Agent based simulation of crowd

evacuation during an emergency

by

Aishwarya Thipparthi

A Project Report Submitted

in
Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science
in
Computer Science

Supervised by

Dr. Rajendra K. Raj

Department of Computer Science

B. Thomas Golisano College of Computing and Information Sciences

Rochester Institute of Technology
Rochester, New York

December 2016
 ii

Dedication

Dedicated to my family,for their unwavering faith in me.

 iii

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr.Rajendra K. Raj, for supervising my

project, giving me the opportunity to explore interesting domains on my own and encour-
aging me throughout the process. I would like to thank Dr.Leon Reznik for his continued
support and regular feedback on the progress of my work in the colloquium classes. I also
thank Dr.Hans-Peter Bischof, Cindy Wolfer and the Department of Computer Science for
making it possible for me to finish achieve my Master’s Degree.
A special thank you to professor Thomas Kinsman, whose class was the first to awaken a
passion for data mining in me. And last but not the least, I would like to thank my family
and friends for their prayers and constant support during the highs and lows I have gone
through during this remarkable journey.
 iv

Abstract
Agent based simulation of crowd evacuation during an emergency

Aishwarya Thipparthi

Supervising Professor: Dr. Rajendra K. Raj

Concert venues such as auditoriums are usually crowded and have a limited number of
exits and escape pathways. The efficiency of evacuations in case of emergencies depends
on proper design of the auditorium.Planning and testing of safe safe designs and practices
is difficult due to the multiple scenarios to be tested and the high costs involved. Computer
simulation is an effective way to evaluate the safety of a building. This project aims to
simulate the crowd evacuation of an auditorium by varying the design parameters.The areas
that accumulate high densities of people are at risk of causing a stampedes. They are
identified by painting density maps. The different design layouts are compared with each
other and overall safety of the designs is evaluated.
 v

Contents

Dedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3 Problem definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.4 Related Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.5 Roadmap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1 AnyLogic software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 Pedestrian Library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.1 Basic elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.2 Pedestrian Statistics collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.3 Space Markup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3 Analysis elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4 Layout Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4.1 Layout 1: Single aisle with single exit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4.2 Layout 2: Single aisle with two exits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4.3 Layout 3: Double aisle with two exits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4.4 Layout 4: Triple aisle with two exits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.1 Pedestrian Flow implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.1.1 Layout1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.1.2 Layout 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
 vi

3.1.3 Layout 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.1.4 Layout 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.0.1 Maximum densities in Layout 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.0.2 Maximum densities in Layout 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.0.3 Maximum densities in Layout 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.0.4 Maximum densities in Layout 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.1 Current Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.2 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.3 Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
 vii

List of Figures

2.1 Layout 1: Single aisle with single exit on left . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.2 Layout 2: Single aisle with two exits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3 Layout 3: Double aisle with two exits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4 Layout 4: Triple aisle with two exits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.1 Flowchart of Layout 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.2 Layout 1: Pedestrians waiting in seats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3 Layout 1: Evacuation of pedestrians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.4 Flowchart of Layout 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.5 Layout 2: Evacuation of pedestrians with two exits . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.6 Flowchart of Layout 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.7 Layout 3: Pedestrians waiting in seats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.8 Layout 3: Evacuation of pedestrians from two aisles . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.9 Flowchart of layout 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.10 Layout 4: Pedestrians waiting in seats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.11 Layout 4: Evacuation of pedestrians from three aisles . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

4.1 Density vs. Time plot of Layout 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4.2 Density vs. Time plot of Layout 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.3 Density vs. Time plot of point near left exit of layout 3 . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.4 Density vs. Time plot of point near right exit of layout 3 . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.5 Density vs.Time plot of point in left aisle of layout 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.6 Density vs. Time plot of point in right aisle of layout 4 . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.7 Density vs. Time plot of point in the center aisle of layout 4 . . . . . . . . . 29
 1

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Background
A disaster can be defined as any dangerous event which brings with it significant human
and financial losses. There can be natural disasters such as snow storms, earthquakes,
tornadoes or man-made disasters such as fires, air plane crashes, collapsing buildings.[6]
In the former case, there is no way to prevent one from occurring, the only thing that is
under human control is how we respond to emergency situations. In the latter case, the loss
can be significantly reduced by effective planning and preparedness.
One of the issues that arises with safety planning is the cost associated with it as it is very
difficult to test the effectiveness of a system during a crisis. There are many parameters that
have to be taken into consideration in each scenario. Simulation is an elegant solution that
addresses most of the problems associated with safety planning and design with minimum
cost attached with it. It offers a way to design different scenarios and test the effectiveness
of the system in each case along with a control on the parameters.

1.2 Motivation
The ultimate goal of emergency management is contain the loss of human lives and prop-
erty damage.Venues such as auditoriums and stadiums usually seat a large number of peo-
ple and carry a high risk of stampedes and crushes during an emergency situation. This
project focuses on the simulation of evacuation of people from auditorium and thereby
evaluating the safety of the auditorium. It is essential identify the weakness in the design
 2

such as high density areas which can cause bottlenecks. There certain approaches that can
be followed to achieve this: Decreasing the probability of disastrous incidents occurring
by making safer design choices. Placing hazardous installations at safe distances from the
population thereby reducing the impact of disasters. Creating properly tested plans which
can be utilized to evacuate people from area of danger should an emergency arise. [16]

1.3 Problem definition

Out of the above ways, this project aims to apply computer simulation using AnyLogic
and apply pedestrian dynamics to produce safer designs in the auditorium. The simula-
tion model can be used to aid the decision making of emergency planners. An auditorium
vulnerable because of the high number of people that are assembled and due to its closed
nature. Also, the number of exits and the pathways to the exits are limited, and in an emer-
gency situation, proper design will play a major role in safely evacuating people. This
project aims to apply the concepts on pedestrian dynamics to simulate crowd evacuation,
and the chief variables are the layout of the auditorium with various pathways and exits.
These designs will be compared and the vulnerabilities of each design can be identified by
using density maps to represent the areas that get really crowded. This allows managers
and architects to better assess their preparedness and improve their plans in the event of an
emergency.

Concert venues such as auditoriums are usually crowded and have a limited number of
exits and escape pathways. The efficiency of evacuations in case of emergencies depends
on proper design of the auditorium.Planning and testing of safe safe designs and practices
is difficult due to the multiple scenarios to be tested and the high costs involved. Com-
puter simulation is an effective way to evaluate the safety of a building. The simulation
technique,agent based modeling is an approach which involves a collection of autonomous
entities called ”agents” which interact with each other in the environment.[2]. Using these
concepts,this project aims to simulate the crowd evacuation of an auditorium by varying the
 3

design such as the number of aisles and exits. With this project, the areas that accumulate
high densities of people are at risk of causing a stampede are identified by painting density
maps. The designs are compared and the safety of the design is evaluated.

1.4 Related Work

The main source of the concept behind this project was taken from the paper Wagneret
al[18], who present a model that simulates a crowd evacuation in an auditorium in the
presence of an active fire. Recent advances in computational speed have made the con-
struction of complex simulation systems more feasible. Several recent studies involving
agent-based models for crowd evacuation simulation exist in the current literature. These
studies generally fall into one of three categories[18]:

• crowd evacuation of buildings

• crowd evacuation for urban roadways

• crowd behavior during evacuation

Helbing et al[11] presented a model that is based on physics and uses social forces to
represent human behavior in situations of panic. Each individual is represented as a particle
with a particular mass and velocity in a certain direction. In paper Braun et al[3] describes
an agent based model to simulate virtual human crowds in emergencies based on the model
proposed in Helbing et al [11]. Ha et al[9] also utilize social forces model to study the
crowd behavior in evacuation of multi-floor buildings. In this model[9], the relation of the
building architecture is studied in relation to crowd evacuations in emergencies. Factors
such as door size of a room, sizes of exits, speed and friction coefficient are investigated to
improve the efficiency of evacuations. Camillen et al [4], study pedestrian behavior while
visiting and evacuating closed spaces, specified to a museum scenario. A multi-agent simu-
lation was developed by varying the crowd size and arrival times. Okaya et al[15] propose
a model for crowd evacuations which is based on the Belief-Desire-Intention model and
 4

Helbing’s social forces model [11]. The Belief-Desire-Intent model is affected by human
relationships, and it was found that due to these interactions the evacuation takes a longer
time. Cheng et al [5], present a model that studies behavior of groups within crowds and in-
vestigates how these dynamics affect the overall pedestrian behavior. The model simulates
an airport environment and compares the passenger behavior with respect to groups. Zia et
al [19] investigate the effect of multiple exits in an evacuation scenario where individuals
are more likely to take an exit that is visible directly to them rather than follow a directional
guide.
The second area of research has been the crowd evacuation on urban roadways. Ahn et al
[1] present a hybrid model for simulating road network that combines the approaches of
micro based models and macro based models by balancing the level of details. Handford et
al [10] propose a model to simulate the behavior of drivers during evacuations by employ-
ing the social forces crowd model and using route similarity as a metric. Lucas et al[14],
model the emergency response of police, fire and medical teams of during the evacuation
of an urban roadway during a terrorist attack.

All the models discussed above follow the agent based modeling. EVANCET4 is a
flow based model where the environment is simulated as a network of nodes that repre-
sent physical structures[17]. In flow based models, social interactions are not considered
during modeling the behaviors. Cellular automata are another approach of modeling evac-
uations in which the space is discretized in individual cells[17]. In the simulation program
EGRESS, this technique is followed[17].
The next significant area of current research has been in the simulation of crowd behavior
during evacuations [18]. Chu et al [7] have used social behavior studies and incorporated
them into their evacuation models. Liang et al[13] propose a system in which information
is embedded into the virtual environment which will influence the crowd behavior. Helio-
vaara et al[12] follow a different approach in evacuation behavior, by presenting a model
that simulates people trying to avoid colliding with oncoming people by observing their
 5

walking directions. Hence, simulation and particularly its application to practical problems
such as evacuation is a very active area of research.

1.5 Roadmap
In the chapter Design,the software AnyLogic that was used to perform the simulations and
its pedestrian library will be described. The layouts of the each of the designs for the differ-
ent experiments performed are also discussed. In the chapter Implementation, the method
used to define the pedestrian flow via flowcharts is explained. The execution of each model
and the density maps painted during the simulation are presented and explained. In the
chapter Analysis, the results of the simulation will be presented. The effectiveness of each
layout will be analyzed using the time vs. density and the maximum density recorded in
each case. In the chapter Conclusion, the results of the experiments and the analysis will be
summarized in the section Current Status. The features that couldn’t be incorporated in this
project due to the time constraints and interesting areas of research that could be explored
to expand this project are discussed in Future Work. The learning achieved through this
project will be described in the section Lessons Learned.
 6

Chapter 2

Design

2.1 AnyLogic software

AnyLogic is a tool that supports multiple simulation techniques such as Agent based, Dis-
crete Event and System Dynamics[8][2]. The technique of modeling chosen depends on
what level of abstraction the project needs. System dynamics is used when dealing with a
very high level of abstraction. Discrete event modeling is used for low to medium levels
of abstraction. Agent based modeling can be used at all levels, with high level abstraction
agent such as companies and even low level agents such as cars or people.

AnyLogic has graphical user interface which makes it easily understandable for begin-
ners. The visual environment also quickens the overall process of model development. The
models developed via the visual elements are fully mapped to java code and these programs
can be extended to standalone applications which is a very useful functionality.

AnyLogic provides built-in libraries that can be used for domain specific models. The
main domains where AnyLogic is applicable are market and competition, health care, sup-
ply chains and logistics, pedestrian flows, transportation & warehousing etc. AnyLogic
consists of a graphical interface that allows the user to build simple models with ease.
[8][2].
 7

2.2 Pedestrian Library

The crowd in the auditorium has been designed using the Pedestrian library in AnyLogic[8].
This library is used particularly to model the flow of pedestrian agents and is customized
to mimic their flow and movement in natural environments. It allows for creating models
of buildings,streets etc. It also has many useful features, many of which which have been
used in this project and will be described in the implementation section.

