4.7 Article

Effect of exit placement on evacuation plans

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH
Volume 269, Issue 2, Pages 749-759

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2018.01.050

Keywords

Simulation; Emergency evacuation; Exit placement; Simulated annealing (SA); Depth-first search (DFS)

Funding

  1. Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University [RG-1438-002]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Human behaviour while trying to escape a room via its main means of egress is an important issue in social science, complex systems research, and architectural planning. Disasters resulting from human crowding have increased in recent years. In such cases, it is important to consider several factors, including the smooth flow of pedestrians and the positions of obstacles and exits. This paper describes the effects of exit placement in environments congested with pedestrians. An evacuation system was designed and implemented with multiple exits in four different arrangements. The system utilised two artificial intelligence (AI) techniques-simulated annealing (SA) and depth-first search (DFS)-to examine the optimal balance between the placements of the various exits. Simulation and experimental results demonstrated that adjacently placed exits resulted in increased crowding at some exits over others when a nearest-exit path technique (DFS) was adopted as the evacuation strategy, resulting in longer evacuation times. Of the two examined evacuation techniques, SA proved superior, as it optimally balanced the pedestrian distribution over all available exits in all scenarios. In addition, the optimal-path technique (SA) did not suffer the ill-effects of adjacent exit placement. The simulation results confirm the importance of developing optimal evacuation plans, which could significantly outperform commonly employed nearest-exit evacuation strategies. (C) 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available