Chapter 10Building Evacuation in Emergencies: A Review and Interpretation of Software for Simulating Pedestrian Egress

Christian J. E. Castle 1 and Paul A. Longley 2

Abstract This chapter begins with an assessment of the reasons for the current surge in interest in developing building evacuation analysis using models that focus explicitly upon the human individual’s locus of behavior. We then present an extended overview of available software for modelling and simulating pedestrian evacuation from enclosed spaces, and use this to develop guidelines for evaluating the wide range of pedestrian evacuation software that is currently available. We then develop a sequential conceptual framework of software and model specific considerations to take into account when contemplating application development. This conceptual framework is then applied to a hypothetical building evacuation setting. Our conclusions address not only the efficiency and effectiveness of the software solutions that are currently available, but also the degree of confidence (broadly defined) that underpins their application.

Keywords Application development, building evacuation analysis, framework of assessment criteria, models, simulated pedestrian egress, software

10.1 Introduction

The objectives of this chapter are twofold. First, it develops criteria for evaluating pedestrian evacuation software by outlining features and functions of different software that should be considered when developing an application (Sect. 10.5). These criteria also provide a useful framework for understanding the key principles and techniques that underpin the broader class of pedestrian evacuation models, and their evolution over time. The second, related, objective of this chapter is to review and interpret software designed for simulating the egress of pedestrians from inside a building (Sect. 10.6). Here we will review 27 software programs and identify key literature and reviews associated with each. A hypothetical setting of a subway/

1Transport for London

2 University College London (UCL)

D.Z. Sui (ed.) Geospatial Technologies and Homeland Security, 209© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

210 C.J.E. Castle, P.A. Longley

underground station is used to assess features and functionality of these software programs against the requirements of an application development. We begin, how-ever, by justifying the development and use of computer-based models for the eval-uation of pedestrian egress from buildings, particularly in relation to emergency management objectives and building design considerations.

10.2 The Growth of Interest in Pedestrian Evacuation Modelling

There are several reasons why computer-based building evacuation analysis has recently become more prominent. Recent world events such as the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004, London bombings in 2005, and Hurricane Katrina in 2005, to name but a few, have brought the issue of emergency management to the fore. Emergency management has historically focused on the immediate and urgent aspects of an incident (i.e. response and post-incident recovery). However, there is a growing awareness that emergency manage-ment is much more complex and comprehensive than traditionally perceived (Gunes and Kolel 2000). Although the primary function of emergency services is to protect life and property, a comprehensive approach to emergency management involves more than just reactive responses to incidents as they unfold. It also entails development of methods to avoid incidents in the first place and preparing for those that will unavoidably occur at some point in the future. A recent National Research Council (2007) report identifies the need for practitioners to assimilate model pre-dictions and the best available data as an aid to emergency management. For exam-ple, extensive pedestrian evacuation modelling has retrospectively been conducted to investigate the evacuation of the World Trade Center (Averill et al. 2005), in an attempt to learn more about the events which followed the attacks and in a bid to understand how the evacuation process could have been improved.

Previously, the most significant developments in computer-based building evac-uation analysis have occurred in the building industry (Galea et al. 2003). The demand for more innovative building designs has increasingly left architects with the dilemma of demonstrating the safety of their concepts (that is, demonstrating that occupants will be able to efficiently exit a structure in the event of an emer-gency). Building designs involving the construction, renovation, or modification of spaces that exceed the design constraints specified by statutory building regulations prove particularly problematic for architects (Thompson 1994). Intriguing exam-ples include stadiums, trains, underground (subway) or coach stations, airports, large stores and shopping malls, and high-rise buildings. Traditionally, a full-scale evacuation demonstration or adherence to prescriptive building regulations/fire codes has been the main method of meeting these demands (e.g. a building must provide a certain number of exits based on its total occupancy capacity).

For buildings that have already been constructed, it is usual for an evacuation demonstration or fire drill involving a representative target population to be con-ducted for the structure. However, according to Gwynne and Galea (1997), ethical,

10 Building Evacuation in Emergencies 211

practical, and financial limitations can undermine the viability of fire drills. Ethically, a conflict for organizers exists between the threat of participant injury and the lack of realism. Volunteers cannot be subjected to the psychological (e.g. trauma, panic, etc.) or physical (e.g. fire, smoke, debris, etc.) consequences of a real emergency; and thus an exercise can provide only limited information about the evacuation efficiency of a building. Regardless of the success of an evacuation demonstration, the lack of realism reduces confidence about the structure’s evacua-tion capability. In practice, full scale evacuation drills are performed infrequently, especially for buildings that are publicly accessible, such as train stations, airports, museums, etc. Evacuation drills can also be expensive to perform. Finally, if a building has already been constructed, alterations to its layout can be very expensive.

It follows that, in order to fully understand the potential evacuation efficiency of a building, it is essential to assess the relationships between several complex and interrelated facets to the evacuation process. Ventre et al. (1981) proposed a hypo-thetical equation where the behavior of a crowd could be determined as a function of ‘crowd characteristics’ (i.e. demographic data, total number of occupants, etc.), ‘facility design and layout’ (e.g. a building’s overall configuration, its predicted capacity for ingress and egress, etc.), and ‘management practices’ (e.g. staffing, communication facilities, security, admissions, furnishings, etc.). In a similar vein, Gwynne and Galea (1997) have identified four criteria that they consider as neces-sary to calculate the evacuation efficiency of a building:

1. Configurational: These considerations are generally covered by traditional building codes or regulations, and involve building layout, number of exits, exit width, etc.;

2. Environmental: Different emergency incidents effect environmental considera-tions of an enclosure in a variety of ways. For example, heat and toxic/irritant gases can effect an occupant’s walking speed and way-finding abilities;

3. Procedural: Aspects related to staff actions, levels of occupant evacuation train-ing, occupant prior knowledge of the enclosure, emergency signage, etc.;

4. Behavioral: The likely behavioral responses of occupants (e.g. initial response to evacuation cues, maximum walking speed, presence of family or friends, etc.).

Traditional methods of building design fail to consider these factors in a quantita-tive manner, relying almost totally on judgement and prescriptive building rules or regulations (Gwynne et al. 1999b). Building regulations rely almost totally on the configuration of a structure (e.g. maximum travel-distance to nearest exit) in order to specify the number and location of exits. Thus, building regulations and fire codes can prove very restrictive when designing new buildings. These traditional methods do not consider human movement and behavior or the effect that this can have upon the evacuation process. Computer based evacuation models offer the potential to overcome some of these limitations. State of the art pedestrian evacua-tion software consider many of the factors identified as necessary for evaluating a building; addressing the needs of both the architect and legislators by permitting the assessment and demonstration of a building design’s evacuation capacity.

212 C.J.E. Castle, P.A. Longley

10.3 The Evolution of Pedestrian Modelling: From Aggregate to Individual

Hypothetically, it is possible to model any system using a set of rules about the behavior of the system’s constituent elements. For example, the behavior of a crowd can be modelled through rules likely to characterise the behavior of every individual. However, depending on the size of the crowd and the purpose of the model, this may not be practi-cal or even useful. Continuous-field models address this problem by replacing individ-ual objects with continuously varying estimates of abstracted properties, for example the density of people in a crowd (Goodchild 2005). Alternatively, individual objects can be aggregated into larger wholes, modelling the behavior of the system through these aggregates. However, aggregate systems subsume variation and processes that fall below the implied spatial resolution of the representation. However, the scale and con-figuration of the constituent elements of information (i.e. objects located in time and space), can exert critical influence on the outcomes of spatial analysis (see Openshaw (1984) for a discussion in the context of the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem (MAUP) and Bailey and Gatrell (1995) in relation to the ecological fallacy concept). Spatially aggregated or coarse resolution data may have no validity independent of a specific application or indeed any validity at all. Problems associated with aggregating data are compounded when modelling interaction between zones, or when seeking to represent process and dynamics (as, for example, in pedestrian modelling). Spatial analysis at the level of unique individuals represented as mobile point referenced ‘events’1 present the logical endpoint of the drive towards disaggregation.

Progress is clearly being made in the use of disaggregated data. Increased compu-ter power and storage capacity has made individual-level modelling more practicable in recent times. An example of this can clearly be seen in the evolution of pedestrian modelling, where there has been a concerted movement from aggregate to individual-level modelling. The evolution of pedestrian evacuation models has been separated into the five stages shown in Table 10.1 by Galea and Gwynne 2006). Specific details of these modelling approaches are discussed further in Sect. 10.4.1.

Essential to the progression of individual-level modelling has been the develop-ment of automata approaches, which have been at the forefront of computer model-ling research, particularly pedestrian modelling. Benenson and Torrens (2004) define an automaton as a processing mechanism with characteristics that change over time based on its internal characteristics, rules, and external input. Therefore, automata process information received by them from their surroundings, and their characteristics are altered according to the rules that govern their reaction to these stimuli. Two classes of automata tools, CA and ABM have been particularly popu-lar; their use has dominated the pedestrian modelling research literature. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to explore the underlying principles and concepts behind these modelling strategies, and the reader is referred to Castle and Crooks (2006) for a thorough treatment of the subject.

1 Humans and their activities are depicted in GIS as mobile point-referenced ‘events’ (Martin 1996).

10 Building Evacuation in Emergencies 213

10.4 Pedestrian Evacuation Software

There is a range of software designed to assess emergency egress of occupants from buildings, and this will be our focus here—as opposed to software to simulate evacuation from aircraft, ships, street environments, etc. It is helpful to distinguish between pedestrian evacuation ‘software’ (e.g. buildingEXODUS, Legion, etc.) that incorporate one or more pedestrian evacuation ‘models’ (e.g. Okazaki and Matsushita’s (1993) magnetic model, Kerridge et al.’s (2001) PEDFLOW, etc.). The models that drive any given software are usually generic in terms of the types and scales of buildings that they can represent, and flexible with regard to the range of emergency scenarios to which they may be applied. On the other hand, pedestrian evacuation models have been specifically developed for particular buildings (e.g. the

Table 10.1 Description of pedestrian modelling generations (Adapted from Galea and Gwynne 2006)

Generation Description

1 Hand-based flow/hydraulic models

Pedestrian movement is approximated by an equation derived from an analogy to fluid flow in channels. The rate of flow equates to the average density of all occupants within a room or passageway as a function of average pedestrian walking speed. The total evacuation time of a building is thus calculated as the sum of the time taken for each building sector to empty under these conditions.

2 Computer-based flow/hydraulic models

3 Ball bearing models

This generation of pedestrian evacuation model was the first to consider occupants as individuals. Occupants are completely homogeneous, with exactly the same characteristics and equation(s)/rule(s) determining each pedestrian’s movement and behavior. The name of this generation of model relates to the visualisation of simulation output: when moving pedestrians are represented as circles, they look like ball bearings draining through a network of pipes.

4 Deterministic or Stochastic Rule-based models

This type of model simulates pedestrians as individual entities whose heterogeneous characteristics determine behavior and govern movement. Movement towards a building exit is thus a response to surrounding environmental conditions (e.g. density) and information availability (e.g. emergency exit signage).

5 Adaptive pedestrian models

Here, occupant decision making is adaptive and sensitive to local conditions, because pedestrians have memories and make decisions based on past events in addition to surrounding environment conditions and information made available to them. For example, pedestrians can choose a building exit based on prior knowledge, but may change their decision and decide to use another exit (known or unknown) based on conditions of the surrounding environ-ment and information made available (e.g. congestion). This generation of models is the current state of the art; no model yet incorporates highly adaptive behavior of pedestrians during an evacuation.

214 C.J.E. Castle, P.A. Longley

evacuation of patients from a hospital in London, or a school in Los Angeles) or a class of problems characteristic of particular enclosed settings (e.g. experimenting with room configurations to relieve congestion at pinch points, such as exits, or to increase bi-directional flow within a corridor). Consequently, some pedestrian evacu-ation models may be unsuitable for purposes beyond their original remit.

Pedestrian evacuation software, by contrast, invariably includes features or function-ality beyond that of a pedestrian evacuation model, such as: the ability to import and interpret a building’s floor plan in different file formats (e.g. CAD, GIS, image file, etc.); two- and possibly three-dimensional visualisation of the building and simulation; and dynamic presentation of output in multiple forms (e.g. charts, graphs, etc.). Furthermore, some software programs claim to permit the simulation of fire and smoke dispersal as well as the egress of pedestrians. Invariably, this functionality is provided via coupling with another model purposely designed to simulate such phenomena, or the user is required to specify the location and spread of fire manually (i.e. at certain time intervals). Any such fire dispersal model required by the user will need to be con-sidered independently of a pedestrian evacuation model, and is therefore not the focus of this discussion. In this respect, the majority of pedestrian evacuation models are solely designed to simulate pedestrian egress from a building in the event of an evacua-tion or fire drill. Nevertheless, current software does permit the exploration of scenarios involving different building layouts, and can therefore also explore the effect of parts of a building being blocked by different emergency incidents, for example.

10.5 Guidelines for Assessing Pedestrian Evacuation Software

Pedestrian evacuation software programs adopt various modelling approaches to simulate the egress of pedestrians from buildings. For instance: it is possible to repre-sent an enclosure as either continuous or discrete space; human agents may be repre-sented as anything from a homogeneous ensemble to an assemblage of individuals with unique characteristics; and movement and behavior may be represented deter-ministically, probabilistically or using a combination of both. Generally, as the level of detail encapsulated within the simulation model increases, the effort required by the user to initialise the software increases, as well as the time required to run the computer simulation. Furthermore, software reflects the purpose for which it was originally designed, the predilections of the software developer (e.g. engineer, psy-chologist, architect), and the computer power available to the developer at the time. A wide range of software designed to simulate the evacuation of pedestrians from buildings has been developed. Software can be distinguished apart by their choice of development strategy, and the features and functionality that they include.

