Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Different types of evacuation route signing techniques evaluated on the basis of
their usability and efficiency in case of fire.
Tom de Jong
June, 2015
VU-‐ University Amsterdam
Support: Professor Dr. Jan Treur
Abstract
Current required evacuation route signs are often overlooked and are not easily perceptible
during smoke formation. Scientific research offers various methods and techniques in order to
improve the escape process. A number of techniques will be discussed in this research, and
there will be a distinction made among static, active, and dynamic evacuation route signage.
The various techniques will be evaluated based on relevancy and efficiency. The conclusion is
that active systems, those systems which are activated when an emergency is diagnosed, will
double the visibility of the escape route signage, while at the same time, they are extremely
suitable in the current construction inventory due to the limited financial investment needed,
as well as the simplicity in installing those systems.
A dynamic system is more costly and installation more intensive because it utilizes a larger
number of sensors and activators. However, a dynamic system offers the safest escape route,
because the avenue of escape is adapted on the basis of the observed fire and/or smoke
formation.
Note of the translator: This thesis was originally written in Dutch, referring to Dutch law, which is in
compliance with European legislation.
2
Introduction
A lot of research has been done regarding human behavior at the time of an emergency
evacuation. Different aspects of this behavior were observed, like social factors, layout of the
building and different modeling methods to recognize human behavior and the different
techniques available to improve the process of emergency evacuation.
At this moment evacuation route signage is obligatory, depending of the size, and or
appropriation of the building. Evacuation signage has to be in accordance with the European
Standards for signage, as described in the ISO7010. This standard prescribes the color, kind of
pictogram and location in the emergency escape route. Research proves that the obligatory
signage is often inappropriate for an optimal escape. The signage is often neglected, because
people prefer to escape using the best known route [1] – note: [number] is a footnote reference to
other researches summed at the last pages of this paper. This research shows that only 38% of the
people, who were unknown to the building, actually discovered the present signage. Out of the
people who did notice the signage, 97% of them used this information to find their evacuation
route [2]. Signage as prescribed by the ISO7010 is almost without exception placed at high
elevations in a room (such as above an exit doorway). The discovery of physical visible signage
is influenced by the attention that the person has for this signage combined with their personal
knowledge of the layout of the building. A person’s propensity to actually follow the information
provided by the signage, depends on cognitive factors like his/her ability to information
interpretation and psychological factors including, but not limited to the person’s trust in the
information provided [2].
Signage as prescribed in the ISO7010 is a static system, which means that the signage is
always present, irrespective of whether or not any emergency condition exists. In this research a
distinction is made between static, active and dynamic signage. Several active signage systems
are developed, which provide an active signal at the moment of an emergency. A dynamic
signage system actually provides an escape route for occupants to follow to escape and is
dynamically based on the location of the calamity in the building. Dynamic systems are always
active. There are currently many technological developments in various stages of development
and use that are all designed to improve safe evacuation in case of an emergency; most of which
concern active and dynamic systems given their capability(ies) to positively enhance occupant’s
ability to escape a structure during a building crisis like fire.
This research assesses and compares different techniques and methods utilized for
emergency egress using a vast body of emergency evacuation scientific research that addresses
these techniques’ and methods’ influence on human behavior. The different techniques,
observed in this research, are evaluated for their pro’s and contra’s, especially in regard to the
3
effectiveness, overall efficacy and applicability of the system; the effectiveness being the way the
system improves the emergency evacuation process and applicability being the complexity of
the installation of the system including the relative consideration of the expected costs
associated with the installation and use of the system. First the evacuation process itself is
studied to gain more understanding of the factors that are part of the evacuation process.
Secondly, fire detection is studied because fire detection is the first step to trigger an alarm and
notification systems which initiate an emergency evacuation.
The evacuation process
To start with, it is important to gain an insight into the way people attempt escape in an
emergency evacuation. Many factors play a role, and a myriad of techniques are needed to
improve this process.
The evacuation process distinguishes three phases [3]:
1. Awareness, of the danger by external stimuli
2. Validation and reaction to the alarm signals (Decision making)
3. Relocation to a safe environment
History has proven time and again that people have a low level of awareness in relation to
danger. An alarm is not always taken seriously; this occupant oversight is, amongst others,
caused by the sheer amount of false alarms that people have experienced [4]. People also seem
to suffer from the problem of making sense of alarm signals. Most fatal fires occur at nighttime,
when people are asleep. When people are sleeping or just waking up, they have a lowered level
of consciousness. Especially the elderly need a higher sound intensity of audible alarms to gain
consciousness and to be alerted by the alarm [5].
In decision making a number of factors are important. Like social factors; people, in an
emergency, have the tendency to follow other persons which can lead them into harm’s way
rather than to safety; dependent upon who they might randomly choose to follow. The behavior
of another person may be of influence (leading role). Other factors are the layout of the building
and other environmental factors like the location of the fire and the presence and volume of
smoke in the structure or space.
There are many factors that have an influence on the relocation to a safe environment.
Like signage, stress, knowledge of the building, time pressure, characteristics of the building,
being alone or in a group and age and functionality of the person. These kind of factors also have
an influence on the self-‐sufficiency of a person in case of a fire. ‘Self-‐sufficiency in case of a fire, is
4
the human ability to notice the signals of danger, to interpret these signals and the ability to
make decisions to take action aimed at survival of the fire situation’ [6].
Figure 1: Characteristics influencing self-‐sufficiency
Three particular features; man, building and fire define the level of self-‐sufficiency. This
research is mainly focused on techniques that are relating to human characteristics and
psychonomics. This is related to the interaction between environment and human behavior in
this environment [3].
Different phases of evacuation process techniques may be applied to improve
observation, consciousness and relocation. Active techniques; make use of sound and/or light
and are able to bring about major improvements to the emergency evacuation process. Besides
active techniques, this particular research is focused on more ‘intelligent’ dynamic techniques to
improve the evacuation process. Layout, component requirements, maintenance and periodic
checks are described. The following standards, which are directed by legislation are applicable
in this analysis and study.
5
NEN 2575: Fire safety of buildings -‐ Evacuation alarm installations -‐ System and quality
requirements and guidelines for locating of alarm devices.
NEN 2575 prescribes the requirements for design, execution, compatibility, and the quality of
evacuation alarm installations, meant for a fast and proper evacuation of buildings. This
standard handles about different types of evacuation alarm installations such as silent alarms
and loud alarms. Note of the translator: In the United States, these requirements are embodied in such
generally recognized Fire Codes and standards such as NFPA 72-‐ National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code and
UL 1971, UL 217 and other fire alarm detection and notification system requirements.
Fire detection
To be aware of a fire situation and to trigger the evacuation process, it is important to know if
there is an actual fire and, if possible, to determine the actual location of this fire. The
requirements for fire detection systems are described in different Dutch standards. In these
standards the installation layout, the requirements for the components used in and comprising
the system and the maintenance and inspection requirements are described. The following
standards are applicable, and prescribed by the Dutch building act ‘Bouwbesluit’ [7].
NEN 2535: Fire safety of buildings -‐ Fire detection installations -‐ System and quality requirements
and guidelines for detector siting
NEN 2435 describes rulings for design, execution, compatibility and quality for of a fire
detection installation. (Note of the translator: This Dutch NEN 2535 is fully based on the European EN-‐54
which is generally accepted across EU countries as the benchmark for fire systems)
NEN 2555: Fire safety in buildings -‐ Smoke alarms for dwellings
The NEN 2555 describes the requirements for smoke-‐alarms in domestic dwellings. It also
addresses the requirements for the instructions for the positioning and mounting of smoke-‐
alarms in different rooms. This standard is meant for single-‐station styled or linked-‐operation
smoke detectors. For smoke detectors being part of a fire detection installation the NEN 2335
and NEN 2575 apply.
NEN 2654: Management, control and maintenance of fire safety systems
A fire safety system can only be relied upon to properly and effectively function if the
management, the control and the maintenance are executed correctly. NEN 2654 gives
guidelines and requirements that are to be followed.
6
NEN-‐EN 54: Fire detection and fire alarm systems
The NEN-‐EN 54 product norm set is applicable to fire alarm systems in and around buildings,
composed of different devices that are performing their intended duties and communicating
with the fire alarm control panel with the goal to detect a fire in the earliest stage and to give an
alarm signal locally or to alert a remote service organization that an emergency condition exists
or that a fire is underway. An alarm set by the fire alarm system can be transferred to other fire
alarm systems as well and can switch those others integrated systems on or off. Generally, this
series of standards complies of over 20 parts.
In the open marketplace, there are many different makes, models and types of fire alarm
systems available, which are all in compliance with these standards. The fire detection
installation is always in an “active” status during a smoke or fire alarm. Many of these systems
provide alarm signals using sound/audible alarms as a baseline requirement. And, for the deaf
and hearing-‐impaired persons, the fire alarm system can be expanded to include visual
notification appliances and/or vibrating alarms to provide additional forms of signaling the
building crisis [4]. Note of the translator: in the United States strobes are obligatory in a fire alarm system.
Europe does not (yet) uniformly require visual notification for the deaf and hearing impaired in existing code
or legislation.
Signage
Signage is part of the emergency system that takes care of the need to identify safe escape
routes for all occupants in the structure at the time of an emergency once the fire alarm system
has been triggered and the audible and/or visual alarms are alerting occupants to the
emergency condition underway. There is division in different these types of signaling: passive,
active and dynamic signaling.
Static signage
At this moment only static signage is required by Dutch law (Bouwbesluit 2012). The
requirements for this kind of signage are described in the international standard NEN-‐EN-‐ISO
7010.
NEN-‐EN-‐ISO 7010: Symbols
The NEN-‐EN-‐ISO 7010 describes safety symbols meant for the prevention of accidents, fire
safety, information about health hazard, and emergency evacuation. The form and color of every
graphic symbol are according to the ISO 3862-‐1. The design of the graphic symbols is according
to ISO-‐3864-‐3. This international standard is applicable to all locations where safety issues
7
related to people have to be handled. Note of the translator: In the United States, these types of locations
would be consider “Public Accommodations” which are subject to the US Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990, et seq., and where the building operator is responsible, to some degree, to insure the safe evacuation of
the building’s occupants in an emergency, like fire or heavy smoke.
Figure 2: current evacuation signage
Passive signage
Signage prescribed in this standard consists mainly of pictograms Fig (2) that have to be
placed on prescribed locations. These pictograms are usually combined with emergency lighting.
This signage is, almost without exception, located high (elevationally) on a wall and/or near the
ceiling. As smoke develops during a fire, it builds in the highest elevations of the space first,
usually amongst the ceiling. As the smoke layer thickens (from the ceiling down) it envelops and
occludes this type of signage from view rapidly. Research proves that signage near the floor
improves an occupant’s ability to see the signage [8], because smoke does not develop in these
low elevational areas as quickly as higher elevations and resultantly, visibility is greatly
improved.
This type of signage can be referred to as passive, because it is permanently stationed at
the same place, if there is a calamity or not. This signage can, generally be considered as ‘part of
the furniture’ and has no special status in case of an emergency. A known technique within the
range of static signage is photoluminescence, which makes use of phosphor luminescence (glow
in the dark). The energy of light sources present in the space is used to energize the
phosphoresced layer of the material. Under dark circumstances the energy is released in the
form of light. Components using the principle of photoluminescence provide a yellow/green
light or hue. These components may be used to mark an emergency exit or an escape route path.
The benefit of this system is that it does not use energy itself, and the application/installation is
easy. Research [9] shows that photoluminescence has a positive effect at way finding of a person
in a building. The down side is that photoluminescence is not as bright as common lighting.
8
Active signage
Active signage is at this moment not required by (European) law. Developments in this field are
private initiatives to improve the emergency evacuation process. The primary characteristic of
active signage is that it activates at the moment of the emergency. The primary purpose of active
signage is to “alert” occupants; that is, to draw the attention at the right moment and to clearly
mark the escape route. When considering active signage, a distinction is made between sound
and light.
Sound
Research shows that persons take an alarm more seriously if after the first alarm a voice
message is followed over the speaker system [4]. This broadcasted message magnifies the
seriousness of the situation. Codes require that the speaker system has to cover the whole of the
building and the voice message has to contain the word ‘fire’ to avoid possible misunderstanding
about the message. There is no significant efficacy difference found to exist if the voice message
is narrated by a human or a computer [10].
To improve the consciousness of the hazard for people with a reduced conscience (like
the elderly) it is better to install the alarm system in the rooms of the occupants, instead of in the
hallway. An alarm installed in the room has been proven to be better noticed by the occupant.
Another technique has been developed which is aimed at evacuation that uses
directional sound. Presumably, a person can hear exactly where the source of the sound is
located [11]. This technique can be used to mark the emergency exit. In most fire situations,
smoke develops quickly and elevationally high lighting and signage disappears quickly as a
result. If the escape route is guided by directional sound, navigation may still be possible. The
same applies for people with a visual challenge. Directional sound uses a broadband multi-‐
frequency based noise that allows the brain to work out exactly where the source of this sound
is located. Sounds like a beep are harder to locate. Broadband noise can be compared to a river
of a waterfall.
Light
In an emergency situation people automatically are conditioned to have the urge to go to a door.
This can cause a problem if the door does not lead to an exit. It is therefore important to make
the appropriate exit visible and to mark it clearly. If light is placed around the exit, visibility is
greatly enhanced. Research [12] shows that strobing (flashing) lights help occupants to
determine which doors to choose and which to avoid. The color green is regarded to have the
best effect in this type of signaling because it is associated with positive matters like safety.
9
Color blind individuals could have a more difficult time discerning this and, red/green
colorblindness is the most occurring colorblindness [13].
Interaction with escape route marking, improves the skill to find the escape route. In this
interaction it is important that the person is able to recognize the escape route signage [13]. It is
therefore important that the signage is striking; that is, that it ‘stands out’ boldly. Several
companies have developed techniques for evacuation lighting and this kind of signage is often
combined with emergency lighting. Pulsating light can improve the evacuation process, because
the emergency evacuation route is more striking than the current evacuation signage.
It is important to maintain the simplicity and clarity of the signage. Galea, Xie and
Lawrence [14] have done research to address how to make the current passive signage active. In
this research, form and dimension remain unchanged, as is the location (near the ceiling). De-‐
activation of the signage is achieved by placing blinking lights in the arrow of the pictogram. The
light will only show (turn on) in an emergency situation when activated or triggered by an
emergency system in the building (see Fig. 3). Research shows that a significant majority (80 to
90%) of occupants acknowledge that the blinking lights assisted them in making a quick
decision when trying to evacuate. Active signing improves the effectiveness of the exit signs,
because the route is much more easily noticed [15].
Figure 3: active signage
If active signage is combined with signage at low level [8] the expectation is that the total
positive result will improve even further. At this moment there is no research available where
low-‐level lighting is combined with active signage to prove this expectation.
Dynamic signage
Providing useful information about the closest location and safest evacuation route to take
facilitates a safe emergency escape. A static or active system does not consider the location of
the calamity (like a fire) within a building and an escaping person may actually be lead toward
or to the hazard. Additionally, escape routes may congest and delays in the evacuation may
10
occur [16]. A dynamic system tries to ensure that every occupant is able to escape from his or
her location in the building. The characteristics of the person are relevant in this case. It is
crucial to consider persons with a limitation (disability) [17]. In this case intelligent (dynamic)
evacuation systems may help.
