Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 94 (2019) 321–333

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/simpat

Optimal route selection model for fire evacuations based on hazard

T
prediction data
Minji Choi, Seokho Chi
⁎

Institute of Construction and Environmental Engineering, Seoul National University, 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08826, South Korea

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Providing accurate information on available evacuation routes is critical during the time-sensi-
Hazard prediction tive emergency situation of a building fire, particularly when it occurs in a large-scale facility
Optimal evacuation route with a complex layout. Timely access to safe and efficient egress paths helps minimize exposure
Search algorithm to hazardous fire effluents such as toxic smoke during evacuation. The following study develops a
Emergency safety
computational model which uses hazard prediction data to identify optimal evacuation routes,
Evacuation
the safest and shortest paths to the nearest exit, during the event of a building fire. It uses the Fire
Dynamics Simulator to provide prediction data on smoke propagation inside a structure and the
A* algorithm to search for the fastest escape path. The algorithm is modified to consider whether
the ensuing nodes in the route are in a normal or hazardous state. The test simulations de-
monstrate that the model is both accurate and effective in guiding evacuees to a place of safety
while minimizing direct exposure to smoke. These results enable a more informed approach to
safety management during indoor fires and reduce the likelihood of evacuees impeding the
evacuation process by entering a dangerous area unprepared.

1. Introduction

Providing timely information on fast and safe evacuation routes can play a significant role in protecting the lives of building
occupants during unexpected emergencies, particularly when the facility has a complex layout and/or the occupants are unfamiliar
with the space [14,34]. Although most building requirements mandate the installation of evacuation instructions such as evacuation
plans or exit signage, pre-designed materials offer limited practical assistance because they do not adapt to match the constant
changes in indoor conditions which occur during an emergency [31]. Locating an escape route during a building emergency may
entail dealing with various human and environmental variables such as the extent of the occupants’ knowledge of different exits or
the proliferation of hazardous substances [41]. Toxic smoke, for instance, poses a common concern for safety management during
building fires by creating dead ends along the evacuation path which often have fatal consequences for those vacating the premises.
Due to the volatility of emergency situations, pre-defined egress routes can result in significant delays or even failed evacuations.
Prior research in this field has accordingly attempted to maximize egress safety by integrating dynamic environment updates into
the evacuation systems themselves. Several examples of such research use smoke sensors to plug real-time smoke propagation data
into evacuation route identification models [4,23,30,38]. However, because the effect of toxic smoke on the human body is rapid and
lethal, evacuees must receive a reliable egress path before they arrive in the vicinity of an unsafe area. Even an evacuation route
based on the most accurate and up-to-date smoke proliferation data would be largely ineffective if it were provided to the public only

⁎
Corresponding author to: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Seoul National University, 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul
08826, South Korea.
E-mail addresses: mjchoi7@snu.ac.kr (M. Choi), shchi@snu.ac.kr (S. Chi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2019.04.002
Received 28 December 2018; Received in revised form 3 April 2019; Accepted 4 April 2019
Available online 05 April 2019
1569-190X/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
M. Choi and S. Chi Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 94 (2019) 321–333

after many of the evacuees had already entered a smoke-contaminated corridor. Therefore, early hazard detection constitutes a key
component in the successful evacuation of a building during fire emergencies [18,31].
Computer simulations improve the technology for early hazard detection by creating risk-free conditions which help predict how
the outbreak of a fire will affect an indoor environment. The data from simulations makes it possible to provide rapid predictions on
smoke propagation rates during the earliest stages of a fire and guide evacuees along secure routes free of emergency-related hazards.
With modern building structures growing increasingly expansive and complex, occupant safety during time-sensitive fire emergencies
will likely benefit from the integration of hazard prediction modeling with a wayfinding algorithm.
This study addresses the need for such an approach through a computational model based on hazard prediction data. The model
searches for optimal evacuation routes designed to minimize evacuation time and avoid all possible smoke-related hazards when
guiding building occupants out of a fire. It evaluates the egress efficiency and risk level of specific locations in a facility by using
hazard prediction data with the A* search algorithm [17]. The risk level of each target node in the evacuation route is determined
based on smoke propagation data from the Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS). Once FDS simulation output yields sufficient information
on smoke propagation inside the building and on the probable status of individual nodes (e.g., normal or hazardous), the wayfinding
algorithm revises the evacuation route to guide evacuees along the fastest path out of the structure while bypassing any hazardous
nodes. The study also tests the model's respective ability to locate the fastest, safest, and finally optimal routes for a building
evacuation and examines future methods of application for the research results.

