Quantitative Validation of the Generalized Centrifugal Force Model
Mathematical models for pedestrian dynamics contribute increasingly to the process of understanding the dynamics of crowds, which has a positive impact in designing building and enhancing their level of safety. In order to improve their validity and maximize the significance of their predictions, several experiments were conducted and evaluated. The results of these experiments give authentic insights into the dynamics of pedestrians and serve as a benchmark for the models. Therefore, the quantitative validation of mathematical models is an important step in their development and eases their application in real-world scenarios. In this article we briefly introduce the generalized centrifugal force model (GCFM). Computer simulations with the GCFM are compared with different empirical data obtained in controlled experiments. In order to test the quality of the model, several scenarios are simulated without changing the parameters of the underlying model.
This work is within the framework of two projects. The authors are grateful to the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) for funding the project under Grant-No. ~ SE 1789/1-1 as well as the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) for funding the project under Grant-No. ~ 13 N9952 and 13 N9960.
- 1.Holl, S., Seyfried, A.: Hermes - an evacuation assistant for mass events. inSiDe, 7(1), 60–61 (2009)Google Scholar
- 2.Schadschneider, A., Chowdhury, D., Nishinari, K.: Stochastic Transport in Complex Systems. From Molecules to Vehicles. Elsevier Science Publishing Co Inc. (2010)Google Scholar
- 3.Chattaraj, U., Seyfried, A. and Chakroborty, P. Comparison of pedestrian fundmental diagram across cultures, Advances in Complex Systems(3), 393–405, 2009Google Scholar
- 5.J. Liddle, A. Seyfried, W. Klingsch, T. Rupprecht, A. Schaschneider, and A. Winkens. An experimental study of pedestrian congestions: Influence of bottleneck width and length. ArXiv e-prints, 2009, 0911.4350. Conference proceedings for Traffic and Granular Flow 2009.Google Scholar
- 8.A. Seyfried, M. Boltes, J. K¨ahler, W. Klingsch, A. Portz, T. Rupprecht, A. Schadschneider, B. Steffen, and A. Winkens. Enhanced empirical data for the fundamental diagram and the flow through bottlenecks. In W. W. F. Klingsch, C. Rogsch, A. Scha schneider, and M.Schreckenberg, editors, Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics 2008, pages 145–156, Berlin Heidelberg, 2010. Springer.Google Scholar
- 9.J. Zhang, W. Klingsch, A. Schadschneider, and A. Seyfried. Transitions in pedestrian fundamental diagrams of straight corridors and t-junctions. J. Stat. Mech., 2011.Google Scholar
- 13.M. Moussaid, D. Helbing, and G. Theraulaz. How simple rules determine pedestrian behavior and crowd disasters. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 108(17):6884–6888, 2011, 1105.2152.Google Scholar
- 16.J. J. Fruin. Pedestrian Planning and Design. Elevator World, New York, 1971.Google Scholar
- 17.L. A. Pipes. An operational analysis of traffic dynamics. J. Appl. Phys., 24(3):274–281, Mar 1953.Google Scholar
- 18.B. Steffen and A. Seyfried. Methods for measuring pedestrian density, flow, speed and direction with minimal scatter. Physica A, 389(9):1902–1910, 2010. flow, speed and direction with minimal scatter.Google Scholar
- 19.A. Seyfried, M. Boltes, J. Kaehler, W. Klingsch, A. Portz, T. Rupprecht, A. Schadschneider, B. Steffen, and A. Winkens. Enhanced empirical data for the fundamental diagram and the flow through bottlenecks. In W. W. F. Klingsch, C. Rogsch, A. Schadschneider, and M.Schreckenberg, editors, Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics 2008, pages 145–156, Berlin Heidelberg, 2010. Springer.Google Scholar
- 20.A. Schadschneider. I’m a football fan … get me out of here. Physics World, 21, 2010.Google Scholar