Nelson and Mowrer (2002) and Kuligowksi and Gwynne (2005) identify and justify a number of pertinent considerations for potential users when choosing software to build an application for assessing pedestrian evacuation from buildings. Castle (2007) expands upon the original list of considerations, and provides a comprehensive discus-sion of criteria pertaining to each consideration. Castle’s guide to assessing pedestrian evacuation software is an invaluable companion to this book chapter, especially for a reader without general knowledge of pedestrian evacuation modelling intricacies.

10 Building Evacuation in Emergencies 215

The criteria that define pedestrian evacuation models fall within nine broad areas, which can be split into two types (Fig. 10.1): 1) model specific criteria about the nature of the simulation model within the software; and 2) software specific criteria concerned with the general features and functionality of the software. The model specific criteria are concerned with how the simulation model works, and how the software can be sen-sitive to data input and variables defined by the user. The software specific criteria are more general in nature, defining the overall approach and functionality incorporated within different software: they are nevertheless essential to the evaluation process.

10.5.1 Key Questions to Consider

The logical ordering of the nine topics in Fig. 10.1 follows the general sequence in which a user should consider them. The ordering should help minimize redundant effort in choosing a software program (e.g. considering the availability and access of the software before any model specific considerations). The criteria identified in Fig. 10.1 in turn raise the following questions (Table 10.2). The reader should note that each question may subsume sub-topics, and therefore may need to be addressed concurrently.

Availability & Access

Model Specific

Software Specific

Software Specific Purpose / Background

Nature

Enclosure Representation

Occupant / Enclosure Perspective

Occupant Movement

Behavioral Perspective of Occupant

Validation

Support

Fig. 10.1 Software and model specific topics of criteria to consider when developing a building evacuation application

216 C.J.E. Castle, P.A. Longley

Table 10.2 Key questions to consider when developing a building evacuation application

Topic Question

Availability and Access:

How is the application available (off-the-shelf or on a consultancy basis through the developer or a third-party)?

What minimum computer hardware specification is required (RAM, central processing unit, etc.)?

What operating system is required (Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, etc.)?

Purpose/Background: Is the purpose (e.g. building, aviation, maritime, etc.) of the application suitable for the research investigation?

Is the focus of an application (e.g. residential buildings, high-rise residential tower blocks, low-rise buildings) suitable for the research endeavour?

What is the origin of the application (e.g. development environment, expertise of developer/development team)?

Nature: What is the general nature of the application: movement; optimisation-movement; movement and behavioral; or partial-behavioral?

Enclosure:Representation:

At what scale is the structure represented (e.g. coarse scale network, regular lattice, or continuous space)?

How, and in what format (e.g. CAD, GIS, image file, etc.) can data be imported into the application in order to represent the enclosure and network connections?

Occupant/EnclosurePerspective:

Does the application have a global or an individual perspective of occupants?

– If the perspective is global, what characteristics of the population are represented, and how are they defined?

– If the perspective is individual, what individual characteristics of the population are represented, and how are they defined?

Do the occupants have a global or individual perspective of the enclo-sure?

– If the perspective is global, what information is available to the occu pants, and how is this information defined?

– If the perspective is individual, what information is available to the occupants, and how is this information defined?

Occupant Movement: How is pedestrian walking speed specified? Are default values provided by the application, or does the user need to initialise this parameter?

What is the origin and validity of walking speed values input into the application, and are they plausible in the scenarios to be developed (e.g. are non-evacuation walking speeds used, or are values extrapo-lated by the application in order to simulate evacuation movement and/or walking speeds)?

How is the direction of pedestrian movement simulated (e.g. using a flow/hydraulic equation, a cell-based structure, a velocity based vec-tor, etc.)?

Behavioral Perspective of Occupants:

What behavioral approach does the application employ (none, implicit, deterministic or stochastic rule-based, artificial intelligence)?

If the application seeks to simulate the behavior of occupants, what behavioral considerations does it consider, and how does this affect the movement and decision choices of each pedestrian?

(continued)

10 Building Evacuation in Emergencies 217

10.6 An Evaluation of Pedestrian Evacuation Software

In order to move beyond the general criteria that should be considered when contem-plating software capable of simulating the egress of occupants from inside a building during an emergency, it is logical to assess each software program in relation to these criteria, and then benchmark these software programs against the requirements of a hypothetical investigation (Sect. 10.6.1). In total, 27 software programs were identi-fied for closer examination. Table 10.3 lists these software programs, identifying key references used to assess the features and functionality of each. In addition to the information obtained from these references, several reviews were used to assist us in evaluating information regarding some of the software (Friedman 1992; Thompson 1994; Paulsen et al. 1995; Gwynne and Galea 1997; Gwynne et al. 1999a, b; Nelson and Mowrer 2002; Galea et al. 2003; Kuligowski 2003; Olenick and Carpenter 2003; RSSB 2003; Sharp et al. 2003; Santos and Aguirre 2004; Averill et al. 2005; Kuligowski 2005; Kuligowski and Peacock 2005).

Availability and accessibility can vary considerably between different soft-ware programs. Software programs are available under different financial terms (e.g. free of charge, consultancy basis, one-off fee, annual licence and support fee, or a combination of these agreements), and can have unique computer hard-ware or operating system requirements. Furthermore, whilst documentation has ostensibly been published about some software programs, it is in practice una-vailable to the public. Some software programs are restricted to in-house com-pany use, others are incomplete (perhaps in terms of full functionality, validation, etc.), and still others have been withdrawn from the market. For purposes of this review, the availability and access criterion identified within the guidelines has been used to discriminate between software deemed ‘unavailable/withdrawn from the market’ rather than ‘available’, based on the feature/functionality summary shown in Table 10.4. Table 10.5 provides a list of the abbreviated terms used to describe features and functionality pertaining to the identified software. The reader is reminded that full definitions and corresponding explanations of each criteria are provided by Castle (2007).

The information contained within Table 10.4 permits the identification of potential candidate software programs for a particular building evacuation application. For example, the subsequent discussion assesses ‘available’ software for their appropriateness in

Validation: In terms of both quality and reliability, to what extent has the application been validated?

Support: Is the application maintained?

Are developments still being made to the application?

Is the application actively supported by the developer (training courses, software tutorials, phone or online help, bug reporting/fixing, etc.)?