2. Literature review

2.1. Evacuation behavior during building fires

The various human behaviors observable during a fire evacuation tend to fall into the following categories: (1) preparation before
a fire; (2) recognition of a fire after the occurrence; (3) actions during the fire; (4) escape from the fire; and (5) the after effects of the
fire experience [7]. Among the five components, those most relevant to evacuees’ safety have to do with how quickly the occupants of
a building recognize that a fire has broken out, escape from the danger zone, and react to the toxic smoke which they may encounter
along the egress path. Evacuee response during these phases constitutes a point of interest throughout social sciences, behavioral
engineering, and fire safety studies. The cognitive and social aspects of human behavior (including risk perception, decision-making,
social influence, and group forming) play a particularly crucial role in understanding how evacuees recognize an emergency situation
and take action during a fire ([9,12,15,20,22,27]). Recent studies of individual actions during an emergency also consider changes in
a crowd's movement when calculating evacuation paths and suggest optimal routes based on effective knowledge of human behavior
[5,32]. These intelligent guidance systems can increase the evacuation effectiveness when the crowd emergency choices do not
correspond to the expected one and jeopardize a safe and fast evacuation.
With the fourth component of escaping from a fire, the central issues generally lean toward procedural measures for designing
effective egress paths or the establishment of emergency equipment (e.g., building signage systems) which would facilitate actual
evacuation processes. Although they are effective in reducing wayfinding time, intuitive structural layouts alone cannot ensure the
successful evacuation of a building, as the scale and complexity of modern facilities are often at odds with such designs. The more
elaborate the building enclosure is, the more signage it requires to furnish its occupants with adequate wayfinding information during
an evacuation [13,41]. A considerable body of research has confirmed the importance of learning how people perceive, interpret, and
utilize the information provided by signage systems in order to improve evacuation safety [1,2,13,28,41,42]. For example, mean-
ingful attempts have been made to enhance the effectiveness of signage systems and increase their perceptibility to evacuees
[10,14,29,42]. Drawing on recent developments in technology, modern signage systems are designed to indicate a path toward
optimal exits with the help of clearer and simpler presentation methods [14]. Such research underscores the fact that evacuee safety
during fire situations can be significantly enhanced on the basis of understanding and improving how people observe and interpret
signage during an evacuation. Nevertheless, a chaotic and crowded egress process poses persistent challenges to evacuees who must
observe the appropriate signs and determine the best route forward from their current position. Further complications arise if the
building in question has multiple egress paths and exits, any of which may be filled with smoke and must be accordingly avoided. The
limitations of signage systems therefore suggest that the confusion surrounding time-limited building evacuations would greatly
benefit from the prompt and accurate provision of safe evacuation routes that reflect dynamic changes within the facility.

2.2. Evacuation route search algorithms

The need for rapid calculation in identifying safe egress paths has led to significant achievements in evacuation modeling. In
many cases, these navigation algorithms depend on graphs or network models to locate a suitable evacuation route. The logical
model, for example, interprets the fastest route out of a given situation as the shortest distance between nodes [16,31,33]. It consists
of a collection of nodes which represent rooms, crossings, exits, and the paths that link different nodes to one another [31]. This
allows for calculations of the distance between or time required to move from one node to another and the subsequent selection of an
optimal path to the goal. The algorithms used in the uninformed or blind search draw from information on the distance between the
current node and its successor. They arrive at their goal state through a strategy which includes a breadth-first search, uniform-cost
search, depth-first search, depth-limited search, and bidirectional search [33].
An informed search strategy relies on heuristic knowledge of the system to regulate its approach and is consequently considered
more efficient in finding solutions than some of its counterparts [33]. Dijkstra's algorithm is one of the most frequently used

322
M. Choi and S. Chi Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 94 (2019) 321–333

algorithms of this type when calculating the shortest route in a building evacuation [35,36,43]. It provides an assessment of the
‘goodness’ of a node and solves single-source shortest path problems with non-negative edge path costs [31,34]. The algorithm
identifies the shortest path as that with a minimum weight between two nodes, between all pairs of nodes, or from one node to all of
the others [34]. It is a common tool when searching for the fastest route between a single source and a single destination node
[34,39].
However, this study focuses on the A* search algorithm, which covers not only the cost—or, in this case, distances—of getting to
the next node but also the cost of reaching the final goal node. Taking the distance between the adjacent node and the goal node into
account enables multiple option comparison in situations where the nearest exit may be one among several, as is often the case in
modern buildings with complex floor plans and multiple entrances. The A* search algorithm readily defines heuristic information
concerning the distance to the goal nodes (e.g., exits or evacuation floors), provided that the current location of the evacuee has
already been identified. Compared to an uninformed search, this approach is expected to decrease time spent on computing optimal
evacuation solutions for complex facilities.
More recent studies have begun to incorporate data from the emergency environment itself into evacuation route search algo-
rithms [11,34,39]. Because hazardous conditions such as toxic smoke alter the status of each node in an egress path, search algo-
rithms should be able to block and exclude a node from their search options once that node becomes negatively affected. Many
emergency navigation systems therefore utilize wireless sensor networks that detect the hazardous (e.g., smoke-contaminated) areas
of a building in real-time [4,23,30,38]. In addition, some studies have proposed information modeling-controlled signage systems
with heat sensors as a way to identify and guide evacuees to the best evacuation routes using sign blinkers [44].
The drawback of using heat sensors and their networks, however, lies in the fact that the retrieval of smoke data from a particular
sensor would suggest smoke-contamination in the node housing it. In other words, an optimal egress path based on real-time data can
still endanger evacuees during a building fire if the search for an alternative route occurs only after the current area has already filled
up with smoke. As a result, computer-simulated predictions of smoke propagation may be a necessary counterbalance to the chal-
lenges of using real-time hazard data. Predictive data recognizes hazard areas beforehand and protects evacuees from possible smoke
inhalation. Real-time sensor technology would then relay accurate input fire ignition data for the super-real-time simulation and
smoke proliferation predictions [4,6].
The following study offsets such concerns by using FDS hazard prediction data and including the estimated status of each node in
the calculation module as a pre-warning. In this case, the smoke propagation data in the search algorithm provides the safest and
fastest evacuation route information ahead of actual smoke contamination along the egress path.

3. Methods

3.1. Model overview

As Fig. 1 delineates, the bipartite model developed for this study encompasses an evacuation route search algorithm and a fire
damage simulator. The Anylogic 7 software produced by AnyLogic Company was selected for its ability to establish a seamless link
between the developed algorithm and output from FDS 6.5.1, designed by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) [26], while at the same time supporting the effective simulation and visualization of the wayfinding process.

3.2. Model process and structure

The basic process of an evacuee's physical movement based on the evacuation route information provided by the developed model
was modeled using Anylogic's pedestrian library. The library provides a basic platform to simulate pedestrian dynamics in built
environment with a use of a social force model (The AnyLogic [37]). An individual in the model moves according to the preassigned
rules regarding path, velocity, and activity, and avoids collisions with other objects such as walls by analyzing the surrounding
environment (The AnyLogic [37]).
Before model initiation, the floor plan for the target building had to be imported into the Anylogic software in either image or
CAD format. The modeler then assigned and marked down the logical nodes at the center of the rooms or at the crossing points of the
corridors in the building. Straight paths linked each node to its adjacent nodes. Any given path between two nodes could not bypass
obstacles in the building (e.g., walls). The building exits were the safety zones designated as goal nodes within the model. Once the
logical replica of the building and the model initiation had been completed, the starting node n0 was assigned to the node nearest the
original location of the target evacuee.
Because the study adopted the A* search algorithm, it utilized an evaluation of upcoming node's efficiency as the summation of
(1) the path distance between the current node and the ensuing node and (2) the straight-line distance from the next node to each exit
[17]. The basic equation for this algorithm is as specified below:
f(n) = g (n) + h (n) (1)
where f(n) is the evaluated cost of node n, g(n) is the path distance from the current node (n0) to the next node (ni), and h(n) is the
estimated distance of the shortest path from ni to the goal node [33]. The respective distances for g(n) and h(n) were calculated
according to the formulae shown below:

g(n) = (x ni x n0 )2 + (yni yn0 )2 (2)

323
M. Choi and S. Chi Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 94 (2019) 321–333

Fig. 1. Framework of developed model.

h(n) = (x gi x ni ) 2 + (ygi yni ) 2 (3)

where x ni and yni are the x, y coordinates of the adjacent node ni, x n0 and yn0 are the x, y coordinates of the current node n0, and x gi and
ygi are the x, y coordinates of the goal node denoted as target exit i. These equations were used to evaluate the cost of getting to the
next node on the way to exit gi. The algorithm compared the cost of multiple options and selected the next node in the egress pass
with the minimum cost. Whenever the predicted status of any approaching node was untenable (i.e., hazardous), the algorithm
excluded that node from its viable search options and repeated its search for a safe evacuation route. The final route selection
assembled a collection of minimum cost nodes which comprised the shortest hazard-free path to the nearest exit. However, it should
be noted that because minimum cost is calculated based on the distance between x, y coordinates, the current version of the model
focuses on calculating the shortest path from point A to point B under the assumption that both points are located on the same floor.
Data generated from the FDS 6.5.1 forms the basis of predictions as to whether the status of upcoming nodes in an egress path will
be normal or hazardous. The FDS program uses a three-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system for its model-building geometry
[24]. McGrattan et al.’s [24] guide for the FDS program details the requirements and process behind such FDS modeling. The FDS
runs a smoke propagation simulation based on initial information, including the starting point of the fire, burn locations, and Heat
Release Rate per Unit Area (HRRPUA). This study assumed that all of the aforementioned information would already be defined by
the time of simulation initiation due to recent developments in fire/smoke detector technology. Of the many data types that the FDS
can produce, visibility data proved a reliable criterion in estimating the spread of smoke. Despite the influence of other fire effluents
(e.g., the smell of burning or sound of explosions), decreased visibility is one of the most distinct signs of smoke contamination. The
simulation set a visibility value of anywhere between 0 and 30 m, representing the estimate for the visibility range with or without
the presence of smoke in a specified area [24]. According to FDS calculation methods, visibility through smoke at a specific point, S,
is determined as follows [24]:

S = C/K (4)

324
M. Choi and S. Chi Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 94 (2019) 321–333

where C is the constant value for the type of object viewed through the smoke (e.g., eight for a light-emitting sign and three for a
light-reflecting sign) [24,25] and K is the light extinction coefficient [24] estimated using the equation
S = Km Ys (5)
where Km is a fuel-dependent and mass-specific extinction coefficient and ρYs represents smoke particulate density [24]. For the
purposes of the study, Km was set at a default value of 8,700m2/kg for the flame combustion of wood and plastics [24]. The FDS
limited the maximum default value for visibility in smoke-free conditions (S) to 30 m, implying that areas with an S value below 30
were experiencing some degree of smoke contamination. At each pre-assigned location, the visibility value was measured at ceiling
level, which in this case was 2.5 m. Upon concluding its simulation, the FDS generated output data on visibility changes per second
for each node, thereby producing the period of time before the onset of hazardous conditions ( ATni ) for all nodes (ni).
The FDS continued to provide time estimates for when each node in the egress path would be affected by toxic smoke while at the
same time calculating the optimal evacuation route out of the building. The computation of visibility data in the route search
algorithm was conducted using the Anylogic's external data input function. If the route previously selected through the algorithm
contained an affected node and the estimated arrival time for the evacuees came after the estimated beginning of smoke proliferation,
the model excluded the node in question and located the next most suitable node. In other words, after the selection of the fastest
route, the estimated arrival time at ni (ETAni ) was calculated and compared with ATni as described below:
ETAni = t (n) + g (n)/ve (6)

f(ni ) = if ETAni ATni (7)

f(ni ) = g (n) + h (n) if ETAni < ATni (8)

where t(n) is the simulation time and ve is the average velocity of evacuees moving along the egress pass. A comparison between
ETAni and ATni suggested that ni would no longer be accessible if conditions at that particular node were expected to turn hazardous
before evacuee arrival (Eq. (7)). This caused the algorithm to commence its search for the next fastest and safest route out of the
building from the current position of the evacuees. If the next node in the path was likely to be smoke-free at the time of evacuee
arrival (Eq. (8)), it could be considered safe and remain part of the previously selected optimal route. According to the proposed
algorithm, the shortest egress path to the exit nearest the evacuees’ current position would only consist of normal nodes which
presented little to no danger of smoke inhalation.

