buildings
Article
Experimental and Numerical Study on Rapid Evacuation
Characteristics of Staircases in Campus Buildings
Qian Zhang 1,2 , Fei Yu 3 , Shan Gao 4, * , Chen Chang 3 and Xusheng Zhang 5
Citation: Zhang, Q.; Yu, F.; Gao, S.;
Chang, C.; Zhang, X. Experimental
and Numerical Study on Rapid
Evacuation Characteristics of
Staircases in Campus Buildings.
Buildings 2022, 12, 848.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
buildings12060848
Academic Editor: Adrian Pitts
Received: 1 May 2022
Accepted: 14 June 2022
Published: 17 June 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Buildings 2022, 12, 848. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12060848
1 Xi’an Changda Asset Management Co., Ltd., Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China; zq563178082@163.com
2 The Engineering Design Academy of Chang’an University Co., Ltd., Xi’an, Xi’an 710064, China
3 School of Civil Engineering, Xijing University, Xi’an 710123, China; yufeidickyyufei@163.com (F.Y.);
cc10135mm@163.com (C.C.)
4 Harbin Institute of Technology, School of Civil Engineering, Harbin 150090, China
5 China Jikan Research Institute of Engineering Investigations and Design Co., Ltd., Xi’an 710043, China;
zhangxs1423@163.com
* Correspondence: gaoshan@hit.edu.cn
Abstract: In this work, we conducted downward evacuation experiments in four types of staircases
under various smoke visibility conditions of the naked eye, wearing sunglass and wearing eyeshades.
Ten male and ten female college students were recruited to conduct the evacuation as a single male,
single female, two males supporting one another, two females supporting one another and one male
carrying another on his back. The evacuation time on each floor was recorded. The corresponding
evacuation models were established by Pathfinder and verified against the test data. The effects
of evacuation crowd density and response time considering gender factors on the evacuation time
were simulated using the models. The results show that under the experimental condition of low
visibility, the curve of evacuation time presents a stable state, whose change with the increase in the
floors is not obvious. The increase in the evacuation time under different visibility indicates that
males have better adaptability to the environment than females. The curves of SSP (straight running
stairs with platform) and DSS (double split parallel stairs) are smoother than those of DPS (double
running parallel stairs) and CS (corner stairs), indicating less pressure and less congestion during
evacuation. During the emergency evacuation, the crowd pressure on the platform of the staircases
is small. The front section of the flight and the corner part of the staircases are prone to congestion
during evacuation. Under the influence of gender factors, since the response time of males is longer
than that of females, the smaller the proportion of males, the smaller the time growth rate considering
the reaction time. With the increase in crowd density, the effect of response time on total evacuation
time becomes smaller.
Keywords: staircase; evacuation; gender; visibility; campus building
1. Introduction
Emergency safety evacuation is a necessary public protection measure to reduce the
consequences of major accidents. In case of a fire, earthquake or other dangerous situations
in buildings, stairs are the most important channel in emergency safety evacuation [1,2].
Considerable earthquake damage data show that the evacuation capacity of staircase
directly affects the life safety of individuals [3,4]. Campus buildings at universities are the
main places for students to live and study, and for teachers and staff to work. In case of
danger, a large number of teachers and students flow into the stairwell, resulting in large
instantaneous flow and congestion, which reduces the evacuation efficiency and causes
secondary injuries such as stampede events. In most countries, fire law stipulates that
elevators cannot be used during fire evacuation; therefore, evacuation through staircases is
more important.
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings
Buildings 2022, 12, 848 2 of 12

Numerous studies have been conducted on the evacuation of people from build-
ings. In 1986, the fire evacuation drill conducted by Kagawa et al. [5] showed that si-
multaneous total evacuation was impractical and that more frequent education on fire
safety was necessary. Through a full-scale test series, Jensen [6] and Proulx et al. [7] con-
cluded that the visibility distance is an important factor in conditions with extreme smoke.
Shields et al. [8] conducted an interview with 9/11 evacuees which indicated that more
attention needs to be given to fire safety staff training programs. Xu and Song [9] developed
an improved multi-grid model for staircase evacuation, where the rectangular body size,
various walking speeds in different densities and turning behavior of pedestrians are taken
into account. Recently, Agyemang and Kinateder [10] summarized that biomechanical
analyses of pedestrian staircase descent add nuance by characterizing factors relevant to
safe movement on stairs, such as foot placement, the use of handrails and balance. In China,
relevant studies on the evacuation simulation in staircases have also been conducted in the
past decade. Yuan et al. [11] concluded that the staircase position affected the evacuation
performance in a university dormitory. Li et al. [12] compared the evacuation performance
in four types of staircases by simulation and concluded that the single-run and no-platform
staircases are prone to congestion at the upper and lower ends of the flight. Li et al. [13]
developed a causation model of accidents and the analysis results showed that safety
awareness, safety cognition and fear had a great influence on unsafe behaviors. The evac-
uation simulation conducted by Wang et al. [14] implied that too many handrails in the
main staircase will increase the overall evacuation time. Wang and Wen [15] carried out an
evacuation simulation and suggested that stairway evacuation capacity is not affected by
the width of stairs.
It can be seen from the literature review that the experimental research data on
evacuation through staircases in university campus buildings are relatively limited and
cannot fully reflect the evacuation characteristics of staircases in campus buildings. The
results of various evacuation simulations are inconsistent to some extent, such as the
effect of handrails [10,14] and staircase types [12,15]. Moreover, the physical and safety
awareness profiles of evacuees are normally not considered in the simulations and tests.
These problems bring some difficulties to the formulation of evacuation plans in universities.
In addition, to cooperate with the interconnection between building groups, more and
more styles of staircases are used. However, few studies, especially experimental studies,
focus on the comparative analysis regarding the evacuation capacity of different staircases.
In this work, using four kinds of common staircases in campus buildings, evacuation
tests were carried out, considering the effects of gender, smoke visibility and evacuation
object. Based on the simulation analysis validated against the test results, we studied the
characteristics of different staircases to improve the efficiency of emergency safety evacuation
and provide a reference for the design of campus buildings and emergency plans.

