free

© All Rights Reserved

32 views

free

© All Rights Reserved

- Heroes Against Darkness - SOLO-01 - The Sundered Tower
- NFPA 13 vs EN 12845
- Lesson 07 AppliedSteelDetailing
- Refrigerated Ammonia Storage Tanks for Chemical Processing Plant
- ARCPRESS Stairs - 2nd Edition - Section 8 - Concrete Stairs 9 of 15
- Fire Safety High Rise Building
- Custom Stairs and Railings in Revit Architecture
- Industrial standards
- Golden Rules of Applied Vastu
- Design of Dog Legged Staircase,Lintel
- Cinema
- Ai Inta242 w6 a1 Passaretti s
- Standards on Surfaces
- BS 112 - Planning of Road Over Bridges
- Staircase
- Dr Mariah - Seminar 11 Nov 2014
- Hdk01hsep03 (Office Erp)
- Performing Arts Center
- stair primer block 2018
- Checklist (Fire Drill)

You are on page 1of 37

com

in Assessing Emergency Movement 59

Steven M.V. Gwynne and Eric R. Rosenbaum

therefore complete this component of a

This chapter provides the engineer with a model performance-based assessment. This model,

to quantify egress performance. This model is albeit imperfect, quantifies the egress perfor-

formed from a set of numerical tools that vary mance of a design and, importantly, enables

in their scope and sophistication. Guidance is comparisons to be made between different

provided on the capabilities of these tools and design variants to be made.

on when they should be employed, making refer- The hydraulic model is presented as a means

ence to the data on which these tools are based. of quantifying egress performance that can sup-

Detailed examples are presented to clarify the port an engineering approach and expert analy-

application of these tools, along with a descrip- sis. Hydraulic models are based on a

tion of how the use of these tools fits in with other simplification of egress behavior where the

fire engineering calculations. This chapter will, evacuating population is described by a set of

therefore, allow the engineer to assess egress equations. This population moves from egress

performance in a responsible and informed component to egress component (e.g., from a

manner. corridor to a stairwell), with the speed of their

Prediction of evacuee movement is an essen- movement dictated by the equations that form the

tial component of performance-based fire safety model. Guidance is provided on how best to

analysis. Safe egress from fire is assumed to be employ these equations, on the scenarios to

achieved if the required safe egress time (RSET) which this model can be applied, and on the

is sufficiently shorter than the available safe limitations of the approach.

egress time (ASET), where ASET is defined as The inherent structure of the hydraulic model

the time until fire-induced conditions within a described in this chapter tends to an optimistic

building become untenable. Methods to evaluate estimate of evacuation time. It assumes that the

the development of fire-induced conditions and exit paths will be continually used at maximum

tenability criteria are addressed elsewhere in this capacity from the moment of alarm to total evac-

handbook. uation. The model should be considered as a

The model discussed in this chapter baseline calculation to be extended as appropri-

provides the engineer with a means to establish ate to account for delays caused by human

decisions, notifications, and other factors (see

S.M.V. Gwynne (*) Chaps. 58 and 64).

National Research Council Canada For each evacuee the RSET can be subdivided

E.R. Rosenbaum into a number of discrete time intervals, the sum

Jensen Hughes, Inc. of which constitute the total RSET:

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-2565-0_59, # Society of Fire Protection Engineers 2016

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

2116 S.M.V. Gwynne and E.R. Rosenbaum

and te are basically sequential. There is a period

where before the individual has determined that an

td ¼ Time from fire ignition to detection; that is, evacuation response is required (through the per-

the detection phase ception of sufficient risk levels and the

tn ¼ Time from detection to notification of subsequent completion of preparatory actions)

occupants of a fire emergency; that is, the and a period where this response is conducted

notification phase (i.e. where protective actions are taken). That is

tpe ¼ Time from notification (or cue reception) not to say that the individual need be static in

until evacuation commences; that is, the either time period or that the performance of

pre-evacuation phase actions are not iterative or cyclical—only that

te ¼ Time from the start of purposive evacuation at a certain point in time, the individual decides

movement until safety is reached; that is, the that the situation requires them to take protective

evacuation phase actions and their subsequent actions broadly

The components described are considered the reflect an attempt to disengage from the current

core elements of egress analysis (see Chap. 64 actions and take protective actions.

for further discussion), although it is recognized However, across a population, tpe and te are

that other components will certainly contribute to neither independent of each other nor mutually

evacuee performance (e.g. the Pre-Warning exclusive [1]. There may be significant overlap

delay incurred through staff actions and their between these components given the varying

decision-making which may prolong notification conditions evident at different locations within

of the general population). the structure, the different levels of information

The RSET elements td and tn typically involve available, and the differences in the abilities of

a technical solution and human interaction, the population [2].

including fire detection devices and fire alarm RSET can be reduced into two sets of

equipment, and also human intervention, such components: the phase prior to evacuee involve-

as the discovery of a fire by a staff member and ment, made up of td and tn, and the escape phase

notification of the population. The theory and (tesc) where

design of detection systems are covered else-

where in this handbook (see Chap. 40). tesc ¼ t pe þ te ð59:2Þ

The element tpe relates to the individual and

collective responses of the occupants; that is, the It should be noted that, in reality, the evacuation

time between them being notified of the incident phase can be interrupted through behavioral

and the time to commence their evacuation. This actions and developments in the incident

can be prolonged by a number of complex scenario [3].

activities (see Chaps. 58 and 64). These include This chapter describes the basic hydraulic

receiving a cue; interpreting the cue; validating model enabling te to be calculated. It also

the cue; performing pre-evacuation activities; describes the extension of the hydraulic model

and determining an appropriate response (see to also include tpe in the calculation and there-

Chap. 58). All of these contribute to the time fore allow an estimation of tesc to be produced. A

spent in the pre-evacuation phase, prior to com- methodology is presented to enable the engineer

mencing purposive evacuation movement to a to determine the RSET value as part of a

place of safety. performance-based assessment. It provides suffi-

The element te is the time from when an cient information for the engineer to calculate

individual initiates evacuation movement up to RSET under a number of different incident

the point that he or she reaches safety. For an scenarios, while also making the engineer aware

individual evacuee, tpe and te are basically of the limitations and assumptions of the hydrau-

sequential. Crudely speaking, it is typically lic model (Fig. 59.1).

www.ebook777.com

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

59 Employing the Hydraulic Model in Assessing Emergency Movement 2117

Approaches to modeling

emergency movement

limitations

Components of the basic

Second order—Perform more complete

hydraulic model

analysis

Example applications of

the hydraulic model

extended hydraulic model Extended approach—Calculate tesc

factors with the hydraulic model

tenability criteria

Establishing Egress Performance direct movement once the incident was discov-

ered. Although some of these assumptions are

Over the last few decades an increasing effort has contradictory, they have had a direct impact on

been made into investigating human behavior in the engineering calculations made for a long

response to fire. This research has provided a period of time and continue to exert some degree

clearer understanding of egress behavior and of influence on egress design decisions to this

the factors that influence egress performance. day [3].

As a consequence, human behavior can be In recent times, a more detailed and compre-

taken into consideration when designing emer- hensive understanding of human behavior in fire

gency procedures and modeling human perfor- has been established (see Chaps. 58 and 64). This

mance. Prior to this time, human behavior was understanding has been derived from the exami-

disregarded altogether, seen as immeasurable, nation of actual incidents, the collection of

and/or drastically simplified according to a few empirical evidence, and the development of

basic assumptions. The former understanding of behavioral theories. All of this has, to a large

human behavior was based on a number of degree, refuted the assumptions that had previ-

assumptions: people’s behavior would likely be ously dominated. This realization has allowed

panic based [4]; it would likely be selfish and engineers (as well as behavioral researchers,

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

2118 S.M.V. Gwynne and E.R. Rosenbaum

Active fire protection Scenario-Based Cognitive abilities

Emergency signage Presence of fire effluent Language/culture

Notification system Background pollution Exposure to cues

(noise/visual) Behavioral Responses

Emergency training Location

Lighting levels Investigate/search

Emergency literature Fatigue

Debris Wayfind

Performance of fire drills General health

Presence of fatalities Evacuate

False/inaccurate alarms Sensory/cognitive impairment

Structural damage “Panic”

Staff/fire warden Size

Loss of routes Re-enter

Experience

Organizational Information levels Remain/delay

Architectural/Structural Fight fire

Safety culture Familiarity

Building type Collect items

Normal use of structure Role

Physical dimensions Secure item

Security procedures Responsibility

Geometry of enclosure Communicate

Communication system Age

Number and arrangement Process information

Existence of social hierarchy Gender

of egress routes Provide assistance

Distribution and size Activity

Complexity of space Exhibit nonevacuation

of population Social affiliation

Visual separation behavior

Nature of population Engagement

Lighting and Seek refuge

(non-emergency) signage Commitment

Defend in place

Extent of passive fire Physical abilities/limitations

protection Proximity to incident

Motivation

Status

procedural designers, and evacuation modelers) an engineer prior to the application of such

to take human behavior into account, albeit methods.

imperfectly, when trying to establish evacuation

performance.

It is now felt that the evacuation process is not Models

simply a matter of initiating an evacuation and

then controlling the ensuing hysterical crowd Several approaches are available to the engineer

response; instead, it is now viewed as a more to establish egress performance; that is, estimate

multifaceted event in which people’s responses tesc. Each of these approaches requires the appli-

are sensitive to the incident scenario, the infor- cation of a model: a simplified version of reality

mation available, and the local conditions used as an indicator of actual egress perfor-

(among other things). The problem of under- mance. All of these approaches are limited. One

standing human behavior in fire is not the simple or more of the following four model approaches

process previously assumed. Instead, it relies on are usually applied:

a number of factors that can interact and can • Model Approach A: The application of pre-

influence the outcome in different ways scriptive codes. The expertise embedded

(Fig. 59.2). These factors also influence the engi- within the regulations is assumed to satisfac-

neering methods required to assess performance. torily represent (or at least account for) the

Ideally these factors should be considered in any performance of the evacuating population.

assessment of egress performance; however, the Generally, these codes focus on the physical

methods employed in this assessment are limited constraints imposed by the structure and

and, to different degrees, exclude many of the exclude behavioral and procedural factors.

key factors influencing egress performance. It is • Model Approach B: The performance of an

critical that these limitations are understood by egress trial. An (un)announced trial is

www.ebook777.com

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

59 Employing the Hydraulic Model in Assessing Emergency Movement 2119

Factors that actually influence Factors that can be Factors that can be Factors that can be

occupant performance during > empirically or theoretically > represented by sophisticated > represented within the

an evacuation supported computer models hydraulic approach

conducted in order to assess the outcome of a the performance of the population when tra-

simulated incident using the population of versing the component in question. These

interest. This approach has a number of results are then pieced together to form a

limitations: it is expensive; there are ethical network representation of a structure to

issues in achieving realism in such an event; describe the performance of the population

the trial produces only a single data point; and when traversing an egress route.

the structure has to be in place already [5]. In reality, none of these approaches include

• Model Approach C: The application of a all of the factors that influence the outcome of

(computer-based) simulation model. An an evacuation; that is, they represent only a

attempt is made to incorporate our under- subset of those factors mentioned in Fig. 59.2.

standing of human behavior in fire within a Indeed, given the relatively immature state of

computer-based model. This is then applied to the study of human behavior in fire, it would be

a representative set of scenarios in order to not be possible for the models to include all of

establish egress performance. The quality of the factors affecting egress. It is vital to under-

the results is highly dependent on a number of stand the limitations of these models in order to

factors: the sophistication and validity of the more reliably interpret and assess the results

model used, the expertise of the user, and the produced. There is a difference between the

scenarios examined and their number of factors that actually affect an evacu-

appropriateness [6]. ation and the number that can be modeled. The

• Model Approach D: The application of an gap between this prediction and reality is

engineering calculation. Here, empirical data outlined in Fig. 59.3. The hydraulic model

are distilled into a representative set of discussed here is an engineering calculation,

equations. These equations are deemed to rep- that is, model approach D.

resent a simplified version of evacuation

movement (instead of behavior), where the

results are largely determined by the physical Model Limitations

attributes of the components involved; for

example, the people, the structure, and so Many factors influence the outcome of an evacu-

on. As such, they largely overlook many of ation; models have the potential to incorporate a

the complexities apparent in the human subset of these factors. This potential influence is

response to fire. These calculations can be based on the assumption that (1) sufficient theo-

applied at the level of the structure (see retical support exists (i.e., that the factors have

Chap. 64) or the level of the structural com- been identified and formalized); (2) there are data

ponent. For instance, details of the structure that can be incorporated into the model (i.e., that

can be included in an equation that generates the factors can be quantified in some way); and

an overall egress time; for example, the num- (3) there are no limitations in the technology

ber of floors, the population size, and the used to apply the model (e.g., hardware or

egress width available. software).

Alternatively, the attributes of a particular The hydraulic model is limited in the factors it

structural component (e.g., staircase, section can represent. Several aspects of the model

of corridor, etc.) can be used. These describe should be noted:

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

2120 S.M.V. Gwynne and E.R. Rosenbaum

• Behaviors that detract from movement are not engineer may want to apply several simulta-

explicitly considered. neously (e.g., the hydraulic model and a com-

• The numbers of people in a structural compo- puter simulation model) in order to have a

nent are considered rather than their identity stronger basis for the results [1]. Care should be

and their individual attributes. shown in the application of the hydraulic model

• Movement between egress components is and the presentation of the results produced.

considered (e.g., from room to room), rather With responsible use, it is able to produce rea-

than within them. sonable results in many situations. In some

• The results are deterministic and will there- situations a more sophisticated model should,

fore remain the same unless changes are made ideally, be employed; for example, where com-

to the scenario or the assumptions employed. plicated procedures are in place, where complex

The expert user can, to some degree, compen- flows are expected, and where the population is

sate for these limitations, but these limitations heterogeneous (see Chap. 60).

are inherent in the hydraulic model. Therefore, In the next sections the use of the basic

given the nature of the hydraulic model, it is able hydraulic model to estimate te (the evacuation

to represent only a small subset of behavioral time) is discussed. The empirical evidence

factors (primarily related to those that influence supporting the hydraulic model is outlined, and

movement). the calculations involved are described. Two dif-

Some time has been spent outlining the ferent versions of the basic hydraulic model are

limitations of the hydraulic model along with described: a simplified approach (first order) and

the other modeling approaches available. As the full approach (second order). Both act at the

with any model, it is critical that the engineer is level of the structural component but do so to

aware of these limitations prior to its use. When different degrees of computational rigor. The

the hydraulic (or any other) model is employed, a engineer must select one of these versions

brief description of these limitations should be based on the project, his or her expertise, and

presented along with the results produced and the the time available. Several examples are

conclusions drawn. However, despite these provided demonstrating how the hydraulic

limitations, it is possible to employ the hydraulic model can be applied. Finally, guidance is

model to establish egress performance in a con- provided on how these calculations can be

sistent and informative manner. A hydraulic employed and, by extending the model, the

model can assess te by quantifying egress perfor- types of scenarios that should be examined. An

mance, and therefore provide insight into the engineer should consider all of these issues when

effectiveness of a design. In a similar manner, determining te (and then eventually tesc).

the extended version of the model, described

later in this chapter, is able to estimate tesc.

In many cases, the hydraulic model is an Estimating te Using the Basic

acceptable method to model egress. Examples Hydraulic Model

include where only a general estimate of egress

time is required and where the hydraulic model is This section describes the fundamental

the most sophisticated model available to the components of egress movement that form the

engineer: the prescriptive codes may be too basic elements of the hydraulic model; that is, the

restrictive and not allow dedicated data to be equations used in calculating the te component in

incorporated; the resources available may not Equation 59.1.

extend to the use of a complex simulation Research-based engineering calculations for

model; and egress trials may be precluded as predicting emergency population flow have

the structure may not yet have been built. emerged over the past few decades. The major

Where these other models are available, the contributors include Predtechenskii and

www.ebook777.com

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

59 Employing the Hydraulic Model in Assessing Emergency Movement 2121

Milinskii [7], Fruin [8], and Pauls [9, 10]. A RSET ¼ td þ tn þ t pe þ ðttrav þ tflow þ tne Þ

number of other contributions have been made

ð59:3Þ

to the field in recent years; [11–25] however, the

methods presented here (originally developed by where te is broken down in three constituent

Nelson and MacLennan [26]) were based primar- parts: ttrav is the time spent moving toward a

ily on the major contributors highlighted above. place of safety, tflow is the time spent in

A more complete list of the research performed congestion controlled by flow characteristics,

relating to human behavior and movement is and tne is the time spent in nonevacuation

presented in Chaps. 58 and 64, as well as else- activities that do not directly contribute to the

where [4, 27–37]. population moving to a place of safety. Even

It should be noted that at the time of writing this equation is a simplification, although it

there is some discussion regarding the validity of does demonstrate that in the evacuation phase

several of the data-sets on which these models there is likely to be an amount of time spent in

are based. This has led to data-sets being with- activities other than moving directly to an exit.

drawn from the SFPE handbook and from other Given the assumptions associated with hydraulic

publications (see Chap. 64). However, their con- models, the RSET calculation using the basic

tribution to the model described here is not hydraulic model produces the following

removed given that the data-sets are broadly equation:

comparable, that they form a core component to

the original model derived by Nelson et al. [26], RSET ¼ td þ tn þ t pe þ ðttrav þ tflow Þ ð59:4Þ

that they have not yet been proven invalid (in an

The behaviors that do not directly contribute to

available, peer-reviewed publication), and that,

the evacuation are not modeled (tne).

perhaps more importantly, there is a lack of other

Calculations based on these assumptions require

equivalently comprehensive data-sets available.

compensatory actions in order to account for the

As mentioned, the sources included here are,

factors not included. These actions are discussed

in most cases, compatible and supportive of each

later in this chapter.

other. All are based on the relationship between

the speed of movement and population density of

the evacuating population stream. The equations

Fundamental Movement Calculations

derived from these sources are based on the

following assumptions:

The modeled evacuation time (i.e., the time

1. All persons start to evacuate at the same time.

predicted by the hydraulic model) utilizes a

2. Occupant flow does not involve interruptions

series of expressions that relate data acquired

caused by evacuee decisions.

from tests and observations to a hydraulic

3. The evacuees are free of impairments/

model of human flow. These primarily relate to

disabilities that impede their movement.

the following considerations: effective width,

Given the discussion presented in Chaps. 58

population density, speed, flow characteristics,

and 64 and from Fig. 59.2, these assumptions

time for passage through a component, and

exclude a number of factors and behaviors that

transitions between components. Each of these

might detract from egress performance. These

considerations is discussed in detail by Proulx

assumptions also have the effect of separating

[38]. By taking these considerations into account,

the egress components (presented in Equa-

egress movement can be quantified using the

tion 59.1) into distinct activities that are then

hydraulic model. Figure 59.4, shows a typical

treated separately during the calculations; in real-

relationship between the source data and the

ity, these components would be coupled.

derived equation. Although the expressions indi-

When representing an actual event, Equa-

cate absolute relationships, there is considerable

tion 59.1 can be rewritten as

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

2122 S.M.V. Gwynne and E.R. Rosenbaum

between speed and density Spot measurement

on stairs in uncontrolled 1.0

total evacuations (Dashed Case average

line from Fruin [8])

0.5

Fruin8

S = 1.08 – 0.29 d

0

0 1 2 3 4 5

Density (persons per square meter)

variability in the data. The engineer may wish to boundary layer widths. The effective width of

take this into account during the calculation any portion of an exit route is the clear width of

process. that portion of an exit route less the sum of the

The equations and relationships presented in boundary layers. Clear width is measured

the following paragraphs can be used indepen- 1. From wall to wall in corridors or hallways

dently or collected together to solve more com- 2. As the width of the treads in stairways

plex egress problems. Several examples 3. As the actual passage width of a door in its

outlining the use of these equations are presented open position

later in this chapter. 4. As the space between the seats along the aisles

of assembly arrangement

Effective width, We The effective width is the 5. As the space between the most intruding

usable width of the component, or We. Persons portions of the seats (when unoccupied) in a

moving through the exit routes of a building row of seats in an assembly arrangement

maintain a boundary layer clearance (i.e., main- The intrusion of handrails is considered by

tain a distance between themselves and the object comparing the effective width without the

in question) from walls and other stationary handrails and the effective width using a clear

obstacles they pass (see Fruin [8], Pauls [9, 10], width from the centerline of the handrail. The

and Habicht and Braaksma [39]). This clearance smaller of the two effective widths then applies.

is needed to accommodate lateral body sway and Using the values in Table 59.1, only handrails

assure balance. Personal preference dictates that that protrude more than 2.5 in. need be consid-

people attempt to maintain space around them- ered; that is, if the handrail protrudes less than

selves assuming that the population density is 2.5 in. into the stair width, then the overall calcu-

sufficiently low. lated width will still be less than the 6 in. reduc-

Discussion of this crowd movement phenom- tion produced by the stairwell. Minor midbody

enon is found in the works of Pauls [9, 10], Fruin height or lower intrusions such as panic hardware

[8], and Habicht and Braaksma [39]. The useful are treated in the same manner as handrails.

(effective) width of an exit path is the clear width

of the path less the width of the boundary layers. Population Density, D Population density, D, is

Figures 59.5 and 59.6 depict effective width and the measurement of the degree of crowdedness in

boundary layers. Table 59.1 is a listing of an evacuation route. The calculations in this

www.ebook777.com

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

59 Employing the Hydraulic Model in Assessing Emergency Movement 2123

of effective width of stairs Wall Open

in relation to walls, side

handrails, and seating Nominal

stair width

Handrail

centerlines

3.5 in. 3.5 in.

(8.9 cm) (8.9 cm)

Effective

width

6 in. 6 in.

(15.2 cm) (15.2 cm)

Stair tread

b

Nominal aisle

stair width

3.5 in.

(8.9 cm)

Half aisle Half aisle

Effective Effective

width width

Chair

Center

aisle

Bench handrail

(48 in. preferred)

(122 cm)

chapter are based on population density Unless specifically stated, the entire popula-

expressed in persons per square foot (or persons tion of the first egress component (i.e., the com-

per square meter). It should be noted that ponent from which the egress movement starts)

researchers employ several different units when is included in any flow calculation. This will

describing population density. These units demonstrate the capacity limits of the route ele-

include the number of people per unit of space, ment. If the evacuating population is widely dis-

the space available per person, and the propor- persed within an egress component (i.e., it would

tion of floor space occupied [7]. In reality, the take them significantly different times to reach

population density will be dependent on the size connected egress components), the calculation is

of the individuals present. These sizes may vary based on an appropriate time step that reflects the

greatly. Here, the sizes are assumed to be time of their arrival. At each time increment, the

uniform or averaged across the population. population density of the exit route is based on

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

2124 S.M.V. Gwynne and E.R. Rosenbaum

Wall

effective width

Recessed

passenger

Boundary queue

layer

Effective

design width

Viewing Railing

area

Departure lounge

Suspended TV display

Effective flight information

design

width

Wastebasket

Telephones

Floor-standing

display

Wastebasket

Effective Wall

design width

Table 59.1 Boundary layer widths The population density factors in subsequent

portions of the egress system are determined by

Boundary layer

calculation. The calculation methods involved

Exit route element (in.) (cm)

are contained in the section of this chapter titled

Stairways—wall or side of tread 6 15

“Transitions.”

Railings, handrailsa 3.5 9

Theater chairs, stadium benches 0 0

Corridor, ramp walls 8 20 Speed, S Speed is defined as the movement

Obstacles 4 10 velocity of exiting individuals, or S.

Wide concourses, passageways <18 46 Observations and experiments have shown that

Door, archways 6 15 the speed of a group or an individual in a group is

a

Where handrails are present, use the value if it results in a a function of the population density. The

lesser effective width relationships presented in this chapter have

been derived from the work of Fruin [8], Pauls

those that have entered the route minus those that [9, 10], and Predtechenskii and Milinskii [7]. If

have passed from it. In such situations the engi- the population density is less than approximately

neer may wish to separate the components into 0.05 persons/ft2 (0.54 persons/m2) of exit route,

subcomponents; for example, a corridor could be individuals will move at their own pace, inde-

broken into several components reflecting the pendent of the speed of others. If the population

different performances of the population. In this density exceeds about 0.35 persons/ft2 (3.8

case, the density calculations would then be persons/m2), it is assumed that no movement

based on the entire population of each of the will take place until enough of the crowd has

new components. passed from the crowded area to reduce the

www.ebook777.com

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

59 Employing the Hydraulic Model in Assessing Emergency Movement 2125

population density. Between the population den- Figure 59.7 is a graphic representation of the

sity limits of 0.05 and 0.35 persons/ft2 (0.54 and relationship between speed and population den-

3.8 persons/m2), the relationship between speed sity. The speeds determined from Equation 59.5

and population density is assumed to be are along the line of movement; that is, for stairs

represented by a linear function. The equation the speeds are along the line of the treads.

of this function is Table 59.3 provides convenient multipliers for

converting vertical rise of a stairway to a distance

S ¼ k akD ð59:5Þ along the line of movement. The travel on

where landings must be added to the values derived

S ¼ Speed along the line of travel from Table 59.3. To be conservative, it should

D ¼ Population density in persons per unit area be assumed that the population does not increase

k ¼ Constant, as shown in Table 59.2 velocity when traversing a landing between stairs

¼ k1; and a ¼ 2.86 for speed in ft/min and but continues on at the same reduced rate

density in persons/ft2 associated with stair movement.

