Static information found in current building design guidance documents is not adequate to achieve efficient safety and security in public buildings during emergencies. There is a need to consider space characteristics and dynamic information related to building use, behavior and movement of users in various circumstances, as well as their interactions with each other and with their immediate environment. This paper explores the building design issues associated with safety and security and focuses on the exit preferences of building occupants during emergency evacuations. Exit preferences of users in public buildings were investigated using two types of case studies: Observation Case Studies (OCS) and Simulation Case Studies (SCS). The findings from the associated questionnaires and logistic analysis of the OCS data showed that “distance” and “familiarity” with the building were the two most important factors for exit preference in office buildings. It was also found that imbalanced use of exit doors considerably increases the evacuation time. Finally, further research study opportunities are discussed. SCS underscored the difference between evacuation assumptions in current building guidance compared with the results of real life experiments.
References
[1]
Geis, D.F. By design: The disaster resistant and quality-of-life community. Nat. Hazards Rev. 2000, 1, 151–160, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2000)1:3(151).
[2]
Kecklund, L.; Andrée, K.; Bengtson, S.; Willander, S.; Siré, E. How do people with disabilities consider fire safety and evacuation possibilities in historical buildings?—A Swedish case study. Fire Technol. 2012, 48, 27–41, doi:10.1007/s10694-010-0199-0.
[3]
Koo, J.; Kim, Y.; Kim, B.; Christensen, K. A comparative study of evacuation strategies for people with disabilities in high-rise building evacuation. Exp. Syst. Appl. 2013, 40, 408–417.
[4]
Akadiri, P.O.; Chinyio, E.A.; Olomolaiye, P.O. Design of a sustainable building: A conceptual framework for implementing sustainability in the building sector. Buildings 2012, 2, 126–152.
[5]
Brocklehurst, D.; Bouchlaghem, D.; Pitfield, D.; Green, M.; Still, K. Design and space planning for secondary schools: Considerations for circulation modelling. ICE Struct. Build. J. 2006. Record number: 000019293.
[6]
Brocklehurst, D.; Palmer, G.; Bouchlaghem, D.; Pitfield, D.E.; Still, K. Crowd circulation and stadium design: Low flow rate systems. ICE Struct. Build. J. 2005, 158, 281–289, doi:10.1680/stbu.2005.158.5.281.
Hale, A.; Kirwan, B.; Kjellén, U. Safe by design: Where are we now? Saf. Sci. 2007, 45, 305–327, doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2006.08.007.
[9]
Chu, J.; Yeh, C.Y. Emergency evacuation guidance design for complex building geometries. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2012, 18, 288–296, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000080.
[10]
Glover, N.J. Design versus disaster. J. Archit. Eng. 2000, 6, 77–78, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0431(2000)6:3(77).
[11]
Fruin, J.J. The Causes and Prevention of Crowd Disasters. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Engineering for Crowd Safety; London, UK: 17–18 March 1993.
[12]
Nguyen, Q.H.; McKenzie, F.D.; Petty, M.D. Crowd Behavior Cognitive Model Architecture Design. In Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation (BRIMS), Anaheim, CA, USA, 16–19 May 2005; pp. 55–64.
[13]
Kuligowski, E. Predicting human behavior during fires. Fire Technol. 2013, 49, 101–120, doi:10.1007/s10694-011-0245-6.
[14]
Provitolo, D.; Dubos-Paillard, E.; Muller, J.P. Emergent Human Behaviour During A Disaster: Thematic Versus Complex Systems Approaches. In Proceedings of EPNACS 2011 within ECCS’11 Emergent Properties in Natural and Artificial Complex Systems, Vienna, Austria, 15 September 2011; pp. 47–57.
[15]
Fruin, J.J. Crowd Dynamics and Auditorium Management. Auditorium News; International Association of Auditorium Managers, May 1984. May 1984. Available online: http://www.iaamweb.org/cvms/IAAMCrowdDyn.doc (accessed on 1 May 2013).
[16]
Benthorn, L.; Frantzich, H. Fire alarm in a public building: How do people evaluate information and choose an evacuation exit? Fire Mater. 1999, 23, 311–315, doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1018(199911/12)23:6<311::AID-FAM704>3.0.CO;2-J.
[17]
Gwynne, S.; Galea, E.R.; Lawrence, P.J.; Filippid, L. Modelling occupant interaction with reconditions using the building EXODUS evacuation model. Fire Saf. J. 2001, 36, 327–357, doi:10.1016/S0379-7112(00)00060-6.
[18]
Kuligowski, E.D. The Evaluation of a Performance-Based Design Process for a Hotel Building: The Comparison of Two Egress Models. Master Thesis, Department of Fire Protection Engineering, Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA, December 2003.
[19]
Shen, T.S. Building Planning Evaluations for Emergency Evacuation. Ph.D. Thesis, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA, December 2003.
[20]
Exodus Website. 2008. Available online: http://fseg.gre.ac.uk/exodus (accessed on 1 May 2013).
[21]
Galea, E.R.; Gwyne, S.; Lawrence, P.J.; Filippidis, L.; Blackshields, D. Building EXODUS V4.0 User Guide and Technical Manual; Fire Safety Engineering Group, University of Greenwich: Greenwich, UK, 2004.
