Investigating the Application of a Hybrid Space Discretisation for Urban Scale Evacuation Simulation

  • Nitish Chooramun
  • Peter J. Lawrence
  • Edwin R. Galea


The devastating effects of wildfires cannot be overlooked; these include massive resettlement of people, destruction of property and loss of lives. The considerable distances over which wild fires spread and the rates at which these fires can spread is a major concern as this places considerable challenges on the evacuation mechanisms that need to be put in place. It is therefore crucial for personnel, involved in evacuation planning, to obtain reliable estimates of evacuation times faster than real time, to assist their decision making in response to actual unfolding of events. In this work, we present a hybrid approach, which we refer to as the Hybrid Spatial Discretisation (HSD) for large scale evacuation simulation. The HSD integrates the three spatial representation techniques typically used for representing space usage in evacuation models; namely Coarse regions, Fine nodes and Continuous regions. In this work, we describe the core models constituting the HSD coupled with the approaches used for representing the transition of agents across the different spatial types. Using a large scale case, we demonstrate how the HSD can be used to obtain higher resolution of results where it is most required while optimising the use of available computational resources for the overall simulation. The HSD is seen to provide improvements in run times of more than 40% when compared to modelling the whole area using just the Fine node method.


City evacuation Hybrid evacuation model Hybrid spatial discretisation Urban scale egress simulation 



  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Cohen, J. (2008). The wildland–urban interface fire problem, A Consequence of the Fire Exclusion Paradigm. Accessed 25 Feb 2018.
  3. 3.
    Westhaver A (2016) Why some homes survived: learning from the fort McMurray wildfire disaster. Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, Ontario.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lindell MK (2008) EMBLEM2: an empirically based large scale evacuation time estimate model. Transp Res A 42(2008):140–154.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen X, Meaker JW, Zhan FB (2006) Agent-based modeling and analysis of hurricane evacuation procedures for the Florida Keys. Nat Hazards 38(2006):321–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kuligowski ED , Peacock RD , Hoskins BL (2010) A review of building evacuation models, Technical Note 1680, 2nd edn. Fire Research Division Engineering Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Washington.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lammel G, Grether D, Nagel K (2010) The representation and implementation of time-dependent inundation in large-scale microscopic evacuation simulations. Transp Res C 18:84–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lovreglio R, Ronchi E, Maragkos G, Beji T, Merci B (2016) A dynamic approach for the impact of a toxic gas dispersion hazard considering human behaviour and dispersion modelling. J Hazard Mater 318(2016):758–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ronchi E, Uriz FN, Criel X, Reilly P (2016) Modelling large-scale evacuation of music festivals. Case Stud Fire Saf 5(2016):11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chooramun N, Lawrence PJ, Galea ER (2012) An agent based evacuation model utilising hybrid space discretisation. Saf Sci 50(8):1685–1694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vassalos D, Guarin L, Vassalos GC, Bole M, Kim H, Majumder J (2003) Advanced evacuation analysis—testing the ground on ships. In: Proceedings of conference on pedestrian and evacuation dynamics, Greenwich 2003.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gloor C, Stucki P, Nagel K (2004) Hybrid techniques for pedestrian simulations. In: Proceedings of 4th Swiss transport research conference, Ascona 2004.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Xiong M, Tang S, Zhao D (2013) A hybrid model for simulating crowd evacuation. New Gener Comput 31(3):211–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Xiong M, Lees M, Cai W, Zhou S, Low MYH (2012) Hybrid modelling of crowd simulation. Procedia Comput Sci 1(1):57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tissera PC, Printista M, Luque E (2012) A hybrid simulation model to test behaviour designs in an emergency evacuation. Procedia Comput Sci 9(2012):266–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Galea ER, Galparsoro JMP (1994) A computer based simulation model for the prediction of evacuation from mass transport vehicles. Fire Saf J 22:341–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gwynne S, Galea ER, Lawrence PJ, Filippidis L (2001) Modelling occupant interaction with fire conditions using the building EXODUS evacuation model. Fire Saf J 36:327–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Galea ER, Wang Z, Veeraswamy A, Jia F, Lawrence PJ, Ewer J (2008) Coupled fire/evacuation analysis of the station nightclub fire. In: Proceedings of 9th IAFSS symposium Karlsruhe 2008, pp 465–476.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Galea ER, Sharp G, Lawrence PJ (2008) Investigating the representation of merging behavior at the floor stair interface in computer simulations of multi-floor building evacuations. J Fire Prot Eng 18:291–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chooramun N (2011) Implementing a hybrid spatial discretisation within an agent based evacuation model. Thesis, University of Greenwich.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hui X, Filippidis L, Gwynne S, Galea ER, Blackshields D, Lawrence PJ (2007) Signage legibility distances as a function of observation angle. J Fire Prot Eng 17(1):41–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pretorius M, Gwynne S, Galea ER (2015) Large crowd modelling: an analysis of the Duisburg love parade disaster. Fire Mater 39(4):301–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Oberhagemann D (2012) Static and dynamic crowd densities at major public events, Technical Report VFDB TB 13-01, German Fire Protection Association.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Anderson J , Shiers D, Steele K (2009) The green guide to specification, 4th edn. IHS BRE Press, Watford.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fruin J (1971) Pedestrian and planning design. Educational Services Division, Elevator World Inc., Alabama.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kholshevnikov V, Samoshin D (2008) Laws of motion of pedestrian flow-basics for evacuation modeling and management. In: Environmental security, NATO science for peace and security series C, pp 417–442.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nelson H, Mowrer F (2002) The SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering, 3rd edn. Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Bethesda.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Reynolds CW (1999) Steering behaviors for autonomous characters. in: the proceedings of game developers conference 1999, San Jose. Miller Freeman Game Group, San Francisco, pp 763–782.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Buckmann LT, Leather J (1994) Modelling station congestion the PEDROUTE way. Traffic Eng Control 35:373–377.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Transport Watch UK (2010) Facts sheet 3: Widths and headroom. Accessed 29 Nov 2010.
  31. 31.
    Department for Transport (2010) Inclusive Mobility. Accessed 29 Nov 2010.
  32. 32.
    Ronchi E, Rein G, Gwynne SMV, Intini P, Wadhwani R (2017) Framework for an integrated simulation system for wildland–urban interface fire evacuation. Proc Int Conf Res Adv Technol Fire Saf 2017:119–134.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wood N, Jones J, Peters J, Richards K (2018) Pedestrian evacuation modeling to reduce vehicle use for distant tsunami evacuations in Hawai'i. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct (in press).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Di Mauro M, Megawati K, Cedillos V, Tucker B (2013) Tsunami risk reduction for densely populated Southeast Asian cities: analysis of vehicular and pedestrian evacuation for the city of Padang, Indonesia, and assessment of interventions. Nat Hazards 68(2):373–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nitish Chooramun
    • 1
  • Peter J. Lawrence
    • 2
  • Edwin R. Galea
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Information, Communication and Digital TechnologiesUniversity of MauritiusReduitMauritius
  2. 2.Fire Safety Engineering GroupUniversity of GreenwichLondonUK

Personalised recommendations