¼ k2; and a ¼ 0.266 for speed in m/s and Although, in reality, population densities of

density in persons/m2 greater than 0.175 persons/ft2 (1.9 persons/m2)

can be achieved, it is suggested that these

densities should not be assumed in an engineer-

Table 59.2 Constants for Equation 59.5, evacuation ing design [3]. This density produces the maxi-

speed mum achievable flow rate; beyond this density,

Exit route element k1 k2 the flow rate falls rapidly. If the population den-

Corridor, aisle, ramp, doorway 275 1.40 sity increases significantly beyond 0.37 persons/

Stairs ft2 (4 persons/m2), then crush conditions might

Riser (in.) Tread (in.) develop [9, 10, 40]. This suggested maximum

7.5 10 196 1.00 compares to the occupancy levels suggested in

7.0 11 212 1.08 NFPA 101®, Life Safety Code®, of 0.142

6.5 12 229 1.16 persons/ft2 (1.54 persons/m2) to 0.003 persons/

6.5 13 242 1.23 ft2 (0.022 persons/m2) depending on the type of

1 in. ¼ 25.4 mm occupancy [41]. The suggested maximum

speed as a function of

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

density. S ¼ k akD, 300

where D ¼ density in 1.5

persons/ft2 and k is given in

Table 59.2. Note that speed 250 1.25

Corridor, ramp,

is along line of travel

Movement speed (ft/min)

aisle, doorway

Movement speed (m/s)

200 1

150 0.75

100 0.5

Various stairs

50 0.25

per Table 3-13.4

0 0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

Density (persons/ft2)

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

2126 S.M.V. Gwynne and E.R. Rosenbaum

Table 59.3 Conversion factors for relating line of travel Table 59.4 Maximum (unimpeded) exit flow speeds

distance to vertical travel for various stair configurations

Speed (along line of travel)

Stairs riser (in.) Tread (in.) Conversion factor Exit route element (ft/min) (m/s)

7.5 10.0 1.66 Corridor, aisle, ramp, 235 1.19

7.0 11.0 1.85 doorway

6.5 12.0 2.08 Stairs

6.5 13.0 2.22 Riser Tread (in.)

1 in. ¼ 25.4 mm 7.5 10 167 0.85

7.0 11 187 0.95

6.5 12 196 1.00

density is therefore beyond the heaviest occupant

6.5 13 207 1.05

load suggestion in the Life Safety Code and

should therefore be adequate for all occupancy 1 in. ¼ 25.4 mm

types.

A conservative approach is therefore adopted

where

regarding the population densities that might be

Fs ¼ Specific flow

achieved during the movement of the population.

D ¼ Population density

As can be seen in Fig. 59.7, a maximum popula-

S ¼ Speed of movement

tion density of 3.76 persons/m2 is assumed. This

The flow rate unit is often referred to in

limit constrains the movement of the population.

persons/ft/minute or persons/m/second. This

The relationship between speed/flow and density

change in units will have no impact on the

is similarly affected by this constraint, with

results.

achievable population densities below those that

Fs is in persons/min/ft when density is in

might be expected in reality and curtailed earlier

persons/ft2 and speed in ft/min; Fs is in persons/

than might be expected.

s/m when density is in persons/m2 and speed in

The maximum speed is possible, but not inev-

m/s.

itable, when the density is less than 0.05 persons/

Combining Equations 59.5 and 59.6 produces

ft2 (0.54 persons/m2). These maximum speeds

are listed in Table 59.4. Fs ¼ ð1 aDÞkD ð59:7Þ

Within the range of dimensions listed in

Tables 59.2, 59.3, and 59.4, the evacuation where k is as listed in Table 59.2.

speed on stairs varies approximately as the The relationship of specific flow to population

square root of the ratio of tread width to tread density is shown in Fig. 59.8. In each case the

height. There is not sufficient data to appraise the maximum specific flow occurs when the density

likelihood that this relationship holds outside this is 0.175 persons/ft2 (1.9 persons/m2) of exit route

range. space. It is possible to establish Fs from Equa-

tion 59.7 and solve for D. There is a maximum

Specific flow, Fs Specific flow, Fs, is the flow of specific flow associated with each type of exit

evacuating persons past a point in the exit route route element; these are listed in Table 59.5.

per unit of time per unit of effective width, We, of

the route involved. Specific flow is expressed in Special Consideration for Door Mechanism In

persons/min/ft of effective width (if the value of Table 59.5 and Fig. 59.8 the maximum achiev-

k ¼ k1 from Table 59.2), or persons/s/m of effec- able specific flow rates for corridors and

tive width (if the value of k ¼ k2 from doorways are considered equivalent. This is

Table 59.2). The equation for specific flow is based on the original calculations made by Nel-

son and MacLennan [26]. However, this is based

Fs ¼ SD ð59:6Þ on the assumption that the entire effective width

www.ebook777.com

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

59 Employing the Hydraulic Model in Assessing Emergency Movement 2127

a function of population

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

density 25

Corridor,

1.20

ramp,

20 aisle,

1.00

doorway

Specific flow

Specific flow

15 0.80

0.60

10

per Table 3-13.5

5

0.20

0 0.00

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

Density (persons/ft2)

Table 59.5 Maximum specific flow, Fsm These factors may act to limit the flow

Maximum specific flow through the doorway. When doors on an egress

Exit route Persons/min/ft Persons/s/m of route are not mechanically held open, these

element of effective width effective width factors should be considered. In such

Corridor, aisle, 24.0 1.3 circumstances, where the interaction with the

ramp, doorway door leaf influences performance, it may be

Stairs more conservative to assume a maximum achiev-

Riser Tread able flow rate based on the number of door leaves

(in.) (in.) available rather than the actual width (effective

7.5 10 17.1 0.94

or otherwise) of each door leaf; that is, increasing

7.0 11 18.5 1.01

the door leaf size may not produce a linear

6.5 12 20.0 1.09

increase in the achievable flow, given the need

6.5 13 21.2 1.16

to hold the leaf open and the reduction in the

available door width due to the position of the

of the doorway is available and that the passage closing leaf. A maximum flow rate of 50 persons/

of the population through the doorway is not min/door leaf is suggested for doors that are not

influenced by the door mechanism itself. If the mechanically held open [3, 8]. Fruin originally

door leaf is not mechanically held open, then the noted flow rates between 40 and 60 persons/min

traversing population may be forced to hold it through exits with door leaves; however, the

open, delaying their passage. These actions have lower flow rate of 40 persons/min was produced

the potential for slowing the evacuees’ move- during observations involving slow-moving

ment through the opening, producing a reduced occupants and so is discounted [3].

flow rate. It may also reduce the width available The data used to support the flow rate through

to the width of a single person (i.e., the width doors are several decades old and may not accu-

required for the person holding the door and rately reflect the movement and shape

passing through the exit), rather than the full characteristics of current populations; for exam-

available width of the exit leaf. In this case, the ple, the impact that the increasing levels of obe-

exit width available may be dynamic and reduced sity in some parts of the world might have on the

even from the calculated effective width. capacity of egress routes and on movement rates

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

2128 S.M.V. Gwynne and E.R. Rosenbaum

[42]. In addition, the data from which these require a different approach and have an impact

relationships were derived were collected from on the overall calculation produced. The

nonemergency pedestrian movement and/or transitions can be categorized into merging or

egress drills. The functions described should not branching flows.

be assumed to necessarily provide conservative

predictions; the engineer should therefore factor Transitions Transitions are any points in the

this into the design recommendations made. exit system where the character or dimension of

a route changes or where routes merge or branch.

Calculated flow, Fc The calculated flow, Fc, is Typical examples of points of transition include

the predicted flow rate of persons passing a par- the following:

ticular point in an exit route. The equation for 1. Any point where an exit route becomes wider

calculated flow is or narrower. For example, a corridor may be

narrowed for a short distance by a structural

Fc ¼ Fs W e ð59:8Þ

change, an intruding service counter, or a

where similar element. The calculated density, D,

Fc ¼ Calculated flow and specific flow, Fs, differ before reaching,

Fs ¼ Specific flow while passing, and after passing the intrusion.

We ¼ Effective width of the component being 2. A point where the terrain changes; that is, the

traversed point where a corridor enters a stairway.

Equation 59.8 is based on the assumption that There are actually two transitions: one occurs

the achievable flow rate through a component is as the egress flow passes through the doorway,

directly proportional to its width. the other as the flow leaves the doorway and

Combining Equations 59.7 and 59.8 produces proceeds onto the stairs.

3. The point where two or more exit flows

Fc ¼ ð1 aDÞkDW e ð59:9Þ merge; for example, the meeting of the flow

from a cross aisle into a main aisle that serves

Fc is in persons/min when k ¼ k1 (from

other sources of exiting population. It is also

Table 59.2), D is in persons/ft2, and We is in

the point of entrance into a stairway serving

ft. Fc is in persons/s when k ¼ k2 (from

other floors.

Table 59.2), D is persons/m2, and We is m.

4. Where a flow branches into several other

flows. A decision has to be made regarding

Time for passage, tp The time for passage, tp, is

the proportion of the incoming flow that uses

the time for a group of persons to pass a point in

each of the outgoing flows, that is, into several

an exit route and is expressed as

other egress components. The proportion of

t p ¼ P=Fc ð59:10Þ the flows will be influenced by a number of

different behavioral and procedural issues

where tp is time for passage (tp is in minutes where (refer to Chaps. 58 and 64, and also to

Fc is in persons/min; tp is in seconds where Fc is Predtechenskii and Milinskii [7]). The propor-

persons/s). P is the population size in persons. tion of flow using each of the egress

Combining Equations 59.9 and 59.10 yields components may be apportioned evenly,

according to the capacity of the components,

t p ¼ P=½ð1 aDÞkDW e ð59:11Þ

or according to behavioral/procedural issues,

There are several transition configurations that such as familiarity. Once this apportionment

may arise during an engineering calculation that has been established, then each of the flow

involve the interaction between flows of people. calculations proceed as before and can be

These transitions need to be identified, as they conducted independently of each other.

www.ebook777.com

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

59 Employing the Hydraulic Model in Assessing Emergency Movement 2129

The following rules apply when determining Fs(in) ¼ Specific flow arriving at transi-

the densities and flow rates following the passage tion point

of a transition point: We(in) ¼ Effective width prior to transi-

1. The flow after a transition point is a function, tion point

within limits, of the flow(s) entering the tran- We(out) ¼ Effective width after passing

sition point. transition point

2. During the transition between two (b) For cases involving two incoming flows

components, it will be necessary to establish and one outflow from a transition point,

the density in the new component; that is, it such as that which occurs with the

is assumed that sufficient information is merger of a flow down a stair and the

available on the previous component to entering flow at a floor,

enable this calculation to be made. The den-

Fsðin1Þ W eðin1Þ þ Fsðin2Þ W eðin2Þ

sity in the new component will be calculated FsðoutÞ ¼

by solving for D in Equation 59.9; this will W eðoutÞ

produce a quadratic in D. In order to do this, ð59:13Þ

the flow rate into the component will need to

be known. Unless the maximum value is where the subscripts (in-1) and (in-2)

achieved, there will normally be two indicate the values for the two incoming

solutions of D produced: one above and one flows.

below Dmax (where Dmax is the density value (c) For cases involving other geometry

that produces the maximum flow). Nelson formations merging together, the follow-

and MacLennan [26], and Predtechenskii ing general relationship applies:

and Milinskii [7], and Milke [40] state that

Fsðin1Þ W eðin1Þ þ þ FsðinnÞ W eðinnÞ

the smaller of the D values should be

employed; that is, less than or equal to ¼ Fsðout1Þ W eðout1Þ þ þ FsðoutnÞ W eðoutnÞ

Dmax. If the larger D value (greater than ð59:14Þ

Dmax) is used, it implies that the flow rate

between the two components both rises and where the letter n in the subscripts (in-n)

falls during a single transition. This is not and (out-n) is a number equal to the total

considered to be reasonable. number of routes entering (in-n) or leav-

3. The calculated flow, Fc, following a transition ing (out-n) the transition point.

point cannot exceed the maximum specific 5. Where the calculated specific flow, Fs, for the

flow, Fsm, for the route element involved route(s) leaving a transition point, as derived

multiplied by the effective width, We, of that from the equations in rule 4, exceeds the max-

element. imum specific flow, Fsm, a queue will form at

4. Within the limits of rule 2, the specific flow, the incoming side of the transition point. The

Fs, of the route departing from a transition number of persons in the queue will grow at a

point is determined by the following rate equal to the calculated flow, Fc, in the

equations: arriving route minus the calculated flow leav-

(a) For cases involving one flow into and ing the route through the transition point.

one flow out of a transition point, 6. Where the calculated outgoing specific flow,

Fs(out), is less than the maximum specific flow,

FsðinÞ W eðinÞ Fsm, for that route(s), there is no way to pre-

FsðoutÞ ¼ ð59:12Þ

W eðoutÞ determine how the incoming routes will

merge. The routes may share access through

where

the transition point equally, or there may be

Fs(out) ¼ Specific flow departing from

total dominance of one route over the other.

transition point

For conservative calculations, assume that the

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

2130 S.M.V. Gwynne and E.R. Rosenbaum

route of interest is dominated by the other 50 people starting at the top of the stairs with

route(s). an initial density of 1.5 p/m2 (p ¼ persons) to exit

A simple example is presented in order to from the door at the end of the corridor?

clarify the required calculations [40]. This simple

example is followed by a more comprehensive Solution The velocity can be calculated

example illustrating the two different hydraulic according to Equation 59.5:

models: first- and second-order hydraulic

models. S ¼ k akD

Example 1 A 1.8 m (approximately 6 ft) wide

(descending) 7/11 stair has 10 risers and leads to 1:08 ð0:266Þð1:08Þð1:5Þ

a 10 m long (approximately 33 ft), 1.8 m wide ∴S ¼ 0:65 m=sð128 ft=minÞ

corridor (approximately 6 ft). At the end of the

The time to traverse the stair can then be calcu-

corridor, there is a 1.3 m (approximately 4 ft

lated. The distance to be covered is

3 in.) wide door (Fig. 59.9). This door is mechan-

ically held open. How long does it take for

diagonal length ¼ 3:31 mðapproximately 10 ft 10 in:Þ

Therefore, the time to cover the stairs is 3.31/ The time delay for the last person to start on

0.65 ¼ 5.1 s. the stair can be calculated as follows. With a flow

The width of the stair can be calculated using rate of 1.46 p/s on the stair (and thus of the queue

Table 59.1 (1.8–0.3 m). Given that the density entering the stair), the time for the queue to

(1.5 p/m2) and the velocity (0.65 m/s) are known, dissipate is calculated using Equation 59.10:

the flow rate on the stair using Equation 59.9 can

t p ¼ P=Fc

now be determined:

Fc ¼ Fs W e ¼ ðk akDÞDW e The time for the population at the top of the stairs

to enter the stairs is then

Fc ¼ 1:46 p=s

50=1:46 ¼ 34:2 s

This value produces a specific flow rate less than

the maximum value and so it can therefore be The time for the entire population to enter the

used during the calculation. staircase and the time to traverse the staircase are

now known. Given this, the time taken for the

Fig. 59.9 Geometry used last person to enter and traverse the staircase can

in Example [1] be determined. The time to traverse the corridor

now needs to be calculated.

