PUBLICATIONS

A11104 DEE127

NBSIR 79-1729

Pedestrian Movement on Ramps - A Preliminary Investigation

George E. Turner

Belinda L. Collins

Environmental Design Research Division

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

March 1 979

QC —J.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

100 IATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS
X

X

X CO 1 CD

X

H CDB • • a CD o 3 B O

H

X JZ CD 42 3 O •rl o <D

CO CX

C 4-i 0) rG r-4 CD

a

(U CO *rl rC CD CO

X JZ CO <D

XX r-4X •u 42 • JZ o 4-1 CO 4J 00 ID 4-1 CD • 4-1 44 •H CD

X C0

C 4J

B • X

A • B r-H 0)

r-4

X

M 44 0) •rl • 3 X 42 M3 Dm X) 3

2.

CO c CD r-4 • O CO

a o co

B

O •H

B • 44 CD CO • •X

O TD JZ • X r—

•H JZ • i—

x o~>

a r-4 00 •3 X CD H 4-1 • X CJ oo o CO D B CD 4-1 rG rC • B co cn CD 4J O

CM

O »-4X 4J 42 00 • « X 42 CO pC • U r-4 CD mh 4J •rl • r-4 CO CD CO M co <r CD CD CO •rl B CD • X 4-1 CX 43 •X •r4 00 (X B •H • X B B 44 «• c 00 •W B CD • tI CD 4-1 x •X • o CD CO <D JZ • JZ t4 CO r-4 0 CD CO -X 42 *r4 CD CD 4-1 • 4-1 O X 3 •X 42 CO

4-1 +J

B 43 4-i rC • •X •X

O

X

X (D

O 4-1

A • A 44 44 42

X

0) CO

A (O

X

a JZ 0) rG 44 CO

X

A {JO 00 CD CO *X 1-4 42 (X rG Pi- 3 CD X 42 CD

r-4 CX 3 a 42 CO

u co CO JZ OO o PM

4-1 00 -O S 0 O C0 • CX

X

X • 4J CM 3 CO

X

Q

<2 -X 42 |4

X CO 00 0) 00 4-1 00 • X

B

CT\

g •H CO 00 CD

X CO > CO

O

B

A CJ\ CD 00 CO CM CD x 4-4 co *—

oo

X o X

B •rl CM CO 42 CO • c- 4-1 CO m B CO X r-4 CO CO rG &

4-1 • CO

X

X * H c > • O r* CO CD >4 a flO CD B CO • 1 o i-4 u X (X (X CO X 3 X A CX • o\ o c E9 CO CX JZ /*\ X CD O B <D CO •

1-'- CD E XI 0 x co • 4-i 4J

B 3 o O 43

X • 4m CD O >4 G -X X X X 44 o •x B CO CO • PC o 3 •X O G O 0 >4 CD 3 00 o X <D 4-1 3 •X X • M X 4J ^ o o •rl .-4 O vf CD B 4-1 CJ B X •X • CO 0) CD <J •H CD CO JZ i—

44 +i CO

a CO CD CD 44 • E9 r-4 « CD ID 4-1 CO *X 4-1 CD >« X CO CD X • S 43 CO 42 CO cx CD ID CO 3 4= •X CD • 09 CO 4-1 4-1 CD CD CD CO JZ CO JZ 4-i a X 4-1 X 42 - Xo 4-1 CD )4 O 42 r4 JZ CO 4-i 4J 4-1 B a CD o X J O O) A 3 X 43 4-i ‘rl pC CD « X -

CD

C X) <D CT • CO 0 B 00

B • • 0 E CD

G

G r-4 CO ,c CD B B CO B X B W •H M X 00 X E> B M W Pm G H >-i E> *X 00 CD 1-4 CD M CO a> 8

a)

B •X o CD r-4 B X 44 •rl 1 pC 1 CD CO CO 1 r4 1 i •

•X i 4-1 1 •iH CO 1 CD 1 • X CD •

4-1 4-1 rG CO >4

X 4-i

m • Mf

X CO CM JZ CO CM CJ

X

O > •X 4-i

O oij 00 CX ON

G r-4 • CM

X a> 3 co

x CO •JG CD

(U

Q

B

H CD • • • r-4 r-4

O 44 ID

X

X CD CD IDU

X CDX CD

O CD

X • CD 3 CX 3 CD r4 CD CD

X 01

X 00 CM 00 > >4 00

X 00 CO 00 CO • 00

O 0 G 00 CD 00 00

B i—

O CO • CO (D #» o CO o CO CD CO CD • CO JZ CO •r4 CO 3 CO co <D CD

c_> PM PM CO ON 3 CX 3 CX

X CX

X • PX CO a> 4-i Pm

u PM PM CO

X

Page

47-

In

reference

17,

the

word

Exits

in

the

title

is

misspelled 
Notional Bureau of Standards MAY 1 5 not l\Cc -Ctro

NBSIR 79-1729

PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT ON RAMPS - A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

George E. Turner

Belinda L. Collins

Environmental Design Research Division

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

March 1979

U S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Juanita M. Kreps, Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

While the authors of this report take complete responsibility for its

contents, we wish to mention the assistance provided by others during the

period of its development.

We are indebted to Dr. Hsien H. Ku and Dr. James J. Filliben for their

recommendations concerning appropriate methods of statistical analysis, and

to Dr. Stephen Margulis and Mr. Fred Stahl for their stimulating thoughts

and conversations.

Thanks are due Martine Gaume and Philippe Barriere, two visiting workers

from France, for their able assistance in the videotaping.

Dr. John Fruin of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey was

extremely gracious with his time and reviewed an early draft of the report.

Our thanks go to the Baltimore Colts and the Baltimore Memorial Stadium

management for their permission to videotape ramp use at the Stadium and

their help in making arrangements that made our job easier.

iii
SI Conversion

In recognition of the position of the U.S.A. as a signatory to the General

Conference on Weights and Measures, which gave official status to the Metric

SI System of units in 1960, the following conversion factors are provided

to assist readers.

Length

1 inch (") = 0.0254 meter

1 foot (') = 0.3048 meter

Area

1 square foot (ft^) = 0.0929 meter^

Volume

1 cubic foot (ft^) = 0.0283 meter^

Equivalent Terms

Density: Persons/square foot = 10 persons/square meter

Area: Square feet/person =0.1 square meters/person

Flow: persons/foot width/minute = .05 persons/meter width/ second

Speed: feet/minute = .005 meters/second

The data in this report are given in English units because they are

directly compared with data collected by other researchers which were reported

in English units. Where researchers presented their data in metric units,

these units are retained.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES vi

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS vi

ABSTRACT vii

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Building Circulation 1 1.2 Rationale for Research 2 1.3 Technical Terms 5 1.4 General Characteristics of Pedestrian Movement 6

1.5 Ramps 7 1.6 Stairs 10

1.7 Energy Expenditure 11

1.8 Models of Pedestrian Flow 12

1.9 Summary of Previous Research 13

2. AN INVESTIGATION OF MOVEMENT CHARACTERISTICS ON TWO RAMPS 14

2.1 Method of Investigation 14

3. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA 20

3.1 Videotape Analysis 20

3.2 Data Analysis Procedures 24

4. FINDINGS 24

4.1 The Distribution & Central Tendency of the Transformed

Variables 24

4.2 Diference Between Variables 32

5. DISCUSSION 33

5.1 Basic Movement Variables in Previous Research: Speed, Flow

And Area 33

5.2 Movement Bivariate Relationships 40

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 41

6.1 Conclusions 41

6.2 Recommendations 42

6.3 Summary 44

7. REFERENCES 46

APPENDIX A 48

APPENDIX B 53

v
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Dimensions for Portions of the Ramps Used in the Study 18

Table 2 Population Composition 23

Table 3 Area Per Person 29

Table 4 Flow Rate 29

Table 5 Walking Speed . . . 29

Table 6 t-Test of Flow Rate 30

Table 7 t-Test of Walking Speed 30

Table 8 X“ Test of Area Per Person 30

Table 9 Test of Flow Rate 31

Table 10 X^ Test of Walking Speed 31

o Table 11 X Tests of Interactions Between Variables 31

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 1 Lower Level Ramp 16

Figure 2 Upper Level Ramp 16

Figure 3 Upper Level Ramp Plan 17

Figure 4 Lower Level Ramp Plan 17

Figure 5 Ingress Flow Rates 23

Figure 6 Area Per Person 25

Figure 7 Flow Rate 26

Figure 8 Walking Speed 27

Figure 9 Ramp 1 Ingress 34

Figure 10 Ramp 1 Egress..... 35

Figure 11 Ramp 2 Ingress 36

Figure 12 Ramp 2 Egress 37

vi
ABSTRACT

The research described in this report was a preliminary investigation of

pedestrian movement characteristics on two specific building ramps. Variables

of pedestrian movement such as speed, flow, and area were studied, as well as

the relationships between these variables. In addition, the specific measurements

of speed, flow, and area were compared with similar measurements determined by

other researchers not only for ramps, but also for stairs and level surfaces.

Finally, suggestions were made for additional research into the characteristics

of pedestrian movement on various elements of the building circulation system.

Key Words: Building circulation, building ramps, pedestrian circulation,

pedestrian flow, Pedestrian movement, pedestrian ramps, ramps.

vii
>

••• r- S ' ’ ' ’• * 

. / ' > ‘ : • . ' fi ,

.. • > • ' t V -
1 . INTRODUCTION

1 . 1 BUILDING CIRCULATION AND PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT

The characteristics of pedestrian movement that are critical for the effective

design of circulation systems include speed, density, and flow. Determination

of these characteristics is essential for the design of a pedestrian passageway

which will facilitate movement. Knowledge of the basic characteristics of human

movement also requires an understanding of the effects of different

building circulation elements, such as stairs, ramps, and level surfaces.