Different factors have an influence on the determination of an optimal escape route. Like
the characteristics of the incident, the condition of the building and the condition and location of
the occupants [18]. For instance the standard escape route may be blocked by fire. To obtain an
optimal evacuation route it is possible to implement a dynamic evacuation plan. Several
methods are available to realize an intelligent evacuation. The difference between the systems
consists mainly of the complementary sensors that are used (complementary to the standard
fire and smoke detectors) to, for instance locate the fire and the way to transfer the information
(signage).
Different applications:
Willem: a Wireless InLLigent Evacuation Method [18].
Smart Signs [19].
iSpace: Intelligent Space [20].
Dynamic Signage: E.R. Galea [15].
RescueMe: use of mobile devices [21] .
Willem is a system built from different components. The system recognizes two phases:
installation and evacuation. Installation consists of placing and configuring the sensors.
Primarily, it utilizes smoke sensors through a control panel to direct the evacuation route. These
sensors are placed at every fork of hallways, and above every exit. The sensors above an exit
‘know’ they are marking an exit and the sensors cannot be placed too far from each other. The
configuration of the system is done automatically based on the movement of the occupants of
the building. In this system, all occupants must wear an RFID-‐tag which communicates with the
sensors. In this way the sensors are able to measure the distance to the surrounding sensors. For
an evacuation the sensors use a ‘gradient-‐descent’ learning algorithm to calculate the closest
exit, given the particular location of the occupants. The most advanced method of this is the
possibility to lead people in a different direction when an exit is congested. It can also send a
virtual map to the rescuers, so they are able to see the location of possible problems; however, it
is not easy to map a building with several floors. Experiments show that the dynamic aspect of
the recalculation of evacuation routes will lead to congestion at other locations [18].
11
Smart Signs uses a screen that shows the evacuation route with a group message. For
people with a handicap a personal message may be displayed, because somebody in a
wheelchair may be forced to use another evacuation route. Smart Signs also works with RFID
tags to communicate with surrounding devices. When somebody comes close to a screen, a
personal route will be displayed. The locations of the occupants are not saved but are merely
used to communicate with the devices as they maneuver through the building. The system also
offers the possibility to provide evacuation route on a mobile device, like a smart phone [19].
iSpace makes use of cameras, microphones and physical sensors. To transfer information
to the users the system uses screens, speakers, robots and haptic perception. Haptic perception
is a technique that uses motion (like vibrations) to communicate with the user. Cameras are
used to detect a fire, cameras are faster in the detection than smoke or gas detectors because
light does not have a delay. In this way a fire can be detected immediately. If the system is not
sure if a fire is at hand, it has two possibilities; to send a person to acknowledge the fire, orif
there is no person active in the surrounding, it can send a robot, which can use thermographic
measurements to confirm a fire. The discussion found on iSpace describes different ways to
guide people to the safest or fastest evacuation route [19].
As an extension to the active system of Galea a.o. [15], the system is made dynamic by a
decision engine. This engine uses building simulation software (EXODUS) calculating the optimal
evacuation route, to transfer the information to the installed signage. If an evacuation route is
determined to no longer be a safe one during the fire event, the signage is displayed with a red
cross of lights to alert the evacuee to ‘not’ choose that path (see Fig. 4). Galea a.o. are using a
standard fire alarm installation [15].
Figure. 4: dynamic signage, route not available
To be able to calculate a good dynamic evacuation route, an advanced search algorithm
has to be developed, that takes all factors hereunder [16]:
• Status of the damage: locations where there is a fire need to be avoided.
• Status of toxicity: locations where there are toxic gases or smoke need to be
avoided.
12
• Power status: locations where the power is down need to be no part of the
evacuation route.
• Capacity of the route: for instance many people in a narrow corridor may cause
problems.
• Population density: in situations of a high density of people, relocation will slow
down.
• Age and gender: this has everything to do with the relocation speed of a person.
• Level of handicap: this is an important factor in for instance hospitals or an
institution.
• Sort of terrain: on a staircase people will move slower.
To guide people to the correct evacuation route, the use of a mobile device is an option. A
2D of 3D map of the route may be used on a smart phone to provide an overview of the possible
evacuation routes [see Fig 5]. If a mobile device is connected to an intelligent system, it is
possible to display an alternative route when the situation changes. Research [22] shows that a
mobile device helps with navigation, in contrast with the limitation of fixed screens with
navigation information. It shows also that people trust the information a mobile device provides,
people using a mobile device have their attention fixed on the device so they may miss the fixed
signage.
The technique RescueMe uses existing smartphones to determine the location of the
users. The optimal evacuation route is shown at the user’s device in case of an emergency. The
system calculates the fastest evacuation route per person. It is important for the system to know
the exact location of the user, so it uses images next to the Internet. Assuming that the system
recognizes the map of the surroundings it is possible to make a picture from for instance the
room number to feed this information into the system. Using a pedometer combined with the
user’s normal walking pattern, the location of the user is exactly determined. This information is
transferred to the server of the system, which calculates the fastest and safest evacuation route.
To avoid delay the walking speed of other occupants is used to avoid delays. RescueMe is not yet
tested in a fire situation [21].
13
Figure 5: a 3D and 2D display of RescueMe
Evacuation guided by a robot
Because the techniques of robotics are developing quickly, it is not a strange idea that robots are
used to assist in the evacuation process. A robot can check the fire situation (iSpace) and a robot
can also provide a sound beacon that people can follow to the exit [23]. In some situations it is
better to use a robot, because it is not dramatic to lose a robot, compared to human life. The
major question is; if people do have enough trust in a robot to actually follow it. Research [24]
shows that at this moment only one in three persons will follow a robot in an emergency
situation. This states that humans are not yet ready for this kind of evacuation assistance.
Evaluation of the techniques
To be able to evaluate all techniques properly; the pro’s and contra’s of the system are studied.
Effectiveness and applicability are also studied for new constructions and existing dwellings.
Static signage
A supplement of the static signage may be photoluminescence; it is simple to apply in an existing
situation and produces extra route information in situations with limited lighting. Research
shows that, “one on three test users found the level of the provided light was too low.”
Active signage
A system with directional sound has an advantage in rooms fully filled with smoke, and for
people with a visual limitation. By following the sound signals the occupants are guided to a safe
place. For people with a hearing limitation this solution does not work. The route has to be
14
marked in a visual way as well. It is relatively cheap to install, because it only has to be installed
near the exits.
Marking an emergency exit with pulsating lights is an inexpensive, yet effective method
to strike the exit. If the light message is also located near the floor, it will have a positive effect in
case of smoke development.
Dynamic signage
The dynamic signage developed by Galea a.o. is a simple method to make the existing signage
react on the situation in a building, for instance if an evacuation route is blocked by fire. Because
this system makes use of the existing signage, it is still mounted near the ceiling, in situations of
smoke development the signage may be lose its visibility.
As intelligent systems are developed, they become more and more advanced. So, more
expensive sensors, signage and peripheral equipment must be acquired to fit the system up.
Despite a much higher price, this system offers a safer evacuation route because the system is
dynamic, so it will not lead occupant to an inaccessible emergency exit. Willem makes use of an
RFID-‐tag, these kind of sensors are used to replace GPS. RFID identifiers need to be installed all
over the building and this is an enormous operation. Despite the fact that the RFID-‐tags
themselves are cheap. The preference is to use Internet signals as a replacement for GPS. An
advantage of Willem is that a virtual map can be sent to the rescue workers,
The positive points about Smart Signs is that personal characteristic of the occupants are
taken into concern, while planning the optimal evacuation route. Another advantage is that it is
focused on privacy, so the location of the persons using it will never been released by the
system. iSpace has a good technique to detect a fire. It uses cameras and the acknowledgement
of humans or robots. In this way the system can determine if there is a real fire, iSpace does not
deliver a specific solution to guide the occupants to the safest route.