The flow rate into the corridor is 1.46 p/s; that

is, that produced on the staircase. Equation 59.9

states that

Fc ¼ Fs W e ¼ ðk akDÞDW e

now be solved for D.

www.ebook777.com

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

59 Employing the Hydraulic Model in Assessing Emergency Movement 2131

people through the

components

10 m

3.3 m

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Time (s)

For a corridor, k is set to 1.40. Given the for the population to flow through the doorway is

corridor is 1.8 m in width, the effective width is then calculated using Equation 59.10:

We ¼ 1.4 m (4 ft 7 in).

t p ¼ N=Fs W e ¼ 50=ð1:3=1:0Þ ¼ 38:5 s

Therefore, solving for D

0:266D2 D þ ð1:46=1:4 1:4Þ ¼ 0 The final solution is not simply formed from

0:266D2 D þ 0:744 ¼ 0 adding these values together, as some of them

occur simultaneously. The final result is better

Solving for D, it is therefore either 1.03 or 2.72 explained by referring to Fig. 59.10.

p/m2. The dashed line indicates the movement of the

first person. This person is not influenced by

∴ D ¼ 1:03 or 2:72 p=m2 0:1 or 0:25 p=ft2 queuing at any point and is therefore constrained

only by the velocity values derived from the

From the previous discussion regarding selecting

densities calculated on the different components.

D values, a value of 1.03 p/m2 (0.1 p/ft2) should

This person therefore spends 5.1 s traversing the

be chosen.

stairs and 9.8 s traversing the corridor, reaching

Given that the density is known and the rela-

the final exit after 14.9 s (marked A and B in

tionship between density and velocity is

Fig. 59.10). The entire population entered the

expressed in Equation 59.5:

staircase after 34.2 s (marked C in Fig. 59.10)

S ¼ k akD and has reached the end of the stairs after

34.2 + 5.1 ¼ 39.3 s (marked D in Fig. 59.10).

the velocity, S, can be calculated as being 1.02 m/ The last person from this group will have reached

s (201 ft/min). The time to traverse the corridor is the exit at 49.1 s, assuming that person did not

therefore 10/1.02 ¼ 9.8 s. The flow through the encounter any congestion approaching the door

doorway at the end of the series of components (marked E in Fig. 59.10). Given that the first

can now be determined. Given the narrowing at person has reached the exit after 14.9 s and that

the door, the formation of the queue should be the congestion at the final exit lasted for 38.5 s,

examined. The specific flow rate at the door is this congestion is not clear until 53.4 s (marked F

calculated using Equation 59.8: in Fig. 59.10, indicating the end of the solid

Fs ¼ Fc =W e ¼ 1:46=1:0 curve). Therefore, the last person to arrive

interacts with the congestion at some point prior

Fs ¼ 1.46 p/s/m (27 p/min/ft) > Fsm, where the to reaching the door; that is, the congestion still

value of Fsm is 1.3 p/s/m (24 p/min/ft). The time exists when that person arrives. The evacuation

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

2132 S.M.V. Gwynne and E.R. Rosenbaum

time is then determined by the time taken for the components (i.e., between areas where the phys-

congestion to clear at the final exit (e.g., 53.4 s). ical constraints affecting egress performance

change) is calculated. This is more labor inten-

sive than the first-order approach, requiring a

First- and Second-Order Hydraulic larger number of calculations to be made; how-

Models ever, it does require fewer assumptions and

provides information on the movement between

The various calculations discussed in the previ- each of the structural components in the egress

ous section can be combined in order to assess route rather than a subset of them. A second-

the movement component of the evacuation pro- order analysis is by no means a trivial task and

cess; that is, to calculate te. By applying these requires judgment based on the structure exam-

calculations, the necessary movement ined and the incident scenario. This process is

components (e.g., flow rates, velocities, popula- outlined in Fig. 59.11b.

tion densities, and travel speeds) can be

established enabling the overall movement time

to be found. Example Applications

First-Order Hydraulic Model be better understood through the description of

two example applications. (More examples can

There are several ways in which these movement be found elsewhere [43].) A relatively simple

calculations can be used; two are described here. example is presented, although even in this case

The first-order hydraulic model represents a the difference between the effort required in

simplified approach: instead of calculating the applying the two versions of the model is

flow of people between individual components, apparent.

this method focuses on the component that places

the most severe constraint on the flow of people Example 2 Consider an office building

around the structure and then uses this constraint (Fig. 59.12) with the following features:

to determine the movement time. The engineer is 1. There are nine floors, 300 ft by 80 ft (91 m by

required to establish the time to reach the 24 m).

controlling component; the time for the popula- 2. Floor-to-floor height is 12 ft (3.7 m).

tion to traverse this component; the time for the 3. Two stairways are located at the ends of the

last person to leave the controlling component; building (there are no dead ends).

and the time for the last person to reach safety 4. Each stair is 44 in. (1.12 m) wide (tread

from the controlling component [43]. This pro- width) with handrails protruding 2.5 in.

cess is outlined in Fig. 59.11a. This approach (0.063 m).

makes greater use of the maximum flow rates 5. Stair risers are 7 in. (0.178 m) wide and

and densities allowed, given the reduced level treads are 11 in. (0.279 m) high.

of calculation required. The controlling compo- 6. There are two 4 ft by 8 ft (1.2 m by 2.4 m)

nent will depend on the nature of the structure; landings per floor of stairway travel.

for example, the controlling component could be 7. There is one 36-in. (0.91-m) clear width door

a stair, an exit from the stair, an exit from a room, at each stairway entrance and exit. These are

and so on. assumed not to be mechanically held open.

8. The first floor does not exit through

stairways.

Second-Order Hydraulic Model 9. Each floor has a single 8-ft (2.4-m) wide

corridor extending the full length of each

The second-order hydraulic model requires that floor. Corridors terminate at stairway

the flow of people between each of the structural entrance doors.

www.ebook777.com

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

59 Employing the Hydraulic Model in Assessing Emergency Movement 2133

hydraulic model; (b)

second-order hydraulic Define network of Define network of

model components that form components that form

structure being structure being

assessed. assessed

routes used during routes used during

scenario being the scenario being

examined. examined.

components; that is, for each component; start

those that limit from component farthest

movement. from safety.

flow characteristics. characteristics do not

Identify single exceed maximum

controlling factor C. values.

reach C and time transitions. Recalculate

to traverse C. flow characteristics, if

necessary.

Establish

last person to flow

overall egress

through C and

performance.

reach safety.

Office space

150 occupants

80 ft

Office space

150 occupants

300 ft.

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

2134 S.M.V. Gwynne and E.R. Rosenbaum

10. There is a population of 300 persons/floor. moving with the flow is 38.2/105 ¼ 0.36 min/

floor.

Solution A First-Order Approximation. 5. Estimate building evacuation time.

1. Assumptions. If all of the occupants in the building start

The prime controlling factor will be either evacuation at the same time, each stairway

the stairways or the door discharging from can discharge 48 persons/min. The population

them. Queuing will occur; therefore, the spe- of 2400 persons above the first floor will

cific flow, Fs, will be set to the maximum require approximately 25 min to pass through

specific flow, Fsm. All occupants start both exits. An additional 0.36-min travel time

evacuating at the same time. The population is required for the movement from the second

will use all facilities in the optimum balance. floor to the exit. (A more conservative esti-

2. Estimate flow capability of a stairway. mate of the travel time might also include the

From Table 59.1, the effective width, We, time for the first person to move from within

of each stairway is 44 12 ¼ 32 in. (2.66 ft) the second floor to the stair.) The total mini-

(813 mm [0.81 m]). The maximum specific mum evacuation time for the 2400 persons

flow, Fsm, for the stairway (from Table 59.5) located on floors 2 through 9 is estimated at

is 18.5 persons/min/ft (1.01 persons/s/m) of 25.4 min.

effective width. Specific flow, Fs, equals max-

imum specific flow, Fsm. Therefore, using Solution B Second-Order Approximation.

Equation 59.6, the flow from each stairway 1. Assumptions.

is limited to 18.5 2.66 ¼ 49.2 persons/min. The population will use all exit facilities

3. Estimate flow capacity through a door. optimally; all occupants start egress at the

Again from Table 59.5, the maximum spe- same time. All persons are assumed to start

cific flow through a 36-in. (0.9 m) door is to evacuate at time zero.

24 persons/min/ft (1.31 persons/s/m) of effec- 2. Estimate flow density (D), speed (S), specific

tive width. Also, the effective width, We, of flow (Fs), effective width (We), and initial

each door is 36 12 ¼ 24 in. (2 ft) (609 mm calculated flow (Fc) typical for each floor.

[0.61 m]). Therefore, using Equation 59.8, the 3. Divide each floor in half to produce two exit

flow through the door is limited to calculation zones, each 150 ft (45.7 m) long.

24 2 ¼ 48 persons/min. This is less than To determine the density, D, and speed, S, if

the maximum flow rate through an exit that all occupants try to move through the corridor

is not mechanically held open (50 p/min). at the same time, that is, 150 persons moving

Because the flow capacity of the doors is less through 150 ft of an 8-ft (2.4-m) wide

than the flow capacity of the stairway served, corridor:

the flow is controlled by the stairway exit

doors (48 persons/stairway exit door/min). D ¼ 150 persons=1200 ft2 corridor area

4. Estimate the speed of movement for estimated ¼ 0:125 persons=ft2

stairway flow. From Equation 59.5, S ¼ k akD.

From Equation 59.5 the speed of movement From Table 59.2, k ¼ 275.

down the stairs is 212 ð2:86 212 0:175Þ

¼ 105 ft=minð0:53 m=sÞ. The travel distance S ¼ 275 ð2:86 275 0:125Þ

between floors (using the conversion factor ¼ 177 ft=min ð54 m=minÞ

from Table 59.3) is 12 1.85 ¼ 22.2 ft

From Equation 59.7, Fs ¼ ð1 aDÞkD.

(6.8 m) on the stair slope plus 8 ft (2.4 m) travel

Fs ¼ ½1 ð2:86 0:125Þ 275 0:125 ¼ 22

on each of the two landings, for a total floor-to-

floor travel distance of 22:2 þ ð2 8Þ ¼ persons=min=ftð1:2 persons=s=mÞ effective

38:2 ftð11:6 mÞ. The travel time for a person width

www.ebook777.com

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

59 Employing the Hydraulic Model in Assessing Emergency Movement 2135

From Table 59.5, Fs is less than the maxi- 154 48 ¼ 106 persons=min

mum specific flow, Fsm; therefore, Fs is used

for the calculation of calculated flow. 5. Estimate impact of stairway on exit flow.

From Table 59.1, the effective width of the From Table 59.1, effective width, We, of the

corridor is stairway is

From Equation 59.9, calculated flow, Fc ¼ From Table 59.5, the maximum specific flow,

(1 aD)kDWe. Fsm, is 18.5 persons/min/ft (1.01 persons/s/m)

effective width. From Equation 59.12, the

Fc ¼ ½1 ð2:86 0:125Þ 275 0:125 7 specific flow for the stairway,

¼ 154 persons=min FsðstairwayÞ ¼ 24 2=2:66 ¼ 18:0 persons=min=ft

At this stage in the calculation, calculated ð0:98 persons=s=mÞeffective width

flow, Fc, is termed initial calculated flow for

In this case, Fs is less than Fsm and Fs is used.

the exit route element (i.e., corridors) being

The value of 18.0 p/min/ft for Fs applies

evaluated. This term is used because the cal-

until the flow down the stairway merges with

culated flow rate can be sustained only if the

the flow entering from another floor.

discharge (transition point) from the route can

Using Fig. 59.8 or Equation 59.7 and

also accommodate the indicated flow rate.

Table 59.2, the density of the initial stairway

4. Estimate impact of stairway entry doors on

flow is approximately 0.146 persons/ft2 (1.6

exit flow.

person/m2) of stairway exit route. From Equa-

Each door has a 36-in. (0.91-m) clear width.

tion 59.5 the speed of movement during the

From Table 59.1, effective width is

initial stairway travel is

W e ¼ 36 12 ¼ 24 in: ð2 ftÞð0:61 mÞ

212 ð2:86 212 0:146Þ

From Table 59.5, the maximum specific flow, ¼ 123 ft=minð0:628 m=sÞ

Fsm, is 24 persons/min/ft effective width.

