Where drills differ from evacuations: A case study on Canadian buildings
Where drills differ from evacuations: A case study on Canadian buildings
复制标题
演习与疏散的不同之处：加拿大建筑物的案例研究
DOI：
10.1016/j.ssci.2020.105114
复制
发表时间：
2021
期刊：
影响因子：
6.1
通讯作者：
Kinateder M
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kinateder M
世界各地的建筑规范都要求有计划的疏散演习，通常用于培训居住者和评估疏散程序。然而，捕捉“成功”演习的想法往往是困难的。来自演习和计划外疏散的数据往往不完整和不可靠，这就提出了一个关键问题：计划外疏散演习和计划外疏散在性质和结果方面的匹配程度如何？也就是说，演习是疏散的好模式吗？在本文中，我们比较了93个计划的疏散演习和23个计划外疏散，发生在加拿大的办公楼在四年的跨度。我们的两个主要发现是：（1）计划中的撤离演习在频率、时间和结果方面不同于计划外的撤离演习（例如，报告的总疏散时间），以及（2）报告的占用人数与总疏散时间相关。这些发现激发了讨论的优势和劣势，目前的数据报告方法，我们强调了潜在的影响（和限制），目前的钻模型。
Planned egress drills are required by building codes around the world, and are commonly used to both train occupants and assess evacuation procedures. However, capturing the idea of a “successful” drill is often difficult. Data from both drills and unplanned evacuations are often incomplete and unreliable, which raises a key question: How well-matched are planned egress drills and unplanned evacuations in terms of their properties and outcomes? That is, are drills a good model of evacuation? In this paper, we compare 93 planned egress drills and 23 unplanned evacuations, which occurred in Canadian office buildings over a span of four years. Our two main findings are that (1) planned egress drills differ from unplanned evacuations in terms of frequency, timing, and outcome (e.g., reported total evacuation time), and (2) the reported number of occupants correlates with total evacuation time. These findings motivate a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the current approach to data reporting, and we highlight potential implications for (and limitations of) the current drill model.
日本大阪多功能办公楼火灾与疏散案例研究
DOI：
--
发表时间：
1986
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
S. Horiuchi;Y. Murozaki;A. Hukugo
通讯作者：
A. Hukugo
影响因子：
1.9
作者：
J. Ouellette;S. Gwynne;R. Brown;M. Kinateder
通讯作者：
M. Kinateder