2.2.1 Basic elements

The pedestrian library is made of basic elements that act as the foundational blocks with
which the model is designed. They are described in the following sections.

PedSource

PedSource generates pedestrians and is usually the starting point of the pedestrian move-
ment. the flow of the pedestrians can be customized based on requirements. The pedes-
trians can be generated in groups or individually, the rate of arrival and the speed of the
pedestrians can be set in the parameters. The exact location of the point of origin of the
pedestrians can also be set by using coordinate points or area or a specific target line.

PedSink

PedSink is used to discard pedestrians. This is the opposite of PedSource and is generally
the end point of the flow. It has only one connecting ”in” port.

PedGoTo

PedGoTo is an important block as it is used to direct the flow of the pedestrians to go to a

particular location. The target location can be specified by a target line,a defined area or
coordinate points. This target location can be reached by two ways, either by following
the Reach Target or Follow Route mode. Using Reach Target mode, the shortest path is
 8

decided by the system. This mode has been used in the current project.The Follow Route
can be used for user-defined paths.

PedWait

PedWait makes the pedestrians wait for a specified period of time in a particular location.
The location can again be defined based on target line,coordinate points or area. In this
project, the area mode has been chosen to make the pedestrians wait in the seating area of
the auditorium. The exact wait location within the area can be specified using attractors.
The pedestrians wait until the specified time expires or until the functionfree() has been
called by the user explicitly.

PedSelectOutput

This element can be used when there is more than one route the pedestrian can go follow.
It has one input and several output ports each of which are to be connected to a separate
route. The routing distribution can be done based on Condition or Probability

PedEnter

This element takes in the pedestrians generated in another location and can be used to
organize the pedestrian groups and set their parameters.

PedExit

This element is used to direct pedestrian flow to another location and remove them from
their current space.

2.2.2 Pedestrian Statistics collection

One of the most important and useful features of the pedestrian library is the ability to
collect statistics based on the pedestrian density. This can be collected in two ways. Using
a Density Map or Pedestrian flow statistics
 9

Density Map

Pedestrian density map paints the environment space dynamically once the pedestrians start
moving. It uses a logarithmic scale for the color scheme. The color depends on the density
and the areas with critical densities are painted in red. The critical density for this project
has been set at 1.5 pedestrians per square meter.

Pedestrian flow statistics

This element is used to collect statistics of pedestrians crossing a particular line. The
statistics can be collected based on right or left flow. The functions, traffic() is used to
calculate the number of pedestrians during the last hour and the function intensity() is used
to calculate the traffic per length of the line.

2.2.3 Space Markup

In addition to the flow and statistics elements described above, a major part of the design
involves marking the space in the simulation model and setting up the environment.

Walls

Walls are used to demarcate the space and set up boundaries.Pedestrians cannot pass through
the walls. They can be used to draw exterior walls or a rectangular wall which is com-
pletely inaccessible by the pedestrians. This project uses walls to define the auditorium
boundary,seats and the stage.

Target Line

Target lines are an important element of space mark up as they can be used as the destination
points of the flow chart. The other pedestrian element such as PedGoTo use target line as
the location.
 10

Area

Area is a space that can be used to specify the location pedestrians appear and wait. This
has been used to create the seating area in the auditorium.

2.3 Analysis elements

AnyLogic allows for analysis to be performed on data collected from the model during
run-time. In this project, a data set is dynamically created storing the current densities and
maximum densities of specified points with in the space.

Data Set

The data set stores data in two dimensional double format and can update dynamically. The
x value of the data is set to time in this project and the y values as the densities. This is
used to plot the trends in density of the specified point.

2.4 Layout Design

The simulation experiments were conducted in four scenarios. All the cases had a fixed ca-
pacity of a hundred people but the aisles and the exits were varied. The seats were defined
using Attractors.

2.4.1 Layout 1: Single aisle with single exit

As seen in Fig 2.1 ,in this layout, the seating area is divided by a single aisle that runs
through the middle. Each block of the seating seats 50 people. The exit is placed at the left
end of the auditorium.
 11

Figure 2.1: Layout 1: Single aisle with single exit on left

2.4.2 Layout 2: Single aisle with two exits

As seen in Fig 2.2,in this layout, the seating area is divided by a single aisle that runs
through the middle. Each block of the seating seats 50 people. There are two exits placed
on the left and right side.

2.4.3 Layout 3: Double aisle with two exits

As seen in Fig 2.3,in this layout, the seating area is in the middle, and the aisles are on the
either side of the area. The exits are located at the end of the aisles.

2.4.4 Layout 4: Triple aisle with two exits

As seen in Fig 2.4,in this layout, the seating area is divided by a single aisle that runs
through the middle. There are also two other aisles running on the either side of the seating
area towards the wall. Each block of the seating seats 50 people. There are two exits placed
 12

at the end of the aisles.

Figure 2.2: Layout 2: Single aisle with two exits

 13

Figure 2.3: Layout 3: Double aisle with two exits

Figure 2.4: Layout 4: Triple aisle with two exits

 14

Chapter 3

Implementation

In this chapter, the implementation of the pedestrian flow and the execution of the model is
explained with the help of screen shots.

3.1 Pedestrian Flow implementation

The pedestrian flow in each layout is defined by using flowchart. The flowchart is built
by using the elements of the pedestrian library as described in the previous chapter. In the
following sections, the flow charts for each layout, followed by the inflow and outflow of
each layout is shown and discussed.

3.1.1 Layout1

The first layout, single aisle with single exit, is defined as shown in the fig 3.3. Since all the
pedestrians are generated in two blocks of seating area,there are to be two flowcharts similar
to each other. Both the flows have different PedSource elements to generate pedestrians and
different PedSink elements to dispose them. However,the PedGoTo elements both direct
them to same target location.
Once the simulation is run, fig 3.1 shows the generation of the pedestrians and the
crowd moving to wait in the seating area.
Fig 3.2 shows the evacuation of crowd from the auditorium via the central aisle toward
the exit. After the waiting shown in fig3.1 the evacuation is triggered by clicking the
evacuate button. The densities of each stage are shown by the Density Map element. The
 15

Figure 3.1: Flowchart of Layout 1

areas of high density are painted red. The current and maximum density values of two
points,one near the bottle neck seen at the end of the aisle and the other near the exit are
dynamically displayed while the model is running.

3.1.2 Layout 2

The second layout, the auditorium has a single aisle but two exits. It is defined as shown
in the fig 3.4. This is similar to the layout 1, with both of them having two PedSource and
PedSink elements. The difference is that one of the PedGoto elements has a different target
location. This simulates the pedestrians for both the exits.

The pedestrians waiting will be similar to fig 3.1 and once the evacuate button is clicked,
it will trigger the evacuation of the crowd by calling the free() function.

Fig 3.5 shows the evacuation of the pedestrians from the auditorium. The bottleneck at
the end of the aisle still is severe.
 16

Figure 3.2: Layout 1: Pedestrians waiting in seats

3.1.3 Layout 3

The third layout, the auditorium contains two aisle and two exits. The aisle are on the either
side of the seating area, as shown in the previous chapter.
The pedestrian flow for this layout is shown in fig 3.6 Since all the pedestrians are gener-
ated in a single block of seating area,there is only one PedSource generating all the 100
pedestrians.

The PedWait element causes the wait until the evacuate button is clicked. The PedS-
electOutput element is used to make the passengers have two different routes of evacuate
chosen probabilistically. The target locations of each route is one of the two exits. Finally
the PedSink elements dispose the pedestrians.

Once the simulation is run, fig 3.7 shows the generation of the pedestrians and the
crowd moving to wait in the seating area.
 17

Figure 3.3: Layout 1: Evacuation of pedestrians

As soon as the evacuate button is clicked, the crowd starts to disperse. Fig 3.8 shows the
evacuation of crowd from the auditorium via the two aisles on the either side of the seating
area. The densities are painted accordingly by the Density Map element and the current
and maximum densities are collected at two points dynamically during the run time.

3.1.4 Layout 4

The fourth layout, the auditorium contains three aisle and two exits. Two of the aisles are
on the either side of the seating area and one through the middle of it, as shown in the
previous chapter.

The pedestrian flow for this layout is shown in fig 3.9. The seating area consists of left
and right blocks, hence there are two different PedSource elements generating 50 pedestri-
ans per block. These are then made to wait using the PedWait elements. Once freed, the
 18

Figure 3.4: Flowchart of Layout 2

pedSelectOutput element is used to direct the pedestrians towards one of the three exits.
These routes are assigned to individual pedestrians probabilistically and can introduce an
element of chaos in the movement.
The pedestrian density map is uniform prior to the evacuation when the pedestrians are
waiting, as show in fig 3.10
The pedestrian evacuation is triggered by clicking the button, and fig 3.11 shows the
pedestrians evacuating from three aisle towards the exits. The density of the pedestrians is
painted by the density map element. The current and maximum densities at three different
points are dynamically displayed during the run time.
 19

Figure 3.5: Layout 2: Evacuation of pedestrians with two exits

Figure 3.6: Flowchart of Layout 3

 20

Figure 3.7: Layout 3: Pedestrians waiting in seats

 21

Figure 3.8: Layout 3: Evacuation of pedestrians from two aisles

 22

Figure 3.9: Flowchart of layout 4

 23

Figure 3.10: Layout 4: Pedestrians waiting in seats

Figure 3.11: Layout 4: Evacuation of pedestrians from three aisles

 24

Chapter 4

Analysis

In this chapter, the experiments and their results are explained and compared with each
other. For each layout designed to be tested in this project, the capacity of the auditorium
was kept constant at 100 pedestrians. The variables were the aisles or pathways that the
pedestrians took to evacuate the building. The single aisle layout also has two sub-scenarios
with varying exits.
At the end of these experiments, the safety and vulnerabilities of each layout will be ex-
amined. This will be done by looking at the areas that have a risk of causing bottlenecks.
These areas are identified by looking at the density map of the auditorium, with red being
the critical density areas.
The experiments were run initially to identify which areas were at risk and then the current
and maximum densities at those specific points were captured dynamically and displayed
while the model was executing. The maximum density data was also stored into a data set
to analyze the densities. In the following section, the results of each layout are presented
and explained with the help of graphs.

4.0.1 Maximum densities in Layout 1

The layout 1 performed very badly in comparison to the other layouts. The single aisle
design proved to be very unsafe, with a bottle neck appearing at the end of the aisle. The
critical density of the system was set at 1.5 pedestrians per square meter, but the maximum
densities in the layout surpass even this,making it extremely unsafe in emergency situations.
 25

Figure 4.1: Density vs. Time plot of Layout 1

As seen in fig 4.1, after the evacuation begins at roughly 340 model time units(seconds),
the densities steadily rise and the peak density is seen at 2.5 pedestrians per square meter
which is very high compared to the critical density.

4.0.2 Maximum densities in Layout 2

The layout2 outperformed layout1 by a very small margin,but the overall safety of this
auditorium design remains low as the bottle neck still carries a risk of very high densities.
The density vs. time plot of the model is shown in fig 4.2
As can be seen in fig 4.2, the density of the area steadily rises and crosses critical the
density of 1.5 pedestrians per square meter. The maximum density recorded for this layout
is 2.46 pedestrians per square meter which is almost as much as the layout 1. So this model
also has shown that an auditorium with single exit is still unsafe during an emergency.
 26

Figure 4.2: Density vs. Time plot of Layout 2

4.0.3 Maximum densities in Layout 3

The layout 3 performs slightly better than layout 1 or layout 2 which only have a single
aisle. This layout still shows that the areas near the exit get very congested during the
course of evacuation. The plots for the left and right exits are shown in fig 4.3 and fig 4.4
respectively.

As seen in fig 4.3,once the evacuation begins, the densities see a sharp rise and the peak
density is seen at 1.9 pedestrian per square meters.

The densities for right exit exhibit a similar trend also peaking at 1.9 pedestrians per
square meter as seen in fig 4.4

4.0.4 Maximum densities in Layout 4

The layout 4 outperforms all the other layout designs by a large margin. The auditorium
design with three aisles sufficiently distributes the crowd in the space as per the simulation.
 27

Figure 4.3: Density vs. Time plot of point near left exit of layout 3

The aisles get slightly congested as seen by the orange density map, but this is still less
than the critical density. Points near each of the three exits were measured for density and
the graphs plotted for three.

As seen in fig 4.5, after the evacuation begins, the densities increase initially and then
decrease and start to increase steeply. The maximum density for the left exit is found to be
0.93 pedestrians per square meter.
The graph seen in the fig 4.6 exhibits a similar trend to the fig 4.5 with a slightly higher
peak. The maximum density was found to be 0.94 pedestrians per square meter.

The density vs. time graph for center aisle of the layout 4,as seen in fig 4.7 shows a
slightly higher maximum density compared to the the other two points of measure with
1.15 pedestrians per square meter. But it can be noted that this is still lower than the critical
density of 1.5 pedestrians per square meter.
 28

Figure 4.4: Density vs. Time plot of point near right exit of layout 3

Figure 4.5: Density vs.Time plot of point in left aisle of layout 4

 29

Figure 4.6: Density vs. Time plot of point in right aisle of layout 4

Figure 4.7: Density vs. Time plot of point in the center aisle of layout 4
 30

Chapter 5

Conclusions

The conclusions chapter usually includes the following sections.

5.1 Current Status

The chief goal of this project which is to simulate the crowd evacuation from an auditorium
has successfully been achieved. The evacuation was modeled for four different layouts and
in each case, the space was painted using a density map to represent the density of the
pedestrians visually. The four layouts have been compared and the safest as well as most
unsafe design for the auditorium have been identified.
From the analysis section, it be summarized that out of all the four designs, the layout 1
with single aisle and single exit is least safe design for the auditorium with a high risk of
stampedes during a situation of panic. The layout 2 with single aisle and two exits is also
unsafe, as the increase in exits does not alleviate the bottle neck at end of the aisle. The
layout 3 with two aisles and two exits performs better than the single aisle design but still
is unsafe as it exceeds the critical density point.
The layout 4 with three aisles and two exits has been found to be the best design for a safer
evacuation in case of an emergency. Even in the relatively crowded areas, the maximum
doesn’t cross the critical density.
 31

5.2 Future Work

The simulation models in this project have been applied to a real world problem with practi-
cal implications. For future work, this project could be extended to simulate more complex
auditoriums such as an auditorium with multiple storeys or balconies.
The effects of panic during evacuation have not been considered while designing this
project, so these could be incorporated in to the model in the future to make it a more
accurate representation.
The methods used in this project could be extended to simulate crowd evacuation in
an open air stadium and evaluate the safety designs. A stadium would have a much larger
capacity than an auditorium.
Another interesting avenue of research could be to simulate crowd evacuation in the audi-
torium during an active fire spread.It was discussed in the paper presented by Wagner &
Agarwal [18] and can be a good option to explore this area further.

5.3 Lessons Learned

This project has been a very good exercise in learning the concepts of simulation. It has
helped me realize the potential of simulation as a very useful tool with many areas of
applications It has also helped me gain a working knowledge of the simulation software
AnyLogic. Another important lesson I have learned from this project is to decide the scope
of the project very carefully.
 32

Bibliography

[1] Nguyen Thi Ngoc Anh, Zucker Jean Daniel, Nguyen Huu Du, Alexis Drogoul, and
Vo Duc An. A hybrid macro-micro pedestrians evacuation model to speed up sim-
ulation in road networks. In International Conference on Autonomous Agents and
Multiagent Systems, pages 371–383. Springer, 2011.

[2] Andrei Borshchev. The big book of simulation modeling: multimethod modeling with
AnyLogic 6. AnyLogic North America Chicago, 2013.

[3] Adriana Braun, Bardo EJ Bodmann, and Soraia R Musse. Simulating virtual crowds
in emergency situations. In Proceedings of the ACM symposium on Virtual reality
software and technology, pages 244–252. ACM, 2005.

[4] Francesca Camillen, Salvatore Caprı̀, Cesare Garofalo, Matteo Ignaccolo, Giuseppe
Inturri, Alessandro Pluchino, Andrea Rapisarda, and Salvatore Tudisco. Multi agent
simulation of pedestrian behavior in closed spatial environments. In Science and
Technology for Humanity (TIC-STH), 2009 IEEE Toronto International Conference,
pages 375–380. IEEE, 2009.

[5] Lin Cheng, Clinton Fookes, Vikas Reddy, and Prasad KDV Yarlagadda. Analysis
of passenger group behaviour and its impact on passenger flow using an agent-based
model. In Simulation and Modeling Methodologies, Technologies and Applications
(SIMULTECH), 2014 International Conference on, pages 733–738. IEEE, 2014.

[6] P Maria Joseph Christie and Reuven R Levary. The use of simulation in planning
the transportation of patients to hospitals following a disaster. Journal of medical
systems, 22(5):289–300, 1998.

[7] Mei Ling Chu, Xiaoshan Pan, and Kincho Law. Incorporating social behaviors in
egress simulation. In Proceedings of 2011 Computing in Civil Engineering Workshop,
pages 19–22, 2011.
 33

[8] Ilya Grigoryev. Anylogic 7 in three days. A quick course in simulation modeling,,
2015.

[9] Vi Ha and George Lykotrafitis. Agent-based modeling of a multi-room multi-floor

building emergency evacuation. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applica-
tions, 391(8):2740–2751, 2012.

[10] David Handford and Alex Rogers. Modelling driver interdependent behaviour in
agent-based traffic simulations for disaster management. In Advances on Practical
Applications of Agents and Multiagent Systems, pages 163–172. Springer, 2011.

[11] Dirk Helbing. Agent-based modeling. In Social self-organization, pages 25–70.

Springer, 2012.

[12] Simo Heliövaara, Timo Korhonen, Simo Hostikka, and Harri Ehtamo. Counterflow
model for agent-based simulation of crowd dynamics. Building and Environment,
48:89–100, 2012.

[13] Anson Yuanxi Liang, Malcolm Yoke Hean Low, Michael Harold Lees, Wentong Cai,
and Suiping Zhou. A framework of intelligent environment with smart-active objects
(iesao) for flexible and efficient crowd simulation. In Proceedings of the 2010 Spring
Simulation Multiconference, page 19. Society for Computer Simulation International,
2010.

[14] Thomas W Lucas, Susan M Sanchez, Lisa R Sickinger, Felix Martinez, and
Jonathan W Roginski. Defense and homeland security applications of multi-agent
simulations. In 2007 Winter Simulation Conference, pages 138–149. IEEE, 2007.

[15] Masaru Okaya and Tomoichi Takahashi. Human relationship modeling in agent-based
crowd evacuation simulation. In International Conference on Principles and Practice
of Multi-Agent Systems, pages 496–507. Springer, 2011.

[16] M Pidd, FN De Silva, and RW Eglese. A simulation model for emergency evacuation.
European Journal of Operational Research, 90(3):413–419, 1996.

[17] Gabriel Santos and Benigno E Aguirre. A critical review of emergency evacuation
simulation models. 2004.
 34

[18] Neal Wagner and Vikas Agrawal. An agent-based simulation system for concert venue
crowd evacuation modeling in the presence of a fire disaster. Expert Systems with
Applications, 41(6):2807–2815, 2014.

[19] Kashif Zia and Alois Ferscha. A simulation study of exit choice based on effective
throughput of an exit area in a multi-exit evacuation situation. In Proceedings of the
2009 13th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Distributed Simulation and Real
Time Applications, pages 235–238. IEEE Computer Society, 2009.