| Quentin JULLIEN Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment - France  quentin.jullien@cstb.fr | 
The use of egress simulation models in performance-based analysis relies on the confidence in the input data and the output data.
But, data strongly depend on a large number of parameters.
These parameters model human behavior and are scattered.
→ The results are prone to be scattered.
This study proposes a analysis method to deal with it.
Realization of a method to analyze the stochastic aspects of an egress simulation model.
Benefits of the method:
The egress phenomena is scattered in itself: evacuating a building can occur in a lot of different ways.
The method tries to deal with the whole range of possibilities.
A stochastic approach is used for that, generating distribution function for each outputs.
The random aspects are processed by the mean of the confidence interval concept.
Example:
c equals to 1.645 for p=90%.
→ Random realizations ranked in ascending order constitute the empirical distribution function.
→ Only percentiles are available.
→ So, the required number of simulations is set by:
The numerical tool used in this study is BuildingExodus.
But, statistical processing can be performed with any simulator.
| Reminder: 
 | 
 | 
Occupants:
The identical leaderships imply a conflict resolution time included between 0.8 s and 1.5 s. The fixed value of 1.15 s will be use too.
The draws are realized with an uniform law.
Occupants are randomly located in the room and drawn between 1 and 1,000.
| 100 simulations 
 | 1,000 simulations 
 | 
It is impossible to statistically determine a RSET maximum.
In any case, a RSET max is bound to a catastrophic scenario.
→ It seems preferable to retain a high order percentile.
The confidence interval decreases with the increase of the number of simulations. ✔
There are at least 3 separate evacuation patterns according to the number of occupants.
→ The method provides additional elements to understand evacuation behaviors even in this simplistic case.
Parameters tested: conflict resolution time, position of the occupants and response time (RT).
1,000 simulations for each patterns.
| Test case | Conflict resolution | Position of | RT (s) | 
|---|---|---|---|
| time (s) | the occupants | ||
| 1 | [0.8 ; 1.5] | Fixed | 15 | 
| 2 | 1.15 | Fixed | 15 | 
| 3 | [0.8 ; 1.5] | Random | 15 | 
| 4 | [0.8 ; 1.5] | Random | [0 ; 30] | 
The empirical distribution function is not uniform.
→ linked to the variability of the conflict resolution time and to the history effect.
Notations used to make quantitative comparisons:
Reminder: Conflict resolution time, position, RT fixed.
→ Most of the variability comes from the history effect.
→ Confidence intervals width variations are not intuitive.
Reminder: Conflict resolution time and position vary, RT is fixed.
→ Position has more influence on low and average densities.
Reminder: Resolution conflict time, position and RT vary.
→ the variability of output parameters increases with the one of the input parameters ✔
| Studied parameters | Variation range of the input parameter | Qualitative influence | 
|---|---|---|
| Occupant number | From 1 to 1,000 persons or 187, 610 and 927 persons | Very important | 
| Occupant position | Fixed or random | Important | 
| Conflict resolution time | From 0.8 s to 1.5 s or 1.15 s | Negligible | 
| Response time | From 0 s to 30 s or 15 s | Important | 
→ There is still a lot of work.
Prospects:
Discuss of what is an acceptable failure probability.