Advertisement

Prediction and Mitigation of Crush Conditions in Emergency Evacuations

  • Peter J. Harding
  • Martyn Amos
  • Steve Gwynne
Conference paper

Summary

Several simulation environments exist for the simulation of large-scale evacuations of buildings, ships, or other enclosed spaces. These offer sophisticated tools for the study of human behaviour, the recreation of environmental factors such as fire or smoke, and the inclusion of architectural or structural features, such as elevators, pillars and exits. Although such simulation environments can provide insights into crowd behaviour, they lack the ability to examine potentially dangerous forces building up within a crowd. These are commonly referred to as crush conditions, and are a common cause of death in emergency evacuations.

In this paper, we describe a methodology for the prediction and mitigation of crush conditions. The paper is organised as follows. We first establish the need for such a model, defining the main factors that lead to crush conditions, and describing several exemplar case studies. We then examine current methods for studying crush, and describe their limitations. From this, we develop a three-stage hybrid approach, using a combination of techniques. We conclude with a brief discussion of the potential benefits of our approach.

Keywords

Simulation Environment International Maritime Organisation Evacuation Plan Crowd Behaviour Emergency Evacuation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J. Sime. Escape behaviour in fires and evacuations. In Design Against Fire, Chapman & Hall, London, 1994. Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    W. Grosshandler, N. Bryner, D. Madrzykowski, and K. Kuntz. Report of the technical investigation of the station nightclub fire. Technical report, NIST, 2005. Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. Comeau and R.F. Duval. Dance hall fire Gothenburg, Sweden, October 28, 1998. Technical report, National Fire Protection Association, 2000. Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Final report on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. Technical report, NIST, 2005. Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Fruin. Pedestrian Planning and Design. Metropolitan Association of Urban Designers and Environmental Planners, Alabama, 1971. Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    IMO. Interim guidelines for evacuation analyses for new and existing passenger ships. Technical report, International Maritime Organisation, 2002. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Sime. An occupant responses escape time (ORET) model. In Proceedings of the First International Symposium, 1998. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Wilgoren. 21 die in stampede of 1,500 at Chicago nightclub. New York Times, 18.02.2003. Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    The Hillsborough stadium disaster: final report. Technical report, U.K. Home Office, 1989. Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. Kuligowski. Review of 28 egress models. In Workshop on Building Occupant Movement During Fire Emergencies, 2004. Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P.A. Thompson and E.W. Marchant. A computer model for the evacuation of large building populations. Fire Saf. J., 24:131–148, 1995. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Helbing, I. Farkas, and T. Vicsek. Simulating dynamical features of escape panic. Nature, 407:487–490, 2000. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    J.-M. Kuusinen. Group behavior in FDS+evac evacuation simulations. Published online, August 2007. Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Kleijnen and R. Sargent. A methodology for fitting and validating metamodels in simulation. Eur. J. Oper. Res., 120:14–29, 2000. zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Beekman, D.J.T. Sumpter, and F.L.W. Ratnieks. Phase transition between disordered and ordered foraging in Pharaoh’s ants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 98(17):9703–9706, 2001. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Longair. Theoretical Concepts in Physics: An Alternative View of Theoretical Reasoning in Physics, 2 edition. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2003. Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Kraskov, H. Stogbauer, and P. Grassberger. Estimating mutual information. Phys. Rev. E, 69, 2004. Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. Wicks, S. Chapman, and R. Dendy. Mutual information as a tool for identifying phase transitions in dynamical complex systems with limited data. Phys. Rev. E, 75(5), 2007. Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    T. Vicsek, E. Ben-Jacob, A. Czirok, I. Cohen, and O. Shochet. Novel type of phase transition in a system of self-driven particles. Phys. Rev. Lett., 75:1226, 1995. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    M.H. Hassoun. Fundamentals of Artificial Neural Networks. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1995. zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. Kehagias and V. Petridis. Predictive modular neural networks for time series classification. Neural Netw., 10(1):31–49, 1997. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. Wittenburg. Dynamics of Multibody Systems: Dynamics of Systems of Rigid Bodies. Springer, Berlin, 2007. Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    R. van Zon and J. Schofield. Numerical implementation of the exact dynamics of free rigid bodies. J. Comput. Phys., 225:145–164, 2007. zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    L.U. Chunxia. Analysis of compressed force in crowds. J. Transp. Eng. Inf., 7(2):98–103, 2007. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Manchester Metropolitan UniversityManchesterUK
  2. 2.Hughes Associates, IncBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations