Time Gaps for Passing Through Bus Exits in Tunnel Fires by an Experimental Evacuation and Ordinary Use
This study was focused on the time gaps between passengers exiting a bus during an evacuation in the event of a tunnel fire. In a tunnel fire, bus passengers must evacuate irrespective of whether the bus is on fire or not. Hence, considering the tunnel fire situation, we considered two scenarios for evacuation: (1) evacuation in which the passengers do not perceive emergency and (2) evacuation in which the passengers perceive emergency. Based on these scenarios, we carried out experiments and observations to measure the time gaps of able-bodied persons and elders with reduced mobility. The experimental results indicated that the time gaps of able-bodied persons ranged from 0.42 to 4.42 s (mean = 1.40 s) and those of simulated elders ranged from 1.8 to 4.73 s (mean = 2.94 s). The probability distribution of experimental time gap data also demonstrated that the maximum rate of the able-bodied person data corresponds to 1.0–1.5 s, and the maximum rate of the simulated elderly data corresponds to 2.0–2.5 s. Moreover, most time gap data were in the 5 s range in both the evacuation experiment and observations. However, in observations, the appearance of particular movement characteristics caused relatively longtime gaps which were even larger than the mean value of simulated elders in the experiment.
KeywordsBus experiment Evacuation time Simulated elderly Time gaps
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP16H03122. We would like to express our sincere gratitude to all participants who attended the present experiments, and SFPE Taiwan Chapter who cooperated with us to analyze the case of the fire accident in the Hsuehshan tunnel.
- 1.Taiwan Area National freeway Bureau. (2015). Analysis of fire situation of Hsuehshan Tunnel south 26Kvehicle fire accident and strategy for evacuation and rescue, Final report, (p. 17) (Unpublished).Google Scholar
- 3.Mikame, Y., Kawabata, N., Seike, M., & Hasegawa, M. (2014). Study for safety at A relatively short tunnel when a tunnel fire occurred. In 7th International Conference Tunnel Safety and Ventilation—New Developments in Tunnel Safety—, Graz, pp. 133–139.Google Scholar
- 4.Hammarström, R., Axelsson, J., Försth, M., Johansson, P., Sundström, B., Bus fire safety. SP Report 2008:41, (p. 99), SP Fire Technology.Google Scholar
- 5.Chung, H. C., Kawabata, N., Seike, M, Hasegawa, M., Chien, S. W., & Orito, K. (2016). Experimental analysis of human evacuation from bus fire. In Fourth International Conference on Fire in Vehicles, Baltimore, USA.Google Scholar
- 6.ECE (2008). Inland Transport Committee World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations WP 29.Google Scholar
- 7.Pollard, J. K., Markos, S. H. (2009). Human factors issues in motorcoach emergency Egress. National Transportation Safety Board Interim Report. Google Scholar
- 8.ON.CC (BVI) LTD. (in Chinese, see 2018/1/28) http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/china_world/20160627/00178_001.html.
- 9.Kobayashi, Y., Takadani, K., Yamagishi, H., & Takizawa, T. (2002). Influence on the gait of wearing equipment for the experience of the aged. Yamanashi Nursing Journal, 1, 33–36.Google Scholar
- 10.Group of Experts on General Safety (GRSG) Regulation 107 (M2 and M3 vehicles). Proposal for amendments concerning emergency windows. Informal Document no. GRSG. 94-02. 94th Session of GRSG (pp. 21–24).Google Scholar
- 11.Shiosaka, Y., & Kuboike, T. (1996). Research on the evacuation readiness of bus crews and passengers. Investigation of current bus exit performance and effect of easy-to-understand emergency exit display. In 15th ESV Conference, Melbourne (Vol. 2, pp. 1854–1860).Google Scholar
- 12.Macheck, E. C., Fisher, F. B., Peirce, S., Ritter, G., & Spiller, G. (2007). Medenhall Glacier visitor center vehicular and pedestrian traffic congestion study. Prepared by Volpe Center/USDOT, for U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. Final report. Part 1: Report no. DOT-VNTSC-USDA-07–01.Google Scholar