Author:
Feliciani Claudio,Zuriguel Iker,Garcimartín Angel,Maza Diego,Nishinari Katsuhiro
Abstract
AbstractAlthough some experimental evidence showed that an obstacle placed in front of a door allows making people’s evacuations faster, the efficacy of such a solution has been debated for over 15 years. Researchers are split between those who found the obstacle beneficial and those who could not find a significant difference without it. One of the reasons for the several conclusions lies in the variety of the experiments performed so far, both in terms of competitiveness among participants, geometrical configuration and number of participants. In this work, two unique datasets relative to evacuations with/without obstacle and comprising low and high competitiveness are analyzed using state-of-the-art definitions for crowd dynamics. In particular, the so-called congestion level is employed to measure the smoothness of collective motion. Results for extreme conditions show that, on the overall, the obstacle does not reduce density and congestion level and it could rather slightly increase it. From this perspective, the obstacle was found simply shifting the dangerous spots from the area in front of the exit to the regions between the obstacle and the wall. On the other side, it was however confirmed, that the obstacle can stabilize longitudinal crowd waves, thus reducing the risk of trampling, which could be as important (in terms of safety) as improving the evacuation time. However, under urgent, competitive, but non-extreme conditions, the obstacle generally had a positive effect, helping channeling the flow of pedestrians through the exit while facilitating their interactions.
Funder
Japan Science and Technology Agency
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad, Gobierno de España
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference53 articles.
1. Haase, K. et al. Improving pilgrim safety during the hajj: An analytical and operational research approach. Interfaces 46, 74–90. https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.2015.0833 (2016).
2. The New York Times. Seventy-eight negroes killed in a mad panic; shout of “fight” mistaken for an alarm of “fire!”. The New York Times September, 1 (1902)
3. The New York Times. Negro dead number 115; no white people killed in the birmingham panic. majority of the victims died of suffocation—vain efforts of leaders to check the panic. The New York Times September, 12 (1902)
4. Hsieh, Y.-H., Ngai, K. M., Burkle, F. M. & Hsu, E. B. Epidemiological characteristics of human stampedes. Disaster Med. Public Health Preparedness 3, 217–223. https://doi.org/10.1097/DMP.0b013e3181c5b4ba (2009).
5. Illiyas, F. T., Mani, S. K., Pradeepkumar, A. & Mohan, K. Human stampedes during religious festivals: A comparative review of mass gathering emergencies in India. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 5, 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2013.09.003 (2013).
Cited by
39 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献