Publisher’s version / Version de l'éditeur:
Vous avez des questions? Nous pouvons vous aider. Pour communiquer directement avec un auteur, consultez la première page de la revue dans laquelle son article a été publié afin de trouver ses coordonnées. Si vous n’arrivez pas à les repérer, communiquez avec nous à PublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca.
Questions? Contact the NRC Publications Archive team at
PublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca. If you wish to email the authors directly, please see the first page of the publication for their contact information.
https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/droits
L’accès à ce site Web et l’utilisation de son contenu sont assujettis aux conditions présentées dans le site LISEZ CES CONDITIONS ATTENTIVEMENT AVANT D’UTILISER CE SITE WEB.
Internal Report (National Research Council of Canada. Institute for Research in Construction), 1997-09-01
READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THIS WEBSITE.
https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/copyright
NRC Publications Archive Record / Notice des Archives des publications du CNRC : https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/view/object/?id=1b986a2f-2409-444f-abf6-df66e60a8fa8 https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/voir/objet/?id=1b986a2f-2409-444f-abf6-df66e60a8fa8
NRC Publications Archive
Archives des publications du CNRC
For the publisher’s version, please access the DOI link below./ Pour consulter la version de l’éditeur, utilisez le lien DOI ci-dessous.
https://doi.org/10.4224/20337846
Access and use of this website and the material on it are subject to the Terms and Conditions set forth at Assessment of the Butterfly Door as a Means of Egress
< r
Q L , .
T H l
8 - 3 Natlonal R a ~ ~ r c h Conseil national ,,"+A , C0"ncll Canada d e recherches Canada
B L R G
-ub,: 2 lnatltute for Institut de
Reseerch In recherche en no. 74E3
.... Construction construction
s ~ s * t a(,, b<:> ,. L O 1s I
Assessment
of
the Butterfly
Door
as
a
Means
of Egmss
by GuyYne Proulx and Darlene Higgins
Internal Report No. 748
Date of issue: September 1997
I n t e r n a l r e p a r t .
Thls is an internal report of the Institute for Research in Construction. Although not intended for general distribution, it may be cited as a reference in other publications.
ASSESSMENT
OF
THE
BUTTERnYDOOR
AS A MEANS OF EGRESS
by
G
.
Proulx andD
.
Hig-oinsTABLE
OF CONTENTS
...
LIST OF FIGURES...
m ... LIST OF TABLES...
m ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...
v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...
vi RESUME...
x 1.0 INTRODUCTION...
1 3.0 BUTTERFLY DOOR...
2 4.0 GENERAL METHODOLOGY...
45.0 DAILY USE OF DOORS
...
65.1 Procedure
...
75.2 Daily Exiting Results
...
75.3 Daily Entering Results
...
115.4 Comparing the Doors for Exiting versus Entering
...
125.5 Passengers' Behaviour With the Doors
...
135.6 Conclusions
...
146.0 EXIT MOVEMENT WITH A LARGE CROWD
...
146.1 Procedure
...
15 6.2 Results...
15 6.3 Conclusion...
17 7.0 VENTILATION PRE-TESTS...
18 8.0 EVACUATION DRILLS...
21 8.1 General Method...
21 8.2 Data Analysis...
228.3 Evacuation 1
.
Results...
248.3.1 Participants
... .
.
...
248.3.2 Participants'
Use
of Doors to Evacuate...
258.3.3 Diffe~ntial Air h u r e
...
28...
8.3.4 Participants'Use
of the Stairs and the Escalator 29 8.4 Conclusions...
..
...
328.5 Evacuation 2 . Results
...
338.5.1 Participants'
Use
of Doors toEvacuate
...
2
8.5.2 Differential Air M u r e
...
368.5.3 Participants'
Use
of the Stairs and the Escalator...
378.6 Conclusions
...
418.7 Joint Results
.
Both Evacuations...
419.0 CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
...
A
10.0 REFERENCES...
...
...
44LIST OF FIGURES
...
Figure 1: The Butterfly Door 3
...
Figure 2: Station Plan for the Ground Level of Papineau Station 5 Figure 3: Differential Air Pressure for Three Ventilation Scenarios with Train
...
Movements 19
Figure 4: Force Required to Open Doors
...
20 Figure 5: Papineau Station Layout...
23...
Figure 6: Differential Air Pressure During Evacuation 1 28
Figure 7: Differential Air Pressure During Evacuation 2
...
37LIST OF TABLES Table 1 : Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5 : Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Table 9: Table 10: Table 11: Table 12: Table 13: Table 14: Table 15: Table 16: Table 17: Table 18: Table 19: Table 20: Table 21: Table 22:
Difference Between Participants' Choice of Door for Exiting for the
...
Three Locations 8
...
Choice of Doors for Exiting at Papineau Station. West Side 9 Choice of Doors for Exiting at Papineau Station. East Side
...
10...
Choice of Doors for Exiting at Mont-Royal Station 11
Difference Between Participants' Choice of Door for Entering for the
Three Locations
...
11 Summary of Exiting and Entering for the Doors Studied...
12 Total Number of People Who Exited and Entered Through the Doors for the Three Locations...
14 Passengers' Movement Through the West Doors...
16 Passengers' Movement Through the East Doors...
16...
Participants' Age Categories for Evacuation 1 24
Sample of 80 Participants According to Gender and Age Category
...
25...
Choice of Exit Doors for the 350 Participants 26
Choice of Exit Doors for the 80 Selected Participants
...
26 People Exiting Per One Minute Interval for the West Doors...
27 Comparisons of Gender and Door Choice for the 350 Participants...
27 Comparisons of Gender and Door Choice for the 80 SelectedParticipants
...
27 Average Travelling T i e for the 80 Selected Participants According to Age and Gender...
30 Comparing the 350 Males' and Females' Choice of Using the Stairs or...
the Escalator 31
Comparing the 80 Males' and Females' Choice of Using the Stairs or
...
the Escalator 31
Time Comparisons According to Gender for the Sample of
...
80 Participants 32
...
Participants' Age Categories for Evacuation 2 33
Table 23: Table 24: Table 25: Table 26: Table 27: Table 28: Table 29: Table 30: Table 3 1:
Choice of Exit Doors for the 80 Selected Participants
...
35People Exiting Per One Minute Interval Through the West Doors
...
35Comparisons of Gender and Door Choice for the 418 Participants
...
36Comparisons of Gender and Door Choice for the 80 Selected
Participants
...
..
...
36The Average Travelling Time for the 80 Selected Participants
According to Age and Gender
...
39Comparing the 418 Males' and Females' Choice of Using the Stairs
or the Escalator
...
39Comparing the 80 Males' and Females' Choice of Using the Stairs
or the Escalator
...
40Time Comparisons According to Gender for the Sample of
80 Participants
...
40Total Number of People who Exited Through the Doors for
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to use this opportunity to acknowledge the excellent collaboration of all the STCUM staff throughout this study. The personnel were always interested by the work and did their best to help us in any way they could. Special thanks go to the staff at the Papineau Station, the Central Supervising Station, FirePrevention, Customer Senrice, and the Simulation brainstorming group.
At the NRC we would Like to acknowledge the participation of John C. Latour, Jocelyn Henrie, Patrice Leroux and Mike Denham. Their constant effort and good sense of humour made it pleasant to work with them even in the middle of the nigh^
We are grateful to Chef Ronald Dubeau of the Service de pdvention incendie de la V i e de Montr6al for his clever comments on the study's procedure and his "incognito" participation in the evacuation drills.