3.3. Simulation scenario

Three separate tests using Anylogic software were conducted in the context of theoretical building fires to confirm the accuracy of
the developed model. Each test gauged the model's ability to identify the fastest route to the nearest exit, the safest routes to the
nearest exit, and the fastest and safest paths to the nearest exit (i.e., the optimal evacuation route) respectively.
The test simulations were conducted in a virtual single-floor unit of 75 m × 45 m (750 pixels × 450 pixels in the model unit)
with four different exits as shown in Fig. 2a. The area consisted of 12 rooms with walls placed between floor and ceiling, creating
obstacles for both the evacuees and any smoke in the vicinity. The area also included a number of corridors and intersections formed
around these rooms. The building geometry was transformed into a logical model with 4 goals (i.e., exits), 20 nodes (i.e., crossings
between different paths), and 32 paths (i.e., straight lines connecting adjacent nodes or exits) as shown in Fig. 2b. After the model
initiation, it was assumed that evacuees in the model have already made decisions to evacuate and were located at a nearby corridor.
The openings of the rooms were closed with automatic doors and the evacuees did not need to enter the room to get personal
belongings. The assigned range of a person's velocity in the simulation was 0.95–1.55 m/s, the average walking speed of an adult
when moving unimpeded [21,40]. Within the simulation environment, three different types of tests aiming to confirm the accuracy of
finding the fastest, safest, and optimal route were performed.

Fig. 2. Floor plan and logical model for test simulations.

325
M. Choi and S. Chi Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 94 (2019) 321–333

Fig. 3. Search results for fastest evacuation route.

4. Results

4.1. Accuracy of fastest route identification

The first test ascertained whether the model could accurately identify the fastest (i.e., shortest) route to the nearest exit in the
logical model. Fig. 3 demonstrates the three different conditions under which the test was performed. The evacuees’ initial locations
for each of these conditions were (375, 120), (375, 220), and (375, 320). The model used the initial locations to search for a
collection of the shortest paths to the four goal nodes E1, E2, E3, and E4 which stood for exits 1, 2, 3 and 4. The route which exhibited
the smallest f(n) value was considered the fastest egress path (Fig. 3).
With the first set of conditions in place, the model was given an initial position between nodes B2 and C2. The fastest route passed
by nodes B2 and A2 before arriving at E1 with a total f(n) value of 65.96. Under the second set of conditions, the initial position was
located between nodes B3 and C3; the two fastest routes selected were one that passed the B3, B2, and A2 nodes to get to E1 with a
total f(n) of 104.95 and one that passed the C3, C4, and D4 nodes to get to E4 with an identical f(n). The last set of conditions situated
initial evacuee position at (375, 320) and defined the fastest route which passed nodes C4 and D4 to get to E4 with a total f(n) of
65.96.
Table 2 gives a summary of all paths and all f(n) values of the shortest paths to each exit for each of the three cases. In order to test
the accuracy of the selected outcomes based on their f(n) values, the study ran simulations which calculated the times required for the
evacuee to reach each exit along the given paths and compared these figures with the earlier results. The arrival times for each exit
were compiled after 100 simulation runs. Table 1 confirms that the B2 → A2 → E1, C3 → C4 → D4 → E4, and C4 → D4 → E4 routes
took the least time from departure to exit arrival. The results of identifying the fastest route using f(n) value were in accordance with
the outcome of calculating the time required for an evacuee to move through the corresponding paths.

4.2. Accuracy of safest route identification

The second test aimed to establish the model's accuracy in finding safe egress paths through partially smoke-contaminated en-
vironments, safeguarding evacuees from exposure to potentially hazardous situations as they moved toward their target exit. The
study took the results of the previous test and applied the effect of smoke proliferation to different nodes in the form of Available

Table 1
Detailed path of fastest routes and comparison with simulation.
Initial location Target exit Path ∑f(n) Time required for exit arrival(s)

Mean SD

(375, 120) E1 B2 → A2 → E1 65.96 26.28 0.44

E2 B2 → B3 → B4 → B5 → A5 → E2 174.80 41.88 0.89
E3 C2 → C1 → D1 → E3 89.66 31.44 0.40
E4 C2 → C3 → D3 → D4 → E4 140.83 40.80 0.60

(375, 220) E1 B3 → B2 → A2 → E1 104.95 33.60 0.39

E2 B3 → B4 → B5 → A5 → E2 128.29 34.92 0.30
E3 C3 → C2 → C1 → D1 → E3 128.29 34.62 0.69
E4 C3 → C4 → D4 → E4 104.95 33.48 0.75

(375, 320) E1 B4 → A4 → A3 → A2 → E1 137.42 41.46 0.83

E2 B4 → B5 →A5 → E2 89.66 30.54 0.75
E3 C4 → C3 → C2 → C1 → D1 → E3 174.80 41.10 0.60
E4 C4 → D4 → E4 65.96 27.12 0.53

326
M. Choi and S. Chi Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 94 (2019) 321–333

Fig. 4. Assumptions concerning affected nodes.

