4.7 Article

Height map-based social force model for stairway evacuation

期刊

SAFETY SCIENCE
卷 133, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.105027

关键词

Height map; Stairway; Social force model; Bottleneck phenomenon; Evacuation dynamics

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2018YFC0809300]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61773233]
  3. National Major Scientific Research Instrument Development Project of China [61927804]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study focuses on the evacuation dynamics of pedestrians on stairways, revealing the impact of ground topography on stair movement. The height map model accurately reproduces pedestrian movements on stairways, with continuous and discontinuous height variations affecting speed and flow.
The stairway is ubiquitous in public places like shopping mall, theater and stadium. Due to the unevenness of the ground, the staircase often brings about undesirable effects in emergency evacuation, such as stumble, trampling and falling. Therefore, it is necessary to study the evacuation dynamics of pedestrians on the stairway in-depth. However, the widely studies social force model fails to take into account the effect of ground topography on stair movement. In this paper, an extended social force model based on height map is proposed. This kind of model can accurately reproduce the temporal-spatial pedestrian dynamics on the stairway. Simulations indicate that the pedestrian flow on the stairway is not only constrained by geometric narrowing, but also restricted by the ground topography. Most of all, the discontinuous feature of height variance led to the fluctuation of velocity and further constrain the traffic capacity of stairs. Higher aspiration levels result in speed variance during emergency evacuation, and further induce congestion near the transitions between horizontal way and the stairs. The danger of clogging induced by transitions can be minimized by replacing staircases with ramps.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据