The Collection and Compilation of Small Group Data for Scenario Setting of Simulations and Experiments
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Background
1.2. Research Objectives and Work Aims
1.2.1. Research Objectives
1.2.2. Work Aims
1.3. Literature Review
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Overview
2.2. Case Study
2.3. Data Collection
2.3.1. Total Number of Occupants
2.3.2. Small Group Data at a Strategic Level
2.4. Modeling and Simulation
2.4.1. Modeling
2.4.2. Simulation
2.5. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Interview
3.2. Simulation Starting Time and Total Number of Occupants
3.3. Small Group Data at a Strategic Level
3.3.1. Number and Size of Small Groups, Number of MIGs, and Their Proportion to the Total Number of Occupants
3.3.2. Initial Location and Distance between MIGs
3.4. Modeling and Simulation Results
3.4.1. The Effect of Small Groups on Overall Evacuation
3.4.2. The Effect of Small Groups on Evacuation of MIGs
4. Discussion
4.1. The Data Collection on Small Groups
4.2. The Scenario Setting on Small Group Evacuation
4.3. The Effect of Small Groups on Evacuation
4.3.1. Assembling Behavior
4.3.2. The Effect of Small Groups on Overall Evacuation
4.3.3. The Effect of Small Groups on Evacuation of MIGs
5. Conclusions
- Small group data at a strategic level was obtained. Small group members accounted for 60.3% of the total number of occupants, and all small groups consisted of two to four occupants. Most members were adjacent to each other, with the maximum distance between MIGs within the same small group varying from 1 m to 23 m. These data can be applied to the setup of evacuation simulation scenarios and experiments in other studies.
- Small groups had a negative impact on overall evacuation. It increased the total evacuation time and total jam time, while decreasing the average evacuation speed of occupants.
- The greater the distance between members, the longer the assembling time, and the greater the increase in evacuation time, total jam time, and evacuation distance. The greater the increase in total congestion time, the greater the decrease in evacuation speed.
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Maximum Distance (m) | Number of Groups (Cumulative) | Details | Number of MIGs (Cumulative) | Proportion to the Total Number of MIGs (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Adjacent | 23 | 1 small group of 3 occupants, 22 small groups of 2 occupants, a total of 47 occupants | 47 | 42.34 |
1–2 | 36 | 6 small groups of 3 occupants, 7 small groups of 2 occupants, a total of 32 occupants | 79 | 71.17 |
2–3 | 39 | 2 small groups of 2 occupants, 1 small group of 4 occupants, a total of 8 occupants | 87 | 78.38 |
4–5 | 40 | 1 small group of 3 occupants, a total of 3 occupants | 90 | 81.08 |
5–6 | 42 | 2 small groups of 2 occupants, a total of 4 occupants | 94 | 84.68 |
6–7 | 44 | 1 small group of 2 occupants, 1 small group of 3 occupants, a total of 5 occupants | 99 | 89.19 |
8–9 | 45 | 1 small group of 2 occupants, a total of 2 occupants | 101 | 90.99 |
12–13 | 46 | 1 small group of 2 occupants, a total of 2 occupants | 103 | 92.79 |
16–17 | 47 | 1 small group of 2 occupants, a total of 2 occupants | 105 | 94.59 |
17–18 | 48 | 1 small group of 2 occupants, a total of 2 occupants | 107 | 96.40 |
21–22 | 49 | 1 small group of 2 occupants, a total of 2 occupants | 109 | 98.20 |
22–23 | 50 | 1 small group of 2 occupants, a total of 2 occupants | 111 | 100 |
MIGs’ Name | Scenario 1.0 | Scenario 2.0 | Increase | MIGs’ Name | Scenario 1.0 | Scenario 2.0 | Increase |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
6 | 156 | 134 | −22 | 69 | 140 | 111 | −29 |
16 | 167 | 101 | −66 | 75 | 174 | 156 | −18 |
17 | 131 | 86 | −45 | 106 | 183 | 158 | −25 |
27 | 181 | 89 | −92 | 86 | 142 | 87 | −55 |
34 | 178 | 144 | −34 | 124 | 125 | 84 | −41 |
157 | 35 | 24 | −11 | 137 | 166 | 136 | −30 |
165 | 82 | 60 | −22 | 140 | 170 | 115 | −55 |
169 | 126 | 36 | −90 | 117 | 96 | 90 | −6 |
46 | 98 | 48 | −50 | 145 | 135 | 112 | −23 |
44 | 158 | 50 | −108 | 111 | 177 | 140 | −37 |
48 | 107 | 33 | −74 | 112 | 180 | 138 | −42 |
49 | 184 | 54 | −130 | 195 | 104 | 67 | −37 |
50 | 173 | 110 | −63 | 67 | 165 | 128 | −37 |
176 | 31 | 9 | −22 | 175 | 86 | 114 | 28 |
References
- National Police and Fire Situation in 2022. Available online: https://www.119.gov.cn/qmxfxw/xfyw/2023/36210.shtml (accessed on 17 September 2023).
- Xi, J.A.; Zou, X.L.; Chen, Z.; Huang, J.J. Multi-Pattern of Complex Social Pedestrian Groups. Transp. Res. Procedia 2014, 2, 60–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moussaïd, M.; Perozo, N.; Garnier, S.; Helbing, D.; Theraulaz, G. The Walking Behaviour of Pedestrian Social Groups and Its Impact on Crowd Dynamics. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e10047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wei, X.; Song, W.; Xu, X.; Fang, Z.; Li, X. Effect of Group Behavior on Crowd Dynamics. In Cellular Automata: 11th International Conference on Cellular Automata for Research and Industry, ACRI 2014, Krakow, Poland, 22–25 September 2014, Proceedings 11; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; Volume 8751, pp. 453–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoogendoorn, S.P.; Bovy, P.H.L. Pedestrian Route-Choice and Activity Scheduling Theory and Models. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 2004, 38, 169–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haghani, M.; Sarvi, M.; Shahhoseini, Z.; Boltes, M. Dynamics of Social Groups’ Decision-Making in Evacuations. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2019, 104, 135–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ren, J.; Mao, Z.; Zhang, D.; Gong, M.; Zuo, S. Experimental Study of Crowd Evacuation Dynamics Considering Small Group Behavioral Patterns. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2022, 80, 103228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, J.; Li, S.; Nie, G.; Fan, X.; Tan, J.; Li, H.; Pang, X. Developing a Database for Pedestrians’ Earthquake Emergency Evacuation in Indoor Scenarios. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0197964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ma, Y.; Li, L.; Zhang, H.; Chen, T. Experimental Study on Small Group Behavior and Crowd Dynamics in a Tall Office Building Evacuation. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Its Appl. 2017, 473, 488–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- You, L.; Hu, J.; Gu, M.; Fan, W.; Zhang, H. The Simulation and Analysis of Small Group Effect in Crowd Evacuation. Phys. Lett. Sect. A Gen. At. Solid State Phys. 2016, 380, 3340–3348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Q.; Qu, J.; Han, Y. Pedestrian Small Group Behaviour and Evacuation Dynamics on Metro Station Platform. SSRN Electron. J. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, L.; Chan, C.Y.; Wang, J.; Wang, W. A Study of Pedestrian Group Behaviors in Crowd Evacuation Based on an Extended Floor Field Cellular Automaton Model. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2017, 81, 317–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, Y.; Liu, X.; Huo, F.; Li, H. Analysis of Cooperation Behaviors and Crowd Dynamics during Pedestrian Evacuation with Group Existence. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, W.; Lee, E.W.M.; Li, T.; Shi, M.; Cao, R.; Zhang, Y. A Study of Group Effects in Pedestrian Crowd Evacuation: Experiments, Modelling and Simulation. Saf. Sci. 2021, 133, 105029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Nan, L.; Lei, Z. Small Group Behaviors and Their Impacts on Pedestrian Evacuation. In Proceedings of the 2015 27th Chinese Control and Decision Conference, CCDC 2015, Qingdao, China, 23–25 May 2015; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 232–237. [Google Scholar]
- Turgut, Y.; Bozdag, C.E. Modeling Pedestrian Group Behavior in Crowd Evacuations. Fire Mater. 2022, 46, 420–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, K.; Kang, Z.; Zhang, L. Group Structures Facilitate Emergency Evacuation. EPL 2018, 124, 68002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vizzari, G.; Manenti, L.; Crociani, L. Adaptive Pedestrian Behaviour for the Preservation of Group Cohesion. Complex Adapt. Syst. Model. 2013, 1, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.; Wang, J. An Entropy-Based Combined Behavior Model for Crowd Evacuation. Entropy 2022, 24, 1479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bode, N.W.F.; Holl, S.; Mehner, W.; Seyfried, A. Disentangling the Impact of Social Groups on Response Times and Movement Dynamics in Evacuations. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0121227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pan, Z.; Wei, Q.; Wang, H. Agent-Based Simulation of Hindering Effect of Small Group Behavior on Elevated Interval Evacuation Time along Urban Rail Transit. Travel Behav. Soc. 2021, 22, 262–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- von Krüchten, C.; Schadschneider, A. Empirical Study on Social Groups in Pedestrian Evacuation Dynamics. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Its Appl. 2017, 475, 129–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friard, O.; Gamba, M. BORIS: A Free, Versatile Open-Source Event-Logging Software for Video/Audio Coding and Live Observations. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2016, 7, 1325–1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thunderhead Engineering Pathfinder User Manual. Available online: https://support.thunderheadeng.com/docs/pathfinder/2021-3/user-manual/ (accessed on 2 February 2023).
- Tinaburri, A. Principles for Monte Carlo Agent-Based Evacuation Simulations Including Occupants Who Need Assistance. From RSET to RiSET. Fire Saf. J. 2022, 127, 103510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.; Choi, I.; Rie, D. A Study on the Improvement of Evacuation Routes According to the Quantitative Evaluation of Fire Disaster Vulnerable Facilities. J. Korean Soc. Hazard Mitig. 2022, 22, 127–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, K.H.; Lee, J.Y.; Kong, H.S. Measures to Enhance Evacuation Safety of Nursing Hospitals Through Evacuation Simulation. J. Korean Soc. Hazard Mitig. 2022, 22, 133–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H.; Long, H.C. Simulation of Evacuation in Crowded Places Based on BIM and Pathfinder. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2021, 1880, 012010. [Google Scholar]
- Boonngam, H.; Patvichaichod, S. Fire Evacuation and Patient Assistance Simulation in a Large Hospital Building. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2020; Volume 715, p. 012004. [Google Scholar]
- D’Orazio, A.; Grossi, L.; Ursetta, D.; Carbotti, G.; Poggi, L. Egress from a Hospital Ward during Fire Emergency. Int. J. Saf. Secur. Eng. 2020, 10, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiangaek, N.; Patvichaichod, S. Performance—Based Life Safety Analysis of the Hospital Building. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2020; Volume 715. [Google Scholar]
- Ursetta, D.; D’Orazio, A.; Grossi, L.; Carbotti, G.; Casentini, S.; Poggi, L. Egress From a Hospital Ward: A Case Study. In Proceedings of the Fire and Evacuation Modelling Technical Conference, Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 8–10 September 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, X.; Liu, D.; Liu, J.; Xu, R. Architectural Design Data Set-Volume One, 3rd ed.; China Architecture & Building Press: Beijing, China, 2017; ISBN 978-7-112-20939-2. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, X.; Liu, D.; Liu, J.; Xu, R. Architectural Design Data Set-Volume Eight, 3rd ed.; China Architecture & Building Press: Beijing, China, 2017; ISBN 978-7-112-20946-0. [Google Scholar]
- Shi, L.; Xie, Q.; Cheng, X.; Chen, L.; Zhou, Y.; Zhang, R. Developing a Database for Emergency Evacuation Model. Build. Environ. 2009, 44, 1724–1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gravetter, F.J.; Wallnan, L.B. Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences, 9th ed.; Cengage Learning: Wadsworth, OH, USA, 2013; ISBN 9781111830991. [Google Scholar]
- Ronchi, E.; Kuligowski, E.D.; Reneke, P.A.; Peacock, R.D.; Nilsson, D. The Process of Verification and Validation of Building Fire Evacuation Models; National Institute of Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Do, T.; Haghani, M.; Sarvi, M. Group and Single Pedestrian Behavior in Crowd Dynamics. Transp. Res. Rec. 2016, 2540, 13–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yao, Y.; Lu, W. Children’s Evacuation Behavioural Data of Drills and Simulation of the Horizontal Plane in Kindergarten. Saf. Sci. 2021, 133, 105037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yao, Y.; Lu, W. Research on Kindergarten Children Evacuation: Analysis of Characteristics of the Movement Behaviours on Stairway. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 50, 101718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, C.; Luo, Y.; Fuellhart, K.; Shao, Q.; Witlox, F. Modeling Exit Choice Behavior in Airplane Emergency Evacuations. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2023, 112, 102450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-Val, R.; Hedo, J.M.; Pérez, E. Uncommon Exit Arrangement Effects in Airplane Emergency Evacuation. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part G J. Aerosp. Eng. 2018, 232, 2424–2431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lihua, L.; Yaping, M.; Ning, D.; Hui, Z.; Yefeng, M.; Lihua, L.; Yaping, M.; Ning, D.; Hui, Z.; Yefeng, M. Changes in Social Relation Networks and Leader-Follower Behavior in Emergency Evacuations. J. Tsinghua Univ. Technol. 2016, 56, 334–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qifu, B.; Juan, C. Macroscopic Approach for Modeling the Effect of Obstacles on Room Evacuation Process. J. Saf. Environ. 2010, 10, 202–206. [Google Scholar]
- Li, Y.; Lu, C.; Jin, J. Simulation of a Pediatric Hospital in Evacuation Considering Groups. Simul. Model. Pract. Theory 2021, 107, 102150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Strategic Level Data | Scenario Setting | Simulation Results | Attitude | Ref. | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hypothetical strategic level small group data | Evacuation experiments in hypothetical scenarios | Rectangular room | Slow down initiate movement | Negative | [6] |
Decrease evacuation speed and increase evacuation time | [7] | ||||
Decrease evacuation time | Positive | [22] | |||
Rectangular pedestrian zone | Increase the average evacuation time | Negative | [20] | ||
Evacuation experiments in real scenarios | Rectangular room and stair | Depend on the competition mechanism of occupants | Both positive and negative | [9] | |
Evacuation modeling and simulating in hypothetical scenarios | Rectangular room | Reduce evacuation efficiency | Negative | [10] | |
Increase evacuation time | [12] | ||||
[13] | |||||
[15] | |||||
[19] | |||||
Decrease evacuation time | Positive | [14] | |||
Increase evacuation efficiency | [17] | ||||
Rectangular pedestrian zone | Increase evacuation time and decrease average speed | Negative | [11] | ||
Increase total evacuation time | [16] | ||||
T-shaped pedestrian zone | Depend on the density of occupants | Both positive and negative | [18] | ||
Evacuation modeling and simulating in real scenarios | Rectangular pedestrian zone | Increase total evacuation time | Negative | [21] |
Type | Shoulder Width (cm) (Maximum Shoulder Width Plus Clothing Thickness) [33,34] | Speed (m/s) [35] | Speed-Density Model [24] | Height (m) (Net Height Plus the Thickness of Footwear) [33,34] |
---|---|---|---|---|
Adult men | 49.4 | 1.30 | SFPE | 1.715 |
Adult women | 45.7 | 1.24 | SFPE | 1.625 |
Elderly men | 49.3 | 1.04 | SFPE | 1.685 |
Elderly women | 45.9 | SFPE | 1.565 |
Index | Description |
---|---|
TET | Total evacuation time: Time required from the start of the evacuation simulation to the last occupant entering the exit. |
OET | Occupant evacuation time: Time required for an occupant to enter the exit from the start of the evacuation simulation. |
OTJT | Occupant total jam time: Total time for an occupant to move at a speed of less than 0.25 m/s throughout the evacuation. |
OED | Occupant evacuation distance: Total distance traveled by an occupant during evacuation. |
OES | Occupant evacuation speed: Average speed of movement of an occupant during evacuation. |
Exam Room | Information | Number of Small Groups | Number of MIGs | Walking Ability |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 Adult man, 1 adult woman | 1 | 2 | Walking independently |
2 | 1 Adult man, 2 adult women | 1 | 3 | Walking independently |
3 | 1 Adult woman | 0 | 0 | Walking independently |
4 | 1 Adult man, 1 elderly man | 1 | 2 | Walking independently |
5 | / | 0 | 0 | / |
6 | 2 Adult men, 3 adult women | 2 (Each included 1 adult man and 1 adult woman) | 4 | Walking independently |
7 | 1 Adult man, 1 adult woman | 1 | 2 | Walking independently |
8 | 2 Adult women | 1 | 2 | Walking independently |
9 | 1 Adult woman | 0 | 0 | Walking independently |
10 | 1 Adult man | 0 | 0 | Walking independently |
11 | / | 0 | 0 | / |
12 | 2 Adult men, 1 adult woman | 1 | 3 | Walking independently |
The Size of Small Groups | Number of Small Groups | Number of MIGs | The Proportion of MIGs to the Total Number of Occupants (%) |
---|---|---|---|
2 occupants | 40 | 80 | 43.48 |
3 occupants | 9 | 27 | 14.67 |
4 occupants | 1 | 4 | 2.17 |
total | 50 | 111 | 60.33 |
Occupant | Index | Scenario 1.0 | Scenario 2.0 | Average Value Increase Compared with Scenario 1.0 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P 5 | P 50 | P 95 | Average | P 5 | P 50 | P 95 | Average | ||||
AMsAA | TET (s) | 57.26 | 140.26 | 83 | 144.95% | ||||||
OET (s) | 5.47 | 27.00 | 52.09 | 27.91 | 6.73 | 31.69 | 85.80 | 35.53 | 7.62 | 27.30% | |
OTJT (s) | 0.23 | 1.28 | 29.25 | 4.65 | 0.23 | 4.56 | 54.56 | 11.85 | 7.20 | 154.84% | |
OED (m) | 3.67 | 20.73 | 41.42 | 20.67 | 3.36 | 19.23 | 38.27 | 19.28 | −1.39 | −6.72% | |
OES (m/s) | 0.19 | 0.83 | 1.10 | 0.78 | 0.16 | 0.61 | 1.05 | 0.61 | −0.17 | −21.79% | |
MIG | TET (s) | 57.05 | 140.26 | 83.21 | 145.85% | ||||||
OET (s) | 7.31 | 31.72 | 53.05 | 30.70 | 9.40 | 39.00 | 87.99 | 41.09 | 10.39 | 33.84% | |
OTJT (s) | 0.22 | 1.36 | 31.49 | 5.05 | 1.08 | 7.31 | 65.26 | 14.77 | 9.72 | 192.48% | |
OED (m) | 5.45 | 23.51 | 45.41 | 22.64 | 5.69 | 21.40 | 38.95 | 20.77 | −1.87 | −8.26% | |
OES (m/s) | 0.20 | 0.84 | 1.07 | 0.78 | 0.17 | 0.58 | 0.84 | 0.56 | −0.22 | −28.21% |
Index | Changes in Scenario 2.0 Compared to Scenario 1.0 | AMsAA | Proportion (%) | MIG | Proportion (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
OET | Shorten | 44 | 23.91 | 20 | 18.02 |
Longer | 107 | 58.15 | 70 | 63.06 | |
Invariant | 33 | 17.93 | 21 | 18.92 | |
OED | Shorten | 104 | 56.53 | 76 | 68.47 |
Longer | 37 | 35.58 | 22 | 19.82 | |
Invariant | 43 | 41.35 | 13 | 11.71 | |
OES | Faster | 25 | 13.59 | 11 | 9.91 |
Slower | 138 | 75.00 | 98 | 88.29 | |
Invariant | 21 | 11.41 | 2 | 1.80 | |
OTJT | Shorten | 33 | 17.93 | 13 | 11.71 |
Longer | 133 | 72.28 | 91 | 81.98 | |
Invariant | 18 | 9.78 | 7 | 6.31 |
Exit | Scenario 1.0 | Scenario 2.0 |
---|---|---|
Exit 1 | 90 | 75 |
Exit 2 | 86 | 102 |
Exit 3 | 8 | 7 |
Small Group Number | Distance between MIGs (m) | Assembling Time (s) | Small Group Number | Distance between MIGs (m) | Assembling Time (s) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 12.15 | 0.9 | 9 | 81.13 | 10.8 |
2 | 10.57 | 0.9 | 10 | 124.51 | 17.3 |
3 | 12.24 | 1 | 11 | 50.26 | 18.5 |
4 | 18.88 | 1.4 | 12 | 61.07 | 18.9 |
5 | 13.48 | 1.7 | 13 | 173.83 | 21.9 |
6 | 19.64 | 2 | 14 | 168.56 | 22.2 |
7 | 19.32 | 2.6 | 15 | 223.50 | 37.7 |
8 | 28.18 | 3.2 | 16 | 214.19 | 120.1 |
Dependent Variable Independent Variable | Distance between MIGs | Assembling Time | Increase in OET | Increase in OTJT | Increase in OED | Increase in OES |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Distance between MIGs | 1 ** | 0.740 ** | 0.538 ** | 0.412 * | 0.569 ** | Irrelevant |
Assembling time | / | 1 ** | 0.683 ** | 0.589 ** | 0.499 ** | Irrelevant |
Increase in OET | / | / | 1 ** | 0.916 ** | 0.602 ** | Irrelevant |
Increase in OTJT | / | / | 0.916 ** | 1 ** | Irrelevant | −0.520 ** |
Increase in OED | / | / | 0.602 ** | Irrelevant | 1 ** | 0.388 * |
Increase in OES | / | / | 134.308X2 + 21.823X + 9.581 ** | −0.520 ** | 48.302X2 + 40.690X + 3.963 ** | 1 ** |
Building Environment | Author | Initial Site Area (m2) | Perimeter/Area | Initial Density (pp/m2) | Occupant Information | Proportion of MIGs to Total Occupant (%) | Number of Small Group Members | MIG Location | Evacuation Indicators | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Time It Takes MIGs to Assemble | TET | Average OES | |||||||||||
Time (s) | Increase (%) | Speed (m/s) | Decrease (%) | ||||||||||
Real and complex building environment | This study | 450 ① | 0.65 ⑤ | 0.41 ⑦ | Patients, accompanying persons, and doctors | 0 | 2–4 | Adjacent and dispersed ② | Most MIGs assembled within 49 s, accounting for about 35% of the total evacuation time | 57.26 | / | 0.78 | / |
