Search

Past studies suggest that people are often reluctant to use occupant evacuation elevators in case of fire. However, existing research is scarce and current knowledge is based on questionnaire studies and laboratory experiments. An unannounced evacuation experiment was therefore performed on the 16th floor of a 35-floor high-rise hotel building. Sixty-seven participants took part and eye-tracking glasses were used to collect data on exit choice and eye fixations. Three different scenarios were studied, including two different hotel room locations on the floor and a variation of guidance system for one of these locations, i.e., flashing green lights next to the evacuation sign at the elevators. Results suggest that people typically choose the elevator for evacuation, even if their hotel room was located closer to the evacuation stair. Flashing green lights next to an evacuation sign made people look more at this sign. However, in spite of looking more at the sign, the flashing light was not shown to significantly improve compliance with the sign. Also, the results suggest that a detector activated self-closing fire door without vision panels to the elevator lobby made it more difficult to find the evacuation elevators in an emergency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Familiarity is widely accepted as a key variable for the exit route selection of occupants of a building in emergency egress, but how to evaluate it has not been well researched. In addition, familiarity with general space layout (building familiarity) and familiarity with exits (exit familiarity) are often interchangeably used, which may cause inappropriate understanding of building and occupant characteristics among fire engineers and architects. In the current study, a paper-based survey was conducted to examine the difference between the two familiarities in a six-story library building. The two familiarities were implicitly evaluated by the spatial knowledge of the participants on the locations of restrooms, elevators, stairways for exit purposes in an emergency, and their current location. Sixty-nine valid responses of the participants' spatial knowledge were semi-quantitatively evaluated based upon the accuracy of the answered position against the actual position. The results reveal that the two familiarities are not synonymous and needs to be understood and handled differently in fire engineering. In particular, the location of emergency-only exit stairways was perceived as low as 20% of non-emergency-only stairways; on average, each of the former and latter stairways was perceived by 8 and 33 participants out of 69 participants, respectively. This result raises concerns about the efficacy of the emergency-only-exit concept. The direction of the next destination out of a building was found to be a key factor to determine the travel route within a building where occupants have good familiarity with the building and surrounding places. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Including in total 135 participants in the ages 19-69 years (recruited from the general public), an unannounced full-scale field evacuation experiment was performed in the Stockholm underground metro system on the night between October 17 and 18, 2014. The purpose was to collect data on the flow rate of people in train exits during the evacuation of a train in a tunnel and on the walking speed of people when moving long distances on an uneven surface in a tunnel, and to study exit choice and behaviour during an evacuation. Consequently, the experiment involved the evacuation of a rail car (a Bombardier C20 train) in a tunnel as well as the subsequent evacuation of the tunnel itself; the latter meant that the participants either could evacuate to the closest station (~400 m) or to an available emergency exit (~200 m). Among other things, the experiment demonstrated that the averaged flow rates of people in the train exits varied between 0.19 p/s and 0.22 p/s (0.14-0.16 p/m s when considering the train exit width of 1.4 m) and that the averaged walking speeds in the tunnel varied between 1.1 m/s and 1.2 m/s (no smoke present). Furthermore, all 135 participants found and used the available emergency exit, which had been equipped with a technical system consisting of a loudspeaker that broadcasted a combined alarm signal and a pre-recorded voice message. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]