Fire Response Performance and Social Behavior in Tunnels Distinguishing from Buildings in Evacuation

  • Yuxin Zhang
  • Zhiguo Yan
  • Hehua Zhu
  • Yi Shen
Conference paper


The most decisive factor of tunnels’ safety in the face of fire is the chance of evacuation safely. Immediate response and proper movement in evacuation from tunnels in fire is essential, which can largely improve the rescue efficiency and reduce the casualties. Tunnels, different from buildings, provide significantly different influence on evacuees due to its unique environment, layout, fire facilities etc. These external distinction not only affect the objective escape conditions directly, but also social behavior indirectly. Consequently, understanding how people behave in the case of fire is of great benefit to bring fire safety measures in line with their need and render valid escape guide in emergency. This paper makes a comparison of people’s behavior affected by smoke accumulation, visibility, complexity of structure and fire safety facilities in tunnels and buildings according to available literature. Moreover, psychological comparison namely property attachment, affinity to the surroundings and influence by other evacuees are presented. The discrepancy between tunnels and buildings indicates that corresponding strategies should be applied on different scenarios in tunnel and there is a need to distinguish fire safety education separately.


Fire response performance Social behavior Tunnel fire Fire safety strategies 


  1. Amundsen, F.H.: Studies of driver behavior in Norwegian road tunnels. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 9, 9–17 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amundsen, F.H., Ranes, G.: Studies on traffic accidents in Norwegian road tunnels. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 15, 3–11 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burns, P., Stevens, G., Sandy, K., Dix, A., Raphael, B., Allen, B.: Human behaviour during an evacuation scenario in the Sydney Harbour Tunnel. Aust. J. Emerg. Manag. 28, 20 (2013)Google Scholar
  4. Kouabenan, D.R., Caroly, S. Gandit, M.: Comprendre la perception des risques et les modalités de gestion des incendies dans les tunnels routiers par les usagers: une voie pour une stratégie de prévention durable. In: Ergonomie et développement durable, Actes du 40 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. Purser, D.A.: Assessment of hazards to occupants from smoke, toxic gases and heat. In: National Fire Protection Association (ed.) SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering. National Fire Protection Association, Quincy MA, USA, 2-96-92-193 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. Gandit, M., Kouabenan, D.R., Caroly, S.: Road-tunnel fires: risk perception and management strategies among users. Saf. Sci. 47(1), 105–114 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Egger, M.: Recommended behaviour for road tunnel users. In: Beard, A., Carvel, R. (eds.) The Handbook of Tunnel Fire Safety, pp. 399–420. Thomas Telford Publishing, London (2012)Google Scholar
  8. Shields, J.: Human behaviour in tunnel fires. In: Beard, A., Carvel, R. (eds.) The Handbook of Tunnel Fire Safety, pp. 323–342. Thomas Telford Ltd., London (2005)Google Scholar
  9. Beard, A.N.: Fire safety in tunnels. Fire Saf. 44, 276–278 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kinateder, M., Pauli, P., Müller, M., et al.: Human behaviour in severe tunnel accidents: effects of information and behavioural training. Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 17, 20–32 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kinateder, M., Müller, M., Jost, M., Mühlberger, A., Pauli, P.: Social influence in a virtual tunnel fire-Influence of conflicting information on evacuation behavior. Appl. Ergon. 45(6), 1649–1659 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Latane, B., Darley, J.M.: Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 10, 215–221 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fischer, P., Krueger, J.I., Greitemeyer, T., Vogrincic, C., Kastenmuller, A., Frey, D., et al.: The bystander-effect: a meta-analytic review on bystander (2011)Google Scholar
  14. Kobes, M., Helsloot, I., de Vries, B., Post, J.: Exit choice, (pre-) movement time and (pre-) evacuation behavior in hotel fire evacuation Behavioural analysis and validation of the use of serious gaming in experimental research. Procedia Eng. 3, 37–51 (2010a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kobes, M., Helsloot, I., de Vries, B., Post, J.G., Oberije, N., Groenewegen, K.: Way finding during fire evacuation; an analysis of unannounced fire drills in a hotel at night. Build. Environ. 45, 537–548 (2010b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sime, J.D.: Crowd facilities, management and communications in disasters. Facilities 17, 313–324 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sime, J.D.: An occupant response shelter escape time (ORSET) model. Saf. Sci. 38, 109–125 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Boer, L.C.: Behaviour by Motorists on Evacuation of a Tunnel. Rapport TNO Human Factors (2002)Google Scholar