ASSESSMENT OF THE BUTTERFLY DOOR
AS A MEANS OF EGRESS
G. Proulx and D. Hig,@ns
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This research project is a joint study between fire safety researchers at the Institute for Research in Construction of the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) and the Societ6 de transport de la communaut6 urbaine de Montreal (STCUM). The objective of
this project was to collect information on the passengers' use of the Butterfly Door for evacuation. To obtain a complete spectrum of information, it was decided to study the daily use of the Butterfly Door, its use with a large crowd of people and its use during two evacuation drills.
Two decades ago, the Butterfly Door was designed to counteract the air pressure produced by trains circulating in the tunnel and to facilitate passengers' movement in and out of the station. The Butterfly Door can be described as a single two-leaf panel that pivots vertically on a central axis, so that one leaf moves inward and the other moves outward. The pivoting door movement on the vertical axis helps to equalize the air pressure on both sides of the door, considerably reducing the stren,m required to push open the door. To exit or to enter a station, the door is opened by pushing on the right- hand leaf, which has the STCUM logo incorporated in the push pad.
Recent developments in fw safety call for powerful ventilation systems in
underground transportation networn, to ensure smoke extraction and a safe evacuation of passengers, as required in the new editions of the NFPA 130 Standard. The problem of air pressure on the STCUM doors would become crucial during a fire emergency when the emergency ventilation system would be used for smoke control. The vacuum created by the emergency ventilation system would create pressure on the Traditional Doors,
making them very difficult to open. To ensure a safe evacuation of passengers, all
occupants should be able to use the doors to exit to the outside. Because of its design, the Butterfly Door appears more appropriate than a Traditional Door to counteract the
problem of air pressure.
The Butterfly Door, however, does not meet the NFPA 130 Standard that requires that "exit access shall open in the direction of exit travel", because the Butterfly Door has one leaf that moves inward. Considering the passengers' appreciation of the Butterfly Door through a number of years of use and the positive outcome of in-house evacuation tests, the STCUM would like the Butterfly Door design to be accepted as a means of
vii
egress comparable in width to two Traditional Doors. Since the Province of Qukbec and the city of M o n e a l have accepted the NFPA 130 Standard as a by-law, to obtain
approbation by the local authorities to use the Butterfly Door as an exit, NFPA 130 has to incorporate a clause approving the Butterfly Door as an acceptable means of egress. This study was carried out to accumulate information on the door and to demonstrate the performance of the Butterfly Door during passenger evacuations.
The fust study examined the daily use of the doors, measured by video cameras
installed in three locations from the beginning of April to the b e m g of May 1997. The stations, Mont-Royal and Papineau, were chosen because both have a Butterfly Door and two Traditional Doors. From the 2 280 hours of recording, intervals of 5 minutes were observed every second day for a total of 433 five-minute intemals. The analyses were limited to which door the people used and if they had any diffculty exiting or entering through the doors.
The results of this study showed that out of 25 302 users, 18 633 used the Butterfly Doors, which is 76% of the total use. When the analysis is limited to only the people exiting, 79% of the population use the Butterfly Door, while only 21% use the Traditional Doors.
At both stations, there were cases where a person had trouble with a Butterfly Door (0.06%) or a Traditional Door (0.25%). Despite these problems, most people on average did not have a problem exiting or entering through the Butterfly or the Traditional Doors. In some cases, the people would push on the wrong side of the Butterfly leaf or on the hinge side of the Traditional Door, but they would quickly realize their mistake and then push the correct way.
The second study examined the exit movement of a large crowd, during the annual
International Benson & Hedges Fireworks. Each year, during the 10 nights of the fireworks, 3 000 to 6 000 passengers exit from the Papineau Station to watch the show from the bridge, which starts at 22:OO. Because of the great number of passengers exiting the station within a period of approximately 1 hour prior to the f~eworks, it was decided to study their movement through the doors. This station has a floor space of
36.34 m2 (394
f?),
and has exits on the west and east side. Both exits have one Butterfly Door and two Traditional Doors. The people exiting and entering the station were recorded by 6 video cameras for 2 hours.In order to prepare for the large crowd of people, the two escalators ran up towards the ground level of the station and the two Traditional Doors on the east side were locked open. It should be mentioned that the west side is the one closest to the escalators, while the east side is the exit that is closest to the fireworks destination.
The results of this study showed that of the people who exited on the west side, 85% of them exited through the Butterfly Door. At the same time, the two Traditional Doors on the west side, just next to iL were hardly used by anyone. On the east side of
the station, the two Traditional Doors in the locked-open position attracted 66% of the people exiting, while the Butterfly Door attracted 33%. Three main factors appear to explain the use of the doors: the proximity, the persons' destination and the ease of use.
The third study consisted of two evacuation drills that were conducted at the Papineau Station. The objectives of this study were to examine the occupants' behaviour and the use of the Butterfly and Traditional Doors during an evacuation.
The evacuation day was bright and sunny with a temperature of 12°C (54"F). and
the winds were 7.7 Km/h (4.8 mph) from the east, so the participants were able to exit the station and wait outside. Before the evacuation, a total of 9 video cameras were installed to record the participants' movement through all the levels of the station. The cameras were turned on 15 minutes before the beginning of the first evacuation and were left to record until the end of the second evacuation. An air pressure meter, that recorded inside and outside differential air pressure, was installed on the west side of the Butterfly Door, right leaf. The ventilation system was put on the
Full
Exnaction scenario as in the occurrence of a hre. The beginning of the evacuation was synchronized with the Central Supervising Station to avoid having a regular train arrive at the station during the drill.The Central Supervising Station judged the best time to start the evacuation and issued the station evacuation message through the P.A. system. The evacuation was repeated twice in case there were any problems and to compare the behaviour of naive versus non-naive participants.
Participants, representative of STCUM passengers, were recruited one week before the drills. The passengers were informed that if they participated, they would receive a free monthly pass. The total number of participants was 350 in Evacuation 1 and 418 in Evacuation 2. A sample of 80 participants was followed more specifically during the analysis of the tapes. The data collected on these 80 participants was their gender, age, grouping, rate of navel, whether they chose the escalator or the stairs and their choice of door to exit.
The participants were not informed as to what the "simulation" was. From the comments of the passengers, many thought that they were going to ride a train where an incident would happen, others thought that they were going to try out a new, faster train.
The results for the two evacuations are similar. In Evacuation 1,80% of the 349 participants exited through the west Butterfly Doors, while only 20% exited through the Traditional Doors. Only one person exited on the east side, and he exited through a
Traditional Door. During Evacuation 2,83% exited through the Butterfly Door on the west side and 8% through the Butterfly Door on the east side. The total number of participants that exited through the Butterfly Doors on both sides was 378 or 90%. An
interesting factor during Evacuation 2 was that the participants, in order to exit more quickly, crossed to the east side to use the Butterfly Door instead of using the Traditional Doors on the west side.
Participants in the evacuation drills had no problems using the Butterfly Door with the emergency ventilation scenario in action (recorded air pressure ranged from -1 to 1 in. of HzO), while some difficulty was observed for people trying to open a Traditional Door. The total time it took the participants to evacuate the station during Evacuation 1
was 4.15 and, for Evacuation 2,5:00. The average evacuation time for Evacuation 1, with the sample of 80 participants, was 132.66 s (2:12) with a standard deviation of
16.19 s. Evacuation 2 had an average time of 136.02 s (2:16) with a standard deviation of 20.10 s. Two reasons could explain the longer evacuation time in Evacuation 2; it could be that the participants knew what to expect and therefore did not rush, or the presence of a larger crowd increased the travel time.
The results of the three studies all suggest that the Butterfly Door is favoured by passengers over the Traditional Door. The Butterfly Door obtains the majority of passengers' flow entering a station as well as exiting the space. The unique design of the door, which allows a person to use the door by pushing the right leaf with the hand, a shoulder, the back or a foot makes it easier to use. Once the Butterfly Door is opened, each side accommodates a flow similar to the one going through a Traditional Door held open. Even though one leaf of the Butterfly Door moves inward, there was no problem for the crowd to move ahead and exit the space. Still, the unique design of the Butterfly Door does not conform to the NFPA 130 requirement, which stipulates that "doors to the exit access shall open in the direction of exit travel". This very important requirement on door opening direction was essential in light of past tragedies where an arriving crowd of occupants had been trapped behind a door that involved the kinetic movement of a person pulling a handle to open a door inward. The Butterfly Door does not necessitate this kinetic movement The leaf that opens inward is not pulled, this leaf simply pivots inward from the action of a person pushing the right leaf to exit Consequently, the only exiting problem that could be expected would be a person attempting to exit by pushing the wrong leaf, the left leaf, of the door. This problem was observed on a few occasions during the daily use of the Butterfly Door, but the same problem was observed for the Traditional Door, where a few people attempted to push on the hinges side. In these few cases, in a matter of seconds the person realized the mistake and pushed the right side of the door or another person arriving pushed the door open. These occurrences are rare since the use of the Butterfly Door is made easy by its angled position and the STCUM
logo on the push plate pad.
Due to its ease of use, the Butterfly Door appears superior on all points as a means of egress to a Traditional Door during daily use, to handle a large exiting crowd or during the evacuation of a station.
EVALUATION DES PORTES PAPILLON COMME MOYEN D'ISSUE
G. Proulx and D.
H
i
g
,
@
i
Cette etude est un projet conjoint entre ies chercheurs de SInstitut de recherche en construction du Conseil national de recherches du Canada et la Sociktk de transport de la communaue urbaine de Monrrial.
L'evaluation des portes papillon consistait 2 ktudier l'utilisation de ces portes dans l'usage quotidien aussi bien qu'au moment d'une evacuation d'urgence. Les portes
papillons ont une conception particuli2re qui comprend deux panneaux joints au centre par
un axe vertical qui fait pivoter la porte lorsqu'un usager pousse le pan droit Cette porte a et6 developpee pour contrecarrer l'effet piston qui rend les portes traditiomelles
pratiquement inutilisables pendant le mouvement des trains en tunnel ou lorsque le s y d m e de ventilation d'urgence est en opdration. Contrairement aux portes
traditiomelles, la porte papillon par sa conception unique permet de soxtir et d'entrer de la station avec un moindre effort, m b e en presence de l'effet piston.
La pone papillon prksente la particularit6 qu'un des pans ouvre vers l'intdrieur de la station ce qui contrevient 2 la dglementation du NFPA 130, qui exige que les portes ouvrent dans la direction du mouvement d'kvacuation. ~ t a n t dona5 les avantages d'utilisation de la porte papillon comparativement k la porte traditionnelle, il s'est aver6 essentiel d'evaluer l'usage &el de la porte papillon dans une variee de situations pour juger de son acceptabilite comme moyen d'issue au moment d'une evacuation.
A h
de mesurer l'usage quotidien de la porte papillon et de le comparer 2 l'usagede la porte traditionnelle, trois sorties ont et6 selectiom~es, dans deux stations. Ces sorties prhntaient l'avantage d'avoir une porte papillon et deux portes traditiomelles plackes c8te B c8te, offrant B l'usager 4 unites de some. La porte papillon compte
2 unites de sortie puisqu'une fois ouverte elle permet de sortir par le pan droit ou gauche.
Des cameras video installees 2 chacune des sorties a permis de &colter 2 280 h e m s d'enregistrement d'usage des portes.
Des kchantiuons de 5 minutes ont et6 analyst% pour chaque h e m d'enregistrement
2 tous les deux jours, pour un total de 443 griodes de 5 min. L'analyse s'est limitee B relever quelles portes les usagers choisissent pour soxtir et entrer ainsi que la difficulte 2
Les resultats demontrent que sur un total de 25 302 utilisateurs observes, la majorit6, soit 18 633 ont choisi la porte papillon pour sortir ou entrer des deux stations 6tudi6es. Ceci repl-esente 76 % d'utihation quotidieme pour la porte papillon. En s'atrardant sp6citiquement aux mouvements de sortie, le pourcentage d'utilisation de la porte papillon m p e B 79 % comparativement la porte traditiomelle qui obtient 21 % d'utilisation.
Les passagers des deux sexe de tout les 2ges utilisent davantage la portes papillon. T&s peu de dBicult6s dans l'usage de la porte papillon ont kt6 observees. En fait, ces difficult& representent 0.06 % de l'usage des portes papillon comparativement a 0,25 % pour les portes traditiomelles. La diEculte d'utilisation des portes traditionnelles semble s'expliquer par la force necessaire pour pousser ou tirer la porte lorsque l'effet piston se fait sentir au moment du passage des trains. Aussi dans certains cas, les usagers ont tent6 de pousser la porte pour sortir du mauvais c8g. Ce problkme a egalement kt6 observe avec la porte papillon, l'usager essayant de pousser la porte du c8t6 gauche, mais dans tous les cas les gens se sont vite rendu compte de leur erreur et ont p o w 6 la porte du bon cat6 pour sortir.
Ce premier volet du projet de recherche dimontre la nette preference des usagers du metro pour la porte papillon au detriment de la porte traditiomelle. La porte papillon apparait plus facile d'usage et les passagers l'utilisent davantage.
Le metro de Mon&al connait un usage consid6rable qui s'accroit B des moments precis selon certains 6v6nements. L'un de ces moments d'affluence suwient pendant des feux d'artifices Benson & Hedges qui ont lieu tous les et6 il la Ronde au Parc des l'fles. Les soirs de feux d'artiEces, une foule de prks de 6 000 passagers quittent le metro la station Papineau pour se rendre 2 proximite du site des feux. La station Papineau a un edicule restreint de 366 m', avec une sortie B l'est, qui comprend une porte papillon et deux portes traditiomelles et la m&me chose du c6te ouest
Le deuxikme volet de cette recherche a consist6 B relever B l'aide des cameras video le mouvement de sortie de la foule. Le soir du 7 juiUet 1996, un enregistrement continu de 2 heures avec 6 cameras a permis de f h e r tous les mouvements de sortie sans que les chercheurs ne soient sur les l i e u et puissent influencer le mouvement de la foule. Comme il l'habitude les soirs de feux d'artifices, les 2 escalators montaient vers le haut, les tourniquets ktaient dimontes et les deux portes traditiomelles du c8t6 est etaient
verrouillkes en position ouverte pour faciliter le mouvement de la foule.
Les dsultats de cette etude dkmontrent que les usagers favorisent encore la pone papillon pour sortir au dkhirnent des portes traditiomelles. Du cat6 ouest, la porte papillon avec 85 % des usagers etait nettement plus u W e que les d e w portes traditionnelles. Du cat6 est, par contre, les deux portes traditiomelles en position verrouill6e ouverte alriraient 66 % des usasers sortant tandis que la porte papillon avait 33 % des usagers. Ces dsultats permettent d'identitier trois facteurs principaux qui peuvent expliquer l'usage des portes; la proximit6, la destination B atteindre et la facilitk
xii
d'utilisation. Seul le tiers des usagers sortant de la station se sont dirigb vers la some ouest, qui est la plus proche une fois en haut des escaliers. De ce cat& c'est la porte papillon qui est la plus proche et elle a attire 85 % des usagers sortant de ce cat6 Par ailleurs, les usagers qui se rendent aux feux d'arrifices ont avantage B sortir du cat6 est, puisqu'ils seront plus p&s des sites d'observation des feux, donc ce n'est pas surprenant que les deux tiers des passagers sortant aient traverse? l'edicule pour sorrir du cat6 est Finalement, les portes qui sont d6jB ouvertes pdsentent un amait considerable pour les usagers qui n'ont pas ?i fournir d'effort pour les utiliser.
L'etude d%l exercice d'ivacuation visait B obtenir des dom6es rt?elles sur le temps et les mouvements d'hacuation des passagers d'une station de metro atin de comparer l'usage des portes papillon ?i l'usage des portes traditiomelles, pendant une telle situation.
La simulation en station a eu lieu ?i la station Papineau, le dimanche 27 avril1997 entre 8:00 et 9:30 par un temps ensoleille de 12°C et un vent de Sest de 7,7 km/h. Cette belle temperature a permis de faire patienter les participants B l'exterieur sur l'esplanade. Plus de 400 participants ont participe aux deux exercices d'evacuation. Ces participants ont 6t6 invies B participer B la simulation suite B un sondage men6 dans le metro aup&s de la clientkle. Ap&s le sondage certains passagers, selon differents groupes d'2ge et
repdsentant les deux sexes, etaient invittjs ?i participer B une simulation en station d'au plus 2 heures, le dimanche matin suivant En echange de leur temps ces participants obtenaient une carte mensuelle p t u i t e . Les participants n'ktaient pas avk6 de la teneur exact de la "simulation". D'ailleurs le dimanche matin les discussions allaient bon train. Plusieurs pensaient qu'ils allaient monter d m un train oil un incident allait sunrenir tandis que d'autres pensaient qu'ils allaient essayer
un
nouveau train B pride vitesse.Deux simulations d'evacuation ont kt6 d&es a f i de s'assurer d'obtenir mutes les informations necessaires 2 l'ktude. La comparaison des deux evacuations peut s'averer interessante du point de vue de la recherche, puisqu'au moment de la dewikme 6vacuation les participants n'etaient plus ~ 3 s et s'avaient quoi s'attendre, ce qui devait avoir un impact sur les r6sultat.s. La m6thodologie utilide pour les deux evacuations &it identique.
Pour debuter l'exercice, on a demandt? aux participants qui etaient regroupt?~ B l'exttjneur de la station, de descendre au niveau du quai, c8ttj sud direction Beaugrand. Pendant ce temps, le scenario de ventilation d'urgence "full extraction" a kt6 mis en operation. Une fois assud de ne pas nuire B la clientkle par la synchronisation des trains, le message d'evacuation etait lance par haut-parleurs. La procedure choisie supposait l'absence de persomel en station pendant l'evacuation. Donc contrairement aux exigences de &curit6 de la STCUM, les escalators sont demeuds en operation norrnale, l'un montant et l'autre descendant et aucune porte de sortie n'a kt6 verrouillee en position ouverte.
L'ensemble des mouvements et comportements des participants ont it6 enregistr6s sur bandes video B hide de 9 cameras video positionnees B dierents endroits de la
elles ont enregism? de maniere continue toute la simulation. Un appareil mesurant les differences de pression entre l'int6rieur et l'exterieur de l'edicule a permis d'enregistrer sur ordiiateur les differences de pression B toutes les 5 secondes pendant les deux
evacuations.
La distribution des participants en termes de sexe et de groupes d ' 3 e s'avhre representative de la clienele de la STCUM, B part sans doute, une sous-repdsentation de personnes 2gees. A l'aide des enre@trementivideo,350 participants etaient observes au cours de la premigre evacuation puis, avec l'addition des retardataires et l'anivee d'un train non-attendu, 418 B la deuxieme evacuation. Pour les deux 6vacuations,
80 participants ont kt6 choisis afim d'analyser plus spt?cifquement leur 3 e , sexe, vitesse de deplacement, choix de l'escalier ou d'escalators, et choix de portes pour sortir.
ll apparait encore une fois que les portes papillon sont favoris6es par les
participants pour evacuer la station. En effet, pour les deux evacuations on a observe une diff6rence significative du nombre de participants qui ont utilise la porte papillon au detriment des pones traditionnelle. En presence d'un scenario de ventilation qui entraine une pression negative importante, rendant les portes plus difficile 2 ouvrir, les usagers continuent 2 favoriser la pone papillon qui demeure plus facile d'utilisation.
Au cows de la premikre evacuation, la majorit6 des participants ont utilise la porte papillon ouest pour soair de la station. Parmi les 349 personnes qui sont sorties du c6t6 ouest, 281, soit 80 %, ont utilis6 la pone papillon contre 68 personnes ou 20 % qui ont utilise les portes traditionnelles. Un fait B noter, une seule personne s'est dirigee vers le c6tk est de l'kdicule pour sortit par une porte traditionnelle, toutes les autres personnes sont sorties du c6te ouest.
Au moment de la deuxieme evacuation, une fois de plus la majorit6 des participants ont utilis6 les pones papillon pour sortir. ~e&fois-ci, parmi un total de 418 participants denombl-es, 347 personnes, soit 83 %, utilisaient la portes papillon ouest, tandis que 31 personnes, soit 7 %, utilisaient la porte papillon est. ~ e c i repreknte un total de 378 personnes ou 90 % qui favorisent les portes papillon pendant l'evacuation 2. Un fait interessant B noter est que les participants plut6t que d'utiliser les pones
traditionnelles ouest dans la denxikme evacuation, ont choisis pour sortir plus vite de traverser de l'autre c6t6 de l'edicule pour utiliser la porte papillon est.
Le problkrne de ventilation etait important dans l'edicule avec l'utilisation de la ventilation d'urgence. Des variations de pression, allant de -1 B +1 pouce d'eau ont 6t6 enregsees. La pression negative 2 l'interieur de l'edicule rendait les portes traditiomelles difficiles B utiliser, ce qui explique en partie pourquoi les participants ont choisi dhtiliser les portes papillon pour soair.
L'utilisation des portes se fait beaucoup par effet d'entrainement. Lorsqu'une pone est d6j2 ouverte et que des personnes sortent, les nouveaux anivants ont tendance 2 suivre les gens devant eux pour so* par cette m&me porte, m&me s'il y a un delai d'anente.
xiv
~ t a n t donne que la porte papillon est plus facile 2 ouvrir, qu'elle permet le mouvement par deux pans et qu'elle est maintenue ouvene plus longtemps, elle a tendance 2 Etre choisie au detriment des autres portes.
Le temps total d'6vacuation etait de 4 1 5 pour l'evacuation 1 et de 5:00 pour
l'6vacuation 2. On remarque sur les bandes video que les participants commencent la deuxikme 6vacuation plus rapidement avant mEme la tin du message d'kvacuation. ll semble qu'ils savaient 2 quoi s'attendre cem fois-ci. Pendant leur dkplacement par contre, ils paraissent plus nonchalants et les temps de dkplacement 6taient un peu plus longs bien que ceux-ci peuvent dependre du nombre plus important de participants 2 l'evacuation 2.
Cene etude en trois volets visait 2 kvaluer la porte papillon tant dans son usage quotidien, qu'au moment d'affluence ou pendant l'evacuation d'une station. Les <ats obtenus demontrent que la porte papillon est constamment favorisee par les usagers pour sortir ou entrer d'une station. La porte papillon semble favorisee en raison de sa facilitt! d'utilisation, du peu de force necessaire pour l'ouvrir parce qu'elle contrecarre l'effet de ventilation et de la possibilit6 d'ouvrir cem porte par une simple poussee de la main, de l'epaule ou du dos.
Bien que la norme NFPA 130 exige qu'une porte d'issue ouvre dans le sens du flot d'evacuation, cette exigence ne semble pas Etre appropriee pour la porte papaon. MEme s'il est vrai, qu'un des pans de la porte papillon pivote vers l'int6rieur de la station, ce mouvement, selan les dsultats obtenus, ne s a b l e poser aucun problkme au flot d'evacuation. D'aiUeurs, il apparait que l'intention demhe l'exigence du NPFA vise ii 6viter que les usagers aient 2 tirer sur la porte pour sortir, ce qui suppose un mouvement contraire au mouvement d'6vacuation et nkcessite de l'espace de manoeuvre. La porte papillon n'exige pas ce mouvement d'ouverture de la part des usagers, bien au contraire, ii la sortie tout c o m e l'en&e, les usagers doivent pousser sur la porte pour l'ouvrir. Le mouvement du pan gauche vers l'ingrieur n'a p o d aucun probl6me au dkplacement des occupants pendant cette etude. La ventilation d'urgence exig6e par la nome NFPA 130 permet de cder un enviromement sans fum& advenant un incendie mais ce type de ventilation tree une pression negative importante sur les portes. M&me avec la ventilation d'urgence, la porte papillon demeure plus facile d'usage pour l'ensemble des occupants. Tout compte fait la porte papillon parait plus dcuritaire que la porte traditiomelle c o m e moyen d'issue pour les usagers du metro de Mon&al.
The Societ6 de transport de la communaut6 urbaine de M o n e a l (STCUM) wanted to carry out a study assessing the performance of the Butterfly Door as a means of egress during the evacuation of passengers. Two decades ago, the Butrerfly Door was designed to counteract the air pressure produced by trains circulating in the tunnel and to facilitate passengers' movement in and out of the stations. Traditional Doors had been installed in the stations, but the public was complaining of the and suength required to push on the doors to exit a station or pull to enter. Doors are needed in stations of the M o n e a l network since the winter temperatures can easily reach -30°C (-22T) on some cold days. For
all
passengers, the Butterfly Door, with its central pivot, improved circulation due to the ease with which the door could be pushed to exit or enter a station.Recent developments in fire safety call for powerful ventilation systems in
underground transportation networks to ensure smoke extraction and the safe evacuation of passengers, as required in the new editions of the NFPA 130 Standard. The problem of air pressure on the STCUM doors would become crucial during a f i e emergency when the ventilation system would be used for smoke control. To ensure the safe evacuation of passengers, all occupants should be able to use the doors to exit to the outside. Because of its design, the Butterfly Door appears more appropriate than a Traditional Door, to counteract the effect of air pressure.
Over the years, the design of the Butterfly Door has evolved towards a user friendly door. The Butterfly Door is appreciated by passengers because it necessitates little strength to be manipulated, people with their hands full can push open the door with their shoulder or back and a person of any size and weight can push open the door to exit or enter a station. The Butterfly Door, however, does not meet the NFPA 130 Standard [I] that requires that "exit access shall open in the direction of exit travel", because the Butterfly Door has one leaf that moves inward.
Considering the passengers' appreciation of the Butterfly Door through a number of years of use and the positive outcome of in-house evacuation tests [2], the STCUM would like the Butterfly Door design to be accepted as a means of egress comparable in width to two Traditional Doors. Since the Province of Qukbec and the city of Montreal have accepted the NFPA 130 Standard as a by-law, to obtain approbation by the local authorities to use the Butterfly Door as an exit, NFPA 130 has to incorporate a clause approving the Butterfly Door as an acceptable means of egress. This study was camed out to accumulate information on the door and to demonstrate the performance of the Butterfly Door during passenger evacuations.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
The objective of
this
project was to collect information on the passengers' use of the Butterfly Door. To obtain a complete spectrum of information, it was decided to study the daily use of the Buttemy Door, its use with a large crowd of people and its use during an evacuation drilLThis research project is a joint study between tire safety researchers at the Institute for Research in Construction of the National Research Council of Canada
(NRC)
and the STCUM. The NRC is interested in this project to obtain more data on occupants' evacuation movements. Researchers of the F i i Risk Management Program at NRC are developing a computer model called F~RECAM", which is a tool to assess the relative fire ,safety of different building designs [3]. Among the different models of F~REcAM~, the Occupant Response and the Evacuation Models need considerable data to be validated. Data are needed on occupant evacuation behaviour, time and movement for different lypes
of occupancies. From previous studies, it appears that the time to react to the evacuation signal and the movement time might be different in actual evacuations than the time assumed in the literature 241. Extended studies on evacuations are necessary to
accumulate a large amount of data on which to base occupant response and evacuation models.
3.0 BUTTERFLY DOOR
The Butterfly Door, as presented
in
Figure 1, can be described as a single two leaf panel that pivots vertically on a central axis, so that one leaf moves inward and the other moves outward. The pivoting door movement on the vertical axis helps to equalize the air pressure on both sides of the door, reducing considerably the strength required to push open the door. In the closed position, the door is angled at 9" within its 300 mm(12 inches) deep h e . To exit or to enter a station, the door is opened by pushing on the right-hand leaf, which has the STCUM logo incorporated in the push pad. The angle of
the door, as well as the logo location, indicate to the user the direction of movement in
accordance with the North American traffic circulation crossing on the right-hand side. In
the open position, the door offers two clear openings of 775
mm
(30.5 inches) to exit or enter.INT
EXT.
Plan View Elevation View
Figure 1: The Butterfly Door
Even though one of the leaves of the Butterfly Door comes inward, a person is never required to pull in order to use the door, which is important. Past fire tragedies with multiple casualties such as the Iroquois Theatre in 1903, the Laurier Palace Cinema in
1927 or the Coconut Grove Night Club in 1942 have demonstrated without doubt the danger of exit doors that need to be pulled open by occupants to exit a building [ 5 , 6 ] . In these past sad cases, the fact that a large crowd had gathered, as a block, at the exit door prevented the pulling necessary to open the door to exit.
The kinetic movement of pulling an object such as a door, requires strength and space. The strength of a person pulling on a door handle requires force from the upper body, the arms and torso. If the force required is important, or if the handle is too high or too low for the person's centre of gravity, the full body weight and the legs will have to supply some of the force [7]. The person may have to stop, stand away from the door, lean back and take a step back to increase the pulling force. The movement of leaning backward to pull is more precarious than to lean forward to push, because the feet and toes help to keep a balance. In any case, pulling a door interrupts the wallcing movement, so usually pulling takes more time and requires more space than pushing a door. These are the reasons for requiring that doors open in the direction of travel for fast evacuation.
By comparison, pushing a door open is easier than pulling. In the case of the Butterfly Door, the door can be pushed open by using one hand or both, the shoulder, the back or leaning with the upper body on the door. Because of the pivoting design, the door does not require much force to be pushed open; for some people, it only slightly slows down their walking movement. Again, the Busy Door is less subject to the effect of air pressure caused by train movements in the tunnel or the emergency
ventilation system. During high differential air pressure, by its design, theButtemy Door is still easier to push open than a Traditional Door.
It is the kinetic movement of pulling a door to exit, which requires strength and space, that codes officials have attempted to forbid for all public buildings. The Butterfly Door, even though it has a leaf that opens inward, respects this principle. The Buttemy
Door does not require a pulling movement from the user. In fact, the door is more efficient than most doors since the user always uses the easiest movement of pushing to either exit or enter a station.
The Butterfly Door does not go against the intention of the codes since it never requires a pulling movement from the users. Two questions, however, remain: do people understand how to use this door and what is the impact of the leaf moving inward when the door is opened.
4.0 GENERAL
METHODOLOGY
The Papineau Metro Station location was chosen for all the studies because it has two sets of one Butterfly Door and two Traditional Doors side by side. as presented in Figure 2. It is also a station with a single way out, which channels a large number of passengers in an exit area of 36.64 m2 (394 f?). This small space also offered the
advantage of being easy to capture with a limited number of video cameras, equipped with a wide angle lens [8]. This station also represented an average station in the STCUM network in terms of design, complexity and user density.
Comenisncs Store
West
Figure 2: Station Plan for the Ground Level of Papineau Station
This report consists of three main studies. One of the studies was conducted to assess the daily use of the Butterfly and Traditional Doors. This was measured by video cameras that monitored 3 locations in two stations, Papineau Station and Mont-Royal Station, for one month. These stations were chosen because they both have a Butterfly Door and Traditional Doors side by side.
The second study assessed the use of the doors when there is a large crowd exiting. During the Benson & Hedges International Fireworks, one summer evening was selected to record the crowd movements at Papineau Station through the doors in order to assess the Butterfly and the Traditional Doors' performance.
The purpose of the third study was to examine the doors during an evacuation, which was conducted at Papineau Station with volunteers. This study assessed door use, the movement of through the metro, and peoples' behaviour during an evacuation.
All the videotaues of the three studies were analvzed and the results were entered into a spread sheet The data were analyzed using the software package SPSS for Windows Version 6.1.' SPSS is a very powerful statistical software package for social - sciences and can perform a multitude ofstatistical analyses [9].
Descriptive statistics were calculated to summarize the results and to look at frequency distributions, percentages, means, sums and standard deviations. The Chi- Square Test of Independence was used to compare choice of doors to exit and choice of using the escalator or the stairs. The One-Way Analysis of Variance was used to examine gender and age differences with regard to total travel time, time spent on the escalator, and time spent on stairs. The Independent Sample T-Test was used to examine
differences between the daily exiting and entering of people through the Butterfly and Traditional Doors. The T-Test was also used to examine the differences between the 80 selected participants' speed of navel on the stairs and the escalator. All these staristical tests were judged significant at the 0.05 level or when p10.05, which is the accepted convention for testing hypotheses in social sciences [lo].
5.0 DAILY USE OF DOORS
From the beginning of April to the beginning of May 1997, video cameras were installed in three locations of two STCUM metro stations to record the daily use of the doors. One camera was placed at Mont-Royal Station, and two were placed at Papineau Station, one on the east side and another on the west side. These cameras were installed to monitor the daily movement of passengers as they exited and entered through the doors
'
Cerrain commercial products are identifed in this paper in order to experimental rocedure, In no case does such idenui7cation im lyP
endorsement the Nauonal Research Council, nor does it imp y that the product or material idended is the best available for the purpose.
of the stations. The fust objective of this study was to find out if the passengers favoured any of the doors, and the second was to observe if the passengers had any problems as they exited and entered through the doors.
5.1 Procedure
Because of the amount of recording involved (a total of 2 280 hours, recorded over 38 days, 20 hours a day, three locations) it was decided to select a sample to analyze.
Samples of 5-minute intervals were analyzed for each two hours and every hour during rush hour (7:OO-8:00 and 1600-17:00), every second day. The 5-minute time intervals selected were picked randomly for each hour analyzed. In the three situations, 2 units of Traditional Doors were compared to 2 units of Butterfly Door, right and left leaf, even though the left leaf cannot be used if the door is not already opened. The doors observed at Papineau Station were the Butterfly Door and two Traditional Doors on the east side and the same on the west side. For Papineau Station west side, there was a total of 149 time intervals of 5 minutes analyzed and for the east side, a total of 124 time intervals of 5 minutes. For Mont-Royal Station, the exit doors are facing the passengers as they come up the stairs or the escalator. Three doors were studied: one Buttedy Door in the middle and one Traditional Door on each side, left and right. For this station, 170 time intervals of 5 minutes were selected. Mont-Royal had a larger number of intervals than Papineau Station because it was the f m t station to be analyzed and every day was examined. This method was considered to be too time consuming so, after a few videotapes, it was decided that every second day would be studied.
The data from the videotapes were entered in a spreadsheet and calculations were performed using SPSS. The statistics wed were the Chi-Square Test of Independence, Independent T-Tests, Means and Standard deviations.
5.2 Daily Exiting Results
In all three sets of doors studied, there was a statistically ~ i , ~ c a n t difference between people exiting through the Butterfly Doors and people exiting through the Traditional Doors. In all cases, the Butterfly Door was used the most. For the Chi- Square Test of Independence for the three stations, presented in Table 1, every 10th interval was selected for the three stations.
Table 1: Difference Between Participants' Choice of Door
for Exiting for the Three Locations
For Papineau Station, west side, the door with the highest average of people exiting was the Butteffly Door, right leaf. This door had an average of 19.91 people per 5 minute interval over 149 intervals.
T-tests were calculated to see if there were any statistically signrficant differences between the doors that people used to exit. Since people can exit on the left side of the Butteffly Door once the door is pushed open by someone on the right, the use of the left leaf opening was considered in the calculations. The Butterfly, right leaf, was used more than all the other doors. Traditional Door 2, in the centre, had more people exiting than the Butterfly Door, left leaf (p=0.030). There was no difference in exit use between the two Traditional Doors (p=0.281). The results from the T-Tests for all of the doors are presented in Table 2. AJl the T-Tests were two-tailed with a significance level of 0.05. The critical T value was 1.984.
Table 2: Choice of Doors for Exiting at Papineau Station, West Side
The results were similar for Papineau Station, east side, with the Butterfly Door, right leaf, again being the door through which more people exited. The Butterfly Door right leaf had a mean of 14.36 people per 5 minute interval for 124 intervals. For
Papineau Station, east side, however, there were more statistically sigdicant differences found between the doors than on the west side. More people exited through Traditional Door 2 than the Butterfly Door, left leaf (p=0.000). More people exited through the Butterfly Door, right leaf, than both Traditional Doors (p=0.000). More passengers exited through the Butterfly right leaf than the left leaf (p=0.000). There was no statistically signifcant difference of exit use between the two Traditional Doors. The results from the T-Tests for all of the doors are presented in Table 3.
AU
of the T-Tests were two-tailedwith a significance level of 0.05. The critical T value was 1.984. Trad. 2 vs. Butt.
Right Leaf Butt. Left Leaf vs.
Bun Right Leaf
2: 2.10 BE. 19.91 BL: 1.38 BE. 19.91 2: 3.54 BR: 15.37 BL: 1.98 BR: 15.37 149 149 -13.78 -14.60 0.000 0.000
Table 3: Choice of Doors for Exiting at Bpineau Station, East Side
Similar results were obtained at the Mont-Royal Station. The Butterfly Door, right leaf, also had more people exiting from it with a mean of 33.41 people per 5 minute interval, for 170 intervals. For the Mont-Royal Station, there were also statistically signifcant differences between the three doors studied. Again the Butterfly Door, right leaf, had more people exiting from it than the Traditional Door on the left (p=0.000), the Traditional Door on the right (p=0.000) and the Butterfly Door, left leaf (p=0.000). The Traditional Door on the right had more people exiting from it than the Traditional Door
on the left and the Buttemy Door, ieft leaf (p=O.000). The results from the T-Tests for all of the doors are presented in Table 4. All of the T-Tests were two-tailed with a
~ i , ~ c a n c e level of 0.05. The critical T value was 1.984. Trad. 1 vs. Butt.
e q h t Leaf Butt. Left Leaf vs.
Butt. Right Leaf
1: 2.33 BR: 14.36 BL: 0.52 BR: 14.36 1: 2.91 BR: 9.82 BL: 1.23 BR: 9.82 124 124 -13.08 -15.57 0.000 0.000
Table 4: Choice of Doors for Exiting at Mont-Royal Station
Trad. Right vs. R: 6.86 R: 8.51 170 -13.59 0.000
B u a Right Leaf BR: 33.41 BR: 24.24
Butt. Left Leaf vs. BL: 3.11 BL: 4.05 170 -16.23 0.000
Butt. Right Leaf BR: 33.41 BR: 24.24
5.3 Daily Entering Results
The results for the daily entering through the doors are very similar to the ones obtained for the daily exiting through the doors, with the Buttemy Doors being chosen more than the Traditional Doors for the three locations studied. The Butterfly Door was designed to conform to the way North American people pass each other, which is on the right. Therefore, to exit or to enter, there are always more people passing through the right leaf of the Butterfly Door. Table 5 contains the summary of daily entering for all of the doors; every 10th interval was used instead of every interval.
Table 5: Difference Between Participants' Choice of Door for Entering for the Three Locations
5.4 Comparing the Doors for Exiting versus Entering
For all three locations, more people exited and entered through the Butterfly Door, right leaf. This can be explained by the Butterfly Door desip: if the door is not already opened, no one can use the left leaf to exit or enter. There is also a diierence of usage between the Traditional Doors, which varies depending on the location. At Papineau Station, east side, more people used Traditional Door 1 to exit than to enter (p=0.0003) and more people used Traditional Door 2, in the centre, to enter than to exit (p=0.0019). For Papineau Station, west side, more people used Traditional Doors 1 and 2 to enter than to exit (p=0.0000). For Mont-Royal Station, more people used the Traditional Door on the left to enter than to exit (p=0.0000) and more people used the Traditional Door on the right to exit than to enter (p=0.0000). These differences are probably due to the way the doors are arranged, how close the doors are located for arriving passengers, and how close the doors are located to bus stops or passengers' destinations. The summary of the results of every 10th time interval is presented in Table 6.
Table 6: Summary of Exiting and Entering for the Doors Studied
5.5 Passengers' Behaviour With the Doors
For the three locations, there were cases where a person had trouble using a Butterfly or Traditional Door. At Papineau Station, west side, during the intervals
analyzed, 3 people out of 5 297 (0.06%) had trouble with the Butterfly Door. Two adults pushed on the left side to exit, instead of the right, and one child could not exit through the Butterfly Door and had to have an adult open it For the Traditional Doors, 3 people out of 1 969 (0.15%) had a problem exiting or entering them. An elderly couple hied to exit through the Traditional Door and could not push it open; they exited through the Butterfly Door instead. One female tried to enter the station by pushing on the Traditional Door instead of pulling.
During the observation of Papineau Station, east side, the older model of the Buneffly Door seemed harder for people to push open than the other stations' Butterfly Doors, which were the latest model. Still, more people used the Butterfly Door than the Traditional Doors on the east side. For the Bunerfly Door, 4 people out of 3 463 (0.12%) had trouble with the door. One female had trouble entering through the Butterfly Door. One male could not exit through the Butterfly right leaf and instead exited through a Traditional Door. One male was confused by the Butterfly Door and it took him a while to figure out how to use it. One female med to exit through the Butterfly left leaf and then figured out that she had to exit through the right leaf of the Butterfly Door. For the Traditional Doors, 2 people out of 1 329 (0.15%) had trouble with it One female had trouble exiting through the Traditional Door because her hands were full carrying flowers and one male could not enter through a Traditional Door and instead had to enter through the Butterfly Door.
For Mont-Royal Station, only 4 people out of 9 873 (0.04%) had trouble with the Butterfly Doors. One male child needed help in order to enter through the Butterfly Door. One male could not exit through the Butterfly left leaf and instead exited through a
Traditional Door. One female had trouble entering through the Buttemy Door left leaf. One male had trouble pushing the Bunerfly Door, right leaf, to exit and also seemed confused, but eventually he was able to exit. For the Traditional Doors, 12 people out of
3 371 (0.36%) had trouble with them. Seven people tried to exit through the Traditional Doors, but could not and had to exit through the Butterfly Door. One female hied to enter a Traditional Door carrying many bags, but had to change and enter through the Butterfly Door. Two females had trouble exiting through the Traditional Doors, but eventually made it through. One female needed help in order to exit a Traditional Door and another female got stuck in the Traditional Door because she had a large bag. Despite these problems, most people on average did not have a problem exiting or entering
5.6 Conclusions
The general results for the three locations show that 3 times more people prefer to exit and enter through the Butterfly Doors (N=18 633) than the Traditional Doors
(N=6 669). Faced with a choice of doors, 74% of the passengers used the Butterfly Door, while 26% used the Traditional Doors. The grouping per station is shown in Table 7.
Table 7: Total Number of People Who Eadted and Entered Through
the Doors for the Three Locations
The popularity of the Butterfly Door could be explained by three factors. The results show that passengers have less problems using the Butterfly Door than the Traditional Doors in terms of strength required and where to push to open the door. Another factor could be the proximity of the door to the passengers coming up the stairs or from outside. Finally, the fact that the Butterfly Door has a free opening on the lefS when someone pushes on the right, attracts people to the door, since people usually go for the movement that requires the least amount of energy.
6.0 EXIT MOVEMENT WITH A LARGE CROWD
A number of events in Montreal draw large crowds of people to the metro
transport system. One such event is the annual International Benson & Hedges Fireworks, which attracts thousands of people who can watch the fireworks from the Jacques-Cartier Bridge or from the shore of the St-Lawrence River. Each year, during the 10 nights of the fireworks, 3 000 to 6 000 passengers exit at Papineau Station, within a period of
approximately one hour, to watch the show from the bridge, which stam at 22:OO. Such a large crowd of passengers is unusual for that station, which has an average of
2 000 passengers over 7 hours on regular Rights. Because of the great number of passengers exiting the station within a period of approximately 1 hour prior to the
6.1 Procedure
In order to study the movement of passengers on the fireworks night of July 7,
1996, video cameras were positioned at Papineau Station. Seven cameras were used from 2050 until 23:15, to film the entire movement of passengers exiting and entering the station. The ground floor station layout is presented in Figure 2, on Page 5. Two
cameras were positioned on the ticket booth, recording movement at the east and west doors. Three other cameras were fured on the wall above the convenience store; one recorded the east doors, another one recorded the west doors and the one in the centre recorded passengers going through the turnstiles. Another camera was positioned outside the station to record exiting passengers from the west doors and the last camera was used to record the pressure on a pressure meter (Magnehelic, Dwyer Instruments Inc.) installed in the west side window.
On fireworks nights, to ease the circulation of passengers, usually all the doors of the station are locked in the open position. In order to study the movement of a large crowd using the Butterfly and Traditional Doors, the station manager agreed to lock-open only the two Traditional Doors on the east side. All the other doors could be used as
normal.
To facilitate the passengers' circulation, however, the station manager decided to proceed as usual on fireworks nights. The turnstile arms were removed by a mechanic to allow faster circulation from the escalators to the exit doors. Also, the two escalators which usually run, one upward and one downward, were both switched to run upward to prevent a crowd accumulation at the bottom of the escalators. Finally, five safety officers were positioned in different locations to direct the crowd, speed up the movement, and help people get out of the station.
It should be mentioned that at Papineau Station, the crowd of passengers arriving upstairs was on the west side of the ticket booth, so the west exit doors are closer for the exiting crowd. However, to go to the bridge to watch the fireworks, it would be faster for passengers to exit through the east doors. Also, the two Traditional Doors on the east side were in the locked-open position, which might be more attractive to passengers than a closed door of any type. It is interesting to consider these variables in comparing the use of both sets of doors.
From 20:45 until 22:00, approximately 5 000 passengers exited Papineau Station on July 7, 1996. The lively crowd was fonned by passengers of a l l ages with a majority of teenagers and a large number of parents with babies in pushchairs and young children The STCUM employees started to prepare the station for the crowd arrival at
approximately 20:30. At 20:45 all the turnstile arms has been removed and at 21:lO the two escalators were running upwards. For a period of 1 hour, the flow of passengers
arriving at the exit doors became larger with each new anival of trains. Even at crowd peak, however, the flow of passengers was not constant. There could be 200 passengers arriving and 10 seconds later the place was empty for 20 seconds. It is important to note that passengers were also entering the station during the period studied, so there was a constant movement in and out the doors.
The results for movement through doors on the west side are presented in Table 8. On this side, the Butterfly Door and the two Traditional Doors had been left in their normal position. To reduce the time required to analyze the videotapes, three periods of
15 min were selected; these reflect the greatest flow of passengers exiting the station For the Butterfly Door, the number of passengers is for both leaves.
Table 8: Passengers' Movement Through the West Doors
On the west side, it is easy to observe a net tendency for people to use the Butterfly Door instead of the two Traditional Doors. This difference of use can be explained in part by the location of the Butterfly Door, which is closer to passengers arriving from underground, but the popularity of the Buttemy Door is not only due to its location. In fact, it is observed that the ability to go through the Buttertly Door as a group, with small children or a pushchair with ease can
also
explain why the passengers favoured the Butterfly Door. From the videotapes, it appears that the Butterfly Door is easier to keep open to allow a group to leave together or to hold the door for coming passengers to go through.The movement through the east doors is presented in Table 9. It should be remembered that the two Traditional Doors were in the locked-open position allowing free passage to occupants.
In the locked-open position, the centre door, Traditional Door 2, becomes the most popular door for exiting passengers. Even though the Butterfly Door has to be opened and held opened, it stiU attracts an important crowd.
During the data gathering, the air pressure on the doors varied from -1 to 1 inch of water. Unfortunately, the pressure meter used could not allow for precise measurement of the air pressure at specific times.
6.3 Conclusion
This study of a large crowd's exit movements is not an analogy to an emergency evacuation. In the absence of turnstiles, with the two escalators going up, and the presence of safety officers, the Papineau Station was not functioning as it would if there was a sudden fire evacuation. Also, the large crowd exiting during Ereworks nights is superior in number to any crowd that would evacuate that station ordinarily. During an evacuation, the turnstiles would be in place. They are a crowd management device that slows down the arrival of passengers at the doors. Previous research has shown that 1 to
1.5 seconds between people is necessary to go through the turnstiles [ll]. Consequently, during an evacuation with the turnstiles in olace. it would be imoossible to have a mass of
-
people arriving at the doors and blocking their opening. Even without the nunstiles, it is stiU interesting to measure the performance of the Butterfly Door with a large exiting crowd.In this study, two variables emerge
tn
explain the exit movement of a large crowd through doors. Theyare
proximity and a free opening. The closest door, which was the Butteffly Door on the west side, was well used by the crowd and this door was also easier to open and to maintain opened. At some peaks, the flow was 1.83 persons per second (PIS) for the two leaves of the Butterfly Door while, at the same time, the two Traditional Doors just next to it were hardly used by anyone. On the east side of the station, the two Traditional Doors in the locked-open position were also attracting a large crowd. A maximum of 0.85 pls used the central door at some point This high flow can be explained by the non-manipulation of the door (opened and maintained open), which speeds up circulation. Overall, the flow through the two leaves of the Butterfly Door and the locked-open Traditional Doors were similar.The evacuation procedure of the STCUM states that the ticket person would, upon receiving information of an evacuation, lock-open all doors and reverse the escalator to run upward to speed up the evacuation. This procedure is essential. In fact it is demonstrated by this study that even with a large crowd, passengers are more likely to wait to exit by a door already held open or a door easier to use such as the Butterfly Door than attempt to open a Traditional Door. We can assume that this kind of behaviour would be the same during an emergency evacuation.
7.0 VENTILATION PRE-TESTS
Two days before the evacuation drills, ventilation pre-tests were carried out at Papineau Station in the late evening and after hours. A new differential air pressure meter (Ashcroft ATE 100) was installed in the west Butterfly Door and linked to a computer for data gathering. The differential air pressure in inches of water (in. of HzO) was gathered every 15 seconds during the ventilation tests and the force (kg) required to pull open the Butterfly and Traditional Doors was measured.
A differential air pressure that is negative supposes that more smngth would be required by a user to pull or push open a door. On the other hand, a positive differential air pressure could make the doors very easy to open; in fact a Traditional Door could open by itself in these conditions. The differential air pressure is an important factor since, during an emergency, the ventilation system would come into play for smoke extraction to ensure that passengers are evacuating with fresh air coming to their faces. If the
ventilation brings the differential air pressure to a level that would make the Butterfly or Traditional Door unusable, because of the force required to open it, it would be counter- productive for fm safety.
The f m t series of data was collected with trains passing in the t u ~ e l for 3 different ventilation scenarios that lasted for a duration of 10 min each Figure 3 presents the results of the ventilation pre-tests. The first 10 min of data gathering was with normal ventilation. During that period, two trains passed, one in each direction. They both had a marked negative effect on the differential air pressure. In the following seconds, after the train departure, the pressure dropped from -0.001 to -0.763 and -0.485 in. of H20.
For the second 10 rnin of data collection, the Wh-Pull ventilation scenario was in place.
During
that period, the overallair
pressure was slightly more negative than with the normal ventilation The fmt train arrival and departure had no effect on the differential pressure, probably because that min left very slowly after a stop of over 2 rnin in the station. Usually trains stop for approximately 30 seconds. The arrival of the secondtrain
had a marked effect, with the differential air pressure reaching -0.927 in. of Hz0 after its departure.
For the third period of 10 rnin of data gathering, the ventilation was switched to the Full Extraction scenario. This ventilation brought the overall air pressure even lower than the Push-Pull scenario. With this ventilation scenario, two trains passed. The arrival and departure of each train increased the negative differential air pressure up to -1.301 and -1.093 in. of HzO.