From Equation 59.12, This value differs from that produced in the

first-order, which is based on the maximum

FsðdoorÞ ¼ FsðcorridorÞ W sðcorridorÞ =W eðdoorÞ achievable density rather than a calculated

density.

¼ ð22 7Þ=2 ¼ 77 persons =min =ft

From the first-order solution, the floor-to-

ð4:2 persons=s=mÞ effective width floor travel distance is 38.2 ft (11.6 m). The

time required for the flow to travel one floor

Since Fsm is less than the calculated Fs, the

level is

value of Fsm is used. Therefore, the effective

value for specific flow is 24 p/min/ft. 38:2=123 ¼ 0:31 minð19 sÞ

From Equation 59.8, the initial calculated

flow, Using Equation 59.8, the calculated flow is

through a 36-in. (0.91-m) door. Since Fc for the After 0.31 min, 15 (i.e., 48 0.31) persons

corridor is 154 p/min while Fc for the single exit will be in the stairway from each floor feeding

door is 48 p/min, queuing is expected. The to it. If floors 2 through 9 exit all at once, there

calculated rate of queue buildup will be will be

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

2136 S.M.V. Gwynne and E.R. Rosenbaum

and stairway entry flow on exit flow.

After this time the merging of flows between From Equation 59.13,

the flow in the stairway and the incoming flows

at stairway entrances will control the rate of

movement.

Fsðout‐stairwayÞ ¼ FsðdoorÞ W eðdoorÞ þ Fsðin‐stairwayÞ W eðin‐stairwayÞ =W eðin‐stairwayÞ

¼ ½ð24 2Þ þ ð18 2:66Þ=2:66

¼ 36 persons=min=ftð1:97 prsons=s=mÞ

effective width

From Table 59.5, Fsm for the stairway is 18.5 Therefore, referring to Equations 59.8, 59.10,

persons/min/ft (1.01 persons/m/s) effective and 59.11, at

width. Since Fsm is less than the calculated

ð135=48Þ 60 þ 49 ¼ 218 sð3:6 minÞ

Fs, the value of Fsm is used.

7. Track egress flow. all persons have evacuated the ninth floor.

Assume all persons start to evacuate at At

time zero. Initial flow speed is 177 ft/min

(0.9 m/s). Assume that congested flow will ½ð135=48Þ 60 þ 49 þ 19 ¼ 237 s ð4:0 minÞ

reach the stairway in approximately 0.5 min.

the end of the flow reaches the eighth floor.

This conservative assumption is based on the

At

population having to travel a distance of

between 50 ft and 150 ft (15.2 m and 237 þ f½ð135=ð2:66 18:5Þ 60g

45.7 m) to the exit traveling at 177 ft/min ¼ 401 sð6:7 minÞ

(0.9 m/s); that is, the derived travel speed in

the corridor. At 0.5 min, flow starts through all persons have evacuated the eighth floor.

stairway doors. Fc through doors is At

48 persons/min for the next 19 s (0.31 min).

ð401 þ 19Þ ¼ 420 s ð7:0 minÞ

At 49 s, 120 persons are in each stairway and

135 are waiting in a queue at each stairway the end of the flow reaches the seventh floor.

entrance. At

How the evacuation progresses from this

point on depends on which of the floors take 420 þ f½135=ð2:66 18:5Þ 60g

precedence in entering the stairways. Any ¼ 584 sð9:7 minÞ

sequence of entry may occur [1]. To set a

boundary, this example estimates the result all persons have evacuated the seventh floor.

of a situation where dominance proceeds At 603 s The end of the flow reaches the 6th

from the highest to the lowest floor. (10.1 min) floor

The remaining 135 persons waiting at each At 767 s All persons have evacuated the 6th

stairway entrance on the ninth floor enter (12.8 min) floor

through the door at the rate of 48 persons/ At 786 s The end of the flow reaches the 5th

(13.1 min) floor

min. The rate of flow through the stairway is

At 950 s All persons have evacuated the 5th

regulated by the 48 persons/min rate of flow

(15.8 min) floor

of the discharge exit doors. The descent rate At 969 s The end of the flow reaches the 4th

of the flow is 19 s/floor. (16.2 min) floor

(continued)

www.ebook777.com

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

59 Employing the Hydraulic Model in Assessing Emergency Movement 2137

At 1133 s All persons have evacuated the 4th scenarios examined and more reliably provide

(18.9 min) floor an estimate of the longest RSET value to be

At 1152 s The end of the flow reaches the 3rd expected, as compared with the assessment of

(19.2 min) floor a single scenario.

At 1316 s All persons have evacuated the 3rd

(21.9 min) floor

At 1335 s The end of the flow reaches the 2nd

(22.3 min) floor

At 1499 s All persons have evacuated the 2nd

Employing Extended Hydraulic Model

(25.0 min) floor to Calculate tesc

At 1518 s All persons have evacuated the

(25.3 min) building Factors Influencing an Evacuation

From this example it is clear that in some The extended hydraulic model provides a foun-

situations little difference exists in the results dation to evaluate evacuation performance, that

produced by the use of the two basic hydraulic is, escape time (tesc) as opposed to evacuation

models (first and second order). This may be movement time (te). Figure 59.3 indicates that

expected in simple geometries and simple there are more factors that actually influence an

movement scenarios. However, as the evacuation than can currently be modeled. The

scenarios and geometries become more com- factors that can be included are dependent on our

plex, the results produced by the two versions understanding of real-life phenomena, on the

of the model may differ significantly, espe- data available, and on the limitations of the

cially if there are difficulties in establishing model adopted. As has already been stated, the

the controlling element in the first-order hydraulic model outlined here can be employed

approximation. in the examination of different egress scenarios.

The second-order hydraulic model This is critical in generating a robust and repre-

produces a larger set of information (e.g., the sentative solution.

time to clear components, the time to clear A number of behaviors can influence the per-

floors, the movement conditions between all formance of the population. It is possible to

structural components, etc.). However, it is implicitly represent some of these behaviors

sensitive to which of the components have (i.e., the consequences of these behaviors) by

precedence (e.g., in merging flows) and in manipulating parameters associated with the

the proportion of the population using partic- hydraulic model and then examining a range of

ular routes. This may require several scenarios.

calculations to establish the most conservative In order to increase the information obtained

result. The first-order hydraulic model in any egress analysis and the confidence in this

produces only the overall evacuation time information, a representative set of egress

and the results relating to the constraining scenarios could be examined. Producing one

component. It should also be noted that in “definitive” result is insufficient, given the

complex geometries identifying the many scenarios that can actually develop and

constraining component is not a trivial task, also given the limitations of the modeling

and it can be extremely time consuming. approach. Presenting a single answer may pro-

Given that an assessment of a structure is duce overconfidence in the accuracy and validity

necessary, it is important to identify the of the result.

scenarios involved in this assessment. It may

not be possible to definitively establish the

worst-case scenario prior to the calculation. Basic Variables

It is therefore essential to examine several

representative scenarios that form a set of Given the scope of the extended hydraulic

predictions. This will offer insight into the approach, the scenarios that can be examined

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

2138 S.M.V. Gwynne and E.R. Rosenbaum

are limited and require the manipulation of a few of individual components, rather than the entire

basic variables: egress route.

• The routes available during the evacuation

• The evacuee’s use of the routes available dur- Evacuee’s Use of the Routes Available During

ing the evacuation the Evacuation In reality, egress routes are

• The movement attributes of the evacuating rarely used according to their design capacity

population and the presence of impairments (i.e., efficiently). Instead, routes are used

and disabilities according to occupant familiarity, visual access,

• The time taken to respond to the call to evac- the procedure in place, and the evolution of the

uate—the pre-evacuation time (tpe) incident itself. [4, 45] This reality can be

When using the extended hydraulic model, represented within the hydraulic model by

these variables can be manipulated to produce a modifying the proportion of the population

number of different scenarios and therefore an using a particular route. Although it might be

envelope of results. By manipulating these difficult to gather accurate data on the use of

variables, at least a small subset of the behaviors the routes available, engineering judgment

that might detract from egress performance can could still be used to assess the potential impact

be accounted for, albeit in an implicit way. The of the unbalanced use of the egress routes avail-

manner in which this is performed will be depen- able. For instance, in the example shown in

dent on the nature of the occupancy being exam- Fig. 59.12 it was assumed that the population

ined and the scenarios that are considered as used the egress routes in an optimal manner;

realistic. The scenarios examined (and omitted) that is, that they split evenly between the

by the engineer should be justified through a staircases. It may be the case that one route is

detailed explanation accompanying the reported more familiar to the population than another

results. In addition, the scope of the results can be (through normal use, proximity to elevators, con-

extended to represent tesc rather than just te. nectivity to nearby car park, etc.). This inefficient

use can then be reflected in the calculations by

Routes Available During the Evacuation In more people using one of the routes available. If

some scenarios it is possible that routes will be it is assumed that 75 % of the population make

lost due to the nature of the incident or given the use of one of the staircases, then applying the

use of the space available; for example, a route first-order model produces an overall egress time

might not be protected. This loss can be of approximately 37.9 min (1800/48 + 0.36). As

considered. a consequence, the other staircase would clear

Some existing codes require such forms of more quickly.

analysis. For instance, in the British Standard

BS5588 [44], the largest exit is discounted, Movement Attributes of the Evacuating

assumed blocked by the incident. In NFPA 101 Population The makeup of the population can

one scenario requires the evaluation of the vary over time. Variations in the population’s

impact of a fire located in the primary means of capabilities can be represented through the mod-

egress [41]. ification of the maximum velocities that can be

The hydraulic model can be manipulated to attained. The range of the population’s

represent the loss of available egress routes. In capabilities can be extended to include the pres-

the example shown in Fig. 59.12, an entire stair- ence of the mobility impaired. Although the

case could be presumed lost due to the nature of reduction of velocities represents only one aspect

the incident. This would have a profound impact of impairment (e.g., it does not represent behav-

on the results produced. Instead of an overall ioral issues, pre-evacuation issues, the impact

evacuation time of 25.4 min, it instead required that the presence of the mobility impaired might

50.4 min, when applying the first-order approxi- have on population densities, etc.), it is still an

mation. The calculation may also involve the loss important consideration. This may be of

www.ebook777.com

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

59 Employing the Hydraulic Model in Assessing Emergency Movement 2139

particular importance where the egress perfor- trying to account for these factors. Where it is not

mance is not dominated by congestion and flow relevant or possible, then it should be clearly

constraints, but by travel distances. Looking at stated allowing the exclusion of the factors

the example presented above, in the first-order from the assessment to be judged.

model, the presence of the impaired may increase

the 0.36 min to travel between the floors on

stairs. In the second-order model, it may have a Developing Escape Scenarios

more complex effect. It could also be taken into

consideration when determining the tpe compo- As mentioned previously, when assessing the

nent, with a population with impairments egress performance of a structure, it is vital to

extending the preparation required. produce results that cover a range of scenarios.

This process adds to the robustness of the results

Time Taken to Respond Part of the RSET cal- and the credibility; that is, it is not credible that

culation (see Equation 59.1) requires the assess- the use of a hydraulic model (or any other model)

ment of a pre-evacuation phase, tpe; this phase would produce a definitive, single result. This is

is the time between notification and the time for discussed in more detail in Chap. 57 and has been

the population to evacuate. It can be varied given discussed and developed elsewhere (e.g. in PD

the scenario being represented, the notification 7975-6:2004) [46]. Ideally, a number of

system in place, the procedures employed, and so scenarios should be examined. A viable set of

on. This time may then allow limited scenarios can be produced by varying factors

comparisons to be made between different pro- within the hydraulic model (including those

cedural measures, notification systems, and the identified in the previous section) in a logical

like. Pre-evacuation time may be particularly manner. Given that several factors are

important where scenarios are not dominated by represented (e.g., speed, flow, route availability/

flow and the egress route capacities [1]. However, usage, pre-evacuation times), each of these

it should be recognized that the potential benefits factors can be modified to implicitly represent

of distributing the response of the population different scenarios. Using this approach, a range

cannot be represented in the hydraulic approach of viable scenarios can be examined that produce

given its fundamental assumptions. different RSET values. Once complete, the lon-

In reality, the relationship between the gest RSET value generated would then be used

pre-evacuation phase and the evacuation phase for comparison against the ASET value

is complex. It is not simply a case of adding the produced.

times of the two phases together. Given the Purser identified two base scenarios that can

scenario, the extent of the pre-evacuation time then be modified through the manipulation of

distribution may increase or reduce the level of model variables in order to produce sets of

congestion produced. This complex relation- scenarios for analysis (Fig. 59.13) [1]. This is

ship is difficult to represent unless the evacuees just one suggested approach at gaining a broader

are simulated on an individual basis (see insight into the evacuation performance of a

Chap. 60). structure and establishing RSET using an engi-

Data are required in order to include these neering calculation; however, it is indicative of

factors in the calculation. These data, particularly the different scenarios that can be examined.

regarding the pre-evacuation phase, are scarce Purser identified that in sparsely populated

and not always reliable (see Chap. 64). Although spaces, the overall egress time produced (tesc) is

this limitation should be acknowledged, it does more sensitive to the time taken to traverse the

not preclude further engineering analysis. Even distance to a place of safety and the time taken to

where engineering judgment is required, it is still respond, than to the time for congestion to evap-

critical to assess the robustness of the results by orate. In such situations, it is unlikely that egress

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

2140 S.M.V. Gwynne and E.R. Rosenbaum

scenarios by manipulating Scenario 1: Scenario 2:

parameters High-density conditions Low-density conditions

Parameter A: Parameter A:

Egress routes Egress routes

available = A1 available = A2

Parameter B: Parameter B:

Use of egress Use of egress

routes = B1 routes = B2

Parameter C: Parameter C:

population population

attributes = C1 attributes = C2

(tp-e , tflow, ttrav) (tp-e , ttrav)

components will be overloaded and generate evacuation time, by examining scenarios where

queues that dominate the egress performance. the results are determined by different factors;

In densely populated spaces, Purser identified for example, flow and/or travel and response. For

that it is more likely that congestion will be a single structure the impact of these different

produced. In such situations, the response of scenarios can be assessed to establish which of

individuals may be influenced by observing the them produces the most prolonged egress time.

activities of other evacuees [45, 47]. This is When using the Purser approach to establish

likely to reduce the distribution of the evacuation time from a particular structure, it

pre-evacuation times produced. This implies is assumed that the engineer cannot be sure

that the population will arrive at structural which of these scenarios will produce the longer

components within a smaller range of times. escape time, prior to the calculation being

Therefore, the time to reach a point of safety is conducted. Both scenarios are therefore exam-

likely to be highly sensitive to the clearance of ined. Each of the scenarios includes an assess-

congestion along the egress routes. ment of the population movement (i.e., te) and

When applying a sophisticated simulation the pre-evacuation phase (i.e., tpe). The com-

model, the factors that determine the outcome bined result of these two phases is termed tesc

of a scenario (e.g., whether it is determined by (see Equation 59.2). Where other new terms are

flow, travel, etc.) will be a result of the analysis used below, they are described.

