Advertisement

Getting Out of the Way: Collision-Avoiding Pedestrian Models Compared to the RealWorld

Conference paper

Abstract

Numerical simulation of human crowds is a challenging task and a number of models to simulate pedestrian dynamics on a microscopic level have been established. One aim of those models is to reproduce a realistic, and in particular collision-free, movement of crowds in complex environments. This work investigates three approaches on their capability to reproduce a collision-free movement of pedestrian crowds in complex dynamic environments. The baseline model is the well-known social force model. While in the social force model pedestrians do not explicitly avoid each other, the second model extends the social force model to avoid collisions explicitly. The observed collision-avoiding behavior produced by the third model is reached by calculating velocity obstacles. These are obstacles in the velocity space, meaning that if a pedestrian chooses a velocity that lies inside the velocity obstacle, then a collision occur at some time. This work discusses the models and their integration in a multi-agent simulation framework. The models are tested on data from a real-world experiment conducted at Technische Universität Berlin. In this experiment, two pedestrian flows intersected at an angle of 90. The models’ performance with regard to the reproduction of a realistic crowds movement and their computational complexity are discussed in this work.

Keywords

Intersecting pedestrian flows Multi-agent simulation Human crowd experiments 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This project was funded in part by the German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) under grant 13N11382 (“GRIPS”) and by the German Research Foundation (DFG) under grants NA682/5-1, SCHW548/5-1 and BA1189/4-1.

References

  1. 1.
    de Berg, M., van Kreveld, M., Overmars, M., Schwarzkopf, M.: Computational Geometry. Spinger (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cheney, W., Kincaid, D.: Numerical Mathematics and Computing. Thomson, fifth edn. (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chraibi, M., Seyfried, A., Schadschneider, A.: Generalized centrifugal-force model for pedestrian dynamics. Phys. Rev. E 82, 046111 (Oct 2010), http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.82.046111
  4. 4.
    Dobler, C., Kowald, M., Schüssler, N., Axhausen, K.: Within-day replanning of exceptional events. TRR (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fiorini, P., Shiller, Z.: Motion planning in dynamic environments using velocity obstacles. The International Journal of Robotics Research 17(7), 760–772 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gawron, C.: An iterative algorithm to determine the dynamic user equilibrium in a traffic simulation model. International Journal of Modern Physics C 9(3), 393–407 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gloor, C., Mauron, L., Nagel, K.: A pedestrian simulation for hiking in the alps. In: Proceedings of the Swiss Transport Research Conference (STRC). Monte Verita, CH (2003), see www.strc.ch
  8. 8.
    Helbing, D., Buzna, L., Johansson, A., Werner, T.: Self-organized pedestrian crowd dynamics: experiments, simulations and design solutions. Transportation Science 39, 1–24 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Helbing, D., Farkas, I., Vicsek, T.: Simulating dynamical features of escape panic. Nature 407, 487–490 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Helbing, D., Farkas, I., Molnar, P., Vicsek, T.: Simulation of pedestrian crowds in normal and evacuation situations. In: Schreckenberg, M., Sharma, S.D. (eds.) Pedestrian and Evacation Dynamics, pp. 21–58. Proceedings of the 1st international conference, Duisburg, 2001, Springer (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Helbing, D., Molnár, P.: Social force model for pedestrian dynamics. Phys. Rev. E 51(5), 4282–4286 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Helbing, D., Johansson, A., Al-Abideen, H.Z.: Dynamics of crowd disasters: An empirical study. Phys. Rev. E 75, 046109 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johansson, A., Helbing, D., Shukla, P.: Specification of the social force pedestrian model by evolutionary adjustment to video tracking data. Adavances in Complex Systems 10, 271–288 (2007)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Klüpfel, H., Meyer-König, T., Keßel, A., Schreckenberg, M.: Simulating evacuation processes and comparison to empirical results. In: Fukui et al, M. (ed.) Traffic and granular flow ’01, pp. 449–454. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kuhn, H.W.: The Hungarian method for the assignment problem. Naval Research Logistic Quaterly 2, 83–97 (1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lämmel, G.: Escaping the Tsunami: Evacuation Strategies for Large Urban Areas. Concepts and Implementation of a Multi-Agent Based Approach. Ph.D. thesis, TU Berlin (2011), http://opus.kobv.de/tuberlin/volltexte/2011/3270/
  17. 17.
    Lämmel, G., Grether, D., Nagel, K.: The representation and implementation of time-dependent inundation in large-scale microscopic evacuation simulations. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 18(1), 84–98 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Munkres, J.: Algorithms for the assignment and transportation problems. Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics 5(1), 32–38 (1957)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Oleson, R., Kaup, D., Clark, T., Malone, L., Boloni, L.: Social potential models for traffic and transportation. In: Bazzan, A., Klügl, F. (eds.) Multi-agent systems for traffic and transportation engineering, chap. VII, pp. 155–175. Information Science Reference (IGI Global) (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Plaue, M., Bärwolff, G., Schwandt, H.: On measuring pedestrian density and flow fields in dense as well as sparse crowds (2012), to appear in Proc. PED2012Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Plaue, M., Chen, M., Bärwolff, G., Schwandt, H.: Multi-view extraction of dynamic pedestrian density fields (2012), preprintGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Plaue, M., Chen, M., Bärwolff, G., Schwandt, H.: Trajectory extraction and density analysis of intersecting pedestrian flows from video recordings. In: Proc. PIA11. LNCS, vol. 6952, pp. 285–296 (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Raney, B., Nagel, K.: An improved framework for large-scale multi-agent simulations of travel behaviour. In: Rietveld, P., Jourquin, B., Westin, K. (eds.) Towards better performing European Transportation Systems. Routledge, London (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    van den Berg, J., Lin, M.C., Manocha, D.: Reciprocal velocity obstacles for real-time multi-agent navigation. In: Proc. IEEE Intl. Conf. on Robotics and Automation. pp. 1928–1935 (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zanlungo, F., Ikeda, T., Kanda, T.: Social force model with explicit collision prediction. EPL (Europhysics Letters) 93(6), 68005 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Transport Systems Planning and Transport Telematics, TU BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics, TU BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations