Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Ewa Prawdzik
Paul Clifford
Sonja Nightingale
Mott MacDonald Group
1. INTRODUCTION
Transport planning models operate in a wide range of macro and micro levels.
At the micro level pedestrian simulation models are an important tool in the
capacity assessment of transportation hubs and urban spaces. These models
are used to define the movement and interaction of people between one
another and the surrounding environment. The analysis helps architects,
transport planners and project teams to optimise the design and operation of a
building.
Evacuation time calculation methods have been widely used in the design of
means of escape. These can be divided into two main categories:
Dynamic passenger simulation models have been widely used to assist in the
development of safe designs and space-proofing of a building or place during
normal operation. By undertaking this type of analysis, designers seek to
ensure that the levels of congestion and journey times are acceptable.
• Walking speed
• Flow rates through horizontal and vertical circulation elements, such as
passageways, corridors, doors, ramps and stairs
• Usage of available exit routes
• Familiarity with the environment
With respect to the above key assumptions, there are two principal
approaches that can be undertaken using the dynamic modelling
methodology, including:
• Fixed approach: key assumptions are set in the model to represent the
requirements of a particular industry standard. Examples of fixed assumptions
are outlined in Table 1.
A comparison of the results between the two approaches, for the same
evacuation scenario, has been undertaken [6]. Two hypothetical station
layouts have been considered.
The first case, ‘Case 1’, is a station with a single platform island, raised above
the concourse. The second case, ‘Case 2’, is a station with two platforms,
below the concourse.
Table 2. Comparison of the results of the static and dynamic approaches [6]
Dynamic
Static
Fixed Flexible
CASE 1
Option 1 280 23%
Platform 228 227 0%
Option 2 263 15%
Option 1 294 2%
Station 287 278 -3%
Option 2 284 -1%
CASE 2
Platform 203 212 4% 229 13%
Station 405 412 2% 312 -23%
With respect to the results of the fixed dynamic approach, it was found that
the dynamic simulation provided similar evacuation time results to the static
approach. This demonstrated that dynamic models can closely replicate the
NFPA 130 behaviour, when set up to do so.
However, differences were observed between the static results and the
dynamic simulation results using the flexible approach: dynamic platform
evacuation times were found to be longer than the static predictions for Cases
1 and 2, while dynamic station clearance times were comparable to the static
assessment results for Case 1 and shorter for Case 2.
On the platform level, longer platform evacuation times were explained by the
following: while the static approach assumed full use of all egress elements
from the start of the evacuation, the dynamic model took into account the
initial location of people spread across the platform level. This led to a delay
between the start of the evacuation and the time all egress elements were
used to their maximum capacity. These results demonstrated how the static
On the concourse level, the key driver of the concourse clearance time was
the pedestrian walking speeds, which led to shorter walking times from the
concourse level to the station exit. This explained the comparable or shorter
station clearance times between the static assessment and the flexible
dynamic approach. These results demonstrated how the static approach
provided conservative station evacuation times in comparison with the
dynamic modelling approach.
The differences observed between Options 1 and 2 were due to the layout of
the station in Case 1: taking out an escalator on the busier section of the
platform (i.e. Option 2) had a greater impact on platform evacuation times
than taking out an escalator on the less crowded section of the platform.
It was noted that the choice of escalator made unavailable did not have any
impact on the static assessment results. This demonstrated the benefits of the
dynamic modelling analyses, which could assist in a better understanding of
the possible scenarios and identify the potential risks of a proposed design.
A validation exercise was carried out for the evacuation of a multi-level office
building with two evacuation routes [7].
A total of 356 people evacuated the building and this evacuation took 5
minutes to clear the building.
Figure 3 Comparison between the observed and predicted flow rates through
the front (left) and back (right) exits [7]
A comparison of the observed data with the NFPA 130 [1] and LU [2] flow
rates showed that the observed flow rates and speeds down the stairs were
significantly lower than those defined in the industry standards. This identified
that a static assessment of the building would have provided optimistic
evacuation times.
The results presented in Figure 3 demonstrated that the dynamic model was
able to replicate the observed conditions quite accurately, resulting in
evacuation times similar to the observed times.
The tram stop at Manchester Piccadilly train station has a unique layout, with
separate arrival and departure platforms. The purpose of the dynamic
modelling of the evacuation conditions at the station was to support a Fire
Safety Review of the proposed infrastructure modifications.
The static assessment provided an evacuation time of 3.6 minutes, and this
was in accordance with the industry standard evacuation time of 4 minutes,
while the dynamic simulation predicted an evacuation time of 2.9 minutes.
Silvertown tunnel
The Transport for London project has considered the development of options
for a bored tunnel road link across the river Thames in London. The project
was at a feasibility stage, with further development work required. The project
set down the requirements for emergency escape for tunnel users.
The results of the dynamic modelling were comparable with those obtained
using the static approach. It demonstrated that people evacuated along the
walkway and into the cross passage without a significant delay due to
queuing. The last person reached the emergency cross passage after 10.3
minutes from the start of the fire. Figure 5 presents snapshots of the simulated
evacuation at 1 minute intervals.
This example demonstrated how the dynamic model can verify the findings of
the static analysis. In addition, the modelling provided stakeholders with a
visual representation of people movements during the evacuation process, as
well as further information on the interaction of evacuees between each other
and with their environment.
The STEPS software can import this CFD data to provide the dynamic model
with a visual representation of smoke spreading in the environment and
assess the impact of reduced visibility on people behaviour and, therefore,
predicted evacuation times. For example, the pedestrian simulation software
can be set up to reduce people’s walking speeds as visibility conditions
deteriorate. In addition to this, the model can also extract the accumulated
exposure dose data for any toxic element for each person, enabling the
assessment of casualties for different scenarios.
4. CONCLUSIONS
Dynamic models can provide results similar to those obtained using a static
approach and hence, can be assessed against traditional industry standards.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] NFPA 130 (2010) Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit and Passenger
Rail Systems
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors are grateful for the permission given by both TfL and GMPTE for
the use of their evacuation study material.