Evacuation with the assistance of mobile devices may improve the evacuation process;
but, for this use, the users have to install a special app on their smart phone (meaning that
everyone in the building must have a smart phone). At this moment 75% of the Dutch own a
smart phone [25] it is unknown how many are willing to install this app. RescueMe is however
never tested in reality. Evacuation with the assistance of robots is not yet ready for use, because
humans do not yet trust robots to make their safety decisions for them in a crisis. In the near
future possibilities will be at hand.
15
A brief summary of requirements for a dynamic system:
• It has to be equipped with an advanced search algorithm, which takes the earlier
mentioned factors into consideration: power status, toxicity, damage and personal
characteristics.
• Signage necessary for the system should not (only) be mounted near the ceiling, so it will
remain visible under smoke conditions. A clear way of releasing information is the use of
(television) screens, as mentioned at Smart Signs.
• The privacy of the user should be taken into consideration.
Applicability
In all buildings, as directed by legislation, static signage according to ISO7010 (Europe)
is applied.
Existing dwellings
In existing buildings signage for evacuation emergency may be improved, using active signage.
Referring to research by Galea a.o. [15] awareness of the signage can be improved from 38% to
77% of the occupants of a building, by using pulsating light sources. Installation of this active
signage is relatively simple, comes at limited costs ( when compared to a dynamic system), a
system using directional sound may be considered, there is at this moment no research at hand,
how occupants react to directional sound.
New constructions or buildings undergoing an intensive renovation
In these buildings an active signage system has the same result; however the awareness of the
signage may be improved from 77% to 90% by using dynamic signage [15]. The research that
provided these figures has not yet taken light sources close to floor level into consideration. The
price level of a dynamic system rises to a plurality of the price of an active system (regarding the
choice of the type of system). Consequences for the construction (like signage in floors or walls)
determine that a dynamic system is only cost-‐effective in new constructions, or buildings that
are undergoing an intensive renovation
16
Conclusion
Creating awareness of the hazard is the most important aspect of any existing/directed fire
alarm installation. Much of this is accomplished today audibly, with sounding smoke-‐alarm
tones and/or slow whoops. Increasing awareness of the hazard may be improved using spoken
messages.
However, for an optimal evacuation behavior, despite their high expense, the best results
are provided by dynamic systems. Due to the impact of the complexity of the installation in the
facility, generally, dynamic systems are reserved to new construction, or buildings that are
undergoing an intensive renovation. These systems therefore will only be implemented in the
build environment in a low frequency.
Active systems, by means of their ability to be installed easily and their lower installation
costs, may lead faster to an improved evacuation safety in existing dwellings.
Non-‐building related installation, as the use of mobile devices and robots, can address some
existing build environments And much energy and effort is being spent today investigating these
types of “APP-‐based”.
It is difficult to point one of the techniques studied in this research, as the system that
which influences the evacuation process most positively. Every system has its downside, and
many are, quite simply, not ready for use. Much of any technology’s embrace is dependent upon
the budget the building owner is willing to provide to improve the evacuation process. Scientific
research, while growing annually, is still missing regarding the effectiveness of different systems
and there is much study to be done; making it difficult, at best to make a statement regarding
which system is the absolute best choice.
With a limited budget, an active system is a good choice and evacuation safety may be improved
through making relatively simple additions to a building or its systems. It is clear that the
market is still searching for the system that organizes evacuation safety the best way. The
ultimate system will almost certain be a dynamic system. Because technology is changing
rapidly it is important to evaluate available techniques on a regular basis.
17
References
[1] M. Kobes, I. Helsloot, B. De Vries, en J. Post, “Exit choice, (pre-)movement time and (pre-)evacuation behaviour in hotel fire evacuation - Behavioural analysis and validation of the use of serious gaming in experimental research”, Procedia Eng., vol. 3, pp. 37–51, 2010.
[2] H. Xie, L. Filippidis, E. R. Galea, D. Blackshields, en P. J. Lawrence, “Experimental analysis of the effectiveness of emergency signage and its implementation in evacuation simulation”, Fire Mater., vol. 36, nr. 5–6, pp. 367–382, 2012.