2. Types of Staircases in Campus Buildings

At a private university in northwest China, the four most common types of staircases
in teaching buildings on the campus were selected to conduct the evacuation experiments.
These are straight running stairs with platforms, double running parallel stairs, corner
stairs and double split parallel stairs, as shown in Figure 1.
(a). Straight running stairs with platforms (SSP): an intermediate rest platform is arranged
to connect the upper and lower floors without changing the direction. The staircase
has a simple structure, but occupies a large amount of linear space. It is suitable for
outdoor stairs of teaching buildings and stadiums.
(b). Double running parallel stairs (DPS): two flights are usually of equal length to save
area and occupy less linear space. It is the most widely used type. When going up
and down multi-story floors, it can save traffic areas and shorten the walking distance
compared to straight running stairs. It is suitable for dormitory buildings, office
buildings and cafeterias.
 tance compared to straight running stairs. It is suitable for dormitory buildings, of-
fice buildings and cafeterias.
(c). Corner staircase (CS): it occupies less space and can be used in the corner of the
and down multi-story floors, it can save traffic areas and shorten the walking dis-
building. The direction of people flow can be changed through the platform. It is
tance compared to straight running stairs. It is suitable for dormitory buildings, of-
Buildings 2022, 12, 848 suitable for teaching buildings, cafeterias and libraries. 3 of 12
fice buildings and cafeterias.
(d). Double split parallel staircase (DSS): this kind of staircase is evolved based on dou-
(c). Corner staircase (CS): it occupies less space and can be used in the corner of the
ble running parallel stairs. When the width of the stairs is large, it is usually divided
building. The direction of people flow can be changed through the platform. It is
into two sections.
(c).suitable
Corner staircase It is suitable
(CS): for libraries,
it occupies less space teaching buildings
used in and office buildings.
for teaching buildings, cafeterias andand can be
libraries. the corner of the
building. The direction of people flow can be changed through the platform. It is
(d). Double split parallel staircase (DSS): this kind of staircase is evolved based on dou-
suitable for teaching buildings, cafeterias and libraries.
(d).bleDouble
running parallel
split parallelstairs. When
staircase thethis
(DSS): width
kind of
of the stairsisisevolved
staircase large, based
it is usually divided
on double
into two sections. It is suitable for libraries, teaching buildings and office buildings.
running parallel stairs. When the width of the stairs is large, it is usually divided into
two sections. It is suitable for libraries, teaching buildings and office buildings.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 1. Four types of common staircases. (a) Straight running stairs with platform (SSP); (b)
double running parallel stairs (DPS); (c) corner stairs (CS); (d) double split parallel stairs (DSS).
(a) (b) (c) (d)
3. Evacuation Test of Staircase in Campus Building
Figure 1. 1.Four
Figure Four types ofcommon
types of common staircases.
staircases. (a) Straight
(a) Straight runningrunning stairs
stairs with with(SSP);
platform platform (SSP); (b)
(b) double
3.1. Evacuation
double running Scenariostairs (DPS); (c) corner stairs (CS); (d) double split parallel stairs (DSS).
parallel
running parallel stairs (DPS); (c) corner stairs (CS); (d) double split parallel stairs (DSS).
Figure 2 presents the basic information of four staircases [16,17] and evacuation di-
3. Evacuation
rection. Straight
3. Evacuation Test of
ofStaircase
running
Test stairsin
Staircase in Campus
with platform,
Campus Building
Buildingspiral double running parallel stairs and
L-shape
3.1.
3.1. cornerScenario
Evacuation
Evacuation stairs
Scenario include six floors, and the U-shape double split parallel staircase is
five floors.
Figure The
2 height ofthethe
presents ground
basic floor isof3.9four
information m and that of
staircases the otherevacuation
[16,17] floors is 3.6 m.
Figure 2 presents the basic information of four staircases [16,17]and and evacuation di-
Each flight includes
direction. 12 risers,
Straight running except
stairs for the grounddouble
with platform, floor, running
which has 13 risers. The rise
rection. Straight running stairs with platform,spiralspiral double running parallel stairs and
parallel stairs and
L-shape
height andcorner
depthstairs
of each include
risersix
arefloors,
0.15 mand the0.3
and U-shape double splitresulting
m, respectively, parallel staircase is
in a 27-degree
L-shape corner stairs include six floors, and the U-shape double split parallel staircase is
five floors. The height of the ground floor is 3.9 m and that of the other
slope, as shown in Figure 3. The width of the riser is consistent with that of the flight, as floors is 3.6 m. Each
fiveflight
floors. The height
includes of the ground floor is 3.9 m and that of the other floors is 3.6 m.
shown in Figure12 2. risers, except for the ground floor, which has 13 risers. The rise height
Each
andflight
depthincludes 12 are
of each riser risers,
0.15 except
m and 0.3 form,the ground floor,
respectively, which
resulting has 13 risers.
in a 27-degree slope,The
as rise
The objects of the evacuation experiment are a single male (SM), single female (SF),
height
shown andin depth
Figure of eachwidth
3. The riser of
arethe0.15 misand
riser 0.3 m, respectively,
consistent with that of theresulting
flight, as in a 27-degree
shown in
two males supporting one another (TM), two females supporting one another (TF) and
slope, as shown in Figure 3. The width of the riser is consistent with that of the flight, as
Figure 2.
one male carryingobjects2.ofanother on his back (MC). areThea single
data ofmaleindividuals’ evacuation via the
shown The in Figure the evacuation experiment (SM), single female (SF),
specific
two staircase
males were
supporting collected to analyze
one anotherexperiment the
(TM), two females micro-mechanism
supporting of people’s movement
The objects of the evacuation are a single male one(SM), another
single(TF) and (SF),
female
in one
an emergency
male carrying evacuation.
another on In hisaddition,
back (MC). smoke visibility
The data will affect
of individuals’ the evacuation
evacuation via the rate
two males supporting one another (TM), two females supporting one another (TF) and
of specific
individualsstaircase
in thewere collectedVariables
staircase. to analyzeregarding
the micro-mechanism
smoke visibilityof people’s
set in movement
the experiment
one male carrying another on his back (MC). The data of individuals’ evacuation via the
in an emergency evacuation. In addition, smoke visibility will affect
are listed in Table 1. Medium and low visibility levels were simulated by the participants the evacuation rate
specific
of staircaseinwere
individuals the collected
staircase. to analyze
Variables the micro-mechanism
regarding smoke visibility setofinpeople’s
the movement
experiment
wearing sunglass and eyeshades. Figure 4 shows the evacuation test site of the staircase.
in an
are emergency
listed in Table evacuation.
1. Medium In andaddition, smoke
low visibility visibility
levels will affect
were simulated theparticipants
by the evacuation rate
of wearing
individuals sunglass and eyeshades. Figure 4 shows the evacuation test site of thethe
in the staircase. Variables regarding smoke visibility set in experiment
staircase.
are listed in Table 1. Medium and low visibility levels were simulated by the participants
wearing sunglass and eyeshades. Figure 4 shows the evacuation test site of the staircase.

(a) (b)

Figure 2. Cont.

(a) (b)
dings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 12

Buildings 2022, 12, 848

x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 4of
of 12

(c) (c)
(d)
(d)
Figure 2.Figure
Basic2. information
2. Basic of
Basicinformation the staircases.
informationofofthethe (a)
staircases. Straight
(a) (a)
staircases. Straight running
running
Straight stairs with
stairsstairs
running with platform
platform
with (SSP),(SSP),
platform six
six floors;
(SSP), six
floors; (b)floors;
double
(b) double running
(b) double
running parallel
running stairs
parallelparallel (DPS), six
stairs (DPS),
stairs (DPS), floors;
six (c)
six floors; (c)
floors; corner stairs
(c) corner
corner (CS),
stairssix
stairs (CS), (CS),six floors;
six (d)
floors; floors; (d) dou-
(d) dou-
double split
ble split parallel
ble
parallel stairs(DSS),
split stairs (DSS),
parallel stairs five
(DSS),
five floors.
five floors.
floors.

Figure
Figure 3.
3. Height
Height and
and depth
depth of
of the
the riser.
riser.
Figure 3. Height and depth of the riser.
Table 1. Test
Table 1. Test scenarios.
scenarios.
Table 1. Test scenarios.
Smoke Visibility High Medium Low
Smoke Visibility High Medium Low
SmokeSimulated
Visibilityscenario
Simulated scenario Naked
High eye
Naked eye Wearing
Wearing sunglass
Medium sunglass Wearing
Low
Wearing eyeshade
eyeshade
Simulated scenario Naked eye Wearing sunglass Wearing eyeshade

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 4. Photos
Figure 4. Photos at
at the
the test scene. (a)
test scene. (a) SF
SF under
under low
low visibility;
visibility; (b)
(b) SM
SM under
under low visibility; (c)
low visibility; TM
(c) TM
(a) under medium visibility; (d) MC under medium
(b) visibility; (d) MC under medium visibility.
(c) visibility. (d)
under medium

Figure 4. Photos
Theat
The the test scene.
evacuation
evacuation (a) SF under
experiments
experiments for lowtypes
for four
four visibility;
types of (b) SM under
of staircases
staircases were low visibility;
were carried
carried out
out under
under(c) TM
the
the
under medium
same visibility;
conditions. (d)
To MC under
obtain the medium
evacuationvisibility.
time in the staircase only, during
same conditions. To obtain the evacuation time in the staircase only, during the experiment, the experi-
ment, all participants
all participants were evacuated
were evacuated directlydirectly
from the from
top the top platform
platform of the staircase,
of the staircase, rather thanra-
Thether
evacuation
from than fromexperiments
a classroom a classroom
from the top forfloor
from four
thetotypes
top of staircases
thefloor to the
ground Inwere
ground
floor. carried
floor.
other out
In other
words, under the
words,
the evacuation
evacuation
same conditions.
behavior ofTo behavior
theobtain ofthe
theevacuation
participants participants
in in the
time
the classroom in classroom
and the and
staircase
the hallway was the
nothallway
only, duringwas
consideredtheinnot
thecon-
experi-
test.
ment, all participants were evacuated directly from the top platform of the staircase, ra-
ther than from a classroom from the top floor to the ground floor. In other words, the
evacuation behavior of the participants in the classroom and the hallway was not con-
 participants were selected and signed a consent form for the evacuation test. At first,
some volunteers were recruited randomly by using an online mobile application of the
campus population, which was 10,000. Then, 10 male and 10 female student participants
were selected for the experiment based on the gender and physical profile of the stu-
Buildings 2022, 12, 848 dents. Each participant was numbered during the preparation of the experiment. 5 of 12 A
camera was placed on each floor of the evacuation experiment to record the behavior of
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 12
participants during the evacuation. Each experiment was monitored by a timekeeper to
After obtaining approval
record the evacuation time. from the institutional review board, the participants were selected
and signed a consent form for the evacuation test. At first, some volunteers were recruited
sidered in the test.
randomly After an
by using obtaining
onlineapproval from the institutional
mobile application review board,
of the campus the
population, which was
3.2. Test Results
participants were selected and signed a consent form for the evacuation test. At first,
10,000. Then, 10 male and 10 female student participants were selected for the experiment
some volunteers were recruited randomly by using an online mobile application of the
Table
based
campus on2 the
shows
population, gendertheand
which total
was evacuation
physical
10,000. profile
Then, time
of
10 male the of10 the
andstudents. five
female Eachtypes
student of test was
participant
participantsobjects in four types
numbered
ofwereduring
staircases the preparation
under
selected for of the
three degrees
the experiment experiment.
based on ofthe
visibility. A
gender and camera
The was
values
physical placed
in the
profile on stu- representthe
each
table
of the floor of the range
evacuation
dents. Each experiment
participant was to record
numbered the behavior
during the of participants
preparation of the during the
experiment.
of the evacuation time of all the participants. Figure 5 presents the detailed evacuation evacuation.
A Each
experiment
camera was placedwas onmonitored
each floor ofby
thea evacuation
timekeeper to recordtothe
experiment evacuation
record time.of
the behavior
times on each
participants duringfloor. The evacuation
the evacuation. time of
Each experiment wasthe females
monitored by awas slightly
timekeeper to longer than that of
the males.
3.2.the
record TestWith
Resultsthe
evacuation decrease in visibility, all experimental participants needed more time
time.
to evacuate,Tableand the range
2 shows the totalof evacuation
the evacuation time oftime gradually
the five types ofexpanded. The
test objects in increase
four types in the
3.2. Test Results
evacuation timeunder
of staircases of the female
three degrees students under
of visibility. Thedifferent visibility
values in the was larger
table represent than that of
the range
Table 2 shows the total evacuation time of the five types of test objects in four types
the of the evacuation
male students, time
which of all the
indicates participants.
that Figure 5 presents the detailed evacuation
of staircases under three degrees of visibility. The males have
values in better
the table adaptability
represent the range to the environment
than times on
of thefemales, each
evacuationand floor.
timethat The evacuation
of allfemales time
are more
the participants. of the females
affected
Figure was
bythe
5 presents the slightly
visibility
detailed longer thanstairs
on the
evacuation that ofthan
the males.
males.
times With
on each theThe
floor. decrease in visibility,
evacuation time of theall experimental
females participants
was slightly longer thanneeded
that of more time to
the evacuate,
males. Withand the range
the decrease of the evacuation
in visibility, time participants
all experimental gradually expanded.
needed moreThetimeincrease in the
Table 2. Total evacuation time.
evacuation
to evacuate, and time of the
the range female
of the students
evacuation timeunder different
gradually visibility
expanded. was larger
The increase in thethan that of the
evacuation time of the
male students, female
which studentsthat
indicates under different
males havevisibility was larger than
better adaptability thatenvironment
to the of
Object MC than
SM the females,
male students, which
and that indicates
SFfemales that
are males
more have
TMbetter
affected adaptability
by the to on
TF
visibility thethe
environment
stairs than males.
than females, and that females are more affected by the visibility on the stairs than males. (One Male Car-
(Single Male) (Single Female) (Two Males) (Two Females)
Scenario Time/s Table 2. Total evacuation time.
Table 2. Total evacuation time.
rying)
High 30.5–35.5 32.8–44.1 33.7–40.0 36.0–44.2 40.3–51.5
Object MC
SSP Medium SM
34.3–39.4
SM SF 38.2–45.6
SF TM TF
TM36.0–42.4 TF 40.0–48.2 MC 42.4–54.8
(One Male Car-
(Single Male)
(Single Male) (Single Female)
(Single Female)(Two Males) (Two Females)
(Two Males) (Two Females) (One Male Carrying)
Low Time/s
Scenario 55.0–62.5 62.1–75.3 59.9–70.4 63.2–72.1
rying) 75.7–98.1
High
High 30.5–35.5
30.5–35.5 32.8–44.1
32.8–44.1 33.7–40.0
33.7–40.0 36.0–44.2
36.0–44.2 40.3–51.540.3–51.5
High 34.8–40.1 42.9–49.8 42.1–50.1 44.8–56.5 49.2–61.0
SSP
SSP Medium
Medium 34.3–39.4
34.3–39.4 38.2–45.6
38.2–45.6 36.0–42.4 40.0–48.2
36.0–42.4 40.0–48.2 42.4–54.842.4–54.8
DPS MediumLow
Low 37.2–45.3
55.0–62.5
55.0–62.5 42.6–50.7 59.9–70.4
62.1–75.3
62.1–75.3 48.2–54.4
59.9–70.4 63.2–72.150.2–59.3
63.2–72.1 75.7–98.175.7–98.1 49.0–62.4
Low High
High 57.8–63.5
34.8–40.1
34.8–40.1 62.3–71.48 42.1–50.1
42.9–49.8
42.9–49.8 66.3–77.5
42.1–50.1 44.8–56.575.5–87.1
44.8–56.5 49.2–61.049.2–61.0 94.6–108.7
DPS
DPSHigh Medium 37.2–45.3
Medium 46.1–51.037.2–45.3 42.6–50.7
42.6–50.7 48.2–54.4
48.2–54.4 50.2–59.3
50.2–59.3 49.0–62.449.0–62.4
48.9–55.2 48.7–53.0 50.9–58.3 60.1–64.3
Low
Low 57.8–63.5
57.8–63.5 62.3–71.48
62.3–71.48 66.3–77.5
66.3–77.5 75.5–87.1
75.5–87.1 94.6–108.7
94.6–108.7
CS Medium
High 45.4–52.1
46.1–51.0 52.4–60.0 48.7–53.0 52.0–57.6
48.9–55.2 56.9–64.3 63.0–70.1
High 46.1–51.0 48.9–55.2 48.7–53.0 50.9–58.3
50.9–58.3 60.1–64.360.1–64.3
CS Low Medium
CS Medium 98.9–115.9
45.4–52.1
45.4–52.1 127.7–147.2 52.0–57.6
52.4–60.0
52.4–60.0 108.3–121.9
52.0–57.6 56.9–64.3140.2–156.3
56.9–64.3 63.0–70.163.0–70.1 157.8–178.3
Low
Low 98.9–115.9
98.9–115.9 127.7–147.2
127.7–147.2 108.3–121.9 140.2–156.3
108.3–121.9 157.8–178.3
140.2–156.3
High 27.0–30.9 32.0–37.0 31.3–39.4 34.2–43.3157.8–178.3 35.3–44.5
High 27.0–30.9 32.0–37.0 31.3–39.4 34.2–43.3 35.3–44.5
DSS High 27.0–30.9 32.0–37.0 31.3–39.4 34.2–43.335.9–44.235.3–44.5 39.0–47.8
DSSMediumMedium 28.4–31.1
28.4–31.1 32.0–38.9 34.2–40.2
32.0–38.9 34.2–40.2
35.9–44.2
DSS Medium 28.4–31.1 32.0–38.9 34.2–40.2 35.9–44.2 39.0–47.839.0–47.8
Low Low
Low 44.6–52.6
44.6–52.6
44.6–52.6 51.8–60.0
51.8–60.0
51.8–60.0 50.0–59.3 50.0–59.3
50.0–59.3 52.9–63.452.9–63.4
52.9–63.4 65.2–77.365.2–77.3 65.2–77.3

11 SM 11 20
SM
11 SF
11 SF 18 20
10SM TM 10 TM SM
SF TF 16
10 9TM MC 9
TF SF 18
10
Time/s

MC TM
Time/s

14
Time/s

TF 16
8 8 TF
9 MC 9 12
Time/s

MC SM
Time/s

7 7 14
Time/s

10 SF
8 8 TM
6 6 8 12 TF
MC SM
7 5 5 7 6 SF
6~5 5~4 4~3 3~2 2~1 6~5 5~4 4~3 3~2 2~1 6~5 5~4 10
4~3 3~2 2~1
Floor Floor TM
Floor 6
6 8 TF
(a) SSP-High (b) SSP-Medium (c) SSP-Low MC
5 5 6
6~5 5~4 4~3 3~2 2~1 6~5 5~4 4~3 3~2 2~1 6~5 5~4 4~3 3~2 2~1
Floor Floor Floor
(a) SSP-High (b) SSP-Medium (c) SSP-Low
Figure 5. Cont.
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 12
Buildings 2022, 12, 848 6 of 12

13 14 SM
SM 20
SF
12 SF
TM 18
TM 12 TF
11 TF 16
MC

Time/s
MC

Time/s
Time/s

10 14
10
9 12 SM
SF
8 8 10 TM
7 8 TF
MC
6 6 6
6~5 5~4 4~3 3~2 2~1 6~5 5~4 4~3 3~2 2~1 6~5 5~4 4~3 3~2 2~1
Floor Floor Floor
(d) DPS-High (e) DPS-Medium (f) DPS-Low
10 10 24
SM
SF
9 TM 9 20
TF
MC 8

Time/s
8
Time/s

Time/s

16
7
7 SM SM
12 SF
6 SF
TM TM
6 TF
TF 8
5 MC MC
5 6~5 5~4 4~3 3~2 2~1
6~5 5~4 4~3 3~2 2~1 6~5 5~4 4~3 3~2 2~1
Floor Floor Floor
(g) CS-High (h) CS-Medium (i) CS-Low
SM SM 18
SF 12 SF
11 TM TM 16
TF 11 TF
MC MC
10 14
10
Time/s
Time/s
Time/s

9 12
9 SM
8 10 SF
8 TM
7 7 8 TF
MC
6 6 6
5~4 4~3 3~2 2~1 5~4 4~3 3~2 2~1 5~4 4~3 3~2 2~1
Floor Floor Floor
(j) DSS-High (k) DSS-Medium (l) DSS-Low
Figure 5. Time
Figure distribution
5. Time distributionof
of various staircases
various staircases andand scenarios.
scenarios.

Under
Under thethenormal
normalconditions
conditions and andwearing
wearing sunglasses,
sunglasses,the average evacuation
the average time
evacuation time
shows an upward trend with the increase in the floors, while
shows an upward trend with the increase in the floors, while under the experimentaunder the experimental
conditions of wearing eyeshades, the curve of the evacuation time on each floor shows
conditions of wearing eyeshades, the curve of the evacuation time on each floor shows a
a stable state whose change with the increase in descending floors is not very obvious.
stable state whose
Additionally, change
according with
to the the increase
observation in the in
testdescending floorsrate
site, the utilization is of
not very obvious
handrails
Additionally, according
is significantly increasedtounder
the observation in theconditions
the experimental test site, of
the utilization
wearing rate of
sunglasses handrails
and
is significantly
eye masks. increased under the experimental conditions of wearing sunglasses and
eye masks. We may conclude that, under normal conditions, with the increase in downward
evacuation time, the physical ability of the participants increases. However, under the
We may conclude that, under normal conditions, with the increase in downward
condition of wearing eyeshades, the decrease in the visibility slows the speed of the
evacuation time, the physical ability of the participants increases. However, under the
participants, resulting in the decrease in their physical ability. Therefore, the corresponding
condition of
curves show wearing
a stableeyeshades,
state. It can betheseen
decrease in the
from Figure visibility
5 that slows the
the evacuation speed
time of the par
becomes
ticipants,
longer resulting in the decrease
when the participants go downin their physical
the initial floorability.
under theTherefore,
conditionthe corresponding
of wearing
eyeshades, which may result from the fact that the participants
curves show a stable state. It can be seen from Figure 5 that the evacuation time are not familiar with thebecomes
stairs in complete darkness at the beginning of the evacuation process.
longer when the participants go down the initial floor under the condition of wearing
eyeshades, which may result from the fact that the participants are not familiar with the
stairs in complete darkness at the beginning of the evacuation process.

4. Development and Validation of Simulation Model

 Buildings
Buildings 12, x12,FOR
2022,2022, 848 PEER REVIEW 7 of 12

4. Development and Validation of Simulation Model

types, as Development
4.1. Model shown in Figure 6. Since the object of this section is the influence of sta
typeTo onverify
evacuation
whether time, only the staircase
the experimental parts in the
data and simulation datacampus buildingtime
of the evacuation were deve
without considering
are consistent, other factors,
we used Pathfinder and the
to establish flights model
the staircase are connected
diagram ofby fourplatforms.
stair A
types, as shown in Figure 6. Since the object of this section is the influence
dimensions of the staircases in the simulation are identical to the measured data of staircase type
on evacuation time,
experiment. only themode”
“Steering staircasefrom
parts Pathfinder,
in the campus which
buildingiswere
thedeveloped without used
most commonly
considering other factors, and the flights are connected by platforms. All the dimensions
in evacuation simulations, was chosen to present the law of movement characteris
of the staircases in the simulation are identical to the measured data in the experiment.
the test. mode” from Pathfinder, which is the most commonly used mode in evacuation
“Steering
simulations, was chosen to present the law of movement characteristics in the test.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure
Figure 6.6. Simulation
Simulation model
model of four
of four staircases.
staircases. (a) Straight
(a) Straight runningrunning stairs
stairs with with (SSP);
platform platform (SS
(b) double running parallel stairs (DPS); (c) corner stairs (CS); (d) double split parallel stairs
double running parallel stairs (DPS); (c) corner stairs (CS); (d) double split parallel stairs (DS (DSS).

4.2. Model Validation

4.2. Model Validation
The individual evacuation rates were collected by timekeepers according to the stair
The individual
parameters evacuation
and statistical ratesinwere
evacuation time collectedAfter
the experiment. by timekeepers according to th
modeling the staircases,
the individual evacuation rates collected from the test were input into
parameters and statistical evacuation time in the experiment. After modeling the the Pathfinder
software. The individual speed is the average speed of each participant category in the
cases, the individual evacuation rates collected from the test were input into the
real data of the experiment. The participant parameters were set according to GB/T 10000-
finder software.
1988 [18], Theofindividual
and the data speedaged
males and females is the average
18–55 speed
in the 50th of each
percentile participant
were selected. categ
the
The real data
average of the
height experiment.
of males and femalesThewasparticipant
167.8 cm andparameters were set according
157.0 cm, respectively, and to
10000-1988
the shoulder [18],
widthand the data
of males and of maleswas
females and females
37.5 cm andaged 18–55
35.1 cm, in the 50th
respectively. percentile
Each
simulation The
selected. takesaverage
the average resultsof
height of five
malesruns,
andwhich avoids the
females wasinfluence
167.8 cmof randomness
and 157.0 cm, r
on the simulation results. Table 3 shows the comparison between the median values
tively, and the shoulder width of males and females was 37.5 cm and 35.1 cm, r
of the tested total evacuation time and simulated total evacuation time, which shows a
tively. Each simulation takes the average results of five runs, which avoids the infl
good agreement.
of randomness on the simulation results. Table 3 shows the comparison betwee
median values of the tested total evacuation time and simulated total evacuation
which shows a good agreement.

Table 3. Comparison of tested and simulated data.

Object SM SF TF MC
TM
Data Type (Single (Single (Two Fe- (One Ma
(Two Males)
Scenarios Time/s Male) Female) males) Carrying
Test 32.6 36.8 35.0 38.7 41.2
High
Simulation 32.3 36.7 35.1 38.2 42.0
Test 38.2 40.7 40.8 42.9 44.0
SSP Medium
Simulation 37.8 40.5 41.2 42.7 44.1
Test 57.9 67.2 62.5 67.1 93.7
 The individual evacuation rates were collected by timekeepers according to the stair
Simulation
parameters and statistical evacuation 42.3
time in the experiment. After47.9 50.9
modeling the stair- 53.5 55.7
cases, the individual evacuation rates collected from the test were input into the Path-
Test
finder software. The individual speed is the average61.6 65.8 category
speed of each participant 76.9
in 79.6 99.9
Low
the real data of the experiment. The participant parameters
Simulation 62.3 were set according to GB/T
65.3 76.4 79.5 99.2
10000-1988 [18], and the data of males and females aged 18–55 in the 50th percentile were
selected. The average heightTest
of males and females48.6 50.1
was 167.8 cm and 50.1
157.0 cm, respec- 52.2 61.2
Buildings 2022, 12, 848 tively, High
and the shoulder width of males and females was 37.5 cm and 35.1 cm, respec- 8 of 12
Simulation 48.7 50.9 50.6
tively. Each simulation takes the average results of five runs, which avoids the influence 52.6 61.7
of randomness on the simulation results. Table 3 shows the comparison between the
Test 50.2 57.6 55.6 58.2 65.4
CS median Medium
values of the tested total evacuation time and simulated total evacuation time,
which shows a good agreement. Simulation 50.9
Table 3. Comparison of tested and simulated data.
57.0 55.5 58.1 65.5
Test
Table 3. Comparison of tested and simulated data. 104.9 138.4 111.3 145.0 167.2
Low
Object Data SMSMSimulation
SF
TMSF
104.3 TF 138.7MC TM 111.4 TF 145.5 MC 166.9
Data Type (Single (Single (Two Fe- (One Male
Type (Single Male) (Single Female) (Two36.9
Males) (Two Females) (One Male
40.9Carrying)
Male)Test 28.6 males) 33.6 Carrying) 38.0
(Two Males)
Scenarios Time/s Female)
Test
High 32.6 36.8 35.036.8
High
High
Test 32.6Simulation 29.3 38.7 33.4 41.235.0 36.2 38.7 38.7 41.2 40.1
Simulation
Simulation 32.3 36.7
32.3 35.136.7 38.2 42.0 35.1 38.2 42.0
Test 38.2 Test40.7 40.8 30.5 42.9 35.5 44.0 37.4 39.6 43.4
DSS
SSP
SSP
Medium
Medium
TestMedium
Simulation
38.2
37.8 40.5 41.2
40.7
42.7 44.1
40.8 42.9 44.0
Simulation 37.8Simulation 30.1
40.5 36.0 41.2 37.3 42.7 39.2 44.1 43.6
Test 57.9 67.2 62.5 67.1 93.7
Low
Test
Simulation 57.9Test62.6
57.5 62.767.2
46.7 67.4 56.9 93.262.5 56.2 67.1 57.2 93.7 67.8
Low
TestLow
Simulation 57.5 45.1
38.4 47.562.6 48.6 51.7 62.7 67.4 93.2
High
Simulation 38.1 Simulation
45.6 47.1 46.3 48.5 56.3 51.3 56.7 57.3 67.3
DPS High Test 38.4 45.1 47.5 48.6 51.7
Test
Simulation 42.4
38.1 47.5 50.245.6 53.6 55.9 47.1 48.5 51.3
Medium
Simulation 42.3 47.9 50.9 53.5 55.7
Test 5. Parametric
42.4 Analysis
47.5 50.2 53.6 55.9
DPS Medium Simulation 42.3 47.9 50.9 53.5 55.7
5.1. Crowd Density
Test 61.6 65.8 76.9 79.6 99.9
Low Simulation To62.3 65.3 of crowd density
analyze the effect 76.4on the evacuation
79.5 time, 1099.2
to 100 evacuees at
High Test 48.6 50.1 50.1 52.2
the interval of 10 people were adopted in the simulation. The average 61.2evacuation speed
Simulation 48.7 50.9 50.6 52.6 61.7
from the tested data was 1.7 m/s, obtained from the ratio between the total distance in the
Test 50.2 57.6 55.6 58.2 65.4
CS Medium Simulationstairwell
50.9and the total57.0
evacuation time. 55.5 58.1 65.5
Test As104.9
shown in Figure 138.4 7, the evacuation time of the145.0
111.3 four stairs increases
167.2 linearly with
Low 104.3 in the total
Simulationthe increase 138.7number of evacuees.111.4 In general,
145.5 the longest166.9
evacuation time is
High Test from 28.6 (double running
DPS 33.6 parallel 36.9and the shortest
stairs), 38.0 evacuation40.9time is from SSP
Simulation 29.3 33.4 36.2 38.7 40.1
Test
(straight
30.5
running stairs35.5
with platform). When37.4
the number
39.6
of evacuees 43.4
is 10, the evacua-
DSS Medium Simulationtion times
30.1 of SSP (straight
36.0 running stairs37.3with platform),
39.2 DPS (double 43.6 running parallel

Low
Test stairs),46.7
CS (corner stairs)
56.9 and DSS (double split parallel
56.2 57.2stairs) are 1567.8
s, 19.8 s, 17.8 s and
Simulation 46.3 56.3 56.7 57.3 67.3
17.5 s, respectively. The maximum difference between the evacuation times is 4.8 s and
the minimum difference is 2.5 s. When the number of evacuees is 50, the evacuation times
5.
of Parametric
SSP, DPS, CS Analysis
and DSS are 25.8 s, 42.5 s, 40 s and 30 s, respectively, and the maximum
5.1.
and Crowd
minimum Density
differences are 16.7 s and 2.5 s, respectively. When the number of evacuees
is 100,
Tothe evacuation
analyze times
the effect of SSP,density
of crowd DPS, CS onand
the DSS are 41 time,
evacuation s, 67 s,
1065.5
to 100s and 44 s, re-
evacuees at
spectively,
the intervaland the
of 10 maximum
people and minimum
were adopted in the differences
simulation. areThe26average
s and 1.5 s, respectively.
evacuation speed
We concluded
from the testedthat
dataevacuation
was 1.7 m/s, through straight
obtained fromrunning
the ratiostairs withthe
between platforms and double
total distance in the
split parallel
stairwell andstairs is faster
the total than through
evacuation time. double running parallel stairs and corner stairs.

70 DPS
CS
Evacuation time/s

60
DSS
50 SSP
40
30
20
10
0 20 40 60 80 100
Number of people
Figure 7.
Figure 7. Effect
Effect of crowd density.
of crowd density.

As shown in Figure 7, the evacuation time of the four stairs increases linearly with the
increase in the total number of evacuees. In general, the longest evacuation time is from
DPS (double running parallel stairs), and the shortest evacuation time is from SSP (straight
running stairs with platform). When the number of evacuees is 10, the evacuation times of
SSP (straight running stairs with platform), DPS (double running parallel stairs), CS (corner
stairs) and DSS (double split parallel stairs) are 15 s, 19.8 s, 17.8 s and 17.5 s, respectively.
The maximum difference between the evacuation times is 4.8 s and the minimum difference
is 2.5 s. When the number of evacuees is 50, the evacuation times of SSP, DPS, CS and DSS
are 25.8 s, 42.5 s, 40 s and 30 s, respectively, and the maximum and minimum differences
Buildings 2022, 12, 848 9 of 12

are 16.7 s and 2.5 s, respectively. When the number of evacuees is 100, the evacuation times
of SSP, DPS, CS and DSS are 41 s, 67 s, 65.5 s and 44 s, respectively, and the maximum
and minimum differences are 26 s and 1.5 s, respectively. We concluded that evacuation
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
through straight running stairs with platforms and double split parallel stairs is faster9than
of 12

through double running parallel stairs and corner stairs.

5.2.
5.2.Real-Time
Real-TimeCrowd
CrowdFlow
Flow
The
The simulated real-timecrowd
simulated real-time crowdflow
flowcurves
curvesofofsingle-layer
single-layerdownward
downwardevacuation
evacuationofof
50 evacuees are shown in Figure 8. The curves of SSP and DSS are relatively smooth,
50 evacuees are shown in Figure 8. The curves of SSP and DSS are relatively smooth, which
indicates less pressure and less congestion during the evacuation. The flow curves
which indicates less pressure and less congestion during the evacuation. The flow curves of DPS
and CS fluctuate, indicating that congestion occurs from time to time.
of DPS and CS fluctuate, indicating that congestion occurs from time to time.

3.0
2.5
Flow/(pers/s)

2.0
1.5
SSP
1.0 DSS
0.5 CS
DPS
0.0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time/s
Figure8.8.Real-time
Figure Real-timecrowd
crowdflow
flowofof5050evacuees
evacueeson
onone
onefloor.
floor.

The
Thecrowd
crowddensity
densitydistribution
distributionof 50
ofand
50 100
and evacuees in the in
100 evacuees fourthestaircases is shownis
four staircases
inshown
Figurein9. Figure
It can be seen that the locations prone to congestion accidents vary
9. It can be seen that the locations prone to congestion accidents vary according to
different types of staircases. The starting point of each flight in SSP is prone to
according to different types of staircases. The starting point of each flight in SSP is prone congestion,
while there is nowhile
to congestion, congestion
there at
is the
no platform
congestionposition. The corners
at the platform of DPSThe
position. and corners
DSS are ofprone
DPS
toand
congestion, but thanks
DSS are prone to the characteristics
to congestion, but thanks toofthe diversion, the second
characteristics flight of the
of diversion, DSSsecond
is far
less prone
flight to congestion
of DSS is far lessthan
prone DPS.to In other words,
congestion thancompared with DPS,
DPS. In other words, thecompared
probabilitywithof
dangerous accidents of DSS is relatively low. The upper end of the first flight
DPS, the probability of dangerous accidents of DSS is relatively low. The upper end of the in CS is prone
tofirst
congestion,
flight in but
CS the congestion
is prone conditionbut
to congestion, of its
theplatform is acceptable.
congestion condition of its platform is
acceptable.
5.3. Response Time
Individual safety awareness affects the response time before evacuation, which is
also a key factor affecting the total evacuation time. However, most simulation models in
previous studies do not consider the psychological effects of individual safety awareness
on evacuation behavior.
Referring to the response time of emergency evacuation obtained in Ref. [19] through
experiments, and the previous study from the authors’ group [20] regarding the gender
factors in college evacuation, which found that male students have lower scores on safety
behavior than female students, the response times of males and females in the simulation
were set as 5 s and 2 s, respectively. According to the experimental average value, the
evacuation speeds of males and females were set as 2.0 m/s and 1.5 m/s, respectively.
Other participant parameters are identical to those in the last section. The crowd density
of 50, 100 and 150 evacuees was simulated. The effect of response time on evacuation
time is shown in Figure 10. Since the initial speed of the males is greater than that of the
females, the greater the proportion of males, the shorter the evacuation time. However, the
response time of the males is longer than that of the females, so the smaller the proportion
of the males, the smaller the time growth rate considering the response time. Moreover,
with the increase in crowd density, the effect of response time on the total evacuation time
becomes smaller.
 shown in Figure 9. It can be seen that the locations prone to congestion accidents vary
according to different types of staircases. The starting point of each flight in SSP is prone
to congestion, while there is no congestion at the platform position. The corners of DPS
and DSS are prone to congestion, but thanks to the characteristics of diversion, the second
flight of DSS is far less prone to congestion than DPS. In other words, compared with
DPS, the probability of dangerous accidents of DSS is relatively low. The upper end of the
Buildings 2022, 12, 848 10 of 12
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW first flight in CS is prone to congestion, but the congestion condition of its platform is 10 of 12
acceptable.

5.3. Response Time

Individual safety awareness affects the response time before evacuation, which is
also a key factor affecting the total evacuation time. However, most simulation models in
previous studies do not consider the psychological effects of individual safety awareness
on evacuation behavior.
Referring to the response time of emergency evacuation obtained in Ref. [19]
through experiments, and the previous study from the authors’ group [20] regarding the
gender factors in college evacuation, which found that male students have lower scores
on safety behavior than female students, the response times of males and females in the
simulation were set as 5 s and 2 s, respectively. According to the experimental average
value, the evacuation speeds of males and females were set as 2.0 m/s and 1.5 m/s, re-
spectively. Other participant parameters are identical to those in the last section. The
crowd density of 50, 100 and 150 evacuees was simulated. The effect of response time on
evacuation time is shown in Figure 10. Since the initial speed of the males is greater than
that of the females, the greater the proportion of males, the shorter the evacuation time.
However, the response time of the males is longer than that of the females, so the smaller
the proportion of the males, the smaller the time growth rate considering the response
time. Figure
Moreover, with the increase in crowd density, the effect of response time on the
9. Crowd density distribution in staircases.
Figure
total 9. Crowd density
evacuation distribution
time becomes in staircases.
smaller.

50 evacuees 50 evacuees* 50 evacuees 50 evacuees*

100 evacuees 100 evacuees* 100 evacuees 100 evacuees*
120 150 evacuees 150 evacuees* 150 evacuees 150 evacuees*
140
Evacuation time/s

Evacuation time/s

100 120

100
80

80
60
60
1:0 3:1 1:1 1:3 0:1 1:0 3:1 1:1 1:3 0:1
Ratio between male and female Ratio between male and female
(a) (b)
50 evacuees 50 evacuees* 50 evacuees 50 evacuees*
100 evacuees 100 evacuees* 100 evacuees 100 evacuees*
160 150 evacuees 150 evacuees*
110 150 evacuees 150 evacuees*

140 100
Evacuation time/s
Evacuation time/s

120 90

80
100
70
80
60
60
1:0 3:1 1:1 1:3 0:1 1:0 3:1 1:1 1:3 0:1
Ratio between male and female Ratio between male and female
(c) (d)
Figure
Figure10.
10. Effect responsetime.
Effect of response time.(a)(a) Straight
Straight running
running stairs
stairs withwith platform
platform (SSP);(SSP); (b) double
(b) double runningrun-
ning parallel
parallel stairsstairs
(DPS);(DPS); (c) stairs
(c) corner corner(CS);
stairs
(d) (CS);
double(d) double
split split
parallel parallel
stairs (DSS).stairs
Note: (DSS). Note:
“*” means the “*”
means the simulation
simulation considering considering
the responsethe response time.
time.

6. Conclusions
In this study, we carried out downward evacuation experiments in four types of
staircases under various visibility conditions. Compared to the previous studies, the ef-
Buildings 2022, 12, 848 11 of 12

6. Conclusions
In this study, we carried out downward evacuation experiments in four types of
staircases under various visibility conditions. Compared to the previous studies, the effects
of gender and evacuation object were considered in the tests. The corresponding evacuation
models were also established and verified. The effects of evacuation crowd density and
especially the response time considering gender factors on the downward evacuation time
in four kinds of staircases were simulated. Our main conclusions are as follows.
(1) In the process of single-person downward evacuation, the evacuation time of females
is longer than that of males, and the evacuation time range of females is also wider
than that of males. Under the experimental condition of low visibility (wearing
eyeshades), the curve of evacuation time presents a stable state, whose change with
the increase in the floors is not obvious.
(2) The increase in the evacuation time under different visibility conditions indicates that
males have better adaptability to the environment than females. Under the condition
of medium and low visibility, the probability of using handrails in the evacuation is
significantly higher, indicating that the handrails are necessary during emergency
evacuation, especially in public buildings.
(3) The simulation curves of SSP (straight running stairs with platform) and DSS (double
split parallel stairs) are smoother than those of DPS (double running parallel stairs)
and CS (corner stairs), indicating less pressure and less congestion during evacuation
in the first two types of staircases. During emergency evacuation simulation, the
crowd pressure on the platform of the staircases was small. The front section of the
flight and the corner part of the staircases are prone to congestion during evacuation,
confirming the positive effect of platforms on evacuation.
(4) Under the influence of gender factors, since the response time of males is longer than
that of females, it can be seen from the curve that the smaller the proportion of males,
the smaller the time growth rate considering the reaction time. With the increase in
crowd density, the effect of response time on total evacuation time becomes smaller.
Considering the limitations of this study, such as small sample size, age group and
crowding degree, more tests are still needed in future studies. Specifically speaking, since
only students are considered in this study, the effect of age group is not studied, and
college professors and researchers account for a portion of the population in campus
buildings whose action capability may be weaker than that of students. Additionally, the
crowding degree is not considered in this study, since it is dangerous to conduct a crowd
evacuation test in a staircase. These data may only be obtained in a real accident evacuation.
Thus, it is necessary to install some monitoring facilities at important exits. Moreover, the
predicted evacuation time should also be compared with the required evacuation time
(such as fire spread time and structure failure time) [21] according to different types of
building structures.

Author Contributions: Methodology, Q.Z.; Funding acquisition, Q.Z.; Writing—original draft, F.Y.,
C.C. and S.G.; Conceptualization, F.Y. and S.G.; Investigation, C.C.; Visualization, Resources, X.Z. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The project was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (no.
51908085), the Natural Science Foundation of Chongqing (cstc2020jcyj-msxmX0010), Fundamental
Research Funds for the Central Universities (AUGA5710010322 and 2020CDJ-LHZZ-013) and the
Youth Innovation Team of Shaanxi Universities (21JP138), which are gratefully acknowledged.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The raw/processed data required to reproduce these findings cannot
be shared at this time as the data also form part of an ongoing study.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to appreciate the help from the participants.
Buildings 2022, 12, 848 12 of 12

Conflicts of Interest: We declare that we do not have any commercial or associative interest that
represents a conflict of interest in connection with the work submitted.

References
1. Li, Z.Y.; Jiang, S.C. Preliminary Study on the Feasibility of the integrated envelope-fire protection of steel structure column and
wall. Prog. Steel Build. Struct. 2021, 23, 68–76.
2. Jiang, S.C.; Wu, H.C. An experimental investigation on the fire resistance of the integrated envelope-fire protection material for
steel buildings. Prog. Steel Build. Struct. 2021, 23, 77–84.
3. Bai, Y.T. Earthquake-induced sidesway collapse resistance of high-rise concrete-filled steel frames subjected to long-period ground
motions. Prog. Steel Build. Struct. 2021, 23, 74–84.
4. Yu, Y.S.; Wang, X. Finite element analysis of the mechanical behavior of steel silo composite shear wall. Prog. Steel Build. Struct.
2021, 23, 79–87.
5. Kagawa, M.; Kose, S.; Morishita, Y. Movement of people on stairs during a fire evacuation drill Japanese experience in a highrise
office building. Fire Saf. Sci. 1986, 1, 533–540. [CrossRef]
6. Jensen, G. Wayfinding in Heavy Smoke Decisive Factors and Safety Products; IGP AS: Oslo, Norway, 1998.
7. Proulx, G.; Tiller, D.; Kyle, B.; Creak, J. Assessment of Photoluminescent Material During Office Occupant Evacuation; Internal Report
774; National Research Council of Canada: Edmonton, OT, Canada, 1999.
8. Shields, T.J.; Boyce, K.E.; McConnell, N. The behaviour and evacuation experiences of WTC 9/11 evacuees with self-designated
mobility impairments. Fire Saf. J. 2009, 44, 881–893. [CrossRef]
9. Xu, X.; Song, W. Staircase evacuation modeling and its comparison with an egress drill. Build. Environ. 2009, 44, 1039–1046.
[CrossRef]
10. Agyemang, C.; Kinateder, M. A review of the biomechanics of staircase descent: Implications for building fire evacuations. Fire
Technol. 2021, 58, 379–413. [CrossRef]
11. Yuan, J.Y.; Cheng, Y.P.; Ye, L.F.; Zhu, J. Research on the influence of staircase position on evacuation performance of university
dormitory buildings. Fire Sci. Technol. 2018, 37, 1195–1198.
12. Li, R.F.; Zhao, Y.X.; Lu, T.T.; Liu, X.G. Simulation on the evacuation effect of downstream people in different staircase layout
conditions. J. Saf. Sci. Technol. 2019, 15, 160–166.
13. Li, X.Y.; Ning, S.Q.; Zhang, P.; Yang, L.W. Mechanism and prevention of evacuation accidents in stairwells of campuses. J. Xi’an
Univ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 40, 606–614.
14. Wang, X.J.; Liu, Z.J.; Han, H.C.; Fang, S.M. Numerical analysis of the effect of stair layout on evacuation efficiency of passenger
ship. J. Dalian Marit. Univ. 2020, 8, 23–39.
15. Wang, Z.B.; Wen, S.W. Simulation analysis of stairway evacuation capability of building hall of Hebei University of Engineering.
J. Hunan City Univ. 2021, 30, 22–26.
16. GB 50352–2019; Code for Design of Civil Buildings. China Architecture & Building Press: Bejing, China, 2019.
17. GB/T 50002–2013; Standard for Modular Coordination of Building. China Architecture & Building Press: Bejing, China, 2013.
18. GB/T 10000–1988; Human Dimensions of Chinese Adults. China Standards Press: Beijing, China, 1988.
19. Xie, W. Experimental Study on Evacuation of Individuals and Small Groups Considering Visibility Conditions; Southwest Jiaotong
University: Chengdu, China, 2019.
20. Gao, S.; Chang, C.; Reng, F.; Yu, F. Safety culture measurement among Chinese undergraduates at a private university: Develop-
ment and validation. Front. Public Health 2022, 10, 825106. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Wang, X.L.; Tang, W.L.; Li, K. An analysis on the bending performance of prefabricated fireproof slabs with light steel joists. Prog.
Steel Build. Struct. 2021, 23, 45–52.