Abstract
Within the framework of HAZARD I, fire egress analysis is performed using the EXITT program. Yet another way to analyze fire egress employs newly developed multiple objective dynamic programming. This paper compares these two approaches by applying them to a model fire of moderate power in a residential building. The findings demonstrate that multiple objective dynamic programming can compute all the paths EXITT finds, but EXITT can't find all the paths multiple objective programming can. Some trade-offs inherent in choosing among the computed egress paths are discussed, and the features of the two fire egress methods are contrasted.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bukowski, R., Forney, C., Jones, W., Peacock, R., Technical Reference Guide for the HAZARD I Fire Hazard Assessment Method, NIST Handbook 146, Volume II, Center for Fire Research, National Engineering Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, US Department of Commerce, Gaithersburg, Maryland (1989).
Bukowski, R., Peacock, R., Example Cases for HAZARD I, NIST Handbook 146, Volume III, Center for Fire Research, National Engineering Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, Gaithersburg, Maryland (1989).
Kostreva, M. M., “Mathematical Modeling of Human Egress from Fires in Residential Buildings,” Fire Technology, 30,(3), (1994) pp. 338–340.
Wilson, M., A Time Dependent Vector Dynamic Programming Algorithm for the Path Planning Problem, Department of Mathematical Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, (1992).
Kostreva, M. M., Wiecek, M. M., “Time Dependency in Multiple Objective Dynamic Programming,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 173,(1), (1993) pp. 289–308.
Emsermann, M., Time Dependency in Multiple Objective Dynamic Programming: The General Monotone Increasing Case, Department of Mathematical Science, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, (1993).
Levin, M. B., EXITT — A Simulation Model of Occupant Decisions and Actions in Residential Fires: Users Guide and Program Description, National Engineering Laboratory, Center for Fire Research, National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce, Gaithersburg, MD, (1987) pp. 1–13, pp. 25–38.
Dijkstra, E., ìA Note on Two Problems in Connexion with Graphs,î Numeriche Mathematics, 1, (1959) pp. 269–271.
Jin, T., Visibility Through Fire Smoke: Part 5, Allowable Smoke Density for Escape from Fire, Report of Fire Research Institute of Japan, No. 42. (1976).
Norley, R., Rafferty, J., Cricket Graph: Presentation Graphics for Science and Business, Cricket Software, Malvern, Pensylvannia (1986).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kostreva, M.M., Lancaster, L.C. A Comparison of Two Methodologies in HAZARD I Fire Egress Analysis. Fire Technology 34, 227–246 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015345923210
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015345923210