[3] M. Kobes, Zelfredzaamheid bij brand. Kritische factoren voor���het veilig vluchten uit gebouwen, pp 50-58, 2008.
[4] C. C. Engineer, “are when they specify fire and life safety systems The Human Factor : Building designers often forget how important the reactions of the human occupants are when they specify fire and life safety systems”, nr. 3, pp. 35–36, 2002.
[5] D. Bruck, “The who, what, where and why of waking to fire alarms: A review”, Fire Saf. J., vol. 36, nr. 7, pp. 623–639, 2001.
[6] M. Kobes, I. Helsloot, B. de Vries, en J. G. Post, “Building safety and human behaviour in fire: A literature review”, Fire Saf. J., vol. 45, nr. 1, pp. 1–11, 2010.
[7] https://www.nen.nl/NEN-Shop/Vakgebieden/Bouw/Brandveiligheid/Brandveiligheid-Installaties.htm.
[8] C. H. Tang, W. T. Wu, en C. Y. Lin, “Using virtual reality to determine how emergency signs facilitate way-finding”, Appl. Ergon., vol. 40, nr. 4, pp. 722–730, 2009.
[9] G. Proulx, B. Kyle, en J. Creak, “Effectiveness of a photoluminescent wayguidance system”, Fire Technol., vol. 36, nr. 4, pp. 236–248, 2000.
[10] “Design of Voice Alarms—the Benefit of Mentioning Fire and the Use of a Synthetic Voice.” .
[11] D. Withington, “The Use of Directional Sound to Aid Aircraft Evacuation”, Sch. Biomed. Sci. Univ. Leeds, LS2 9NQ, U.K. Sound Alert Technol. plc.
[12] D. Nilsson, Exit choice in fire emergencies - Influencing choice of exit with flashing lights. 2009.
18
[13] S. S. Deeb, “The molecular basis of variation in human color vision.”, Clin. Genet., vol. 67, nr. 5, pp. 369–77, mei 2005.
[14] L. Filippidis, E. R. Galea, S. Gwynne, en P. Lawrence, “Representing the influence of signage on evacuation behavior within an evacuation model”, vol. 16, nr. February 2006, 2006.
[15] E. R. Galea, H. U. I. Xie, en P. J. Lawrence, “Experimental and Survey Studies on the Effectiveness of Dynamic Signage Systems”, 2014.
[16] S. Pu en S. Zlatanova, “Evacuation route calculation of inner buildings”, Geo-information Disaster Manag., pp. 1143–1161, 2005.
[17] T. Onorati, a. Malizia, P. Diaz, en I. Aedo, “Modeling an ontology on accessible evacuation routes for emergencies”, Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 41, nr. 16, pp. 7124–7134, 2014.
[18] W. H. Van Willigen, R. M. Neef, en A. Van Lieburg, “W ILLEM : a Wireless InteLLigent Evacuation Method.”
[19] S. Signs, “Smart Signs Inter-Actief”, 2007.
[20] P. Podržaj en H. Hashimoto, “Intelligent space as a framework for fire detection and evacuation”, Fire Technol., vol. 44, nr. 1, pp. 65–76, 2008.
[21] J. Ahn en R. Han, “An indoor augmented-reality evacuation system for the Smartphone using personalized Pedometry”, Human-centric Comput. Inf. Sci., vol. 2, nr. 1, p. 18, 2012.
[22] F. Taher en K. Cheverst, “Exploring user preferences for indoor navigation support through a combination of mobile and fixed displays”, pp. 201–210, 2011.
[23] D. a. Shell en M. J. Matarić, “Insights toward robot-assisted evacuation”, Adv. Robot., vol. 19, nr. 8, pp. 797–818, 2005.
[24] P. Robinette en A. M. Howard, “Trust in emergency evacuation robots”, 2012 IEEE Int. Symp. Safety, Secur. Rescue Robot. SSRR 2012, 2012.
[25] http://www.nu.nl/tech/3605701/bijna-drie-kwart-nederlanders-heeft-smartphone.html.
