An Information Processing Based Model of Pre-evacuation Behavior for Agent Based Egress Simulation

Conference paper

Abstract

During a fire evacuation, evacuees do not start evacuating immediately on hearing a fire alarm. This delay in reaction is often the cause of unnecessary deaths. However, it is hardly ever considered in computational models of egress. In this paper, an agent based computational model for pre-evacuation behavior is proposed and implemented by modeling cue perception and communication. Through experiments, the significant impact that pre-evacuation behavior modeling can have is also demonstrated.

Keywords

Agent-based simulation Evacuation Pre-evacuation Behavior Model Communication Cue perception 

References

  1. 1.
    Berry, D., Hanley, R.: Questions About Fire Safety After Deaths at Seton Hall (Jan 2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    França, R.d.S., Marietto, M.d.G.B., Steinberger, M.B.: A Multi-Agent Model for Panic Behavior in Crowds. Fourteenth Portuguese Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Oct 2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kobes, M., Helsloot, I., de Vries, B., Post, J.G.: Building Safety and Human Behaviour in Fire a Literature Review. Fire Safety Journal 45(1), 1–11 (Dec 2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kuligowski, E.D.: Review of 28 Egress Models. In: Proceedings of Workshop on Building Occupant Movement During Fire Emergencies. pp. 68–90 (Jan 2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kuligowski, E.D.: The Process of Human Behavior in Fire. Tech. rep., NIST (May 2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ozel, F.: Time Pressure and Stress as a Factor During Emergency Egress. Safety Science 38, 95–107 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Paulsen, R.: Human Behavior and Fires: an Introduction. Fire Technology 20, 15–27 (May 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pires, T.T.: An Approach for Modeling Human Cognitive Behavior in Evacuation Models. Fire Safety Journal 40(2), 177–189 (Mar 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Proulx, G.: Playing with Fire Understanding Human Behavior in Burning Buildings. ASHRAE Journal 45(7), 33–35 (Jul 2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Proulx, G.: High-Rise Office Egress the Human Factors. In: Symposium on High-Rise Buidling Egress. pp. 1–6. Institute of Research in Construction, National Research Council, Canada (May 2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Purser, D., Bensilum, M.: Quantification of Behaviour for Engineering Design Standards and Escape Time Calculations. Safety Science 38(2), 157–182 (Jul 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sime, J.D.: Affiliative Behavior During Escape to Building Exits. Journal of environmental psychology 3, 21–41 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tong, D., Canter, D.: The Decision to Evacuate a Study of the Motivations which Contribute to Evacuation in the Event of Fire Theoretical deficiencies. Fire Safety Journal 9, 1–9 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Torres, M.R.: Every Man for Himself? Testing Multiple Conceptual Approaches of Emergency Egress on Building Evacuation During a Fire. Ph.D. thesis, University of Delaware (Apr 2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tsai, J., Fridman, N., Bowring, E., Brown, M.: ESCAPES-Evacuation Simulation with Children, Authorities, Parents, Emotions, and Social comparison. In: 10th Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (May 2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Viswanathan, V., Lees, M.H.: Modeling and Analyzing the Human Cognitive Limits for Perception in Crowd Simulation. In: Gavrilova, M.L., Tan, K.C., Phan, C.V. (eds.) Transactions on Computational Science. Springer (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer EngineeringNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations