Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Fire Technology
Published in: Fire Technology 3/2016

01-05-2016

Guidance for the Model Developer on Representing Human Behavior in Egress Models

Authors: S. M. V. Gwynne, L. M. Hulse, M. J. Kinsey

Published in: Fire Technology | Issue 3/2016

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Structures are currently designed and typically constructed in accordance with prescriptive and performance-based methodologies to ensure a certain level of safety. The performance-based approach requires the quantification of both available safe egress time (ASET) and required safe egress time (RSET) to determine the degree of safety provided. This article focuses on the RSET side of the equation, for which an engineer would use some type of egress modelling approach to estimate evacuation performance. Often, simple engineering equations are applied to estimate the RSET value; however, over time, more sophisticated computational tools have appeared. Irrespective of the approach adopted, appropriate and accurate representation of human behavior in fire within these approaches is limited, mainly due to the lack of a comprehensive conceptual model of evacuee decision-making and behavior during fire emergencies. This article initially presents a set of behavioral statements that represent the primary elements of current understanding regarding evacuee behavior. Once presented, guidance is provided on how these behavioral statements might be incorporated by the model developer into an egress model. The intent here is to assist in the advancement of current egress models by outlining the model structures required to represent the current understanding of egress behavior.
previous article Perception of Occupational Risk of Firefighters in Quito (Ecuador)
next article An Experimental and Numerical Study of Imbalanced Door Choice During an Announced Evacuation Drill

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Footnotes
1
Other approaches are employed, such as the objective-based approach adopted in Canada, although this approach is less frequently employed.
 
2
Egress model is taken to mean any method by which egress performance is understood and/or quantified.
 
3
Previously referred to as behavioral facts [3].
 
4
This article does not address the interaction between the embedded and existing sub-models within the computational environment, or the range of verification and validation tasks that would be required to examine these interactions.
 
5
The developer may also validate the conceptual model against the referrant material to ensure the accuracy of the assumptions made.
 
6
The gap between current model development and expected behavior is most significant in locations where there is greatest dependency on the individual decision-making process; e.g. residential occupancies, as opposed to office occupancies where a formal evacuation procedure will exist and likely inform evacuation performance [17].
 
7
These conceptual models have therefore been configured such that they can be implemented within a larger model structure. This may or may not have been the case with the conceptual models described earlier [66].
 
Literature
1.
Approved Document B (2006) Vol 1 Dwelling Houses, Building Regulations 2000, Communities and Local Government
2.
Kuligowski ED, Peacock RD, Hoskins B (2010) A review of building evacuation models, 2nd edn, TechNote 1680, NIST
3.
Gwynne SMV (2012) Translating behavioral theory of human response into modeling practice, NIST GCR - 12-972, National Institute of Standards and Technology
4.
5.
Gwynne SMV, Kuligowski ED, Kinsey MJ, Hulse L (2015) Representing behavioural statements in egress models: a note for the model user (Manuscript submitted for publication)
6.
Galea ER, Wang Z, Veeraswamy A, Jia F, Lawrence P, Ewer J (2008) Coupled fire/evacuation analysis of the station nightclub fire. In: Proceedings of 9th IAFSS Symposium Karlsruhe, Germany, 2008, pp. 465–476. doi:10.​3801/​IAFSS.​FSS.​9-465
7.
Sokolowski JA (2010) Modeling and simulation fundamentals: theoretical underpinnings and practical domains. Wiley, HobokenCrossRefMATH
8.
Kuligowski ED (2009) The process of human behavior in fires. Technical note 1632, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD
9.
Kuligowski ED, Gwynne SMV (2005) What a user should know about selecting an evacuation model. Fire Protection Engineering Magazine, Human Behaviour in Fire Issue
10.
Gwynne S, Kuligowski E, Nilsson D (2012) Representing evacuation behavior in engineering terms. J Fire Prot Eng 22(2):133–150CrossRef
11.
Gwynne S, Galea ER, Lawrence PJ, Owen M, Filippidis L (1999) A review of the methodologies used in the computer simulation of evacuation from the built environment. Build Environ 34:741–749CrossRef
12.
Life-Threatening components of fire—Guidelines for the estimation of time available for escape using fire data (2002), ISO/TS 13571, International Standards Organisation
13.
The application of fire engineering principles to fire safety design of buildings: Part 6 - Human factors (2004), PD 7974-6:2004, British Standards
14.
Engineering Guide to Human Behaviour in Fire, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, 2002
15.
Gwynne SMV, Kuligowski ED (2008) Application modes of egress simulation. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics (PED2008), University of Wuppertal, Germany, February 27–29
16.
17.
Personal Communication (2014) Sefton Hyde-Clarke, National Research Council, Canada
18.
Sime J (1984) Escape behaviour in fire: ‘panic’ or affiliation? PhD Thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Surrey
19.
Canter D (1980) Fires and human behaviour. Wiley, New York
20.
Edelman P, Herz E, Bickman L (1980) A model of behaviour in fires applied to a nursing home fire. In: Canter D (ed) Fires and human behaviour. Wiley, New York, pp. 181–203
21.
Proulx G (1993) A stress model for people facing a fire. J Environ Psychol 13:137–147CrossRef
22.
Tong D, Canter D (1985) The decision to evacuate: a study of the motivations which contribute to evacuation in the event of a fire. Fire Saf J 9:257–265CrossRef
23.
Averill JD, Mileti DS, Peacock RD, Kuligowski ED, Groner NE, Proulx G et al (2005) Occupant behavior, egress, and emergency communications (Rep. No. NIST NCSTAR 1-7). National Institute of Standards and Technology, GaithersburgCrossRef
24.
Brennan P (1995) Smoke gets in your eyes: the effect of cue perception on behavior in smoke. In: ASIAFLAM ‘95. 1st Proceedings for the International Conference on Fire Science and Engineering (pp. 187–197). Interscience Communications, London
25.
Bryan JL (1977) Smoke as a determinant of human behavior in fire situations (Project People) (Rep. No. NBS-GCR-77-94). National Bureau of Standards, Washington
26.
Groner NE (1996) Important “people” problems in hazard analyses can be modeled by using a cognitive systems approach. In: Proceedings of the Fire Risk and Hazard Assessment Symposium. Research and Practice: Bridging the Gap (pp. 422–429). California University, Berkeley
27.
Yoshimura H (2000) Human behavior. In: 4th Proceedings of the Asia-Oceania Symposium on Fire Science and Technology (pp. 137–141). Osaka University, Tokyo
28.
Bickman J, Edelman P, McDaniel MA (1977) Model of human behavior in a fire emergency (Rep. No. NBS GCR 78-120). National Bureau of Standards (U.S.)
29.
Brennan P (1996) Impact of social interaction on time to begin evacuation in office building fires: implications for modelling behaviour. In: Franks CA, Grayson S (eds) Interflam ‘96. International Interflam Conference, 7th Proceedings (pp. 701–710). Interscience Communications, London
30.
Bruck D (2001) The who, what, where, and why of waking to fire alarms: a review. Fire Safety J 36:623–639CrossRef
31.
Green CH (1980) Risk: beliefs and attitudes. In: Canter D (ed) Fires and human behaviour (pp. 277–291). Wiley, New York
32.
Kimura M, Sime JD (1989) Exit choice behavior during the evacuation of two lecture theatres. In: Fire Safety Science—Proceedings of the Second International Symposium (pp. 541–550). Hemisphere Publishing Corp, Washington
33.
Sime JD (1983) Affiliative behaviour during escape to building exits. J Environ Psychol 3:21–41CrossRef
34.
Wood PG (1972) The behaviour of people in fires (Rep. No. Fire Research Note No. 953). University of Technology, Loughborough
35.
Brennan P (1999) Modelling cue recognition and pre-evacuation response. In: 6th International Symposium, International Association for Fire Safety Science (pp. 1029–1040). Boston, MA
36.
Levin BM (1988) EXITT: a simulation model of occupant decisions and actions in residential fires (Rep. No. NBSIR 88-3753). National Institute of Standards and Technology
37.
Ozel F (1993) Computer simulation of behavior in spaces. In: Marans RW, Stokols D (eds) Environmental simulation: research and policy issues. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 191–204CrossRef
38.
Reisser-Weston E (1996) Simulating human behaviour in emergency situations. In: RINA, International Conference of Escape, Fire, and Rescue
39.
Santos G, Aguirre BE (2005) Critical review of emergency evacuation simulation models. In: Peacock RD, Kuligowski ED (eds) Workshop on building occupant movement during fire emergencies. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, pp. 27–52
40.
Withey SB (1962) Man and society in disaster. Basic Books, New York
41.
Mileti DS, Sorensen JH (1990) Communication of emergency public warnings: a social science perspective and state-of-the-art assessment. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak RidgeCrossRef
42.
Perry RW, Lindell MK, Greene MR (1981) Evacuation planning in emergency management. Lexington Books, Lexington
43.
Mileti DS, Beck EM (1975) Communication in crisis: explaining evacuation symbolically. Commun Res 2(1):24–49CrossRef
44.
Bryan JL (2002) Behavioral response to fire and smoke. In: DiNenno PJ (ed) The SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering, 3rd edn. National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, pp. 3-315–3-341
45.
Feinberg WE, Johnson NR (1995) Firescap: a computer simulation model of reaction to a fire alarm. J Math Sociol 20:247–269CrossRef
46.
Breaux J, Canter D, Sime JD (1976) Psychological aspects of behaviour of people in fire situations. In: International Fire Protection Seminar, 5th. Karlsruhe, West Germany, pp. 39–50
47.
Canter D, Donald I, Chalk J (1992) Pedestrian behaviour during emergencies underground: the psychology of crowd control under life threatening circumstances. In: Vardy A (ed) Safety in road and rail tunnels. Independent Technical Conferences Ltd, Bedford, pp. 135–150
48.
Teknomo K (2002) Microscopic pedestrian flow characteristics: development of an image processing data collection and simulation model, Tohoku University
49.
Fridman N, Kaminka GA (2011) Towards a computational model of social comparison: some implications for the cognitive architecture. Cogn Syst Res 12(2):186–197CrossRef
50.
Pan X (2006) Computational modeling of human and social behaviors for emergency egress analysis. Thesis, Stanford University
51.
Wijermans N (2011) Understanding crowd behaviour: simulating situated individuals. University of Groningen
52.
53.
Latane B, Darley JM (1970) The unresponsive bystander: why doesn’t he help? Appleton-Century Crofts, New York
54.
Proulx G, Latour JC, MacLaurin JW (1994) Housing evacuation of mixed abilities occupants. IRC-IR-661, Internal Report, Institute for Research in Construction, National Research Council of Canada
55.
Bruck D (2001) The who, what, where and why of waking to fire alarms: a review. Fire Saf J 36:623–639CrossRef
56.
Klein G (1999) Sources of power: how people make decisions. The MIT Press, Cambridge
57.
Simon HA (1956) Rational choice and the structure of environment. Psychol Rev 63(2):129–138CrossRef
58.
Proulx G (2002) Movement of people: the evacuation timing. In: DiNenno PJ (ed) The SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering, 3rd edn. National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, pp. 3-342–3-365
59.
Quarantelli EL, Dynes RR (1972) When disaster strikes (it isn’t much like what you’ve heard and read about). Psychol Today 5:67–70
60.
Fischer HW III (1998) Response to disaster: fact versus fiction and its perpetuation: the sociology of disaster, 2nd ed. University Press of America, New York
61.
Turner RH, Killian LM (1987) Collective behaviour. Prentice Hall, Inc, Englewood Cliffs
62.
Aguirre BE, Wenger D, Vigo G (1998) A test of the emergent norm theory of collective behaviour. Sociol Forum 13(2):301–320CrossRef
63.
Macphail C (1991) The myth of the madding crowd. Aldine De Gruyter, New York
64.
Lerup LDC, Liu JKC (1980) Fires in nursing facilities. In: Canter D (ed) Fires and human behaviour. Wiley, New York, pp. 155–180.
65.
Giddens A (1984) The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Polity Press, Cambridge. ISBN 0-520-05728-7
66.
Bourdieu P, Wacquant LJD (1992) An invitation to reflexive sociology. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
67.
Drury J, Reicher S (2000) Collective action and psychological change: the emergence of new social identities. Br J Soc Psychol 39:579–604CrossRef
68.
Simon HA (1956) Rational choice and the structure of environments. Psychol Rev 63:129–138CrossRef
69.
Chu ML (2015) A computational framework incorporating human and social behaviors for occupant-centric egress simulation. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
70.
Lindell MK, Perry RW (2004) Communicating environmental risk in multiethnic communities. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks
Metadata
Title
Guidance for the Model Developer on Representing Human Behavior in Egress Models
Authors
S. M. V. Gwynne
L. M. Hulse
M. J. Kinsey
Publication date
01-05-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Fire Technology / Issue 3/2016
Print ISSN: 0015-2684
Electronic ISSN: 1572-8099
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-015-0501-2

Other articles of this Issue 3/2016

Fire Technology 3/2016 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Experimental Studies on the Fire Behaviour of High Performance Concrete Thin Plates

OriginalPaper

Thermal Analysis of Hollow Steel Columns Exposed to Localised Fires

OriginalPaper

Experimental Procedures Characterising Firebrand Generation in Wildland Fires

OriginalPaper

Perception of Occupational Risk of Firefighters in Quito (Ecuador)

OriginalPaper

Residual Strength of Organic Anchorage Adhesive for Post-installed Rebar at Elevated Temperatures and After Heating

OriginalPaper

A Case Study on a Fire-Induced Collapse Accident of a Reinforced Concrete Frame-Supported Masonry Structure