Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology 7(17): 3603-3615, 2014

ISSN: 2040-7459; e-ISSN: 2040-7467

Maxwell Scientific Organization, 2014
Submitted: November 13, 2013
Accepted: November 28, 2013
Published: May 05, 2014

Study on Applicability of FDS+Evac for Evacuation Modeling in Case of Road Tunnel Fire
Jan Glasa and Lukas Valasek
Institute of Informatics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Dubravska Cesta 9, 84507 Bratislava, Slovakia
Abstract: In this study, fire in a short 2-lane single-directional road tunnel with two different traffic situations is
considered and the impact of spread of fire and smoke on people evacuation is investigated. The FDS+Evac system
used comprises of FDS (Fire Dynamics Simulator), an advanced CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) fire field
model supplemented by agent-based FDS evacuation model, Evac. Evac is capable to exploit its direct access to
simulated fire characteristics and to model the influence of fire on evacuees behavior and decision making. In Evac,
a modified Helbings social force model adapted for description of movement of evacuees and their behavior is
implemented. Some particularities of FDS+Evac, which must be taken into account to avoid misrepresentation of
inputs for evacuation in case of fire, are discussed and the impact of occurrence of higher capacity vehicles on
people evacuation is illustrated. Simulation results and some of comments and recommendations included can be
useful for those who are engaged in research, development, testing and competent use of FDS+Evac for practical
problems of fire safety in road tunnels.
Keywords: Agent-based, evacuation modeling, FDS+Evac, fire simulation, road tunnel
INTRODUCTION
The use of current simulation systems for modeling
fire spread and people evacuation in the case of road
tunnel fire is a difficult, challenging problem in tunnel
fire safety. Recent incidents in tunnels (e.g., in Tauern,
Gotthard, Mont Blanc, Viamala) and new contemporary
security and safety challenges appeared have turned
attention to risks of fires in road tunnels. Such fires can
result in casualties as well as in direct and indirect
economic and environmental damages. They can cause
destruction of the tunnel structure and facilities,
vehicles and their loads and endanger lives and health
of passengers, firemen and operating staff members in
tunnel. Therefore, tunnel safety is now considered as
being one of the key elements in tunnel design,
development and operation (Kazaras et al., 2012). As
road tunnels are part of national and international
transportation systems and critical infrastructures, safe
evacuation of people in case of emergent event belongs
to important duties which must be provided by crisis
management of tunnel (Lewis et al., 2013; Kang, 2010;
Bebcak, 2007).
Advances in computers and fire models research
have allowed to utilize high computational power of
current computers for numerical calculation of tunnel
fire simulation. Several program systems capable to
simulate complex phenomena associated with fire in
various types of structures have been developed, such
as for instance SMARTFIRE, FLUENT, SOFIE,
JASMINE, PHOENICS and FDS. Such simulations
often require parallelization and calculations must be
realized in parallel (Vega and Dias, 2008; Betta and

Cascetta, 2009; Halada et al., 2012). In the literature,

several papers related to some specific aspects of tunnel
fires have been published; for instance studies dealing
with action of emergency ventilation (Carvel et al.,
2005, 2009; Li et al., 2013; Ingason and Li, 2013; Han
et al., 2013), use of computer simulation for description
of course of fire and smoke and their consequences
(Bari and Naser, 2005; Hu and Fong, 2007; Ji et al.,
2012; McGrattan and Hamins, 2006) and modeling of
people evacuation in tunnel (Gao-Shang et al., 2006;
Ronchi et al., 2012, 2013a, b). However, most papers
consider the same type of vehicles in tunnel and do not
take into account the impact of higher capacity vehicles
(buses, transporters) in tunnel on the course of
evacuation in case of fire.
In this study, we use the FDS (Fire Dynamics
Simulator) system, version 5.5.3 for simulation of fire
in a short 2-lane single-directional road tunnel and
modeling people evacuation. FDS is an advanced CFD
(Computational Fluid Dynamics) fire field model
capable to simulate fires in various environments
incorporating a large variety of specific physical and
chemical phenomena related to fire. FDS is
supplemented by Evac, the agent-based evacuation
model which allows simulating people evacuation. FDS
serves for Evac as a platform providing the direct
access of Evac to relevant characteristics of simulated
fire. Thus, Evac is capable to model the influence of
fire on evacuees behavior and decision making. In the
literature the system is known as FDS+Evac (Korhonen
and Hostikka, 2009). We consider two different traffic
situations in the tunnel in order to study the impact of
occurrence of higher capacity vehicles on behavior of

Corresponding Author: Jan Glasa, Institute of Informatics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Dubravska cesta 9, 84507 Bratislava,
Slovakia

3603

Res. J. App. Sci. Eng. Technol., 7(17): 3603-3615, 2014

evacuees. Some particularities of FDS+Evac, which
must be taken into account to avoid misrepresentation
of inputs for evacuation in case of fire, are discussed.
In Glasa et al. (2013), we studied the impact of
turned cars on the course of evacuation in case of tunnel
fire. This study summarizes our research on the
influence of occurrence of higher capacity vehicles in
tunnel on evacuation in case of fire. It is substantially
extended version of contribution presented at the
International Conference on Applied Mathematics and
Computational Methods in Engineering in Rhodes
(Valasek and Glasa, 2013) which is supplemented by
original results and discussion. Simulation results
analysis illustrates the influence of higher capacity
vehicles in the tunnel on the course of evacuation.
Some comments and recommendations included can be
useful for those who are engaged in research,
development, testing and practical use of FDS+Evac for
fire safety problems in road tunnels.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In this section, the used FDS+Evac simulation
system is briefly described and a 3D model of the used
road tunnel, fire scenario and emergency ventilation
action as well as two different traffic situations and
related tunnel evacuation scenarios (24 cars of the same
type in the first scenario and 21 cars and two higher
capacity vehicles in the second scenario) are
introduced.
FDS+Evac: FDS (Fire Dynamics Simulator) system,
version 5.5.3 (McDermott et al., 2010; McGrattan and
Hamins, 2006) is an advanced CFD-based field model
of fire devoted to simulation of fires in various
environments. The system incorporates a large variety
of specific physical and chemical phenomena related to
fire. FDS solves a form of conservation equations for
low speed, thermally driven flow. Smoke and heat
transfer from fire is the main concern of this system,
which also includes thermal radiation, pyrolysis,
combustion of pyrolysis products, flame spread,
turbulence, suppression and sprinklers activation. FDS
was developed by NIST (U.S. National Institute of
Standards and Technology) in the U.S.A. in
collaboration with VTT Technical Research Center of
Finland. Since the first validation study related to FDS
elaborated by the U.S. NRC (Nuclear Regulatory
Commission) (Hill et al., 2007), systematic verification
and validation of FDS continue until now to enhance
quality and reliability of simulations and to provide its
applicability on practical fire safety problems
(McDermott et al., 2010; McGrattan et al., 2010). FDS
can run on single-processor PCs as well as on multiprocessor (multi-core) computer systems utilizing MPI
(Message-Passing Interface) or Open MPI (Open
Message-Passing Interface). Visualization of simulation
results is provided by Smokeview (Forney, 2009) which
is capable to visualize 3D simulations of fire and smoke
spread and 2D slices of selected quantities and export

the visualized results in the form of graphs, tables,

pictures and sequences of pictures. We utilize our
experience in the field of computer simulation of fires
in various environments; we have studied fires in
compartment and family house (Weisenpacher et al.,
2012b), cinema hall (Glasa et al., 2012; Valasek, 2013),
automobile (Halada et al., 2012; Weisenpacher et al.,
2012a), tunnel (Weisenpacher et al., 2011a, b) and
garage (Weisenpacher et al., 2013). We also studied the
impact of parallelization of calculation on accuracy and
efficiency of tunnel fire simulation (Halada et al., 2012;
Weisenpacher et al., 2011a, b; 2012a; 2013).
The FDS system contains the agent-based
evacuation module, Evac (Korhonen and Hostikka,
2009). In Evac, a modified Helbings social force
model (Helbing and Molnar, 1995; Helbing et al., 2000;
Werner and Helbing, 2003) is adapted for description of
movement and behavior of evacuees. People are
represented as independent, autonomous entities
(agents) with their own personal properties and
escaping strategies. Body of an evacuee is represented
by combination of three overlapping circles (Langston
et al., 2006; Korhonen and Hostikka, 2009). This
approach enables to consider translational as well as
rotational motion of evacuees. At present, several
advanced program systems are available, e.g.,
Pathfinder, buildingEXODUS, STEPS, Simulex, etc.,
which are capable to simulate the egress of people from
various structures in case of emergency event.
However, most of these systems are devoted rather to
fire drill simulation than to simulation of evacuation in
case of fire. Some of current evacuation simulators are
able to import the information about fire from FDS (or
from some another fire simulator) and utilize it partially
for modeling of evacuation. In FDS+Evac, fire
characteristics are accessed directly and utilized for
modeling evacuees behavior. Therefore, the system is
capable to simulate the spread of fire as well as the
impact of fire and smoke on the course of evacuation
and evacuees decision making. Thus, the fire field
model FDS and the agent-based evacuation model Evac
interact and the system is able to take into account the
information about fire and smoke in every place of
computational space at arbitrary time of calculation.
The system calculates 3D fire simulation (on 3D
computational meshes) and 2D evacuation simulation
(on single 2D computational mesh) and is able to
include consequences of simulated fire characteristics
on movement of evacuees, their escaping strategies and
visibility of emergency exits in tunnel. In order to
model people intoxication and incapacitation during
evacuation, a modified Pursers FED (Fractional
Effective Dose) model (Purser, 1995) is adapted in
FDS+Evac.
Road tunnel model: We consider a typical short
single-directional 2-lane road tunnel with longitudinal
ventilation which is about 180 m long, 10 m wide and
7.2 m high, as shown in Fig. 1. Structure of the tunnel
consisting of vertical walls and a curved ceiling is

3604

Res. J. App. Sci. Eng. Technol., 7(17): 3603-3615, 2014

Fig. 1: 3D tunnel model

represented using FDS orthogonal obstacles

(OBSTRUCTIONs) composed of concrete with the 20
cm THICKNESS. The SAWTOOTH feature of FDS is
used for curved ceiling representation to smooth the
ceiling surface. Such procedure helps to avoid the
occurrence of unwanted turbulent phenomena related to
gases flow around sharp corners and edges of obstacles
(OBSTRUCTIONs) by which the concrete ceiling is
represented. We do not assume any flammable
materials influencing the course of fire in simulation.
The ventilation system of the tunnel consists of two
couples of jet fans placed about 1 m under the tunnel
ceiling at the distances of 47.4 and 137.4 m from the
left tunnel portal. The fans are placed 3 m far from each
other. Their effective diameter and length is 0.9 and 5.2

m, respectively. The fans are represented standardly

using thin obstructions (OBSTRUCTONs with the 0
m
THICKNESS
with
the
POROUS
=.TRUE.parameter). In order to provide the proper
ventilation action, the square cross-section area related
to fans representation in simulation corresponds to the
circular cross-section area of standard tunnel jet fan
(Fig. 1).
Ambient temperature in the tunnel is assumed to be
20C. We also assume a steady flow in the tunnel at the
beginning of simulation consisting of a flow caused by
the tunnel super-elevation as well as by the movement
of vehicles (contribution of traffic). In simulation, such
quasi-steady flow is formally represented by fans

3605

Res. J. App. Sci. Eng. Technol., 7(17): 3603-3615, 2014

Fig. 2: Ventilation action

Fig. 3: Fire source HRRPUA curve

blowing at 6.25 m/s velocity during the first 60 s of

simulation. By such procedure, a quasi-steady air flow
under the ceiling with approximately 2 m/s velocity is
created (Fig. 2).
Fire scenario: We assume the following fire scenario.
Fire is initiated at the 50th s of simulation; increases
linearly up to the maximal HRR (heat release rate)
value of 10 MW reached at the 55th s (Fig. 3). Since that
time, the fire source intensity is not changed until the
end of simulation. The source of fire is represented by a
23 m surface placed about 1.1 m above the road at 92
m distance from the left tunnel portal (Fig. 1). It
produces heat with 1666.667 kW/m2 HRRPUA (heat
release rate per unit area).
We consider the following action of emergency
ventilation (Fig. 2). After the fire detection (at the 60th
s), all fans start to work with linearly increasing
velocity (from the value of 6.25 to 25 m/s); the
maximal value of the fans blowing velocity is reached
at the 65th s and remains unchanged until the end of
simulation. In order to avoid unnecessary presentation
complexity, we assume the simple fire scenario and
simplified ventilation action.
The aim of this research was not to study or
optimize emergency ventilation action in the considered
tunnel. Several papers on critical ventilation velocity
studying various aspects of emergency ventilation have
been published (Megret and Vauquelin, 2000; Atkinson
and Wu, 1996; Kunsch, 2002; Tetzner et al.,
1999; Vauquelin and Wu, 2006; Kang, 2010).

Fig. 4: Scheme of traffic (scenario 1): positions of cars C1C24 and the fire source

According to these studies, actual values of critical

ventilation velocity vary from tunnel to tunnel and are
determined and influenced by various factors such as
tunnel structure, ventilation system, traffic, fire source
intensity and location, etc. This study aims to show
applicability of FDS+Evac for modeling people
evacuation in case of tunnel fire and to indicate some
specific problems related to such simulations. Note that
reaction times of fire detection and alarm system
considered in simulation are also relatively short to
keep the total computational time of simulation
acceptable considering the available computational

3606

Res. J. App. Sci. Eng. Technol., 7(17): 3603-3615, 2014

Fig. 5: Description of vehicles evacuation in scenario 1

A, E, CH, F and M: Adult, elderly, child, female and male, respectively; C1,, C24: Cars; AT: Vehicle stop time; ET:
Individual passenger evacuation time from vehicle; LFD, RFD, LBD and RBD: The left front, right front, left back and
right back door, respectively

power. In real situations, however, many other factors

were observed which influence the fans activating times
and smokiness of tunnel tube even before open flames
appear (Han et al., 2013) and various psychological,
physiological and physical impacts on evacuees
behavior, movement and decision making were
investigated (Ronchi et al., 2012; 2013a, b; Kutilova
et al., 2013).
Evacuation scenarios: In order to study the impact of
occurrence of higher capacity vehicles on evacuation in
case of tunnel fire, we assume two traffic situations and
the corresponding two evacuation scenarios (in the
following they will be referred to as Scenario 1 and
Scenario 2). The scenarios differ from each other by
number of vehicles and number of evacuees considered.
In Scenario 1, we consider 24 cars C1-C24 of the same
type with variable numbers of passengers (Fig. 4 and
5). In Scenario 2, we consider 21 cars (cars C1, C3, C5,
C7, C8,, C24 as in Scenario 1) with 1-4 passengers,
one bus with 30 passengers and one transporter with 9
passengers (Fig. 5 to 7).
Scenario with cars: Distances between cars C1-C24
and position of the fire source are shown in Fig. 4. The
number of passengers of individual cars, times when
vehicles stop, evacuation times from vehicles for
individual passengers and doors by which they escape
are shown in Fig. 5. The cars arrive through the left
tunnel portal and stop at positions shown in Fig. 4. The
first car stopped at the 53rd s, i.e., three seconds after

the fire origin; the next cars stopped at every second,

until the 76th s (Fig. 5). The total number of passengers
is 65. We do not assume any higher capacity vehicles in
this scenario.
We suppose that evacuees will choose one from
two available escaping routes, the 10 m wide left tunnel
portal and the 1.5 m wide emergency exit located near
the cars C4 and C6. We assume that all passengers
know (are familiar with) the portal (they came through
it) and passengers of cars C1-C7 know the portal as
well as the exit (they saw the exit before stopping the
vehicle).
Our simulation experiments indicate that it is
important to properly represent all possible exit routes
to avoid distortion of evacuees behavior. The exit is
placed at 73 m distance from the left tunnel portal and
is represented by a VENT object with given width,
assigned evacuation mesh and visibility point (i.e.,
the corresponding point placed in the middle above the
exit). Parameters of the exit are used as input of agents
decision algorithm and for calculation of the preferred
directions field which directs the agents movement.
The left tunnel portal is represented by three individual
exits of 2 m width which allow agents to escape
through the portal. Simulation experiments indicate that
such representation does not lead to distortion of
expected agents behavior. Note that the actual version
of FDS+Evac does not allow sufficiently representing
low obstacles, i.e., the obstructions which obstruct
agents in their movement but do not obstruct them to
see exits (to see the visibility points assigned to the

3607

Res. J. App. Sci. Eng. Technol., 7(17): 3603-3615, 2014

Fig. 7: Description of evacuation of higher capacity vehicles

in scenario 2
A: Adult; M: Male; B1: Bus; T1: Transporter; AT:
Vehicle stop time; ET: Individual passenger
evacuation time; LFD, RFD, LBD and RBD: Left
front door, right front door, left back door and right
back door, respectively

us to test the impact of higher capacity vehicles on the

course of people evacuation. Passengers evacuation
times from B1 and T1 and stop times of B1 and T1 are
shown in Fig. 7. The rest of parameters for evacuation
of passengers from cars C1, C3, C5, C7-C24 is the
same as in Scenario 1.
We assume that all passengers know the portal
(similarly as in Scenario 1) and that passengers from
vehicles C1-C7, B1 and T1 know both the portal and
exit (they saw the exit before stopping the vehicles).
The exit is located at the same place as in Scenario 1.
The total number of passengers is 95.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Fig. 6: Scheme of traffic (scenario 2): positions of cars C1,

C3, C5, C7-C24, bus B1, transporter T1 and fire
source

exits). Simulation experiments show that the portal

representation using a single exit with the portal width
(i.e., a single visibility point) would cause that agents at
side parts of the tunnel would not see the portal because
the cars standing in the tunnel would obstruct them to
see the portal visibility point. Therefore, we represent
the portal by three exits, the width of which is
determined by the width of free corridors available
for escape of agents towards the portal. Such
representation makes agents able to see the portal
escaping in the direction to it.
Scenario with higher capacity vehicles: In Scenario 2,
we replaced cars C2 and C4 by bus B1 and car C6 by
transporter T1 (Fig. 6). The rest of parameters of the
traffic situation is left unchanged. This scenario allows

In order to realize the calculations in parallel, the

computational domain was divided into three 3D
computational meshes of 10 cm mesh density, on which
the fire was resolved. One additional 2D computational
mesh of 10 cm mesh density was assigned to
evacuation calculation. The total number of cube cells
for fire simulation was 12960000 (4320000 cube cells
for each mesh); the meshes parameters fulfilled the
conditions required for efficient calculation of the FDS
pressure solver (McDermott et al., 2010). The total
number of cells for evacuation calculation was 180000.
The calculations were realized on a PC (6-core i73930K, 3.20 GHz, 64 GB RAM). Each computational
mesh was assigned to one CPU core. Thus, the
calculation was performed in parallel on 4 CPU cores.
The total computational time of 3-min period of fire
and evacuation was 95.87 and 98.82 h for Scenario 1
and Scenario 2, respectively.
Course of simulated fire (scenario 1): The course of
simulated fire and smoke spread are illustrated in Fig. 8
and 9. The fire started at the 50th s. Already at the 53rd s,
hot gases hit on curved part of the tunnel ceiling and
spread under the ceiling. The quasi-steady flow in the
tunnel caused that the smoke was drifted more towards
the right tunnel portal than towards the left portal.
Figure 8 also illustrates how the individual cars stopped
during the period between the 53rd and 56th s. Since the
60th s the ventilation started to act reaching its
maximum velocity of 25 m/s at the 65th s. The

3608

Res. J. App. Sci. Eng. Technol., 7(17): 3603-3615, 2014

Fig. 10: Gas temperature distribution slices at the 53rd, 54th,

55th, 56th, 90th and 99th s of simulation (scenario 1):
the color scheme values vary from 20C (blue) to
220C (red)

Fig. 8: Simulation of the course of fire and traffic situation at

the 53rd, 54th, 55th, 56th, 90th and 99th s (scenario 1)

Fig. 9: Gas velocity distribution slices at the 53rd, 54th, 55th,

56th, 90th and 99th s of simulation (scenario 1): The
color scheme values vary from 0.0 m/s (blue) to 25.0
m/s (red)

ventilation action caused that smoke began to spread

more rapidly towards the right tunnel portal. At the 90th
s, cars C1-C4 were still threatened by smoke. However,
even at the 99th s, the tunnel was devoid of smoke at the
left from the fire source position.
In order to demonstrate the fire dynamics in the
tunnel, a sequence of selected slices of air velocity (at
the same times as in Fig. 8) is shown in Fig. 9. It can be
seen in the figure that the quasi-steady air flow under at
the ceiling (in the beginning of fire) is affected by fire
as well as by emergency ventilation action. Mixing of
hot and cold gases can also be easily observed there.
The gas temperature distribution at the same times is
illustrated in Fig. 10.
Course of simulated fire (scenario 2): The spread of
fire and smoke in Scenario 2 is illustrated in Fig. 11 and
12. The course of fire is similar as in Scenario 1. Hot
gases hit on curved part of the ceiling even at the 53rd s
and then spread under the ceiling. In both scenarios, the
smoke was drifted more towards the right tunnel
portal than towards the left portal; however, the

Fig. 11: Simulation of the course of fire and traffic situation

at the 53rd, 54th, 55th, 56th, 90th and 99th s (scenario 2)

Fig. 12: Gas velocity distribution slices at the 53rd, 54th, 55th,
56th, 90th and 99th s of simulation (scenario 2): the
color scheme values vary from 0.0 m/s (blue) to 25.0
m/s (red)

occurrence of higher capacity vehicles in Scenario 2

affected the quasi-steady air flow under the ceiling and
later the whole air circulation in the tunnel. It caused
that the smoke in Scenario 2 was drifted to the right

3609

Res. J. App. Sci. Eng. Technol., 7(17): 3603-3615, 2014

Number of evacuees

60

Exit
Portal

50
40
30
20
10
0
0

30

60

90
t (s)

120

150

180

Fig. 15: Using the exit and portal in time (scenario 1)

Fig. 13: Gas temperature distribution slices at the 53rd, 54th,
55th, 56th, 90th and 99th s of simulation (scenario 2):
the color scheme values vary from 20C (blue) to
220C (red)

90

Exit
Portal

N (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

30

60

90
t (s)

120

150

180

Fig. 16: Using exit routes in time (scenario 1); N is relative

number of evacuees escaping through a particular
exit route in regard of the total number of agents
Fig. 14: Simulation of people evacuation at the 58th, 66th, 70th
and 78th s (scenario 1)

more than in Scenario 1. On the other hand, the higher

obstacles (bus and transporter are higher than cars by
about 1.4 m) in Scenario 2 affected the air flow and
caused that the spread of smoke tended to be more
dangerous for passengers escaping from vehicles
standing closer to the fire source. Similarly to Fig. 8,
Fig. 11 illustrates individual cars, bus and transporter
arriving between the 53rd and 56th s. At the 90th s, cars
C1 and C3 and bus B1 were still threatened by smoke
and at the 99th s, the tunnel has not yet been completely
devoid of smoke at the part left from the fire source
(some residual smoke can be seen in Fig. 11).
In Fig. 12 and 13, a time sequence of gas velocity
and temperature slices at the same times as in Scenario
1 is shown, respectively. The pictures demonstrate the
dynamics of fire and air flow in the tunnel. It can be
seen there that the quasi-steady air flow under the
ceiling at the beginning of fire is affected by the fire
and by emergency ventilation. Mixing of hot and cold
gas can also be observed. Detailed analysis of fire
spread in Scenario 1 and 2 (Fig. 9 and 12) indicates
relatively small differences in the air flow and smoke
spread in Scenarios 1 and 2; however, the small
differences can influence evacuees behavior and
decision making during evacuation significantly.

Course of evacuation (scenario 1): Simulation results

show that the evacuation started at the 58th s (Fig. 5)
and ended at the 180th s. The course of evacuation is
illustrated in Fig. 14. Detailed analysis of the simulation
results indicates that passengers escaping from cars C1
and C7-C24 used the left tunnel portal, passengers from
cars C2 and C4 used the exit and passengers from cars
C3, C5 and C6 used both the exit and the portal.
In Fig. 15, the graph of using the exit and the portal
in time is shown. In this scenario, most evacuees used
the portal (55 evacuees) and less agents used the exit
(10 evacuees).
In Fig. 16, we illustrate a measure of using
particular available exit routes in the simulation. The
portal was used by more than 84% of the total number
of evacuees; the exit was used by less than 16% of the
total number of evacuees (65 evacuees).
Detailed analysis indicates that passengers getting
out of the left doors of the cars stopped in the left tunnel
lane escaped towards the tunnel portal. This was caused
by the fact that they knew and saw the portal.
Therefore, the portal became their preferred exit route,
unlike the exit which was not seen by agents over
stopped vehicles (because the cars were not low
obstacles). Since the passengers from the cars C1-C7
knew the exit (as well as the portal), it was possible to
assume that a part of the agents would choose the exit

3610

Res. J. App. Sci. Eng. Technol., 7(17): 3603-3615, 2014

Fig. 17: Slices of soot visibility at head level at the 66th, 69th,
76th and 90th s (scenario 1); the color scheme values
vary from 0.0 to 30.0 m

Fig. 18: Trajectory of the passenger escaping from the right

front door of car C1 (scenario 1): the agent has to
bypass the highlighted area afflicted by toxic smoke

rather than the portal in the case that they would see the
exit through cars. Note that low obstructions are to be
included in the next FDS+Evac version. In the actual
FDS+Evac version, it is possible to achieve a similar
behavior by setting the corresponding parameters of
individual agents and/or exits.
Some of the agents in the mid part of the tunnel
between two chains of vehicles (i.e., passengers from
cars C2-C5) escaped through the exit because they
knew and saw it; passengers from cars C6 and C7
escaped through the portal because they did not see the
exit because of standing cars; and passengers from the
car C1 escaped through the portal because he/she did
not see the exit because of dense smoke. Passengers
from cars C8-C24 escaped through the portal because
they neither saw nor knew the exit. However, behavior
of selected passengers (or crews of selected cars) could
be influenced by setting their parameters and/or
parameters of exits in order to choose the exit (as
mentioned above).
Passengers in the right tunnel lane getting out of
the right doors of cars C2, C4 and C6 escaped through
the exit. It follows from settings of the passengers of
cars C8-C24 that the portal became their preferred exit
route (they saw and were familiar with it) rather than
the exit (it was seen only). As noted before, in order to
influence the agents behavior, it is enough to change
settings of the agents and/or exits.
In Fig. 17, a time sequence of soot visibility slices
at passengers head level is shown. The toxic smoke
influenced the ability of evacuees to see the exit and
caused a change of their behavior. Some of evacuees

Fig. 19: Simulation of people evacuation in the tunnel at the

58th, 60th, 70th and 80th s (scenario 2)

were intoxicated and their movement velocity

decreased. In Fig. 18, an example of such passengers
behavior is illustrated. The agent of the type of adult
inhaled the smoke at the place highlighted in the picture
and his/her speed was decreased. Moreover, he/she did
not see the exit because of decreased visibility and had
to bypass the area endangered by smoke (Fig. 18). The
agent behavior caused that total evacuation time in this
scenario was relatively long (he/she was the last
evacuated passenger in the simulation).
Course of evacuation (scenario 2): It was expected
that in Scenario 2, in which two higher capacity
vehicles occurred, total evacuation time would be
longer than in Scenario 1. This hypothesis was
supported by the fact that the number of evacuees in
Scenario 2 was greater by about 45% than in Scenario
1. However, simulation results show that total
evacuation time in Scenario 2 was 169 s (shorter than in
Scenario 1).
The obtained simulation results indicate that
passengers from cars C1-C3 and transporter T1 used
both the portal and exit, passengers from cars C4-C21
used the portal and passengers from bus B1 escaped
through the exit. The course of evacuation is illustrated
in Fig. 19. Detailed analysis of the simulation results
shows a jam originated in front of the exit which could
endanger the evacuation of people from the bus and
transporter (Fig. 20a). The queuing in front of the exit
caused a slowdown of evacuees movement and
increase of emergency risk (unwanted collisions of
evacuees, injuries). The queuing also influenced the
behavior of some other evacuees escaping from other
vehicles. In Fig. 20b, an agent escaping from
transporter T1 moving towards the portal is highlighted.
At first, the agent selected the portal as the best way to
escape taking into account waiting in the queue in front
of the exit. However, already at the 83rd s he/she turned
round and escaped towards the exit because the queue
in front of the exit was reduced. Therefore, the exit
became the fastest escaping route for him/her.
In Fig. 21, using the exit and portal in time is
shown. Most evacuees used the portal (54 evacuees). A
slightly less number of evacuees (41 evacuees) used the

3611

Res. J. App. Sci. Eng. Technol., 7(17): 3603-3615, 2014

(a)

Fig. 23: Slices of soot visibility at head level at the 66th, 69th,
76th and 90th s (scenario 2); the color scheme values
vary from 0.0 to 30.0 m
0.00012

Scenario 1
Scenario 2

0.00010

60

Number of evacuees

0.00006
0.00004

exit
portal

50

0.00002
0.00000
0

40

30

60

90
t (s)

120

150

180

Fig. 24: The maximal value of evacuees intoxication (FED

index)

30
20
10
0
0

30

60

90

120

150

180

t (s)

Fig. 21: Using the exit and portal in time (scenario 2)

exit
portal

60
50
40
N (%)

FED

0.00008

(b)
Fig. 20: Queuing in front of the exit at the 71st, 75th, 80th, 81st,
83rd and 86th s (scenario 2)

30
20
10
0
0

30

60

90

120

150

180

t (s)

Fig. 22: Using exit routes in time (scenario 2); N is relative

number of evacuees escaping through a particular
exit route in regard of the total number of agents

exit. In Fig. 22, we illustrate a measure of using

particular available exit routes in the simulation. The
portal was used by more than 56% of the total number
of evacuees; the exit was used by less than 44% of the
total number of evacuees (95 evacuees).
In Fig. 23 and 24, a time sequence of soot visibility
slices at passengers head level for Scenario 2 (at the
same times as in Scenario 1) and comparison of the
graphs of maximal evacuees intoxication by smoke are
illustrated, respectively. It can be seen in Fig. 24 that in
Scenario 1 the maximal FED index values are higher
than in Scenario 2. This was caused by the crowd of
evacuees created in Scenario 1 at the place afflicted by
toxic smoke. In Scenario 2, the queuing in front of the
exit could be dangerous for the evacuees; however, in
this scenario the place where the queue originated was
not endangered by smoke at that time.
Analysis of real incidents in road tunnels and
conducted egress experiments show relatively high
variability in human behavior in case of emergency. For
instance, variable fire detection and reaction times of
individual evacuees, crowd behavior, irrational
behavior, panic and groups formation were observed. In
this study, evacuees settings were selected to capture
as much uncertainty inherent to human behavior

3612

Res. J. App. Sci. Eng. Technol., 7(17): 3603-3615, 2014

modeling as possible. On the other hand, we try to keep
the considered scenarios simple enough to show the
impact of higher capacity vehicles on the course of
evacuation. FDS+Evac allows to model the uncertainty
using its stochastic mode utilizing the feature of Evac
randomly to assign values of evacuees settings for
different simulations of the same fire scenario.
However, such research was not the aim of this study.
Simulation results indicate that occurrence of
higher capacity vehicles results in increased number of
evacuees; however, it does not always imply increase of
the total time of evacuation. In accordance with several
papers studying people evacuation in case of tunnel
fire, total evacuation time depends significantly on
position and accessibility of evacuation exits, location
of higher capacity vehicles in tunnel, location of the
source of fire, as well as on the fire and smoke spread
influenced by ventilation action. Further upgrading,
testing and careful validation of available evacuation
models and testing their applicability for practical
problems in tunnel fire safety is of high importance
(McDermott et al., 2010; Korhonen and Hostikka,
2009; Ronchi et al., 2012; Murray-Smith, 2013).
Reliable computer simulation of evacuation scenarios in
structures in case of fire can contribute to increase of
the structure fire safety and provide a means for
analysis and references for existing evacuation plans
available in structures in development as well as in
operation (Wang, 2013; Zhang, 2013; Yang, 2013).
CONCLUSION
In this study, the FDS+Evac system is used to
study the impact of the occurrence of higher capacity
vehicles on people evacuation in 180 m long singledirectional 2-lane road tunnel with longitudinal
ventilation in case of fire. Two traffic situations were
described, in which 24 cars of the same type as well as
21 cars, bus and transporter were considered. The used
simulation system benefits from the advanced CFDbased fire field model FDS cooperating with the agentbased evacuation model Evac. Evac has a direct access
to relevant characteristics of simulated fire obtained by
FDS and is able to utilize them to model the impact of
fire on the course of evacuation. Application of
FDS+Evac on the fire safety problem in road tunnel is
illustrated and some important particularities of the
current version of the system which must be taken into
account to avoid inappropriate inputs representation of
the tunnel structure, traffic situation, evacuation
scenarios, or emergency exits are briefly discussed.
Such misrepresentation can cause distortion of
simulation results. Detailed analysis of two simulated
scenarios indicates that occurrence of higher capacity
vehicles in tunnel in case of fire can cause substantial
increase of the risk for passengers and can lead to
casualties. However, it was shown that the course of
evacuation, behavior of individual evacuees and their

groups as well as evacuees escaping strategies are

substantially influenced by the given fire scenario,
traffic situation, location and intensity of fire source,
placement and action ventilation system components, as
well as by individual and crowd psychology and
behavior in case of emergency event. Simulation results
show that fire and smoke spread can have crucial
impact on individual and group behavior of evacuees,
on their decisions and choosing of exit routes.
Particularly in Scenario 1, it was illustrated that an
agent changed his/her previously chosen trajectory to
the exit because of smoke and had to escape through the
portal; this affected the total evacuation time in this
scenario considerably. Evacuation Scenario 2 is a good
example that a significant increase of the number of
passengers in tunnel needs not to automatically imply
risk increase in the tunnel. The simulation results
presented and some of included comments and
recommendations can be useful for scholars and
developers engaged in research, development, testing as
well as in the use of FDS+Evac for practical problems
of fire safety in road tunnels.
The simulation results indicate the need of some
future investigations related to the problem of people
evacuation in longer road tunnels in case of fire and
impact of fire source, emergency ventilation action,
traffic and evacuees settings on the behavior of
individual evacuees and their groups in case of fire.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This study was partially supported by VEGA
(Scientific Research Grant Agency, contract No. VEGA
2/0216/10).
REFERENCES
Atkinson, G.T. and Y. Wu, 1996. Smoke control in
sloping tunnels. Fire Safety J., 27: 335-341.
Bari, S. and J. Naser, 2005. Simulation of smoke from
burning vehicle and pollution levels caused by
traffic jam in a road tunnel. Tunn. Undergr. Sp.
Tech., 20(3): 281-290.
Bebcak, P., 2007. Fire Safety of Buildings (in Czech).
Society of Fire and Safety Engineering, Ostrava.
Betta, V. and F. Cascetta, 2009. Numerical study of the
optimization of pitch angle of an alternative jet fan
in a longitudinal tunnel ventilation system. Tunn.
Undergr. Sp. Tech., 24: 164-172.
Carvel, R.O., A.N. Beard and P.W. Jowitt, 2005. Fire
spread between vehicles in tunnels: Effects of
tunnel size, longitudinal ventilation and vehicle
spacing. Fire Technol., 41: 271-304.
Carvel, R.O., R. Guillermo and J.L. Torero, 2009.
Ventilation and suppression systems in road
tunnels: some issues regarding their appropriate
use in a fire emergency. Proceedings of the 2nd
International Tunnel Safety Forum for Road and
Train. Lyon, France, pp: 375-382.

3613

Res. J. App. Sci. Eng. Technol., 7(17): 3603-3615, 2014

Forney, G.P., 2009. Smokeview Version 5: A Tool for
Visualizing Fire Dynamics Simulator Data.
Verification Guide. NIST Special Publication
1017-1C, U.S. Goverment Printing Office,
Washington.
Gao-Shang, Y., P. Li-Min, Z. Jing-Hua and A. YongLin, 2006. Simulation of peoples evacuation in
tunnel fire. J. Cent. South Univ., T., 13(3):
307-312.
Glasa, J., L. Valasek, P. Weisenpacher and L. Halada,
2012. Use of PyroSim for simulation of cinema
fire. Int. J. Recent Trends Eng. Technol., 7(2):
51-56.
Glasa, J., L. Valasek, L. Halada and P. Weisenpacher,
2013. Impact of turned cars in tunnel on modeling
people evacuation in fire conditions. Proceedings
of the 8th IEEE Computer Society EUROSIM
Congress on Modelling and Simulation. Cardiff,
UK, pp: 84-89.
Halada, L., P. Weisenpacher and J. Glasa, 2012.
Computer Modelling of Automobile Fires. In: Liu,
Ch. (Ed.), Advances in Modeling of Fluid
Dynamics. In Tech Publisher, Rijeka, pp: 203-228.
Han, X., B. Cong, X. Li and L. Han, 2013. Effect
analysis of fans activating time on smoke control
mode for road tunnel fire. Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng.
Technol., 5(13): 3571-3575.
Helbing, D. and P. Molnar, 1995. Social force model
for pedestrian dynamics. Phys. Rev. E, 51(5):
4282-4286.
Helbing, D., I. Farkas and T. Vicsek, 2000. Simulating
dynamical features of escape panic. Nature, 407:
487-490.
Hill, K., J. Dreisbach, F. Joglar, B. Najafi,
K. McGrattan, R. Peacock and A. Hamins, 2007.
Verification and validation of selected fire models
for nuclear power plant applications. U. S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC,
NUREG 1824.
Hu, L.H. and N.K. Fong, 2007. Modelling fire-induced
smoke spread and carbon monoxide transportation
in a long channel: Fire dynamics simulator
comparisons with measured data. J. Hazard.
Mater., 140: 293-298.
Ingason, H. and Y.Z. Li, 2013. Model scale tunnel fire
tests with longitudinal ventilation. Fire Safety
J., 45: 371-384.
Ji, J., C.G. Fan and W. Zhong, 2012. Experimental
investigation on influence of different transverse
fire locations on maximum smoke temperature
under the tunnel ceiling. Int. J. Heat Mass Tran.,
55(17-18): 4817-4826.
Kang, K., 2010. Characteristic length scale of critical
ventilation velocity in tunnel smoke control. Tunn.
Undergr. Sp. Tech., 25: 205-211.
Kazaras, K., K. Kirytopoulos and A. Rentizelas, 2012.
Introducing the STAMP method in road tunnel
safety assessment. Safety Sci., 50: 1806-1817.

Korhonen, T. and S. Hostikka, 2009. Fire Dynamics

Simulator with evacuation-FDS+Evac, Technical
Reference and User's Guide. VTT Working Papers
119, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland,
Espoo, Finland.
Kunsch, J.P., 2002. Simple model for control of fire
gases in a ventilated tunnel. Fire Safety J., 37:
67-81.
Kutilova, K., P. Kucera and R. Meinel, 2013. Factors
influencing the movement of people during
evacuation (in Czech). Proceedings of the 22nd
International Conference on Fire Safety. Sdruzeni
pozarniho a bezpecnostniho inzenyrstvi, Ostrava,
Sept. 4-5, pp: 137-140.
Langston, P.A., R. Masling and B.N. Asmar, 2006.
Crowd dynamics discrete element multi-circle
model. Safety Sci., 44: 395-417.
Lewis, A.M., D. Ward, L. Cyra and N. Kourti, 2013.
European reference network for critical
infrastructure protection. Int. J. Crit. Infr. Prot., 6:
51-60.
Li, Y.Z., B. Lei and H. Ingason, 2013. Theoretical and
experimental study of critical velocity for smoke
control in a tunnel cross-passage. Fire Techol., 49:
435-449.
McDermott, R., K.B. McGrattan, S. Hostikka and
J.E. Floyd, 2010. Fire Dynamics Simulator
(Version 5): Technical Reference Guide.
Verification, NIST Special Publication 1018-5,
NIST, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA.
McGrattan, K. and A. Hamins, 2006. Numerical
simulation of the Howard street tunnel fire. Fire
Techol., 42: 273-281.
McGrattan, K., R. McDermott, S. Hostikka and
J. Floyd, 2010. Fire Dynamics Simulator (Version
5): Users Guide. NIST, Gaithersburg, Maryland,
USA, NIST SP 1019-5.
Megret, O. and O. Vauquelin, 2000. A model to
evaluate tunnel fire characteristics. Fire Safety
J., 34: 393-401.
Murray-Smith, D.J., 2013. Methods for testing and
validation of simulation models for engineering
applications (Tutorial Keynote). Proceedings of the
8th EUROSIM IEEE Computer Society CPS
Congress on Modelling and Simulation. Cardiff,
UK, Sept. 10-13, pp: 84-89.
Purser, D.A., 1995. Toxicity Assessment of
Combustion Products. In: SFPE Handbook of Fire
Protection Engineering, 2nd Edn., National Fire
Protection Association, Quincy, MA, pp: 2/282/146.
Ronchi, E., P. Colonna and N. Berloco, 2013a.
Reviewing Italian fire safety codes for the analysis
of road tunnel evacuations: Advantages and
limitations of using evacuation models. Safety Sci.,
52: 28-36.
Ronchi, E., P. Colonna, S.M.V. Gwynne and
D.A. Purser, 2013b. Representation of the impact
of smoke on agent walking speeds in evacuation
models. Fire Techol., 49: 411-431.

3614

Res. J. App. Sci. Eng. Technol., 7(17): 3603-3615, 2014

Ronchi, E., P. Colonna, J. Capote, D. Alvear,
N. Berloco and A. Cuesta, 2012. The evaluation of
different evacuation models for assessing road
tunnel safety analysis. Tunn. Undergr. Sp. Tech.,
30: 74-84.
Tetzner, D., R. Pollak, W. Foit and M. Sippel, 1999.
Critical velocity- comparative assessment of test
results and CFD simulation. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Tunnel Fire and
Escape from Tunnels. Lyon, France, May 5-7, pp:
181-190.
Valasek, L., 2013. The use of PyroSim graphical user
interface for FDS simulation of a cinema fire. Int.
J. Math. Comput. Simul., 7(3): 258-266.
Valasek, L. and J. Glasa, 2013. Simulation of the course
of evacuation in tunnel fire conditions by
FDS+Evac. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Applied Mathematics and
Computational Methods in Engineering. Rhodes,
July 16-19, pp: 228-295.
Vauquelin, O. and Y. Wu, 2006. Influence of tunnel
width on longitudinal smoke control. Fire Safety
J., 41(6): 420-426.
Vega, M.G. and K.M.A. Diaz, 2008. Numerical 3D
simulation of longitudinal ventilation system,
memorial tunnel case. Tunn. Undergr. Sp. Tech.,
23: 539-551.
Wang, H., 2013. Study of evacuation model for multifunctional sports stadium in colleges. Res. J. Appl.
Sci. Eng. Technol., 5(5): 1594-1598.
Weisenpacher, P., L. Halada and J. Glasa, 2011a.
Computer simulation of fire in a tunnel using
parallel version of FDS. Proceedings of the 7th
Mediterranean Combustion Symposium. Cagliari,
Sept. 11-15.

Weisenpacher, P., J. Glasa and L. Halada, 2012a.

Parallel simulation of automobile interior fire and
its spread onto other vehicles. Proceedings of the
International Congress on Fire Computer
Modeling. Santander, Oct. 18-19, pp: 329-338.
Weisenpacher, P., L. Halada, J. Glasa and V. Sipkova,
2011b. Parallel model of FDS used for a tunnel fire
simulation. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Parallel Numerics. Graz, Oct. 5-8,
pp: 96-105.
Weisenpacher, P., P. Polednak, L. Halada, J. Glasa and
L. Valasek, 2012b. Analysis of course of fire by
computer simulation. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Fire Safety. Valtice,
Sept. 5-6.
Weisenpacher, P., J. Glasa, L. Halada, L. Valasek and
M. Dobrucky, 2013. The impact of car park fire on
concrete
structure:
Parallel
computation.
Proceedings of the Conference on Applications of
Structural Fire Engineering. Prague, April 19-20,
pp: 340-345.
Werner, T. and D. Helbing, 2003. The social force
pedestrian model applied to real life scenarios.
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on
Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics. University
of Greenwich, London, pp: 17-26.
Yang, H., 2013. Study of fire evacuation in big stadium
base on performance. Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng.
Technol., 5(15): 3946-3950.
Zhang, B., 2013. Application of mathematical model of
evacuation for large stadium building. Res. J. Appl.
Sci. Eng. Technol., 5(4): 1432-1440.

3615