Artificial Intelligence Review

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 5–19 | Cite as

Axiomatic considerations of a rule based mechanism for the determination of a building’s egress capability

  • H. A. Donegan
  • G. Livesey
  • T. B. M. McMaster
  • G. J. McAleavy


When a building is designed it possesses a spatial layout of routes and passageways all of which contribute to the building’s egress capability—a key consideration in the context of health and safety for occupants. In this paper we examine how such a spatial layout can be interpreted as a vital system of egress, which if processed exhaustively by a naïve agent will identify with a measure of egress complexity. We further examine how the established rule-based mechanism for the determination of egress complexity satisfies the generically accepted axioms of complexity and we illustrate some of the algorithms of egress complexity with examples.


Building evacuation Egress complexity Entropy Floorplan Rooted tree 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ashby WR (1973). Some peculiarities of complex systems. Cybernet Med 9(2): 1–7 Google Scholar
  2. Collinson D (1987). Fifty major philosophers. Routledge, London and NY Google Scholar
  3. (1991). Fire Safety Science–Proceedings of the Third International Symposium. Elsevier Appl. Sci., London Google Scholar
  4. Donegan HA and McMaster TBM (2001). Formal aspects of egress complexity. Math Comp Model 35: 119–128 CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. Donegan HA, Taylor IR, Christie G and Livesey G (1999). Illustrating some rule based algorithms of egress complexity using simple case studies. J Appl Fire Sci 8(3): 243–258 Google Scholar
  6. Donegan HA and Pollock AJ (1996). A mathematical basis for egress complexity. J Appl Math Lett 9(2): 75–80 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Donegan HA, Pollock AJ, Taylor IR (1994) Egress complexity of a building. In: Kashiwagi T (ed) Fire Safety Science–Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium, Int. Assn. Fire Safety Sci., USA: 601–612Google Scholar
  8. Düntsch I and Gediga G (2000). Rough set data analysis. Methodos Publishers (UK), Bangor Google Scholar
  9. Grove AJ, Halpern JY and Koller D (1994). Random world and maximum entropy. J AI Res 2: 22–33 MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Harary F (1969) Graph theory. Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  11. Jackson AH (1988). Machine learning. Expert Syst 5(2): 132–150 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. (1994). Fire Safety Science-Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium. Int. Assn. Fire Safety Sci., USA Google Scholar
  13. Kisko TM and Francis RL (1985). EVACNET : a computer program to determine optimal building evacuation plans. Fire Safety J 9: 211–220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Klir GJ, Folger TA (1988) Fuzzy sets, uncertainty, and information. Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
  15. Livesey GE (2003) Advancing egress complexity in support of rule-based evacuation modelling, PhD Thesis, University of UlsterGoogle Scholar
  16. Livesey GE, Taylor IR, Donegan HA (2001) A consideration of evacuation attributes and their functional sensitivities. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Human Behaviour in Fire, Boston, Interscience Communications: 111–122Google Scholar
  17. Oliver P (2001). Diagrammatic reasoning: an artificial intelligence perspective. Artif Intell Rev 15: 63–78 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pollock AJ, Donegan HA and Taylor IR (1994). Interfacing architectural CAD data with KBS technology. Math Comp Modell 19(9): 17–21 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pollock AJ (1995) Intelligent Interpretation of CAD Drawings for Building Evaluation, D.Phil Thesis, University of UlsterGoogle Scholar
  20. Quinlan JR (1982) Semi-autonomous Acquisition of patterned based knowledge. In: Michie D (ed) Inductory Readings in Expert Systems. Gordon & Breech, 192–207Google Scholar
  21. Shannon CE (1948) The mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27:379–423 and 623–656Google Scholar
  22. Shields TJ (ed) (1998) Human behaviour in Fire, Proceedings of the First International Symposium, University of UlsterGoogle Scholar
  23. Stenning K and Lemon O (2001). Aligning logical and psychological perspectives on diagrammatic reasoning. Artif Intell Rev 15: 29–62 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. A. Donegan
    • 1
  • G. Livesey
    • 2
  • T. B. M. McMaster
    • 2
  • G. J. McAleavy
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Computing and MathematicsUniversity of UlsterJordanstown, Newtownabbey, Co. AntrimNorthern Ireland, UK
  2. 2.School of Mathematics and PhysicsThe Queen’s UniversityBelfastNorthern Ireland, UK
  3. 3.School of EducationUniversity of UlsterJordanstown, Newtownabbey, Co. AntrimNorthern Ireland, UK

Personalised recommendations