(see Chap. 60). Given the limitations of the Purser identified two situations (labeled

hydraulic model, the engineer has to impose Scenarios 1 and 2 in Fig. 59.13). In Scenario

these conditions prior to the calculation being 1 it is assumed that congestion dominates the

conducted (e.g., whether congestion or travel results produced (tflow). In such situations the

distance determines the time to reach safety) time required for the evacuation of an enclosure

and then assess their impact; the critical behav- depends on the pre-evacuation time and unre-

ioral/movement components are determined stricted walking time of the first few occupants

prior to the calculations being made. The Purser to start to leave; these determine the time for

approach can be applied in order to establish congestion to develop. Once queues have formed

what underlying factors determine the overall at the “constraining” component, the time to

www.ebook777.com

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

59 Employing the Hydraulic Model in Assessing Emergency Movement 2141

clear the building becomes a function of the [1, 47]. Given the limited data currently available

number of occupants and the evacuation flow it appears that the 99th percentile can be

rate capacity of these components. The evacua- reasonably approximated by a value of four to

tion time for an enclosure is estimated to be five times the mean pre-evacuation time [25, 30,

47–50].

tesc ¼ t pe1 þ ttrav þ tflow ð59:15Þ

Again the example shown in Fig. 59.12 can be

where tpe1 is the pre-evacuation time associated used to illustrate the two different scenarios. Let

with the first people to respond. Purser uses the us assume that the structure represents an office

first percentile of a representative pre-evacuation space as indicated. In the first analysis, it is

distribution to estimate this value [1]. If this is assumed that the evacuation is dependent on

not available, then the average pre-evacuation flow characteristics (i.e., Purser’s Scenario 1)

time associated with the occupancy (which is and will therefore make use of the flow

more likely to be available; see Chap. 64) should calculations already made. In addition,

be used as a conservative estimate. tflow is the pre-evacuation times will be extracted from the

time of total occupant population to flow through work conducted by Fahy and Proulx to support

the most restrictive components. ttrav is the time these calculations [25]. Given that it is an office

taken to traverse the average distance to a place space, pre-evacuation times ranging from 1 to

of safety. (The maximum distance should be 6 min will be assumed. These times are

employed in this calculation for a more conser- employed as conservative estimates of the 1st

vative approach.) and 99th percentiles.

It is apparent that either the first- or second- Given the results already produced, the evac-

order hydraulic model can be used to generate uation time for Scenario 1 can be estimated as

tflow and ttrav; indeed the combination of these being

two parameters approximates the te term previ- tesc ¼ 1 þ 25:3 ¼ 26:3 min

ously described (see Equation 59.4).

In Scenario 2 it is assumed that congestion This time is based on the assumption that ttrav and

does not dominate the results; the results are tflow is approximated by the results produced in

primarily influenced by the time taken to reach the second-order model.

safety (ttrav) and the time to respond (tpe). This If instead it is assumed that, for some reason,

scenario is not necessarily based on the assump- this scenario was not determined by flow (i.e.,

tion that congestion does not develop; only that Purser’s Scenario 2), then the following calcula-

the impact of the congestion is dominated by the tion can be made:

extensive pre-evacuation phase and the distances

that need to be traversed, and is not a factor in the tesc ¼ 1 þ 6 þ ð0:5Þ þ ð8 38:2Þ=187

calculation. The egress time for an enclosure is ¼ 9:2 min

given by Here, tpe1 is again assumed to be 1 min, while

tesc ¼ t pe1 þ t pe99 þ ttrav ð59:16Þ tpe99 is assumed to be 6 min, with both values

being derived from Fahy and Proulx [25]. The

where tpe99 is the pre-evacuation time for the distance calculations generated by the first-order

last few occupants to respond (i.e. the 99th per- model are used here. In this case Scenario

centile). Purser uses the 99th percentile of a 1 produces the most prolonged evacuation times

representative pre-evacuation distribution to esti- and would therefore be used in the estimation of

mate this value [1]. If this is not available, then a the RSET value.

multiple of the mean pre-evacuation time should If it is now assumed that the space is instead a

be employed; it is not appropriate to use the mid-rise apartment building, rather than an office

average pre-evacuation time. The pre-evacuation space, then different pre-evacuation times are

times usually form a log-normal distribution suggested by the data [25]. In this case,

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

2142 S.M.V. Gwynne and E.R. Rosenbaum

pre-evacuation values of 1–24 min are used the factors that might inhibit evacuation perfor-

(again derived from Fahy and Proulx [25]). In mance (e.g., tne) and also to limitations in the

this case the calculations become data available (see Chap. 60). The difference

between modeled evacuation movement time

Scenario 1 : tesc ¼ 1 þ 25:3 ¼ 26:3 min

and actual evacuation movement time can be

and expressed in the following terms:

e e ð59:17Þ

¼ 27:1 min

where

Once the set of scenarios have been examined, teact ¼ Actual time from when purposive evacua-

the longest tesc value produced should then be tion movement commenced to when safety

employed to generate the RSET calculation. In was reached

this case Scenario 2 produces the most extended temod ¼ Modeled estimate from when purposive

evacuation time and would therefore be used in evacuation movement commenced to when

any RSET calculations. safety was reached

This is certainly not the only approach for e ¼ Modeling error

producing a range of scenarios (or at understand- It is assumed here that the relationship is

ing what factors should be taken into consider- multiplicative; however, the relationship could

ation [51]). However, it does demonstrate how also be additive.

several different scenarios can be considered The modeling error, e, is a function of

using the hydraulic approach allowing elements that interfere with the model prediction.

comparisons to be made between the results pro- In the case of a hydraulic model, this includes

duced. This approach can be taken further by • Delays caused by the egress management

incorporating the other parameters deemed to activities of wardens or others directing the

be amenable to the hydraulic approach; for evacuation

example, manipulating the routes available, • Time delays involved in the stopping and

familiarity, mobility impairments, and so on. restarting of flows at merging points and

The results will always be limited by the conflicting flows

sophistication and fidelity of the model • Evacuee behaviors that detract from their

employed. However, the examination of differ- movement to safety

ent scenarios is critical in providing a reasonable Similar inaccuracies exist in the modeled

understanding of the conditions that might arise. pre-evacuation phase.

Inevitably, there may be cases where data are not From Fig. 59.2 there are many factors that can

available to support these calculations. These interfere with an evacuation, but that cannot be

situations will require engineering judgment. explicitly represented by a hydraulic model. It

These cases should be documented and based should be noted that many of these factors are

on the most reliable and appropriate information also beyond the most sophisticated simulation

available. models currently available (see Chap. 60).

All of these factors can increase the discrep-

ancy between the modeled and actual results.

The first step in appraising emergency movement

Addressing Modeling Error

is usually to calculate the modeled evacuation

time, temod. The use of model calculations

The hydraulic model, whether it is the standard

provides a reproducible base of reference in

or extended version, produces only modeled

appraising the impact of overall systems, individ-

predictions. The actual egress time will exceed

ual components, or changes in systems. If, how-

the modeled time by an unknown amount. This is

ever, the results of the modeled evacuation time

due to the exclusion from the model of many of

www.ebook777.com

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

59 Employing the Hydraulic Model in Assessing Emergency Movement 2143

are to represent a realistic evacuation time (or are The most conservative approach requires the

to be compared against expected fire develop- application of the safety factor to the entire

ment), then the engineer should understand that RSET calculation:

the modeled movement time is seldom achieved

in reality; that is, that e is greater than 1 in Equa- Safety margin ¼ ASET e0 td þ ta þ t pe þ te mod

tion 59.17. A conservative estimate of the move- ð59:20Þ

ment time requires the modeled time and an

appraisal of modeling error (see Equation 59.17). This is the approach adopted by Tubbs and

This will allow teact to be approximated (or at Meacham [29]. If the same values are assumed

least surpassed) by the modeled time, which is throughout, this approach will generate the larg-

achieved through the application of a safety fac- est RSET value of the three methods (shown in

tor. The employment of a safety factor is a rec- Equations 59.18 through 59.20). This approach

ognition that the hydraulic model omits some does assume that the errors that exist are compa-

factors that may prolong the time to reach safety rable between the behavioral and technical

and/or represents other factors in a simplistic components. Alternatively, separate error factors

manner. might be applied to these components, such that

h 0 0 i

For the design of a structure to be acceptable, Safety margin ¼ ASET e1 ðtd þ ta Þ þ e2 t pe þ te mod

a sufficient margin of safety is required between

ASET and RSET. In order for the engineer to ð59:21Þ

have confidence in the RSET calculations, a

where e10 may be based on information provided

safety factor, e0 , is employed that approximates

by the manufacturer of the technology involved;

e (i.e., the discrepancy between the modeled and

and e20 is based on the research literature avail-

actual movement time):

able. Given the method adopted, the safety mar-

gin needs to be acceptable, even after the RSET

Safety margin ¼ ASET td þ ta þ t pe þ e0 te mod

value has had a safety factor applied. Guidance

ð59:18Þ

on the values to employ in order to estimate the

The application of the safety factor described in modeling error (particularly relating to the

Equation 59.18 is based on the assumption that behavioral components) can be established (see

the inaccuracies are found in the evacuation Chap. 64). The basis for the safety factors

movement component and that these employed should be clearly stated and supported.

inaccuracies need to be addressed (see Chap. 64

and the SFPE Task Group document [43]). In this

case, the engineer would need to be confident in Using the Hydraulic Model

the accuracy of the other components in the cal- in Conjunction with Other Models

culation. A more conservative estimate would be

to apply the safety factor, e0 , to all of the behav- The hydraulic model can be used in a number of

ioral components (i.e., both the pre-evacuation different ways, depending on the resources and

and evacuation phases): expertise available. Currently the expertise in the

0

use of hydraulic models far outweighs the exper-

Safety margin ¼ ASET td þ ta þ e t pe þ te mod

tise in applying simulation models, that is,

ð59:19Þ computer-based models that attempt to represent

the evacuation by simulating the activities of

Although this is more conservative, it does individual agents. However, it is anticipated

require the assumption that the error levels in that this will change in the coming years espe-

the pre-evacuation and evacuation movement cially as larger and more complex spaces are

components are comparable and can be examined. Indeed, the hydraulic model is often

addressed by the same safety factor. calculated using a computer. It should also be

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

2144 S.M.V. Gwynne and E.R. Rosenbaum

of the hydraulic and

simulation models (a) Used H or S H and S H and S

on their own; (b) used in

parallel; (c) used in

conjunction with each

other [1]

Single set of Two sets of Two sets of results

results produced results produced produced in an iterative

independently of process. Results from S

each other used to examine critical

components, examine

factors beyond scope

of H, confirm results

from H, and suggest

modifications, if required.

recognized that several current computer models project. It is suggested that the hydraulic model

are little more than the hydraulic model coded can be employed in three distinct ways

into computer software (see Chap. 60). There- (Fig. 59.14) [1]. The manner in which it is

fore, as engineers become more familiar with the employed will be dependent on a number of

computer models available and the results that factors including the expertise and the resources

they can produce, the following points will available.

become increasingly apparent: The hydraulic model (identified as H in

• Engineers will gain expertise in a number of Fig. 59.14a) is commonly used on its own to

modeling approaches. determine the evacuation time. Computer simu-

• Engineers will become more familiar with the lation models (indicated as S in Fig. 59.14a) are

capabilities of a number of different modeling also now routinely employed on their own. Alter-

approaches. natively, more than one model can be employed

• Several models will be applied to the same (Fig. 59.14b). The hydraulic and simulation

problem. models may be employed independently of each

These points will have an impact not only on other and then the final results compared. This

how hydraulic models are used but also on the would allow comparisons to be made between

nature of the hydraulic analysis and the the results, the strengths of the different models

expectations of the results produced. Any dis- to be exploited, and the level of confidence in the

crepancy between the results produced by simu- findings to be increased.

lation and hydraulic models (in their format and The application of more than one model

their content) will therefore become more appar- provides benefit but also results in additional

ent to the engineer. Therefore, when the hydrau- efforts since results have to be calculated more

lic model is applied: than once requiring additional time, expertise

• A number of scenarios should be examined. and analysis. However, using multiple models

• The assumptions and limitations should be may provide some engineering benefits (see

identified. Table 59.6). A typical analysis may include

• A detailed set of results should be presented. both a simple, computationally inexpensive

The difference between the typical results model (e.g., hydraulic approach) and a more

produced when employing simulation and refined representation of evacuee response (e.g.,

hydraulic models becomes all the more evident simulation tool). This then allows some addi-

if these models are used together on the same tional confidence in the overall results produced.

www.ebook777.com

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

59 Employing the Hydraulic Model in Assessing Emergency Movement 2145

Benefit Description

Triangulation Given that there is no absolute confidence in any one model being employed,

the results of several models may be compared to determine whether the

conclusions reached are consistent between different approaches.

