Validation and Calibration of the EXIT89 Evacuation Model for Road Tunnel Evacuation Applications

  • Enrico Ronchi
  • Rita Fahy
  • Pasquale Colonna
  • Nicola Berloco
Conference paper
First Online:

Abstract

The validation of an evacuation model is generally performed through testing its predictive capabilities within a set of standard environments (e.g. buildings) or standard layouts. Unfortunately, non-expert users could consider model results as reliable in unique environments as well, such as road tunnels, and extend their use to applications where no ad hoc validation tests have been performed. This paper focuses on the applicability of the EXIT89 model for road tunnel evacuations. The predictive capabilities of EXIT89 are tested by comparing the model results with a tunnel evacuation experiment. A case study has been then analysed, namely the Condò tunnel in Lecce (Italy). The evacuation times produced by the model are also compared with the results produced by the capacity method described in the Society of Fire Protection Engineering Handbook. Conclusions focus on model strengths and limitations in the reproduction of human behaviour aspects related to road tunnel evacuations.

Keywords

Egress model validation Tunnel evacuation Road tunnel safety EXIT89 Human behaviour in fire SFPE capacity method 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgment

The authors wish to thank Daniel Nilsson for providing the data-set of the experiments in the Göta tunnel and for his valuable help in its interpretation. The authors also thank the National Administration of Roads and Highways (ANAS) in Bari for providing technical support on the study of the Condò tunnel here under consideration.

References

  1. 1.
    ANAS [National administration of roads and highways]: Guidelines for the road tunnel safety design, II Edition, Direzione Centrale Progettazione (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Curry, G.L., Deuermeyer, B.L., Feldman, R.M.: Discrete Simulation, Holden-Day, Inc., pp. 297 (1989)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fahy, R.F.: Enhancement of EXIT89 and analysis of World Trade Center data, NIST-GCR-95-684, Fire Analysis and Research Division (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fahy, R. F.: Update on the Features and Demonstrated Predictive Capability of EXIT89. Engineered Fire Protection Design. Applying Fire Science to Fire Protection Problems, International Conference. Proceedings. Co-organized by: Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE) and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). June 11–15, 2001, San Francisco, CA, pp. 303–314 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giere R.N.: Understanding Scientific Reasoning. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, New York, 322 pp (1991)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gwynne S.M.V., Rosenbaum, E.: Employing the Hydraulic Model in Assessing Emergency Movement. In the SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 4th Edition. National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, pp. 3-396–3-373 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    International Maritime Organization: Guidelines for Evacuation Analyses for New and Existing Passenger Ships, MSC/Circ.1238, International Maritime Organization, London, UK (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ISO/TC 92/SC 4 N622: Fire Safety Engineering – Example on verification and validation of a calculation method – Part 4: Egress model (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jin T.: Visibility and Human Behavior in Fire Smoke. In the SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering (fourth edition). National Fire Protection Association, Quincy MA, USA (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nilsson D., Johansson, M., Frantzich, H.: Evacuation experiments in a road tunnel: A study of Human Behaviour and technical installations, Fire Safety Journal 44, pp. 458–468 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Overton, S.: A strategy of model construction. In: C. Hall and J. Day (Editors), Ecosystem Modeling in Theory and Practice: An Introduction with Histories. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Reprinted 1990, University Press of Colorado, pp. 49–73 (1977)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Predtetschenski, W.M., Milinskii, A.L.: Planning for foot traffic flow in buildings, Amerind Publishing, New Dehli (1978)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Purser, D.A.: Application of human behaviour and toxic hazard analysis to the validation of CFD modelling for the Mont Blanc Tunnel fire incident. In Proceedings of the Advanced Research Workshop on Fire Protection and Life Safety in Buildings and Transportation Systems 2009, Santander, Spain, pp 23–57 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ronchi, E., Colonna, P., Capote, J., Alvear, D., Berloco, N., Cuesta, A.: The evaluation of different evacuation models for assessing road tunnel safety analysis. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2012.02.008 (2012a)MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ronchi, E., Colonna, P., Berloco, N. Reviewing Italian Fire Safety Codes for the analysis of road tunnel evacuations: Advantages and limitations of using evacuation models. Safety Science DOI:  10.1016/j.ssci.2012.03.015 (2012b)MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rykiel, E.J.: Testing ecological models: the meaning of validation, Ecological modelling Vol. 90 No. 3 pp. 229–244 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Enrico Ronchi
    • 1
  • Rita Fahy
    • 2
  • Pasquale Colonna
    • 1
  • Nicola Berloco
    • 1
  1. 1.Polytechnic University of BariBariItaly
  2. 2.National Fire Protection AssociationQuincyUSA

Personalised recommendations