60.33 ⑲ | 140.26 | 144.9 | 0.61 | 21.79 | |||||||||
Simple experimental environment set up temporarily | J. Ren [7] | 150 ⑨ | 0.333 ⑥ | 0.4 ⑧ | Experiment volunteers | 0 | 2, 4, 6, 8 | Random | Accounting for 40–50%of the total evacuation time | / | / | 0.82 | / |
10 ⑳ | About 19 | / | 0.56 | 31.7 | |||||||||
20 ⑳ | About 22 | About 16 | |||||||||||
30 ⑳ | About 25 | About 32 | |||||||||||
40 ⑳ | About 25 | About 32 | |||||||||||
Simple experimental environment set up temporarily | Milad Haghani [6] | 112.36 ⑩ | 0.377 | 0.57 | Experiment volunteers | 0, 100 | 1 | Adjacent ⑭ | / | About 14 | / | / | / |
2 | About 16 | About 14 | |||||||||||
3 | About 16 | About 14 | |||||||||||
4 | About 15 | About 7 | |||||||||||
Hypothetical but simple computer simulation environment | X. Chen [19] | 961 ③ | 0.13 | 0.21 | Agent | 0 | 2 | Random ④ | The crowd was the most chaotic at 20–40 s, likely due to MIGs assembling | About 100 | / | / | / |
20 | About 150 | About 50 | |||||||||||
40 | About 350 | About 250 | |||||||||||
60 | About 500 | About 400 | |||||||||||
Hypothetical but simple computer simulation environment | L. You [10] | 163.2 ⑪ | 0.31 | 3.68 | Agent | 0 | 2–3 | Adjacent ⑮ | / | About 116 | / | / | / |
60 | About 120 | About 3 | |||||||||||
70 | About 130 | About 12 | |||||||||||
Hypothetical but simple computer simulation environment | Q. Zhang [11] | 1132 | 0.22 | 0.53 | Agent | 0 | 2 | Adjacent ⑯ | / | About 140 | / | / | / |
20 | About 150 | About 7 | |||||||||||
40 | About 140 | About 0 | |||||||||||
60 | About 155 | About 10 | |||||||||||
80 | About 175 | About 25 | |||||||||||
100 | About 140 | About 0 | |||||||||||
Hypothetical but simple computer simulation environment | L. Lu [17] | 400 ⑫ | 0.2 | 1.88 | Agent | 40 | 1 | Adjacent ⑰ | / | 125.3 | / | / | / |
2 | 150.6 | 20.19 | |||||||||||
3 | 157.2 | 25.46 | |||||||||||
Hypothetical but simple computer simulation environment | Yakup Turgut [16] | 100 ⑬ | 0.4 | 1 | Agent | 0 | 2–5 | Random | / | About 42 | / | / | / |
78 | About 49 | 16.67 | |||||||||||
Real but simple building environment | Z. Pan [21] | 1950 | 1.54 | 0.53 | Agent | 0 | 2–4 | Adjacent ⑱ | / | About 2100 | / | / | / |
10 | About 2200 | About 5 | |||||||||||
20 | About 2300 | About 10 | |||||||||||
30 | About 2400 | About 14 | |||||||||||
40 | About 2300 | About 10 | |||||||||||
50 | About 2400 | About 14 | |||||||||||
60 | About 2350 | About 12 | |||||||||||
70 | About 2300 | About 10 | |||||||||||
80 | About 2350 | About 12 | |||||||||||
90 | About 2400 | About 14 | |||||||||||
100 | About 2500 | About 20 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Xu, Y.; Zhou, Y. The Collection and Compilation of Small Group Data for Scenario Setting of Simulations and Experiments. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 6371. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14146371
Xu Y, Zhou Y. The Collection and Compilation of Small Group Data for Scenario Setting of Simulations and Experiments. Applied Sciences. 2024; 14(14):6371. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14146371
Chicago/Turabian StyleXu, Yi, and Ying Zhou. 2024. "The Collection and Compilation of Small Group Data for Scenario Setting of Simulations and Experiments" Applied Sciences 14, no. 14: 6371. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14146371