Refinement The scenario may require examination of elements of the evacuation process

not represented in the underlying model employed.

Scope The project may be of such a scale (e.g. WTC) that the most refined models

cannot be employed to the whole task. In such projects it may pay for the engineer

to employ the most refined models in critical areas, which have the greatest

influence over the conclusions drawn. These would then be used in conjunction

with the underlying model to assess performance at key spatial or temporal locations.

This would allow comparisons to be made Some simulation tools are currently under

between the results, the strengths of the different development that would allow such coupling of

models to be exploited, and the level of confi- simple and more complex tools within the same

dence in the findings to be increased based on the environment. In this instance, the computational

assumption that consistent model results improve resources available could be targeted at the areas

confidence. deemed to be most critical within the same

Finally, models can be run in an iterative computational environment [52]. Currently,

manner (or even in a coupled manner), with the users need to define in advance which areas of

results of one influencing the scenarios examined the geometry are represented in a refined manner,

by another. For instance, in a project involving while others are represented in a cruder manner.

extremely large structures, the hydraulic model This distinction requires an understanding of the

can be employed to provide an overview of the importance of particular routes, the computa-

results produced, possibly suggesting areas for tional impact of design decisions and the impact

further analysis (Fig. 59.14c). A more “sophisti- that these decisions might have on the results

cated” simulation model could then be used to produced. In the future, these decisions may be

confirm the key assumptions and findings pro- conducted dynamically, where the models allo-

duced by the hydraulic model (e.g., areas of cate locations to one or other of the various levels

congestion) and suggest remedies. The simula- of representation, precluding the need for the

tion tool can confirm the results by examining user to make this judgment in advance.

sections of the structure or events of particular

interest to provide detailed analysis. By using the

simulation model in a more focused way, fewer Impact of Tenability on ASET and RSET

computational resources will be required and the

results produced by the hydraulic model, espe- As part of a performance-based assessment, a

cially in critical locations, can be validated decision has to be made regarding tenability;

(Fig. 59.15). A hybrid approach of hydraulic that is, the point at which the conditions preclude

and simulation analysis may allow for detailed the evacuation to “safely” continue [3]. The ten-

analysis to be conducted, where previously the ability limits will then be used to determine the

cost of a full-scale computational analysis was ASET value: calculations are made to determine

prohibitive. This hybrid approach may also be when the environmental conditions reach the

useful when resources are scarce or the scale of tenability criteria stated. The ASET value pro-

the project is beyond the capabilities of a sophis- duced will then be the benchmark against which

ticated model; for instance, where an evacuation the RSET results will be compared.

involves a business district or complex, rather In reality, environmental conditions can have

than a single building. a behavioral and a physical (physiological)

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

2146 S.M.V. Gwynne and E.R. Rosenbaum

application of both

hydraulic and simulation

models Whole structure

represented in

hydraulic model

Possible

Critical re-examination of

components whole structure

identified given simulated

results

Critical components

modeled within

simulation model.

Validate hydraulic

model and perform

more detailed

analysis

impact on the performance of the evacuating severe environmental conditions will then have a

population (see Chaps. 58, 61, and 63). Ideally, direct impact on the modeled performance of the

the impact of the tenability criteria should be evacuees.

reflected in the model scenarios employed; that Suggested values are available for tenability

is, if the environmental conditions reach a point limits (refer to Chaps. 61 and 63). These values,

at which they are expected to influence physical or similarly derived empirical values, should be

or behavioral performance, then this should be used to inform the selection of reasonable and

reflected in the model employed. The assumed informed tenability criteria. This critical compo-

occupant performance will have an impact on the nent in the performance-based assessment should

validity of tenability criteria selected and on the be clearly supported in any results reported;

credibility of the results produced. effectively these values determine the amount

There may be a temptation for engineers to of time available to complete the evacuation.

select tenability criteria that artificially prolong Given that these tenability criteria are

the ASET time; that is, that the environmental established, their impact can be reflected within

conditions are allowed to develop to a relatively the hydraulic model. Some data (albeit, in some

severe level before the tenability limits are instances, supported by engineering judgment)

reached, allowing a longer RSET calculation to are available to reflect the impact that a

be acceptable. This situation might include deteriorating environment can have upon egress

severely reduced visibility, elevated temperatures, performance (see Chaps. 58, 61, and 63). Data

and smoke layers descending close to the floor. By relating to physical performance are provided by

coupling the assumed tenability limits with the Jin, who indicates the possible effect that

movement calculations made, there will at least deteriorating visibility has on travel speeds (see

be some counterbalance to these assumptions Chap. 61), specifically in relation to smoke.

(Fig. 59.16), possibly encouraging a more conser- Other physical and behavioral data are also avail-

vative approach to be adopted throughout. The able (see Chaps. 58 and 63). Data on the impact

adoption of tenability criteria that represent of smoke are particularly important given that in

www.ebook777.com

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

59 Employing the Hydraulic Model in Assessing Emergency Movement 2147

tenability criteria to egress Tenability criteria Smoke levels,

performance employed by temperatures,

engineer radiative flux, etc.

made (e.g. CFD, zone assumed tenability

model, engineering criteria influence

calculations, etc.) evacuation performance

ASET RSET

many instances evacuees will be more likely to of smoke can be included into the hydraulic

interact with smoke than with the fire itself. model is shown in Fig. 59.17.

Although there may be many ways in which In Fig. 59.17a, route selection is not

the environment influences evacuee perfor- influenced by the presence of smoke. Within the

mance, it can be simplified especially given that hydraulic model the maximum travel speed

the evacuating population is typically moving to within this component can be reduced to simulate

minimize their exposure. This will produce sev- the impact on the evacuees traveling through this

eral scenarios to be considered (in addition to component when filled with smoke (e.g. at or

those mentioned in the previous sections) when below the tenability threshold). In Fig. 59.17b,

the hydraulic model is employed. These it is assumed that the smoke-filled corridor is not

scenarios relate to the attainable travel speeds used; this is reflected in the hydraulic model by

and the routes available. assuming that a larger population uses the East

The conditions produced (e.g., specific smoke corridor. The potential impact of the two differ-

visibility levels are reached, see Chap. 63) might ent behavioral scenarios can then be compared.

block off certain routes. For instance, it could be Attempting to match the development of the

assumed that when smoke reaches a certain level, fire with the progress of the population in the

a proportion of the population might not proceed hydraulic approach is cumbersome and would

through the smoke. The tenability criteria require numerous additional assumptions. To

reached (e.g., smoke level) could also be deemed assess the maximum impact, a scenario could

to influence attainable travel speeds in the be examined where the entire population refused

affected areas. This can be modeled by reducing to pass through the smoke; similarly a scenario

the maximum achievable travel speed; for could be examined where the entire population is

instance, in Chap. 61 data are provided relating assumed to pass through the affected area at

smoke level to visibility and travel speed. A reduced speeds.

conservative approach might be to assume the It may be impractical to employ these factors

impact at the level of the tenability criteria in within all egress calculations. There is certainly a

the affected spaces (i.e., where the environment lack of supporting data. However, even if these

is deteriorating) throughout the entire evacua- additional scenarios are not considered, the

tion; that is, that whenever tenability criteria are impact that the deteriorating environment can

reached the related impact on travel speed is have on egress performance should at least be

assumed to be present throughout the evacuation. acknowledged and explained in the presentation

An example of the way in which the two effects of any results. Otherwise, it is assumed that the

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

2148 S.M.V. Gwynne and E.R. Rosenbaum

a

the impact of smoke on the

hydraulic model

Group’s travel

reduced due to

interaction with

smoke

West

East

b

These routes

used by more

people as smoke

prevents access

to other route

South

the performance of the evacuating population analyses. When employing the model, it should

prior to tenability conditions being reached. be remembered that the results produced will be

This may be credible; however, it should be optimistic, and therefore remedial measures

acknowledged. should be employed to compensate for this.

In most designs, there would ideally be no The limitations associated with the model do

physical interaction at all between the evacuating not prevent its being used to examine different

population and the deteriorating environmental egress scenarios; neither do they excuse the over-

conditions. That does not preclude the population simplistic use of this model or presentation of the

seeing the developing conditions, which might results. Those employing this model need to pro-

influence their behavior. Even here the untenable vide sufficient information on the approach

conditions could be modeled in the hydraulic adopted, the assumptions made, the scenarios

model through the loss of available egress routes. examined, and the results produced.

When using the hydraulic model, it is still

possible to examine a number of evacuation

Summary scenarios and incorporate the effect of various

factors on the performance achieved. Given the

This chapter described the application of the potential for hydraulic and simulation models to

hydraulic model and its capabilities in assessing be employed together, it becomes even more

emergency movement. The model is able to pro- important to provide comparable levels of detail

vide a reliable means of assessing RSET and and confidence in the results produced.

www.ebook777.com

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

59 Employing the Hydraulic Model in Assessing Emergency Movement 2149

Acknowledgment The authors acknowledge that this teact Actual time from when purposive evac-

work includes substantial sections from the original chap- uation movement commenced to when

ter written by Harold “Bud” Nelson in partnership with

Hamish MacLennan and then Fred Mowrer. safety was reached

temod Modeled estimate from when purposive

evacuation movement to when safety

was reached

Nomenclature e Modeling error

e0 Approximation of e employed within

ASET Available safe egress time calculation

References

td Time from fire ignition to detection

tn Time from detection to notification of 1. D.A. Purser and S.M.V. Gwynne, “Identifying Criti-

occupants of a fire emergency cal Evacuation Factors and the Application of Egress

tpe Time from notification (or receipt of Models,” Interflam 2007, Interscience

cues) until evacuation commences Communications, London, UK (2007).

2. D. Boswell and S.M.V. Gwynne, “Air, Fire and ICE:

te Time from start of purposive evacua- Fire & Security Challenges Unique to Airports,” Fire

tion movement until safety is reached and Security Today (Aug. 2007).

tesc Escape phase, being the sum of the 3. H. Nelson, personal communication (2007).

pre-evacuation (tp-e) and evacuation 4. J.D. Sime, “Escape from Building Fires: Panic or

Affiliation?” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Surrey,

(te) phases UK (1984).

ttrav Time spent moving toward a place of 5. E.R. Galea, Validation of Evacuation Models, CMS

safety Press Paper No. 97/IM/22, CMS Press, London, UK

tflow Time spent in congestion controlled by (1997).

6. E.D. Kuligowski and S.M.V. Gwynne, “What a User

flow characteristics Should Know About Selecting an Evacuation Model,”

tne Time spent in nonevacuation activities Fire Protection Engineering, Human Behaviour in

that do not directly contribute to the Fire Issue (Fall 2005).

population moving to a place of safety 7. V.M. Predtechenskii and A.I. Milinskii, Planning for

Foot Traffic in Buildings (translated from the

We Effective width Russian), Stroizdat Publishers, Moscow (1969).

D Population density English translation published for the National Bureau

S Travel speed of Standards and the National Science Foundation,

k Constant used to calculate travel speed Amerind Publishing Co., New Delhi, India (1978).

8. J.J. Fruin, Pedestrian Planning Design, Metropolitan

a Constant used to calculate travel speed Association of Urban Designers and Environmental

Fs Specific flow Planners, Inc., New York (1971).

Fsm Maximum specific flow 9. J.L. Pauls, “Effective-Width Model for Evacuation

Fc Calculation flow through a component Flow in Buildings,” in Proceedings, Engineering

Applications Workshop, Society of Fire Protection

tp Time for a group of persons to pass a Engineers, Boston (1980).

point in an exit route 10. J.L. Pauls, “Calculating Evacuation Time for Tall

P Population size in persons Buildings,” in SFPE Symposium: Quantitative

Fs() Specific flow and associated direction Methods for Life Safety Analysis, Society of Fire Pro-

tection Engineers, Boston (1986).

of movement 11. R.J.C. Stanton and G.K. Wanless, “Pedestrian Move-

We() Effective width of a particular compo- ment, Engineering for Crowd Safety,” in Engineering

nent given its location for Crowd Safety (R.A. Smith and J.F. Dickie, eds.),

tpe1 Pre-evacuation time of the first people pp. 71–79, Elsevier, Amsterdam (1993).

