4.7 Review

A survey of crowd evacuation on passenger ships: Recent advances and future challenges

期刊

OCEAN ENGINEERING
卷 263, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.112403

关键词

Building evacuation; Ship passenger evacuation; Passenger evacuation behavior; Passenger evacuation optimization; Passenger evacuation assessment

资金

  1. National Natu-ral Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [51979216]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province, China [2021CFA001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper reviews the research on ship evacuation systems and suggests that the existing indoor evacuation systems are not suitable for ship passenger evacuation due to unique challenges. The paper provides insights on the challenges and prospects of ship evacuation.
During ship emergencies, a reliable and efficient evacuation system is able to guide passengers to the appropriate muster stations as quickly as possible. The majority of the existing indoor evacuation systems provide emergency guidance for people trapped in general buildings. However, those systems fail to consider the unique challenges of ship passenger evacuation, such as the effect of ship motion on pedestrian motion and the feedback of pedestrian motion on ship inclination state. Consequently, evacuation guidance provided by these schemes may not always be optimal or may even make the evacuation worse due to the differences in the critical factors influencing emergency guiding between land-based buildings and passenger ships. This paper presents a systematic literature overview of recent advances in building evacuation, followed by a description of the challenges unique to evacuating passengers on vessels. Furthermore, the existing ship evacuation research is reviewed from three aspects, i.e., passenger behavior study, ship evacuation optimization, and evaluation of evacuation on passenger ships. A discussion of land-based evacuation schemes and prospects for ship evacuation is also presented.

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