Advertisement

AI & SOCIETY

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 113–132 | Cite as

A multi-agent based framework for the simulation of human and social behaviors during emergency evacuations

  • Xiaoshan PanEmail author
  • Charles S. Han
  • Ken Dauber
  • Kincho H. Law
Original Article

Abstract

Many computational tools for the simulation and design of emergency evacuation and egress are now available. However, due to the scarcity of human and social behavioral data, these computational tools rely on assumptions that have been found inconsistent or unrealistic. This paper presents a multi-agent based framework for simulating human and social behavior during emergency evacuation. A prototype system has been developed, which is able to demonstrate some emergent behaviors, such as competitive, queuing, and herding behaviors. For illustration, an example application of the system for safe egress design is provided.

Keywords

Autonomous Agent Personal Space Floor Plan Crowd Behavior Crowd Density 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research is partially supported by the Center for Integrated Facility Engineering at Stanford University. The authors would like to acknowledge the software support from AutoDesk, Inc.

References

  1. AEA Technology (2002), A technical summary of the AEA EGRESS Code. Technical Report, AEAT/NOIL/27812001/002(R), Issue 1, http://www.aeat-safety-and-risk.com/Downloads/Egress%20Technical%20Summary.pdf
  2. Ashcraft N, Scheflen AE (1976) People space: the making and breaking of human boundaries. Anchor, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Averill J, Mileti D, Peacock R, Kuligowski E, Groner N, Proulx G, Reneke P, Nelson H (2005) Occupant behavior, egress, and emergency communications. NIST NCSTAR 1–7Google Scholar
  4. Batson D (1998) Altruism and prosocial behavior. In: Gilbert D, Fiske S, Lindzey G (eds) The handbook of social psychology, 4th edn. Mcgraw-Hill, Boston, pp 282–316Google Scholar
  5. Billings R, Milburn T, Schaalman M (1980) A model of crisis perception: a theoretical and empirical analysis. Adm Sci Q 25(2):300–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braun A, Musse SR, de Oliveira L, Bodmann B (2003) Modeling individual behaviors in crowd simulation. In: Proceedings of CASA: computer animation and social agents, New Jersey, pp 143–148Google Scholar
  7. Bryan J (1997) Human behavior and fire. In: Cote A (eds) Fire protection handbook, 18th edn. National Fire Protection Association, pp 8.1–8.30Google Scholar
  8. Chertkoff J, Kushigian R (1999) Don’t panic: the psychology of emergency egress and ingress. Praeger, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Cialdini R (1993) Influence: the psychology of persuasion. William Morrow, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Crowd Dynamics Ltd (2004) Crowd disasters. November 2004, http://www.crowddynamics.com/Main/ Crowddisasters.html
  11. Epstein J, Axtell R (1996) Growing artificial societies: social science from the bottom up. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Fahy R, Proulx G (1995) Collective common sense: a study of human behavior during the world trade center evacuation. NFPA J 87(2):61Google Scholar
  13. Fire Safety Engineering Group (2003) BuildingEXODUS: the evacuation model for the building environment. September 2003, http://www.fseg.gre.ac.uk/exodus/air.html#build
  14. Galea E (eds) (2003) Pedestrian and evacuation dynamics. CMC Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Halcrow Group Ltd. (2003). Pedroute. September 2003, http://www.halcrow.com/pdf/ urban_reg/pedrt_broch.pdf
  16. Helbing D, Farkas I, Vicsek T (2000) Simulating dynamical features of escape panic. Nature 407:487–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Horiuchi S, Murozaki Y, Hokugo A (1986) A case study of fire and evacuation in a multi-purpose office building. Proceedings of the first international symposium. Hemisphere, Washington, DC, pp 523–532Google Scholar
  18. Johnson S (2001) Emergence: the connected lives of ants, brains, cities, and software. Simon & Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Latane B, Darley J (1968) Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. J Pers Soc Psychol 10(3):215–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Le Bon G (1960) The crowd. Viking, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Legion International Ltd (2004) Legion. November 2004, http://www.legion.biz/
  22. Low D (2000) Following the crowd. Nature 407:465–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. MacQueen J (1967) Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. In: Proceedings of 5th Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability, vol 1. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 281–297Google Scholar
  24. March J (1994) A primer on decision making: how decisions happen. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. McDougall W (1920) The group mind. Cambridge University Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  26. Nakamura T, Asada M (1995) Motion sketch: acquisition of visual motion guided behaviors. IJCAI’95 1:126–132Google Scholar
  27. Penn A (2003) Vision, configuration and simulation of static interaction for design. In: Proceedings of 2nd international conference: pedestrian and evacuation dynamics, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  28. Proulx G, Richardson J (2002) The human factor: building designers often forget how important the reactions of human occupants are when they specify fire and life safety systems. Can Consult Eng 43(3):35–36Google Scholar
  29. Quarantelli E (1954) The nature and conditions of panic. Am J Sociol 60(3):267–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ramachandran G (1990) Human behavior in fires—a review of research in the United Kingdom. Fire Technol 26(2):149–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Santos G, Aguirre B (2004) A critical review of emergency evacuation simulation models. In: Proceedings of building occupant movement during fire emergencies, Gaithersburg, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  32. Shields T, Proulx G (2000) The science of human behavior: past research endeavors, current developments and fashioning a research agenda. In: Proceedings of the sixth international symposium on fire safety science, IAFSS, pp 95–114Google Scholar
  33. Sime J (1986) Perceived time available: the margin of safety in fires. Fire safety science—proceedings of the first international symposium. Hemisphere, Washington, DC, pp 561–570Google Scholar
  34. Society of Fire Protection Engineers (2002) Engineering guide to human behavior in fire. Technical ReportGoogle Scholar
  35. Sommer R (1969) Personal space: the behavioral basis of design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,Google Scholar
  36. Still G (2000) Crowd Dynamics. PhD thesis, University of Warwick, UKGoogle Scholar
  37. Thompson P, Lindstrom H, Ohlsson P, Thompson S (2003) Simulex: analysis and changes for IMO compliance. In: Proceedings of 2nd international conference: pedestrian and evacuation dynamics, pp 173–184Google Scholar
  38. Waldrop M (1992) Complexity: the emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. Simon & Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Weiss G (eds) (2000). Multiagent systems: a modern approach to distributed AI. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. Wills R (1998) Human instincts, everyday life, and the brain, vol 1. The Book Emporium, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  41. Wilson G (1993) Logic engineering in public safety. In: Smith R, Dickie J (eds) Engineering for crowd safety, proceedings of the international conference on engineering for crowd safety, London, UK, pp 231–237Google Scholar
  42. Wooldridge M, Jennings NR (1995) Intelligent agents: theory and practice. Knowl Eng Rev 10(2):115–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiaoshan Pan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Charles S. Han
    • 2
  • Ken Dauber
    • 3
  • Kincho H. Law
    • 2
  1. 1.CDM Technologies Inc.San Luis ObispoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  3. 3.Google Inc.Mountain ViewUSA

Personalised recommendations