5. Daniel Nilsson(1)

8/3/2019 5. Daniel Nilsson(1)

1/31

Exit choice in fire emergencies

Daniel Nilsson

Department of Fire Safety Engineeringand Systems Safety, Lund University


2/31

Daniel Nilsson - Department of Fire Safety Engineering and Systems Safety - Lund University

Outline

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Introduction

Objectives


3/31


Introduction

(Frantzich, 2001)

Example - Fire evacuation at IKEA


4/31

Example - Fire evacuation at IKEA


Introduction

Findings

- emergency exitsseldom used

- entrance and

exit used- followed themarked path


5/31


Introduction

People use familiar exits- Sime, 1985 - Affiliation theory

Movement towards the familiar

- McClintock et al, 2001 - Learned irrelevanceExits are not noticed


6/31


Introduction

People use familiar exits- Sime, 1985 - Affiliation theory

Movement towards the familiar

- McClintock et al, 2001 - Learned irrelevanceExits are not noticed

Non-optimal exit use

- All built structures


7/31Daniel Nilsson - Department of Fire Safety Engineering and Systems Safety - Lund University

Introduction

Example - Fire evacuation at IKEA- Design is important

location of the exit

window in the dooretc


8/31Daniel Nilsson - Department of Fire Safety Engineering and Systems Safety - Lund University

Introduction

Design solution - an active system- Flashing lights at emergency exits

Is it not self-evident how the systemshould be designed?


9/31


Introduction

Example - Design of voice alarms- FIRE is often not mentioned

- Fear of panic

- Dont tell people everything- Experiments

message with FIRE

message without FIRE

It is NOT self-evident how a systemshould be designed!


10/31


Introduction

Design solution - an active system- Flashing lights at emergency exits

Research objectives- Develop design recommendations

- Provide a framework (Theory of affordances)

- Recommend a research strategy


11/31


Methods

Step 1 - Identify problem

Step 2 - Solve problem

Step 3 - Test system

Laboratory exp.

Hypothetical scenarioand laboratory exp.

Field exp.


12/31


Methods

Step 1 - Identify problem- Road tunnel

- Smoke and acetic acid

- Laboratory experiment


13/31


Methods

Step 1 - Identify problem- Test two different designs

Design 1 Design 2


14/31


Methods

Step 1 - Identify problem- A simple design better

- Colour important

Chosen design


15/31


Methods




Laboratory exp.


Field exp.


16/31


Methods

Step 2 - Solve problem- Which colour is most appropriate?

- Association and behaviour

- Hypothetical scenario experiments- Laboratory experiments

?


17/31


Methods




Laboratory exp.


Field exp.


18/31


Methods

Step 3 - Test system- Office building and cinema theatre

- Field experiments

- Uninformed participants


19/31


Methods


20/31


Methods

Step 3 - Test system- Office building and cinema theatre

- Field experiments

- Uninformed participants


21/31


Methods

Laboratory exp.


Field exp.





22/31


Outline

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Introduction

Objectives


23/31


Results

Theory of affordances (Gibson,1978)- How an object supports the users to achievetheir goals

Types of affordances (Hartson, 2003)- Sensory - sensing or seeing

- Cognitive - understanding

- Physical - physically doing or using- Functional - fulfilment of goal

Conflicting affordances


24/31

Sensory affordance- Sensing or seeing


Results

Exit becomeseasier to notice

Focuses attentionto the sign

Location - easy

to see

Environmentalfactors - brightenvironment


25/31


Results

Cognitive affordance- Understanding

The sign isimportant

An active system -signals change

Green - safety

or go

An simple design -easily understood


26/31


Results

Physical affordance- Physically doing or using

Not studied here,

but...Uncomplicatedopening device

Minimal force toopen

etc


27/31


Results

Functional affordance- Fulfilment of goal

Possible goals

EscapeSocial influenceNo injury, etc

Combination ofsensory, cognitiveand physical


28/31


Results

Conflicting affordances- Should always be avoided

Step 1 - Orange

lights and greensign

Example-Staff only and redlights

-Green sign


29/31


Conclusions

Design recommendations- A simple design

- An active system

- Green lights- Lights next to the sign

- Test the system

A framework- Theory of affordances- Discover conflicting affordances


30/31


Conclusions

Laboratory exp.


Field exp.





31/31

Daniel Nilsson Department of Fire Safety Engineering and Systems Safety Lund University

Questions?

Thank you for your attention!

5. Daniel Nilsson(1)

Documents

Transcript of 5. Daniel Nilsson(1)