  19. Boer, L.C., van Zanten, D.V.: Behavior on tunnel fire. Pedestr. Evacuation Dyn. 2005, 91–98 (2007)Google Scholar
  20. Fridolf, K., Nilsson, D., Frantzich, H.: Fire evacuation in underground transportation systems: a review of accidents and empirical research. Fire Technol., (2), 451–475 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kaptein, N., Theeuwes, J., Van Der Horst, R.: Driving simulator validity: some considerations. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 1550, 30–36 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Yan, Z.G., Guo, Q.H., Zhu, H.H.: Full-scale experiments on fire characteristics of road tunnel at high altitude. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 66, 134–146 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Godley, S.T., Triggs, T.J., Fildes, B.N.: Driving simulator validation for speed research. Accid. Anal. Prev. 34, 589–600 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nilsson, D., Johansson, A.: Social influence during the initial phase of a fire evacuation – analysis of evacuation experiments in a cinema theatre. Fire Saf. J. 44, 71–79 (2009a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nilsson, D., Johansson, M., Frantzich, H.: Evacuation experiment in a road tunnel: a study of human behavior and technical installations. Fire Saf. J. 44, 458–468 (2009b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ribeiro, J., Almeida, J.E., Rossetti, R.J., Coelho, A., Coelho, A.L.: Using serious games to train evacuation behavior. In: 2012 7th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI), pp. 1–6. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  27. Shields, T.J., Boyce, K.E.: A study of evacuation from large retail stores. Fire Saf. J. 35(1), 25–49 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ribeiro, J., Almeida, J.E., Rossetti, R.J., Coelho, A., Coelho, A.L.: Using serious games to train evacuation behavior. In: 2012 7th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI), pp. 1–6. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  29. Pelechano, N., Malkawi, A.: Evacuation simulation models: challenges in modeling high rise building evacuation with cellular automata approaches. Autom. Constr. 17, 377–385 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Averill, J.D., Mileti, D.S., Peacock, R.D., Kuligowski, E.D., Groner, N., Proulx, G., Reneke, P.A., Nelson, H.E.: Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communications, NIST NCSTAR 1-7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, NIST, USA (2005)Google Scholar
  31. Valasek, L., Glasa, J.: Simulation of the course of evacuation in tunnel fire conditions by FDS + Evac. In: Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference of Applied Mathematics and Computational Methods in Engineering, pp. 288–295 (2013)Google Scholar
  32. Ronchi, E., Nilsson, D.: Fire evacuation in high-rise buildings: a review of human behavior and modelling research. Fire Sci. Rev. 2(1), 7 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kohl, B., Botschek, K., Hörhan, R.: Austrian risk analysis for road tunnels: development of a new method for the risk assessment of road tunnels. In: 3rd International Conference. Tunnel Safety and Ventilation, pp. 204–211 (2006)Google Scholar
  34. Kohl, B., Forster, C.: Risk analysis as decision making tool for tunnel design and operation. In: 6th International Conference. Tunnel Safety and Ventilation, pp. 17–25 (2012)Google Scholar
  35. Alonso, V., Abreu, A., Cuesta, A., Alvear, D.: An evacuation model for risk analysis in Spanish road tunnels. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 162, 208–217 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Emoto, S., Kawabata, N., Hasegawa, M., Seike, M.: Proposed evacuation tunnels for wide-area disaster. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 65, 12–21 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kudikyala, U.K., Vaughn, R.B.: Software requirement understanding using Pathfinder network: discovering and evaluating mental models. J. Syst. Softw. 74, 101–108 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thompson, P.A., Marchant, E.W.: Testing and application of the computer model ‘SIMULEX’. Fire Saf. 24, 149–166 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuxin Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Zhiguo Yan
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Hehua Zhu
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Yi Shen
    • 4
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory for Disaster Reduction in Civil EngineeringTongji UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Department of Geotechnical EngineeringTongji UniversityShanghaiChina
  3. 3.Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of the Ministry of EducationTongji UniversityShanghaiChina
  4. 4.Shanghai Municipal Engineering Design Institute (Group) Co. Ltd.ShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations