疏散模拟软件STEPS与Pathfinder对比研究  

Comparative study on evacuation simulation software STEPS and Pathfinder

作　　者：杜长宝[1,2,3] 朱国庆[1,2,3] 李俊毅[1,2,3] 

机构地区：[1]中国矿业大学安全工程学院,江苏徐州221116 [2]中国矿业大学煤矿瓦斯与火灾防治教育部重点实验室,江苏徐州221116 [3]中国矿业大学消防工程研究所,江苏徐州221116

出　　处：《消防科学与技术》2015年第4期456-460,共5页Fire Science and Technology

基　　金：江苏省自然科学基金(BK20131117);江苏高校优势学科建设工程(PAPD)

摘　　要：为了了解两款疏散模拟软件STEPS与Pathfinder的功能差异及适用范围,采用理论研究与实际模拟相结合的方法进行对比分析。研究发现:STEPS软件采用元胞自动机(CA)模型,疏散规则简单,人员智能化程度低,疏散时人员行为特征与现实情况不完全相符,但路径决策系统很好地解决了上述问题,可以真实地模拟常态下人员疏散;Pathfinder软件采用Agent-based模型,人员智能化程度高,个体可以回应环境刺激,人员可以轻松规避障碍物,人群中的个体行为特征丰富且与现实情况十分相符,但在出口选择上存在缺陷,人员只能选择前方的出口而忽略后方的出口,不能模拟常态下的人员疏散。分析得出,Pathfinder模拟结果与真实情况相符程度更高,STEPS更适合模拟常态下人员疏散。To study difference of function and scope of evacuation software STEPS and Pathfinder, comparative analysis was made using theoretical research and simulation. The results showed that as to STEPS, cellular automata （CA） was used, evacuation rule was simple, intelligence degree was low and the evacuation behavior was not completely consistent with reality, but path decision system solved the problems. In addition, STEPS could simulate the normal population; as to Pathfinder, Agent-based model was used, intelligence degree was high, individual could react to environment and avoid obstacles, behavior was corn-pletely consistent with reality, but people could only choose front exit and ignored the back,it could not simulate normal e vacuation. In conclusion, Pathfinder simulation matched the real better,and STEPS was more suitable for simulating normal e- vacuation.

关 键 词：安全疏散 STEPS 元胞自动机 PATHFINDER Agent-base 

分 类 号：X913.4[环境科学与工程—安全科学] TU972.4[建筑科学—建筑设计及理论]