Table 10.2 (continued)

Topic Question

Table 10.3 Pedestrian evacuation software for building analysis

Application Availability Key References

1 ALLSAFE Free or Fee Heskestad and Meland (1998)

2 ASERI Free or Fee Schneider (2001); Schneider and Könnecke (2001)

3 BFIRES Withdrawn Stahl (1978, 1980, 1982)

4 BGRAF Unavailable Ozel (1985, 1991)

5 buildingEXODUS

Free or Fee Galea et al. (2003, 2006); Gwynne and Galea (1997); Gwynne et al. (1999a, 2001, 2005); FSEG (2004)

6 CRISP Consultancy Boyce et al. (1998); Fraser-Mitchell (1999); Björkman and Mikkola (2001); Building Research Establishment (2006)

7 EESCAPE Consultancy Kendik (1983, 1986, 1988)

8 EGRESS Consultancy Ketchell et al. (1996); Ketchell (2002).

9 EgressPro Withdrawn Combustion Science & Engineering (2002)

10 EVACNET4 Free or Fee Kisko and Francis (1985); Kisko et al. (1998)

11 EvacSim Unavailable Poon (1994); Poon and Beck (1995)

12 EXIT89 Unavailable Fahy (1991, 1994, 1996, 2000)

13 EXITT Free or Fee Levin (1987); Weinroth (1988); Kostreva and Lancaster (1998)

14 FPEtool Free or Fee Deal (1995)

15 GridFlow Free or Fee Bensilum and Purser (2002); Building Research Establishment (2006)

16 Legion Free or Fee Connor and Hammer (2004); Connor (2004); Williams (2004); Legion Limited (2006)

17 Myriad Consultancy Crowd Dynamics (2006a, b, d, e)

18 Pathfinder Consultancy Cappucio (2000)

19 PAXPORT/PEDROUTE

Unavailable Halcrow (2006a, b)

20 PedGo Free or Fee Klüpfel (2003); Klüpfel and Meyer-König (2003); TraffGO (2006)

21 SGEM Unavailable Lo and Fang (2000); Lo et al. (2004)

22 Simulex Free or Fee Thompson (1994, 2005); Thompson and Marchant (1995a, b); Thompson et al. (1996); IES (2006)

23 SimWalk Free or Fee Savannah Simulations AG (2006a, b, 2007)

24 STEPs Free or Fee Hoffmann and Henson (1997); Hoffmann et al. (1998); Rhodes and Hoffmann (1999); Wall and Waterson (2002); Mott MacDonald (2006)

25 TIMTEX Free or Fee Harrington (1996)

26 VEgAS Withdrawn Still (1993); Crowd Dynamics (2006f)

27 WAYOUT Free or Fee Shestopal and Grubits (1994)

Term Description

Free/Feea: The model is available for free, a one-off fee, or an annual licence

Consultancy: The model is available on a consultancy basis only

Unavailable: The model is not publicly available or is still being developed

Withdrawn: The model has been withdrawn from the marketaFree and fee applications are not distinguished apart, as fees change regularly and can vary depending on the user’s circumstances (e.g. the fee can often be reduced or waived if the application is not used for commercial purposes/gain)

10 Building Evacuation in Emergencies 219

Tabl

e 10

.4Fe

atur

es a

nd f

unct

iona

lity

of p

edes

tria

n ev

acua

tion

soft

war

e

‘Ava

ilabl

e’

Soft

war

eP

urpo

seN

atur

eE

nclo

sure

Enc

losu

re/O

ccup

ant

Mov

emen

t

Beh

avio

rV

alid

atio

nSp

eed/

Flo

wD

irec

tion

AL

LSA

FEO

ne-r

oute

Part

ial

Coa

rse

Glo

bal/G

loba

lA

pplic

atio

n (S

)Fl

ow-E

quat

ion

Impl

icit

Oth

er m

odel

s

ASE

RI

Any

-typ

eB

ehav

eC

ontin

uous

Indi

vidu

al/I

ndiv

idua

lA

pplic

atio

n (P

&

S)

V-B

Vel

ocity

R-B

Det

er &

Sto

cD

rill

build

ing

EX

OD

US

Any

-typ

eB

ehav

eR

-Lat

tice

Indi

vidu

al/I

ndiv

idua

lA

pplic

atio

n (S

)C

ell-

Bas

edR

-B D

eter

& S

toc

Dri

ll

CR

ISP

Any

-typ

eB

ehav

eR

-Lat

tice

Indi

vidu

al/I

ndiv

idua

lU

ser

Cel

l-B

ased

R-B

Det

er &

Sto

cD

rill

EE

SCA

PEO

ne-r

oute

Mov

emen

tC

oars

eG

loba

l/Glo

bal

App

licat

ion

(S)

Flow

-Equ

atio

nN

one

Dri

ll

EG

RE

SSA

ny-t

ype

Beh

ave

R-L

attic

eIn

divi

dual

/Ind

ivid

ual

App

licat

ion

(S)

Cel

l-B

ased

R-B

Det

er &

Sto

cD

rill

EV

AC

NE

T4

Any

-typ

eM

ove/

Opt

Coa

rse

Glo

bal/G

loba

lU

ser

Flow

-Equ

atio

nN

one

Dri

ll

EX

ITT

Res

iden

ceB

ehav

eC

oars

eIn

divi

dual

/Ind

ivid

ual

Use

rFl

ow-E

quat

ion

R-B

Det

er &

Sto

cN

one

Gri

dFlo

wA

ny-t

ype

Part

ial

R-L

attic

eIn

divi

dual

/Ind

ivid

ual

Use

r (D

)C

ell-

Bas

edIm

plic

itD

rill

& L

itera

ture

Leg

ion

Any

-typ

eB

ehav

eC

ontin

uous

Indi

vidu

al/I

ndiv

idua

lA

pplic

atio

n (P

)V

-B V

eloc

ityA

lD

rill

& O

ther

m

odel

s

Path

find

erA

ny-t

ype

Mov

eC

oars

eG

loba

l/Glo

bal

App

licat

ion

(S)

Flow

-Equ

atio

nN

one

Non

e

PedG

oA

ny-t

ype

Mov

e/ Part

ial

R-L

attic

eIn

divi

dual

/Ind

ivid

ual

Use

r (D

)C

ell-

Bas

edIm

plic

itD

rill

Sim

ulex

Any

-typ

ePa

rtia

lR

-Lat

tice

Indi

vidu

al/I

ndiv

idua

lA

pplic

atio

n (P

&

S)

Cel

l-B

ased

Impl

icit

Dri

ll &

L

itera

ture

Sim

Wal

kA

ny-t

ype

Part

ial

R-L

attic

eIn

divi

dual

/Ind

ivid

ual

Use

rC

ell-

Bas

edR

-B D

eter

& S

toc

Non

e

STE

PSA

ny-t

ype

Mov

e/ Part

ial

R-L

attic

eIn

divi

dual

/Ind

ivid

ual

Use

rC

ell-

Bas

edN

one/

Impl

icit

Reg

/Cod

es

TIM

TE

XL

ow-r

ise

Mov

eC

oars

eIn

divi

dual

/Glo

bal

App

licat

ion

(S)

Flow

-Equ

atio

nN

one

Lite

ratu

re

WA

YO

UT

One

-rou

teM

ove

Coa

rse

Glo

bal/G

loba

lA

pplic

atio

n (S

)Fl

ow-E

quat

ion

Non

eD

rill

(con

tinue

d)

220 C.J.E. Castle, P.A. Longley

BFI

RE

SL

ow-r

ise

Beh

ave

Fine

Indi

vidu

al/I

ndiv

idua

lU

ser

Cel

l-B

ased

R-B

Det

er &

Sto

cN

one

BG

RA

FA

ny-t

ype

Beh

ave

Fine

Indi

vidu

al/I

ndiv

idua

lU

ser

Cel

l-B

ased

R-B

Det

er &

Sto

cD

rill

Egr

essP

roO

ne-r

oute

Mov

eC

oars

eG

loba

l/Glo

bal

App

licat

ion

(S)

Flow

-Equ

atio

nN

one

Non

e

Eva

cSim

Any

-typ

eB

ehav

eFi

neIn

divi

dual

/Ind

ivid

ual

App

licat

ion

(S)

Cel

l-B

ased

R-B

Det

er &

Sto

cN

one

EX

IT89

Any

-typ

ePa

rtia

lC

oars

eIn

divi

dual

/Ind

ivid

ual

App

licat

ion

(S)

Flow

-Equ

atio

nIm

plic

it &

R-B

D

eter

Dri

ll

FPE

tool

Any

-typ

eM

ove

Coa

rse

Glo

bal/G

loba

lU

ser

Flow

-Equ

atio

nN

one

Non

e

Myr

iad

Any

-typ

eM

ove

N/A

Indi

vidu

al/I

ndiv

idua

lN

/AN

/AN

one

Thi

rd-p

arty

PAX

POR

T/

PED

RO

UT

EPu

blic

-TPa

rtia

lC

oars

eG

loba

l/Glo

bal

App

licat

ion

(P

& S

)Fl

ow-E

quat

ion

Impl

icit

Non

e

SGE

MA

ny-t

ype

Mov

e/ Part

ial

Fine

Indi

vidu

al/I

ndiv

idua

lA

pplic

atio

n (P

)C

ell-

Bas

edIm

plic

itD

rill

& O

ther

m

odel

s

VE

gAS

Any

-typ

eB

ehav

eFi

neIn

divi

dual

/Ind

ivid

ual

Unk

now

nC

ell-

Bas

edA

lN

one

‘Una

vaila

ble’

So

ftw

are

Pur

pose

Nat

ure

Enc

losu

reE

nclo

sure

/Occ

upan

t

Mov

emen

t

Beh

avio

rV

alid

atio

nSp

eed

Dir

ecti

on

Tabl

e 10

.4(c

ontin

ued)

Table 10.5 Key of abbreviated terms used to describe features and functionality within pedestrian evacuation software

Abbreviation Feature Description

Purp

ose

Any Type Capable of evaluating any building type

Residence Specialises in the evaluation of places of residence

Public-T Specialises in the evaluation of public transport stations

Low-rise Specialises in the evaluation of low-rise buildings

One-route Specialises in the evaluation of one exit from a building

Nat

ure

Move Movement model

Move-Opt Movement/optimization model

Partial Partial behavior model

Behave Behavioral model

Enc

losu

reR

epre

sent

atio

n

CoarseR-LatticeContinuous

Coarse scale networkRegular latticeContinuous space

Occ

upan

t/E

nclo

sure

Pers

pect

ive

GlobalIndividual

Global perspectiveIndividual perspective

Mov

emen

t Sp

eed

& D

irec

tion

Application(P and/or S)

Specifies pedestrian walking speeds; values based on primary (P) observations and/or secondary (S) data

User (D) User is required to specify pedestrian walking speeds values; default (D) values are provided based on secondary data

Flow – Equation Flow/hydraulic equation

Cell-based Cell-based movement

V-B Velocity Vector-based velocity

Beh

avio

ral

Pers

pect

ive

None No behavior

Implicit Implicit behavior

R-B Deter. Rule-based deterministic behavior

R-B Stoc. Rule-based stochastic behavior

AI Artificial Intelligence

Val

idat

ion

Reg./Code Validation against fire regulations/codes

Drill Validation against fire drills or experiments

Literature Validation against published literature on past experiments

Models Validation against other Software/model

Third-Party Validation by an independent third-party

None No validation work could be found for this software

222 C.J.E. Castle, P.A. Longley

relation to a hypothetical application. Given the references provided within Table 10.3 and the aforementioned software reviews, it is therefore possible for the reader to iden-tify the most suitable software program from these potential candidates.

Before proceeding to the interpretation, a few caveats must be provided. Table 10.4 was populated in early 2007. Modelling approaches or the features/functional-ity of software may have changed in subsequent releases, and it is possible that we may have misinterpreted the available literature. Furthermore, although FPETool was deemed ‘available’, this software was not included within our subsequent evaluation because it is primarily designed to enable the analysis of fire related phenomena (i.e. modelling of fire and smoke dispersal: Deal 1995). The software can predict total evacuation time required for occupants to vacate an enclosure, but the developers note the output can be grossly inaccurate in such applications (they cite two to three orders of magnitude of errors in these circumstances). Additionally, it should be noted that Myriad has been designed as a spatial analysis tool for assessing traversable areas of a building based on travel distance to an objective (e.g. a building exit). The software does not simulate the movement or behavior of occupants within an enclosure, rather it analyses the floor plan of a building in order to identify potential areas of congestion based on Fruin’s Level of Service Concept (see Fruin 1971). For this reason, Myriad has been coupled with the Simulex software (which is included with the evaluation) to accommodate this deficiency (Crowd Dynamics 2006c).

10.6.1 Hypothetical Example: Interpretation of Suitable Software

In order to discriminate between pedestrian evacuation software programs, it is necessary to identify the features and functionality most desirable in a given application context. Following the structure of the guidelines, and after establish-ing the availability of different software, it is necessary to identify the purpose of the user’s investigation. In order to illustrate these ideas, we will assess the suita-bility of the identified software in relation to a (hypothetical) evaluation of a complex multi-level subway/underground station that serves as an international transport hub within a major city. The stated aim of our investigation will be to assess the evacuation process of the structure (i.e. total evacuation time, usage of evacuation routes, conditions experienced by passenger such as crowd density, etc.), for two different incident scenarios (e.g. a fire on board a train located at one of the station’s platforms and a fire within the ticket hall of the station). Specifically, it is necessary to investigate the effect of variable occupant move-ment and behavioral characteristics upon the evacuation process. For example, irregular or first time users of the station (e.g. tourists) may be much less familiar with the station layout and its exits than regular commuters, and could be expected to have different movement (e.g. walking speed) and behavioral charac-teristics (e.g. speed of response to an evacuation cue(s); investigating the alarm to determine if the evacuation is real).

10 Building Evacuation in Emergencies 223

In relation to this hypothetical investigation, software with a purpose limited to the analysis of residential buildings, or buildings with only one exit, would be deemed unsuitable. A station is not a residential structure, and it comprises a com-plex floor layout serviced by multiple entrances and exits. Since the overarching aim of the investigation is to explore the impact of passengers with different char-acteristics, it is necessary to identify software capable of simulating variability in pedestrian behavior in addition to movement on an individual basis. Consequently, software incapable of simulating behavior would be deemed unsuitable (e.g. EESCAPE, EVACNET4, etc.). While all of the software programs identified are capable of simulating pedestrian movement (to some degree), software limited to the analysis of movement (typically based on the average flow of an aggregated pedestrian population between rooms or sectors of a building) would also be ruled out. Castle (2007) notes that both the simulation of pedestrian movement and behavior in software is strongly dependent on the scale of enclosure representation, the perspectives of occupants within the enclosure, and the occupants’ perspectives of the enclosure itself. Therefore, in relation to the aim of this assessment, software programs that represent an enclosure as a coarse network, occupants as a homoge-nous ensemble (e.g. EXITT, Pathfinder, TIMTEX, etc.), or define the perspective of occupants and/or the enclosure globally (e.g. ALLSAFE, WAYOUT, etc.) would also be deemed unsuitable.

The final criterion considered pertains to the validation of the software. Software unable to provide any evidence of validation would also be considered less desira-ble than those that could, depending on reliability and quality of this validation. Unfortunately, information relating to the source(s) of primary data used to specify default pedestrian walking speeds within some software programs could not be identified. Other software programs do not provide default values for pedestrian walking speeds; this parameter must be defined by the user. Consequently, software was not ruled out on this criterion alone. Based on the selection criteria of this hypothetical example, four software programs can be identified as potential candi-dates for use: ASERI, buildingEXODUS, CRISP, and Legion. Before making a final choice, a user will find it useful to consult publications in relation to each software program (refer to Table 10.3), software reviews (refer to Sect. 11.6), and finally may need to consult with the software developers in order to resolve any unanswered questions.

10.7 Conclusion

The development and implementation of software for evacuation analysis of build-ings is an important growth area of modelling and simulation, and is integral to cur-rent issues of homeland security analysis. Prevention is better than cure, and it is clear that the drive towards agent-based representations of crowd behavior is provid-ing valuable insights into managing new and existing facilities in ways that are effi-cient and effective relative to conventional real world evacuation exercises and drills.

224 C.J.E. Castle, P.A. Longley

This is ever more important, as the range of scenarios and potential threats that need to be considered in creating and maintaining civic infrastructure multiply.

The impetus behind the development of new simulation models, and their embedding in software is leading to an extensive and perplexing array of solu-tions. However, a central contribution of this chapter has been to illustrate that it is necessary to adopt a ‘horses for courses’ approach to software develop-ment. Moreover, when the detailed characteristics of the (apparently) available options are evaluated, it may become clear that some of the ‘horses’ are in practice not runners—whether for reasons of failure to update, to tailor to con-text, or to document.

The last of these reasons is perhaps the most challenging to those seeking to build evacuation applications. In conventional terms of scientific investigation, a key test of model validity is reproducibility, using documentation from the litera-ture that has successfully negotiated the hurdles of peer review. What emerges from our review and interpretation of what is currently available for our hypothetical application, is that documentation is not always as comprehensive, relevant, and confidence-inspiring as might be desired. This should concern the research com-munity. In the domain of homeland security, the apparent efficiency and effective-ness gains of replacing time-consuming and expensive drills with simulations will not (and certainly should not) satisfy the community of potential users if software cannot be certified ‘safe to use’.

References

Averill, J. D., Mileti, D. S., Peacock, R. D., Kuligowski, E. D., Groner, N., Proulx, G., et al. (2005). Federal building and fire safety investigation of the World Trade Center disaster: Occupant behavior, egress, and emergency communications (draft). (Washington, DC, USA: US Department of Commerce)

Bailey, T. C. & Gatrell, A. C. (1995). Interactive spatial data analysis (2nd Edition). (Essex, UK: Longman)

Benenson, I. & Torrens, P. (2004). Geosimulation: Automata-based modelling of urban phenomena. (London, UK: Wiley)

Bensilum, M. & Purser, D. A. (2002). GridFlow: An object-oriented building evacuation model combining pre-movement and movement behaviours for performance-based design. (Paper presented at the 7th International Symposium on Fire Safety Science, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA)

Björkman, J. & Mikkola, E. (2001). Risk assessment of a timber frame building by using CRISP simulation. Fire and Materials, 25(5), 185–192

Boyce, K. E., Fraser-Mitchell, J. N. & Shields, T. J. (1998). Survey, analysis, and modelling of office evacuation using the CRISP model. (Paper presented at the Human Behavior in Fire, Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium, University of Ulster, Ireland)

Building Research Establishment (2006). Human behavior in fire and emergency evacuation design [Electronic version]. Retrieved November 3, 2006, from http://www.bre.co.uk/fire/page.jsp?id=269

Cappucio, P. E. (2000). PathFinder: A computer-based, timed egress simulation. Fire Protection Engineering, 8(Fall), 11–12

Castle, C. J. E. (2007). Guidelines to assess pedestrian evacuation software applications. (London, UK: Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis (University College London), Working Paper 115)

10 Building Evacuation in Emergencies 225

Castle, C. J. E. & Crooks, A. T. (2006). Principles and concepts of agent-based modelling for developing geospatial simulations. (London, UK: Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis (University College London), Working Paper 110)

Combustion Science & Engineering (2002). Computer models forf Fire and smoke: EgressPro[Electronic version]. Retrieved November 6, 2006, from http://www.firemodelsurvey.com/pdf/EgressPro_2001.pdf

Connor, N. (2004). Simulating pedestrian circulation for olympic planning. Public Transport International, 53(2), 28–29

Connor, N. & Hammer, K. (2004). Crowd pleaser: Legion LimitedCrowd Dynamics (2006a). Crowd modelling - Myriad and beyond [Electronic version]. Retrieved

November 6, 2006, from http://www.crowddynamics.com/index.htmCrowd Dynamics (2006b). Myriad [Electronic version]. Retrieved November 6, 2006, from http://

www.crowddynamics.com/index.htmCrowd Dynamics (2006c). Myriad and Simulex [Electronic version]. Retrieved November 6,

2006, from http://www.crowddynamics.com/index.htmCrowd Dynamics (2006d). Myriad colour conventions [Electronic version]. Retrieved November

6, 2006, from http://www.crowddynamics.com/index.htmCrowd Dynamics (2006e). Station evacuation - Analysis [Electronic version]. Retrieved November

6, 2006, from http://www.crowddynamics.com/index.htmCrowd Dynamics (2006f). VEgAS (Virtual Egress and Analysis System) [Electronic version].

Retrieved November 6, 2006, from http://www.crowddynamics.com/index.htmDeal, S. (1995). Technical reference guide for FPEtool Version 3.2. (Washington, DC, USA: U.S.

Department of Commerce, NISTIR 5486–1)Fahy, R. F. (1991, July). EXIT89: An evacuation model for high-rise buildings. (Paper presented

at the Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Fire Safety Science)Fahy, R. F. (1994, July). EXIT89: An evacuation model for high-rise buildings - Model description

and example applications. (Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Fire Safety Science, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada)

Fahy, R. F. (1996, March). EXIT89: High-rise evacuation model - Recent enhancements and example applications. (Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 7th Interflam 1996 International Conference, Cambridge, England, UK)

Fahy, R. F. (2000, March). New developments in EXIT89. (Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 15th Meeting of the UJNR Panel on Fire Research and Safety, San Antonio, TX, USA)

Fraser-Mitchell, J. N. (1999). Modelling human behavior within the fire risk assessment tool CRISP. Fire and Materials, 23(6), 349–355

Friedman, R. (1992). An international survey of computer models for fire and smoke. Society of Fire Protection Engineers Journal of Fire Protection Engineering, 4(3), 81–92

Fruin, J. J. (1971). Pedestrian planning and design. (New York: Metropolitan Association of Urban Designers and Environmental Planners)

FSEG (2004). BuildingEXODUS Capabilities [Electronic version]. Fire Safety Engineering Group. Retrieved November 4, 2006, from http://fseg.gre.ac.uk/exodus/exodus_products.html

Galea, E. R. & Gwynne, S. (2006). Principles and practice of evacuation modelling (7th Edition). (London: Fire Safety Engineering Group - University of Greenwich)

Galea, E. R., Blake, S. & Gwynne, S. (2003). A methodology and procedure for the introduction of aircraft evacuation simulation to the aircraft certification process. VERRES (VLTA Emergency Requirements Research Evacuation Study), a consortium of Cranfield and Greenwich Universities, Virgin Atlantic, Airbus, Sofreavia and the Civil Aviation Authority

Goodchild, M. F. (2005). GIS, spatial analysis, and modelling overview. (In D. J. Maguire, M. Batty & M. F. Goodchild (Eds.), GIS, spatial analysis and modelling. Redlands, CA, USA: ESRI Press)

Gunes, A. E. & Kolel, J. P. (2000). Using GIS in emergency management operations. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 126(3), 136–149

Gwynne, S. & Galea, E. R. (1997). A review of the methodologies used in the computer simulation of evacuation from the built environment. (London, UK: Fire Safety Engineering Group - University of Greenwich)

226 C.J.E. Castle, P.A. Longley

Gwynne, S., Galea, E. R., Owen, M., Lawerence, P. J. & Filippidis, L. (1999a). A review of the methodologies used in evacuation modelling. Fire and Materials, 23, 383–388

Gwynne, S., Galea, E. R., Owen, M., Lawerence, P. J. & Filippidis, L. (1999b). A review of the methodologies used in the computer simulation of evacuation from the built environment. Building and Environment, 34, 741–749

Gwynne, S., Galea, E. R., Lawrence, P. J. & Filippidis, L. (2001). Modelling occupant interaction with fire conditions using the BuildingEXODUS evacuation model. Fire Safety Journal, 36(4),327–357

Gwynne, S., Galea, E. R., Owen, M., Lawrence, P. J. & Filippidis, L. (2005). A systematic com-parison of BuildingEXODUS predictions with experimental data from the Stapelfeldt Trials and the Milburn House evacuation. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 29(9), 818–851

Halcrow (2006a). PAXPORT: Pedestrian planning software [Electronic version]. Retrieved November 3, 2006, from http://www.halcrow.com/html/documents/pdf/fire_safety/paxport.pdf

Halcrow (2006b). Pedestrian simulation modelling - PEDROUTE/PAXPORT [Electronic ver-sion]. Retrieved November 3, 2006, from http://www.halcrow.com/html/proj_popup/pedroute_paxport.htm

Harrington, S. S. (1996). TIMTEX: A hydraulic flow model for emergency egress. Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, University of Maryland, Maryland, MA, USA

Heskestad, A. W. & Meland, O. J. (1998). Determination of evacuation times as a function of occupant and building characteristics and performance of evacuation measures. (Paper presented at the Human Behavior in Fire, Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium, University of Ulster, Ireland)

Hoffmann, N. A. & Henson, D. A. (1997). Simulating transient evacuation and pedestrian move-ments in stations. (Paper presented at the International Conference on Mass Transit Management, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)

Hoffmann, N. A., Henson, D. A. & Pope, C. W. (1998). Analysis of the evacuation of a crush loaded train in a tunnel. (Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Safety in Road and Rail Tunnels, Nice, France)

IES (2006). Simulex – Simulation of occupant evacuation [Electronic version]. Retrieved November 3, 2006, from http://www.ies4d.com/content/mediaassets/pdf/Simulex.PDF

Kendik, E. (1983). Determination of the evacuation time pertinent to the projected area factor in the event of total evacuation of high-rise office buildings via staircases. Fire Safety Journal,5(3–4), 223–232

Kendik, E. (1986). Designing escape routes in buildings. Fire Technology, 22(4), 272–294Kendik, E. (1988). Means of escape - 1988. How close are we to modelling egress from buildings

in fire? Fire and Material, 13(1), 156–163Kerridge, J., Hine, J. & Wigan, M. (2001). Agent-based modelling of pedestrian movements: The

questions that need to be asked and answered. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 28, 327–341

Ketchell, N. (2002). A technical summary of the AEA EGRESS code [Electronic version]. Retrieved April 14, 2005, from http://www.aeat-safety-and-risk.com/Downloads/Egress%20Technical%20Summary.pdf

Ketchell, N., Webber, D. M. & Cole, S. K. (1996). Assessment and simulation of crowd evacuation issues. (In R. Barham (Ed.), Fire Engineering and Emergency Planning (pp. 162–167). London, UK: E & FN Spon)

Kisko, T. M. & Francis, R. L. (1985). EVACNET+: A computer program to determine optimal evacuation plans. Fire Safety Journal, 9(2), 211–220

Kisko, T. M., Francis, R. L. & Nobel, C. R. (1998). EVACNET4 user’s guide [Electronic version]. Retrieved November 3, 2006, from http://www.ise.ufl.edu/kisko/files/evacnet/EVAC4UG.HTM

Klüpfel, H. & Meyer-König, T. (2003). Characteristics of the PedGo Software for crowd move-ment and egress simulation. (In E. R. Galea (Ed.), Pedestrian and evacuation dynamics 2003: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on pedestrian and evacuation dynamics (pp. 331–340). London, UK: CMS Press)

10 Building Evacuation in Emergencies 227

Klüpfel, H. L. (2003). A cellular automaton model for crowd movement and egress simulation.Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany

Kostreva, M. M. & Lancaster, L. C. (1998). A comparison of two methodologies in HAZARD I fire egress analysis Fire Technology, 34(3), 227–246

Kuligowksi, E. & Gwynne, S. (2005). What a user should know when choosing an evacuation model. Fire Protection, Fall, 30–40

Kuligowski, E. D. (2003). The evaluation of a performance-based design process for a hotel building: The comparison of two egress models. Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, University of Maryland, MD, USA

Kuligowski, E. D. (2005). Review of 28 egress models. (Paper presented at the Workshop on Building Occupant Movement During Fire Emergencies)

Kuligowski, E. D. & Peacock, R. D. (2005). A review of building evacuation models. (Washington, DC, USA: Fire Research Division Building and Fire Research Laboratory, U.S. Department of Commerce)

Legion Limited (2006). Case studies [Electronic version]. Retrieved November 4, 2006, from http://www.legion.biz/customers/casestudies.html

Levin, B. M. (1987). EXITT - A simulation model of occupant decisions and actions in residential fires: Users’ guide and program description. (Gaithersburg, MD, USA: National Bureau of Standards U.S. Department of Commerce, Report NBSIR 87–3591)

Lo, S. M. & Fang, Z. (2000). A spatial-grid evacuation model for buildings. Journal of Fire Sciences, 18, 376–394

Lo, S. M., Fang, Z., Lin, P. & Zhi, G. S. (2004). An evacuation model: The SGEM package. Fire Safety Journal, 39(3), 169–190

Martin, D. J. (1996). Geographic information systems: Socio economic applications. (London, UK: Routledge)

Mott MacDonald (2006). STEPS (Simulation of Transient Evacuation and Pedestrian movementS) Version 2.0.0011: User manual. (Croydon, UK: Mott MacDonald, STEPS - Simulation Group - Transportation)

Nelson, H. E. & Mowrer, F. E. (2002). Emergency movement. (In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), SFPEhandbook of fire protection engineering (3rd Edition) (pp. 367–380). Quincy, MA, USA: Society of Fire Protection Engineers and National Fire Protection Association)

NRC (2007). Successful response starts with a map: Improving geospatial support for disaster man-agement. (Washington, DC, USA: National Research Council, National Academies Press)

Okazaki, S. & Matsushita, S. (1993, March). A study of simulation model for pedestrian movement with evacuation and queuing. (Paper presented at the Engineering for Crowd Safety: Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering for Crowd Safety, London, UK)

Olenick, S. M. & Carpenter, D. J. (2003). An updated international survey of computer models for fire and smoke. Society of Fire Protection Engineers Journal of Fire Protection Engineering,13(2), 87–110

Openshaw, S. (1984). The modifiable areal unit problem (Concepts and techniques in modern geography: 38). (Norwich, England, UK: Geo-Books)

Ozel, F. (1985). A stochastic computer simulation to model the behavior of people in fires: An envi-ronmental cognitive approach. (Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Building Technology and Safety Conference, National Institute of Building Sciences, Los Angeles, CA, USA)

Ozel, F. (1991, August). Simulation of processes in buildings as a factor in the object representa-tion of built environments. (Paper presented at the Proceedings of Building Simulation 1991, Nice, France)

Paulsen, T., Soma, H., Scheider, V., Wiklund, J. & Løvås, G. (1995). Evaluation of simulation models of evacuation from complex spaces. (Trondheim, Norway: The Research Council of Norway, SINTEF Report STF75 A95020)

Poon, S. L. (1994, July). EvacSim - A simulation model of occupants with behavioral attributes in emergency evacuation of high-rise building fires. (Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Fire Safety Science, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada)

228 C.J.E. Castle, P.A. Longley

Poon, S. L. & Beck, V. R. (1995, March). Numerical modelling of human behavior during egress in multi-storey office building fires. (Paper presented at the ASIAFLAM 1995, Hong Kong)

Rhodes, N. & Hoffmann, N. A. (1999). Fire safety engineering for the International Centre for Life, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. (Paper presented at the Interflam 99, Edinburgh, UK)

RSSB (2003). Managing large events and perturbations at stations: Stakeholder and domain expert interviews. (London: Railway Safety Standards Board)

Santos, G. & Aguirre, B. E. (2004). A critical review of emergency evacuation simulation models.(Newark, DE, USA: Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware)

Savannah Simulations AG (2006a). SimWalk pedestrian simulation software: User guide version 2.0. (Switzerland: Savannah Simulations AG)

Savannah Simulations AG (2006b). SimWalk: The pedestrian simulation software documentation.(Switzerland: Savannah Simulations AG)

Savannah Simulations AG (2007). SimWalk pedestrian simulation software: Homepage [Electronic version]. Retrieved January 15, 2007, from http://www.simwalk.com/index.html

Schneider, V. (2001). Application of the individual-based evacuation model ASERI in designing safety concepts. (Paper presented at the 2nd International Symposium on Human Behavior in Fire, Boston, MA, USA)

Schneider, V. & Könnecke, R. (2001). Simulating evacuation processes with ASERI. (In M. Schreckenberg & S. D. Sharma (Eds.), Pedestrian and evacuation dynamics (pp. 303–314). New York, USA: Springer)

Sharp, G., Gwynne, S. & Galea, E. R. (2003). The effects of ship motion on the evacuation proc-ess. (London: Fire Safety Engineering Group - University of Greenwich)

Shestopal, V. O. & Grubits, S. J. (1994, July). Evacuation model for merging traffic flows in multi-room and multi-storey buildings. (Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Fire Safety Science, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada)

Stahl, F. I. (1978). A computer simulation of human behavior in building fires: Interim report.(Washington, DC, USA: U.S. Department of Commerce, Report NBSIR 78–1514)

Stahl, F. I. (1980, October–November). Preliminary findings concerning the validity of “BFIRES”: A comparison of simulated with actual fire events. (Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2nd International Seminar on Human Behavior in Fire Emergencies, 1978)

Stahl, F. I. (1982). BFIRES-II: A behavioral based computer simulation of emergency egress dur-ing fires. Fire Technology, 18(1), 46–65

Still, G. K. (1993). New computer system can predict human behavior response to building fires. Fire, 84, 40–41

Thompson, P. A. (1994). Developing new techniques for modelling crowd movement. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh

Thompson, P. A. (2005, June). Simulex: Simulated people have needs too. (Paper presented at the Workshop on Building Occupant Movement During Fire Emergencies)

Thompson, P. A. & Marchant, E. W. (1995a). A computer model for the evacuation of large build-ing populations. Fire Safety Journal, 24(2), 131–148

Thompson, P. A. & Marchant, E. W. (1995b). Testing and application of the computer model ‘SIMULEX’. Fire Safety Journal, 24(2), 149–166

Thompson, P. A., Wu, J. & Marchant, E. W. (1996). Modelling evacuation in multi-storey build-ings with ‘Simulex.’ Fire Engineers Journal, 56(185), 6–11

TraffGO (2006). PedGo [Electronic version]. Retrieved November 3, 2006, from http://www.traffgo-ht.com/en/pedestrians/products/pedgo/index.html

Ventre, F. T., Stahl, F. I. & Turner, G. E. (1981). Crowd ingress to places of assembly: Summary and proceedings of an experts’ workshop. (Washington, DC, USA: National Bureau of Standards, US Department of Commerce, Report NBSIR 81–2361)

Wall, J. M. & Waterson, N. P. (2002). Predicting evacuation times – A comparison of the STEPS simulation approach with NFPA 130. Fire Command Studies, 1(1)

Weinroth, J. (1988). Software Review - EXITT: A simulation model of occupant decisions and actions in residential fires. Fire Technology, 24(3), 273–278

Williams, W. (2004). Go with the flow: A new method of analysing how people really move around buildings should take the guesswork out of public spaces. The Architects’ Journal, February, 8–9