12. K. Ando, H. Ota, and T. Oki, “Forecasting the Flow of

to respond People,” Railway Research Review, 45, pp. 8–14

tpe99 Pre-evacuation time of the last people (1988).

to respond

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

2150 S.M.V. Gwynne and E.R. Rosenbaum

13. B.D. Hankin and R.A. Wright, “Passenger Flow in 29. J.S. Tubbs and B.J. Meacham, Egress Design

Subways,” Operational Research Quarterly, 9, pp. Solutions: A Guide to Evacuation and Crowd Man-

81–88 (1958). agement Planning, John Wiley and Sons, New York

14. G. Proulx, “Lessons Learned on Occupants’ Move- (2007).

ment Times and Behaviour During Evacuation 30. S.M.V. Gwynne, Optimizing Fire Alarm Notification

Drills,” Interflam 96, Interscience Communications, for High Risk Groups, Report Prepared for the Fire

London, UK, pp. 1007–1011 (1996). Protection Research Foundation, National Fire Pro-

15. J.-P. Stapelfeldt, Angst- Und Paknikstande Aus Der tection Association, Quincy, MA (June 2007).

Sicht Des Brandschutzes (Conditions of Anxiety and 31. D. Canter, Fires and Human Behaviour, 2nd ed.,

Panic from the Viewpoint of Fire Protection), vfdb- Fulton, London, UK (1990).

Zeitschrift 2, 41 (1986). 32. T.J. Shields, K.E. Dunlop, and G.W.H. Silcock,

16. S.J. Melinek and S. Booth, “An Analysis of Evacua- “Escape of Disabled People from Fire; A Measure-

tion Times and Movement of Crowds in Buildings,” ment and Classification of Capability for Assessing

BRE Current Paper CP 96/75, Borehamwood, UK Escape Risk,” BRE Report 301 (1996).

(1975). 33. H. Muir, C. Marrison, and A. Evans, “Aircraft

17. R.A. Smith, “Volume Flow Rates of Densely Packed Evacuation: The Effect of Passenger Motivation and

Crowds,” in Engineering for Crowd Safety Cabin Configuration Adjacent to the Exit,” CAA

(R.A. Smith and J.F. Dickie, eds.), pp. 313–319, Paper 89019, Civil Aviation Authority, London, UK

Elsevier, Amsterdam (1993). (1989).

18. A. Polus, J.L. Schofer, and A. Ushpiz, “Pedestrian 34. P.G. Wood, “The Behavior of People in Fires,” Fire

Flow and Level of Service,” Journal of Transporta- Research Note 953, Building Research Establishment,

tion Engineering, Proceedings ASCE, 109, pp. 46–57 Fire Research Station, Borehamwood, UK (1972).

(1983). 35. J.L. Bryan, Smoke as a Determinant of Human Behav-

19. S.J. Older, Pedestrians, Dept. Scientific and Industrial ior in Fire Situations, University of Maryland, Col-

Research, Road Research Laboratory, Ln 275/SJO, lege Park (1977).

Crowthorne, England (1964). 36. J.P. Keating and E.F. Loftus, “Post Fire Interviews:

20. I.A.S.Z. Peschl, “Passage Capacity of Door Openings Development and Field Validation of the Behavioral

in Panic Situations,” BAUN, 26, pp. 62–67 (1971). Sequence Interview Technique,” Report

21. L.F. Henderson, “The Statistics of Crowd Fluid,” GCR-84–477, National Bureau of Standards,

Nature, 229, pp. 381–383 (1971). Gaithersburg, MD (1984).

22. S.P. Hoogendoorn and W. Daamen, “Pedestrian 37. B. Latane and J.M. Darley, “Group Inhibition of

Behavior at Bottlenecks,” Transportation Science, Bystander Intervention in Emergencies,” Journal of

39, 2, pp. 147–159 (2005). Personality Psychology, 10, 3, pp. 215–221 (1968).

23. A. Seyfried, T. Rupprecht, A. Winkens, O. Passon, 38. G. Proulx, “Movement of People: The Evacuation

B. Steffen, W. Klingsch, and M. Boltes, “Capacity Timing,” in SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engi-

Estimation for Emergency Exits and Bottlenecks,” in neering, 3rd ed. (P.J. DiNenno et al., eds.), National

Interflam 2007, Interscience Communications, Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA,

London, UK (2007). pp. 3-342–3-366 (2002).

24. J.D. Averill and W. Song, “Accounting for Emer- 39. A.T. Habicht and J.P. Braaksma, “Effective Width of

gency Response in Building Evacuation: Modeling Pedestrian Corridors,” Journal of Transportation

Differential Egress Capacity Solutions,” NISTIR Engineering, 110, 1 (1984).

7425, National Institute for Standards and Technol- 40. J. Milke, personal communication (2005).

ogy, Gaithersburg, MD (2005). 41. NFPA 101®, Life Safety Code®, National Fire Pro-

25. R.F. Fahy and G. Proulx, “Toward Creating a Data- tection Association, Quincy, MA (2006).

base on Delay Times to Start Evacuation and Walking 42. J. Fruin and J. Pauls, Human Factors of Means of

Speeds for Use in Evacuation Modelling,” in 2nd Egress History, Current Problems and Implications

International Symposium on Human Behaviour in for the Future, World Safety Conference and Exposi-

Fire, Interscience Communications, London, UK, tion, Session SU47, National Fire Protection Associa-

pp. 175–183 (2001). tion, Boston (2007).

26. H.E. Nelson and H.A. MacLennan, “Emergency 43. SFPE Task Group on Human Behavior, Engineering

Movement,” in The SFPE Handbook of Fire Protec- Guide to Human Behavior in Fire (June 2003)

tion Engineering, 2nd ed., (P.J. DiNenno et al., eds.), 44. BS5588, Fire Precautions in the Design, Construction

National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, and Use of Buildings, BSI British Standards, London,

pp. 3-286–3-295 (1996). UK (2004).

27. J. Bryan, “A Selected Historical View of Human 45. J.D. Sime, “Visual Access Configurations: Spatial

Behavior in Fire,” Fire Protection Engineering, Analysis and Occupant Response Inputs to Architec-

pp. 4–16 (Fall 2002). tural Design and Fire Engineering,” in IAPS Confer-

28. S. Gwynne, E.R. Galea, M. Owen, and P.J. Lawrence, ence, Eindhoven, The Netherlands (Aug. 1997).

Escape As a Social Response, Society of Fire Protec- 46. BSi PD-7974-6:2004, The Application of Fire

tion Engineers, Bethesda, MD (1999). Safety Engineering Principles of Fire Safety

www.ebook777.com

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

59 Employing the Hydraulic Model in Assessing Emergency Movement 2151

Design of Buildings, Part 6: Human factors: Life safety Publishing Corp., Newport, Australia, pp. 561–570

strategies—Occupant evacuation, behaviour and con- (1986).

dition (Sub-system 6), British Standards, (2004) 52. N. Chooramun, P.J. Lawrence, E.R. Galea, An agent

47. D.A. Purser, personal communication (2007). based evacuation model utilising hybrid space

48. D.A. Purser, “People and Fire,” Inaugural discretisation, Safety Science, Vol 50, pp

Lecture Series, University of Greenwich, London, 1685–1694, 2012.

UK (1999).

49. S. Gwynne, E.R. Galea, J. Parke, and J. Hickson, “The

Collection and Analysis of Pre-Evacuation Times Steven M.V. Gwynne, PhD is a senior research officer at

from Evacuation Trials and Their Application to the National Research Council Canada. He specializes in

Evacuation Modelling, Fire Technology, 39, 2, pp. pedestrian and evacuation dynamics. His work includes

173–195 (2003). the collection of data, the development of behavioral

50. J. Parke, S. Gwynne, E.R. Galea, and P. Lawrence, theories, and the application of models to assess people

“Validating the building EXODUS Evacuation Model movement under emergency and nonemergency

Using Data from an Unannounced Trial Evacuation,” scenarios.

in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference

on Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics (PED 2003), Eric R. Rosenbaum, P.E., is Vice-President of Jensen

CMS Press, University of Greenwich, London, UK, Hughes, Inc. a fire protection engineering, code consult-

pp. 295–306 (2003). ing, and research and development firm. He has been

51. J.D. Sime, “Perceived Time Available: The Margin of actively involved in the evaluation of egress facilities for

Safety in Fires,” in Fire Safety Science—Proceedings structures throughout the world.

of the First International Symposium, Hemisphere

- Heroes Against Darkness - SOLO-01 - The Sundered TowerUploaded byMichael Coleman
- NFPA 13 vs EN 12845Uploaded bym comma
- Lesson 07 AppliedSteelDetailingUploaded bynifty25
- Refrigerated Ammonia Storage Tanks for Chemical Processing PlantUploaded bykresimir.mikoc9765
- ARCPRESS Stairs - 2nd Edition - Section 8 - Concrete Stairs 9 of 15Uploaded bygimusi
- Fire Safety High Rise BuildingUploaded byGopi Krishna
- Custom Stairs and Railings in Revit ArchitectureUploaded byblogkientruc
- Industrial standardsUploaded byJayaprakash Kesavan
- Golden Rules of Applied VastuUploaded byMiles Waugnan
- Design of Dog Legged Staircase,LintelUploaded byMalini Venugopal
- CinemaUploaded byJames Thomas
- Ai Inta242 w6 a1 Passaretti sUploaded bySelina Marie Passaretti
- Standards on SurfacesUploaded byUday Sharma
- BS 112 - Planning of Road Over BridgesUploaded byovikbasu
- StaircaseUploaded byP Allen Samuel Ignatius
- Dr Mariah - Seminar 11 Nov 2014Uploaded byAryzz Asrul
- Hdk01hsep03 (Office Erp)Uploaded byYan Abu Fira
- Performing Arts CenterUploaded byMariel Paz Martino
- stair primer block 2018Uploaded byapi-236315161
- Checklist (Fire Drill)Uploaded bynik
- !Evacuation ProcedureUploaded byPaige Jones
- DSWD EQ DRILL.pptUploaded byToto Epanto
- Frontline - 16 July 2010 (1)Uploaded bysweetpedres
- Platinum_Survey_Guidelines[1]Uploaded byperron2
- Building Details Form 1 (for Passive Fire Safety Measures)Uploaded byGopal Chaturvedi
- ist564 griffin accessbilityUploaded byapi-299675334
- Notice: Deficit Reduction Act; implementation: Federal medical assistance percentages (2008 FY)Uploaded byJustia.com
- Better Than A Hotel Offers Free Housing for Harvey EvacueesUploaded byPR.com
- Research Methods Used in the StudyUploaded byMarc Gregory Queral Olanio
- Abstract PaperUploaded byandromeda

- Design of Singly Reinforced Sections.docUploaded byASQ
- Seminar KYUploaded byashari
- 2.4 Tripatra - Slide for Seminar 011118.pdfUploaded byashari
- UploadFile_3745Uploaded byashari
- Presentation 1Uploaded byashari
- Confined Spaces (1)Uploaded byashari
- Jadwal Retooling DosenUploaded byashari
- 336352176-AWWA-M17-2006-Fire-Hydrants-pdfUploaded byashari
- Pumpa Ebara 3 Series 4 PoleUploaded byashari
- MSC_Circ_1238Uploaded byJitendra Sharma

- ASME SEC V-2013 3Uploaded bydhasdj
- All Syllabus of b.techUploaded byHemanth Yada
- Procedure+of+Assy+&+Erection+Boiler+Pressure+PartUploaded byVino Sankar
- Request for inspection civil concrete Pre-pouringUploaded byProject m707
- Brochure 28Uploaded byJong Dollente Jr.
- Combined Standards ListUploaded byMasbooks
- IruyatUploaded byLinggar Jati
- Integral BridgesUploaded byAkhilesh Goje
- Objective Questions and Answers on Human Resource Management (HRM) – Set 2 - ScholarexpressUploaded bypramod
- boghani updated resumeUploaded byapi-459457971
- Condition Monitoring Devices Provide a Window Into Equipment Operating ConditionUploaded byAvinash
- 0 Sylibus JJ108 ENGINEERING LABORATORY 1Uploaded bymzairun
- Technical SpecificationsUploaded byDan Aragon Retota
- HARDWARE REPORTUploaded byIkhlaasKaushal
- Night PlanUploaded bySyed Ali Hassan
- Australian National Standard-electricalUploaded byMeleti Meleti Meletiou
- EE20-S15-HW07_SOLUploaded byEvan Williams
- 2181706Uploaded byRohan Darji
- CV-VKUploaded byDarvin Ufky Lopez
- EXP 1Uploaded byKlyde Jose
- All IndustriesUploaded byJames Cappleman
- Tool Design Engineer / Engineering ManagerUploaded byapi-121440427
- App Analytics: A Future TrendUploaded byCHEIF EDITOR
- ArchitecturalUploaded byShoukat Ali Shaikh
- The Top Five Principles of Successful Product DevelopmentUploaded byPrithviraj Daga
- maintenance prosesUploaded bybanualtera
- Moment Splice- BackupUploaded byKiran Acharya
- Gfrg SpecsUploaded byA.Subin Das
- Fostering Human Development Through Engineering and Technology Education.pdfUploaded byMiscAnnoy
- Ejercicios de DigSilent Series and shunt compensation in Power lines and cables.pdfUploaded byMaloni Alcantara Jimenez