the occupant is important, as it effects evacuation

• Helps assess the safety for the occupants of a particular structure

• Within adopted modelling methodology, there are a number of ways in which to

• Nature of models dependent on:

– Course network models

– Fine network models

– Hybrid models = Fine network + continuous models

The time is a fixed value or a pseudo-casual number obtained from a distribution

• The path-finding algorithms vary substantially in relation to the type of space of

• Software validation is an on-going activity

• At least four forms of validation that evacuation models should undergo

‘’Evacuate the same building with the same

Distributions for inputs and results

• Used today in most applications of

The lost users