Time (AT). Due to the inconclusive nature of the value/threshold for visibility interrupting the evacuation process, AT was defined as
the estimated time it would take until visibility levels fell beneath the original visibility value of 30 m. The status of any node with a
visibility value of less than 30 m was classified as hazardous. Fig. 4 compares the statuses of the second nodes from the initial
locations of every path (i.e., A2, B3, C1, and C3 for the first instance; B2, B4, C2, and C4 for the second; and A4, B5, C3, and D4 for the
third), all of which changed from normal to hazardous five seconds into the simulation. If a node showed hazard signs prior to the
expected arrival of the evacuee, the f(n) value of the affected node would become infinite and acquire the lowest priority status.
Fig. 5 indicates the revised test results for available safety routes after taking into account the possible effect of smoke propa-
gation. Smoke-related blockage in the second nodes of the fastest paths to each exit prompted these changes in route selection. For all
three cases with different initial locations, the model succeeded in identifying alternative routes that did not pass through hazard-
affected nodes. It immediately categorized nodes as inaccessible as soon as they were exposed to smoke contamination ahead of the
evacuee's expected arrival and searched for other nodes with small f(n) values which were expected to retain normal status until the
evacuee had passed through. As a result, the status of upcoming nodes adjusted the optimal evacuation solutions to those shown in
Fig. 5. In the last instance, however, there was no identifiable safe path to E2 (exit 2) because both nodes A4 and B5 were considered
hazardous.

4.3. Accuracy of optimal route identification

The third test was designed to confirm whether or not the model would be able to use FDS hazard prediction data to identify an
optimal route that provided evacuees with a fast and safe egress path out of buildings during emergency situations. The simulation
assumed that a fire would start at node A5 near E2. Initial evacuee locations were nodes B2, B5, and C3 as seen in Fig. 6.
The FDS model simulated a fire emergency and produced visibility data for every node in the building down to each second so as
to analyze the constant shifts in node status. The A5 ignition location initiated the fire on top of a 1 m2 rectangular object with 100
HRRPUA. Fig. 7 represents an FDS visualization of smoke propagation during the emergency. The smoke began at A5 and moved
from the bottom left corner of the building to the middle of the building, flooding approximately more than half of the floor with
smoke within 80 s of the outbreak.
Table 2 summarizes the optimal evacuation routes identified after 30 simulation runs for starting nodes B2, B5, and C3. It also
presents a comparison with the simulation results intended to distinguish the fastest route in the same environment. The simulations
which did not consider the safest route identified the shortest route to the nearest exit without any alterations in node selection. For
example, the evacuees would start out at node B5 and pass node A5 before finally arriving at node E2. However, when the outbreak of
the fire occurred at node A5, the statuses of nodes A5 and E2 switched from normal to hazardous before the evacuees’ arrival at either

Fig. 5. Search results for safe routes.

327
M. Choi and S. Chi Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 94 (2019) 321–333

Fig. 6. Initial evacuee location and ignition location.

Fig. 7. Visualization of smoke propagation.

Table 2
Result comparison for fastest and optimal routes (single evacuee).
Selected route Initial location Selected node # of decision changes Evacuation time

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th Mean (s) SD

Fastest route B2 A2 E1 – – – – 0 23.37 0.37

B5 A5a E2 – – – – 0 23.02 0.48
C3 D3 D4 E4 – – – 0 33.39 0.61

Optimal route B2 A2 E1 – – – – 0 23.57 0.41

B5 B4 B3 B2 B1 C1 E3 2 59.84 0.75
C3 D3 D4 E4 – – – 0 33.28 0.38

a
The status of the node becomes hazardous before evacuee arrival.

area. Providing evacuation information based on the A5 to E2 route would have endangered the evacuees in the event of an actual
fire.
In the optimal route simulations which factored in the impact of smoke propagation, the results derived from starting nodes B2
and C2 were comparable to those of the fastest route selection. The similarity of these outcomes had to do with alternative route
selection becoming redundant even in smoke-contaminated facilities so long as evacuee arrival occurred before smoke propagation
took place along the egress path. However, in the case of the shortest paths from B5 to E2, the evacuation route changed twice
because these nodes were affected by the smoke spreading from A5. As a result, the evacuee moved to the top-right side of the
building and escaped through E3 instead of following the previously defined and much faster route of B5 to A5. While the evacuation
time increased from 23.02 s to 59.74 s, the egress process took place without the risk of smoke inhalation.
Because fire-related emergencies often involve multiple evacuees, the last test was conducted again with 50 evacuees spread out
at random inside the building between columns B and C (10 m × 45 m for each aisle) at the model initiation (Fig. 8). The assigned
crowd density in a given situation was 0.06 person/m2.
Fig. 9(a) compares the exit clearance times of two of these route selections after completing 30 simulation runs on both sides. In
order to provide comparisons for the safety aspect of each route selection, Fig. 9(a) also illustrates the number of evacuees who
encountered smoke contamination during the evacuation process. When moving through the facility with the fastest route model, the
50 evacuees reached the exit nearest to them within an average arrival time of 45.83 s (SD: 2.12). This number rose by a significant
margin to an average of 98.2 s (SD: 0.71) when evacuees followed the optimal route model. However, Fig. 9(b) demonstrates that
approximately 25.2% of evacuees (Mean: 12.6, SD: 1.4) came in contact with smoke contamination when exiting the building along

328
M. Choi and S. Chi Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 94 (2019) 321–333

Fig. 8. Simulation with 50 evacuees.

Fig. 9. Result comparison for fastest and optimal routes (50 evacuees).

the fastest route. All evacuees for the optimal route, on the other hand, arrived at their destinations without encountering smoke-
related hazards. The simulations showed the fastest route evacuees using all four exits to leave the building regardless of the presence
of smoke along their egress paths (Fig. 10), while the optimal route evacuees tended to exit the building through E3 due to smoke
propagation throughout the remaining areas (Fig. 11).

5. Discussions

This study developed an optimal route selection model tailored to fire-related emergency evacuations and tested it with different
combinations of fire ignition points and initial evacuee locations. In addition, the study confirmed that the integrated use of fire
simulations and the evacuation route search algorithm would successfully calculate optimal evacuation routes which assist in en-
suring both the safety and speed of evacuations. The effectiveness and safety of its results were tested by comparing the egress
performance of multiple evacuees along these optimal routes with that of evacuees exiting the building using the fastest routes. The

Fig. 10. Screenshots of fastest route simulation.

329
M. Choi and S. Chi Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 94 (2019) 321–333

Fig. 11. Screenshots of optimal route simulation.

model identified optimal evacuation routes which consisted of the most efficient paths through smoke-free nodes. However, the
optimal routes also entailed longer evacuation times because the evacuees had to make detours to reach safer routes.
Fig. 12 provides a representative case from the simulation results. During the last test, the fastest way to travel from B5 to E2 was
to pass through the A5 node, provided that the entire facility remained a smoke-free environment. However, with smoke propagation
as a determining factor within the actual simulation, the A5 node was classified as a hazard area before the evacuee's arrival (Fig. 12),

Fig. 12. Representative example of individual using optimal route.

330
M. Choi and S. Chi Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 94 (2019) 321–333

effectively cutting off all access to E2. The evacuee made a detour to search for the next available egress option (t = 5 s in Fig. 12). As
few smoke-free nodes remained in the first aisle (nodes A1 and A2), the evacuee chose to move toward E1, which was the egress path
nearest to their position in the vicinity of B2 (t = 30 s in Fig. 12). However, as the status of A2 turned hazardous and the most of the
nodes in column A became inaccessible, the evacuee was required to change direction for a second time and enter normal node C1,
located on the way to the nearest exit, E3 (t = 60 s in Fig. 12). Because the effects of the smoke contamination leading up to E3 were
still limited to the bottom left portions of the floor, the revised egress path was predicted to retain its non-hazardous status until after
the evacuee had passed through. As a result, the evacuee arrived at E3 without sustaining any smoke-related injuries (t = 90 s in
Fig. 12).
The same process repeated itself for the other evacuees located near smoke-contaminated areas. As shown in Fig. 9a, the detours
in the egress path caused an increase in evacuation time from 45.83 s to 98.2 s but did have a significant effect on successful
evacuation rates. Although total evacuation time increased, all of the evacuees egressing along the optimal route were able to exit the
building without coming in direct contact with toxic smoke. This understanding of optimal evacuation routes is particularly relevant
to emergency situations which occur in facilities with complex layouts and large numbers of occupants.

6. Future applications

The applicability of this research might also extend to enhanced safety management strategies if the optimal evacuation route
model were to be linked with existing emergency technology. Although real-time emergency detection technology (e.g., flame/smoke
detectors) plays a significant role in modern emergency notification systems, real-time data may not always provide emergency-
appropriate information which is of practical use to evacuees. For instance, building occupants escaping a fire emergency need
predictive data capable of plotting a safe egress path more than they do notifications warning them of the smoke density in their
current location. In many cases, it is impossible for evacuees to compare available routes and choose the safest and quickest way to a
nearby exit. They lack not only sufficient knowledge of all indoor paths but also an awareness of how serious the emergency situation
may be across other parts of the building. Such uncertainties can result in evacuees encountering even more layers of smoke as they
attempt to leave the smoke-contaminated areas of the building and revise their egress routes while on the move.
In this regard, hazard predictions can inform evacuees of the estimated smoke trajectories inside the building. While smoke or
flame detectors may be an insufficient safety measure in themselves, they constitute a source of accurate input data (e.g., ignition
location, magnitude of fire) through which algorithms such as the optimal evacuation route model produce more detailed calibra-
tions. Once provided with the actual data, the model generates more credible predictions on smoke propagation and more reliable
information on optimal evacuation routes. Personal mobile devices such as smartphones and smart watches also have the potential to
assist the model in detecting individual evacuees’ current location and delivering optimal evacuation during an emergency. During
chaotic situations, the model's capacity for visualizing evacuation routes and processing them in a 2D or 3D environment (e.g.,
Fig. 13) provides evacuees with a more intuitive evacuation guidance system which they can then follow with the help of their
handheld devices.
In addition, the developed model can be coupled with existing state-of-the-art evacuation guidance technologies to enhance
signage perceptibility. Because wayfinding is affected by structural features and the type of instructions provided for navigation
purposes [8], it is critical to consider how accurately evacuation information can be perceived and interpreted by those exiting a
building during an emergency [8,29]. In this regard, an intelligent evacuation system based on the Internet of Things (IoT) could be
helpful in sharing collected data and data analyses among different physical devices, including simulation modules, building signs,
and mobile phones [19]. Adopting the IoT would power real-time status updates for available routes and exits using different sets of
signage lights indicating whether or not a particular path is viable [14]. It would also contribute to higher perceptibility and in-
telligibility for evacuation procedures by providing customized visual and vocal instructions through personal devices [3,19]. The
combined use of these two technologies is expected to enhance the safety of evacuees during emergencies by helping them to
correctly understand the information that they most need.
However, future application of the optimal evacuation route model will require researchers to address several issues related to
human behavior and emergency situations. First, variance in individual movement speed calls for careful consideration depending on
the particular occupants of a building. For example, the residents of an elderly care facility would exhibit relatively slower movement
speeds compared to the average passerby at a shopping mall. Because optimal node selection depends on the expected arrival times of

Fig. 13. Example of 3D evacuation guidance.

331
M. Choi and S. Chi Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 94 (2019) 321–333

both evacuee and toxic smoke, the mobility of a building's occupants must factor into calculations of evacuee arrival time at each
node. Second, the wayfinding outcomes would further improve if changes in smoke propagation were to be considered and calculated
as part of the model. The direction and speed of smoke propagation can be greatly affected by use of openings such as doors and
windows during an evacuation. Thus, real-time changes in the smoke proliferation need to be updated while estimating further smoke
propagation.

7. Conclusions

Incorporating early smoke prediction data into evacuation route selection can considerably reduce the physical and psychological
damage suffered by evacuees when they come in contact with fire-related hazards. This study accordingly developed a computational
model that would incorporate hazard prediction data into its calculations of the fastest and safest optimal route guiding evacuees out
of a building fire. Three separate tests confirmed that the model was effective in preventing evacuees from entering potentially
hazardous locations along their egress path. Such an approach reinforces existing safety management measures by providing accurate
and timely information on the fastest and safest evacuation routes available at any given moment.
However, this study is not without its limitations. When multiple evacuees take a sudden detour from their initial egress path due
to a thin layer of smoke ahead, the circumnavigation of that area may increase the possibility of causing other adverse consequences
such as jamming or severe queuing around routes predicted to be smoke-free. The consequences of such results would become even
more critical in the case of high occupancy buildings, establishing the need to examine the possible effects of route congestion when
dealing with larger numbers of evacuees. Extending the developed model should be the next step in analyzing optimal evacuation
paths for multiple-floor buildings which require evacuees to move between floors in addition to crossing them. Finally, further
research is required to investigate thresholds for visibility or toxicity, which would, in turn, increase access time for moderately
affected nodes.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning (grant no. 2017R1C1B2009237).

References

[1] Y. Akizuki, M. Iwata, S. Okuda, T. Tanaka, Setting conditions of signs in escape routes by configuration factor, study on visual environment designs for smooth
evacuation guidance no. 1, J. Environ. Eng. 74 (641) (2009) 767–773.
[2] P. Arthur, R. Passini, Wayfinding: people, signs, and architecture, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY United States, 1992 10036. Incorporated 330 West 42nd Street.
[3] U. Atila, Y. Ortakci, K. Ozacar, E. Demiral, I.R. Karas, Smartescape: a mobile smart individual fire evacuation system based on 3d spatial model, ISPRS Int. J. Geo.
Info. 7 (6) (2018).
[4] M. Barnes, H. Leather, D.K. Arvind, Emergency evacuation using wireless sensor networks, In 32nd IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks 2007, IEEE, 2007,
pp. 851–857.
[5] G. Bernardini, M. Azzolini, M. D'Orazio, E. Quagliarini, Intelligent evacuation guidance systems for improving fire safety of Italian-style historical theatres
without altering their architectural characteristics, J. Cult. Herit. 22 (2016) 1006–1018.
[6] D. Berry, A. Usmani, J.L. Torero, A. Tate, S. McLaughlin, S. Potter, ..., M. Atkinson, FireGrid: integrated emergency response and fire safety engineering for the
future built environment, UK e-Science Programme All Hands Meeting, 2005.
[7] D. Canter, Fires and human behaviour: emerging issues, Fire Safety J. 3 (1) (1980) 41–46.
[8] E. Carattin, C. Meneghetti, V. Tatano, F. Pazzaglia, Human navigation inside complex buildings: using instructions and maps to reach an area of refuge, Int. J.
Des. Creat. Innov. 4 (2016) 105–118.
[9] M.L. Chu, A Computational Framework Incorporating Human and Social Behaviors For Occupant-Centric Egress Simulation, Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford
University, 2015.
[10] M. Cisek, M. Kapalka, Evacuation route assessment model for optimization of evacuation in buildings with active dynamic signage system, Transport. Res. Proc. 2
(2014) 541–549.
[11] A. Cuesta, O. Abreu, A. Balboa, D. Alvear, Real-time evacuation route selection methodology for complex buildings, Fire Safety J. 91 (2017) 947–954.
[12] R.C. Day, L.M. Hulse, E.R. Galea, Response phase behaviours and response time predictors of the 9/11 World Trade Center evacuation, Fire Technol. 49 (3)
(2013) 657–678.
[13] L. Fu, S. Cao, W. Song, J. Fang, The influence of emergency signage on building evacuation behavior: an experimental study, Fire Mater. 43 (1) (2019) 22–33.
[14] E.R. Galea, H. Xie, S. Deere, D. Cooney, L. Filippidis, An international survey and full-scale evacuation trial demonstrating the effectiveness of the active dynamic
signage system concept, Fire Mater. 41 (2017) 493–513.
[15] R.R. Gershon, K.A. Qureshi, M.S. Rubin, V.H. Raveis, Factors associated with high-rise evacuation: qualitative results from the World Trade Center Evacuation
Study, Prehosp. Disaster Med. 22 (3) (2007) 165–173.
[16] P. Gillieron, B. Merminod, Personal navigation system for indoor applications, 11th IAIN World Congress, 2004.
[17] E.P. Hart, N.J. Nilsson, B. Raphael, A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths, IEEE Trans. Syst. Sci. Cybernet. 4 (1968) 100–107.
[18] Y. Inoue, A. Sashima, T. Ikeda, K. Kurumatani, Indoor emergency evacuation service on autonomous navigation system using mobile phone, In Universal
Communication, 2008. ISUC'08. Second International Symposium, IEEE, 2008, pp. 79–85.
[19] A. Khan, A.A. Aesha, J.S. Aka, S.F. Rahman, M.J.U. Rahman, An IoT based intelligent fire evacuation system, In 2018 21st International Conference of Computer
and Information Technology (ICCIT), IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–6.
[20] M.T. Kinateder, E.D. Kuligowski, P.A. Reneke, R.D. Peacock, Risk perception in fire evacuation behavior revisited: definitions, related concepts, and empirical
evidence, Fire Sci. Rev. 4 (1) (2015) 1–26.
[21] T. Korhonen, S. Hostikka, Fire dynamics simulator with evacuation: FDS+ Evac, Technical Reference and User's Guide, VTT Technical Research Centre of
Finland, Espoo, Finland, 2015.
[22] E. Kuligowski, PhD dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder, 2011.
[23] Q. Li, M.D. Rosa, D. Rus, Distributed algorithm for guiding navigation across a sensor network, in Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International Conference on
Mobile Computing and Networking, ACM Press, 2003, pp. 313–325.
[24] K. McGrattan, S. Hostikka, R. McDermott, J. Floyd, C. Weinschenk, K. Overholt, Fire Dynamics Simulator User's Guide, 6th Edition, NIST Special Publication,

332
M. Choi and S. Chi Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 94 (2019) 321–333

2013, p. 1019.
[25] G.W. Mulholland, SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, Chapter Smoke Production and Properties, 3rd Edition, National Fire Protection Association,
Quincy, Massachusetts, 2002.
[26] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (2018). “FDS-SMV” < https://pages.nist.gov/fds-smv/>(accessed by January 2018).
[27] D. Nilsson, A. Johansson, Social influence during the initial phase of a fire evacuation—analysis of evacuation experiments in a cinema theatre, Fire Safety J. 44
(1) (2009) 71–79.
[28] M.J. O'Neill, Effects of signage and floor plan configuration on wayfinding accuracy, Environ. Behav. 23 (5) (1991) 553–574.
[29] M. Occhialini, G. Bernardini, F. Ferracuti, S. Iarlori, M. D'Orazio, S. Longhi, M. D'Orazio, S. Longhi, Fire exit signs: the use of neurological activity analysis for
quantitative evaluations on their perceptiveness in a virtual environment, Fire Safety J. 82 (2016) 63–75.
[30] M. Pan, Y. Tsai, Y. Tseng, Emergency guiding and monitoring applications in indoor 3d environments by wireless sensor networks, Int. J. Sensor Netw. 1 (1/2)
(2006) 2–10.
[31] S. Pu, S. Zlatanova, Evacuation route calculation of inner buildings, Geo-information For Disaster Management, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, 2005, pp.
1143–1161.
[32] H. Ran, L. Sun, X. Gao, Influences of intelligent evacuation guidance system on crowd evacuation in building fire, Automat. Constr. 41 (2014) 78–82.
[33] S. Russel, P. Norvig, Artificial Intelligence a Modern Approach First Edition, Prentice Hall, 1995.
[34] K.A.F.A. Samah, B. Hussin, A.S.H. Basari, Modification of Dijkstra's algorithm for safest and shortest path during emergency evacuation, Appl. Math. Sci. 9 (31)
(2015) 1531–1541.
[35] N.R. Shankar, V. Sireesha, Using modified Dijkstra’ s algorithm for critical path method in a project network, Int. J. Comput. Appl.Math. 5 (2) (2010) 217–225.
[36] Y. Sharma, S.C. Saini, M. Bhandhari, Comparison of Dijkstra’ s shortest path algorithm with genetic algorithm for static and dynamic routing network, Int. J.
Electron. Comput. Sci. Eng. 1 (2) (2012) 416–425.
[37] The AnyLogic Company (2019). “Pedestrian library – anylogic simulation software” <https://www.anylogic.com/resources/libraries/pedestrian-library/>
(accessed by March 2019).
[38] Y. Tseng, M. Pan, Y. Tsai, Wireless sensor networks for emergency navigation, IEEE Comput. 39 (7) (2006) 55–62.
[39] T.Y. Wang, R. Huang, L. Li, W.G. Xu, J.G. Nie, The application of the shortest path algorithm in the evacuation system, In Information Technology, Computer
Engineering and Management Sciences (ICM) 2011, 2 IEEE, 2011, pp. 250–253.
[40] Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics 2012, in: U. Weidmann, U. Kirsch, M. Schreckenberg (Eds.), Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics 2012, Springer Science &
Business, 2014.
[41] H. Xie, PhD thesis, University of Greenwich, 2011.
[42] H. Xie, L. Filippidis, E.R. Galea, D. Blackshields, P.J. Lawrence, Experimental analysis of the effectiveness of emergency signage and its implementation in
evacuation simulation, Fire Mater. 36 (5-6) (2012) 367–382.
[43] Y. Xu, Z. Wang, Q. Zheng, Z. Han, The application of Dijkstra's algorithm in the intelligent fire evacuation system, in 4th International Conference on Intelligent
Human-Machine Systems and Cybernetics 2012, 1 2012, pp. 3–6.
[44] K. Yenumula, C. Kolmer, J. Pan, X. Su, BIM-controlled signage system for building evacuation, Proc. Eng. 118 (2015) 284–289.

333