The entire building circulation system determines the characteristics of

pedestrian movement for each element. Movement on ramps, stairs, and level

surfaces affects circulation throughout the total building. Furthermore, each

circulation element has important consequences for the flow of traffic within

a building. Thus, Tregenza (1976) noted that the basic shape of a building

determines the effectiveness of its internal circulation system. Variations

in building form, building height, and dispersion over a site can alter the amount

of space occupied by circulation elements and affect the time required to travel

within the building (Tregenza, 1976).

Fruin (1974) commented that the pedestrian system in a building is comprised of

three elements. These include the vertical (stairs, elevators, and escalators),

the horizontal (corridors, passageways, etc.), and the horizontal/vertical interface

facilities (transit stations, sidewalks, lobbies, etc.). The goal of the designer

is to facilitate pedestrian movement throughout each of these elements. First,

however, the characteristics of pedestrian movement upon each must be determined,

beginning with the horizontal and vertical elements.

1
Pedestrian movement characteristics have been extensively observed and even

modeled mathematically for both stairs and level surfaces. As for ramps, it

has been suggested that they are so similar to level surfaces that there should

be no difference in pedestrian movement patterns between the two types of

elements. Yet, ramps have typically been used to replace stairs and accomplish

a change in elevation. Consequently, the use of ramps may have physiological

and behavioral consequences that are more similar to those found for stairs

than for level surfaces. As a result, there is a great need to determine the

pedestrian movement characteristics for a variety of ramp grades, and to compare

these data with those for stairs as well as with those for level surfaces.

This report reviews previous reseach on pedestrian movement for ramps, stairs,

and level surfaces. It also presents detailed findings of pedestrian movement

recorded on two ramps before and after a football game at the Baltimore Stadium.

These results are then compared with previous research to determine the extent

to which pedestrian movement on ramps is similar to that on other circulation

elements. Finally, recommendations for further research are suggested.

1.2 RATIONALE FOR RESEARCH

The Architectural Barriers Act (PL 90-480) of 1968 and the Rehabilitation

Act (PL 93-112) of 1973, are evidence of the Federal Government's interest

in designing and maintaining environments that are free from architectural

barriers. A prevalent form of architectural barrier for the handicapped is

the stair, whether only one step, a curb, or an entire flight of stairs. One

of the most common solutions to the problem of stairs as barriers is the

provision of ramps. These provide access for those in wheelchairs, as well

as for non-handicapped persons. Yet, the optimum design characteristics of

ramps which would facilitate movement are not well documented.

2
In addition to the need to remove architectural barriers for the handicapped,

three other factors prompted the present investigation of ramps. The first

was that of safety. Because of the high incidence of accidents on stairs

reported by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the

use of ramps may be a good alternative for reducing the number of stair

accidents. A second factor was the knowledge that the National Research

Council (NRC) of Canada had recorded pedestrian movement on ramps at the

Montreal Stadium during the 1976 Olympics. It was hoped that this effort

would provide a data base for comparison. At this point, however, NRC has

not published its data. The third factor was the lack of movement data

specifically for ramps, which makes them the least understood of all circulation system components and, therefore, a weak element in the understanding

of circulation system performance.

While the use of a ramp may solve the problem of access for those in wheelchairs,

there is little information on what the substitution of ramps for stairs will

do to total building circulation or to general pedestrian movement. There is, for

example, some indication that ramps may provide greater potential egress capacity

than do stairs. Aside from stadia, there are few building types in which ramps

are used exclusively (no doubt because of the greater area required for ramps).

As a result, it is difficult to determine what are "normal" movement characteristics for ramps. Data gathered in circumstances where the pedestrian is forced

to choose between a ramp and a stair do not provide sufficient information on

normal circulation patterns, because the pedestrian is forced to stop or slow

down at the choice point, thus changing his speed and that of those behind

him.

3
Consequently, the best place for studying pedestrian movement on ramps is in

a building where the ramp is used as the primary element for changing elevation

Such a situation occurs in stadia where ramps are used so extensively that

"normal" pedestrian movement and circulation patterns can be easily studied.

Data collected on ramps in stadia can also be compared with data collected

on stairs and level surfaces in other building types. Such data represent

a baseline against which ramp data collected in other building types may

be compared.

Pedestrian movement characteristics on ramps such as speed, flow, and density

should be determined as input to guidelines for the design of ramps. These

movement characteristics should include consideration of human convenience

and ease of movement as well as maximum flow and capacity. Although many

authorities use the maximum possible capacity as the primary determinant of the

dimensions of circulation elements, "no evaluation or consideration of human

convenience was made in developing these standards" (Fruin, 1971) p. 71.

Thus , the maximum capacity of a circulation element is attainable only when

dense crowding occurs. Yet, this "crowding results in reduced pedestrian conve

nience significantly as normal speeds are restricted due to a loss of freedom

to maneuver within the traffic stream" (Fruin, 1971) p. 71. Consequently

the evaluation of pedestrian movement on ramps should include an evaluation

of optimal as well as maximum capacity, as well as a comparison with other

circulation elements. In the next sections, the characteristics of pedestrian

movement on all circulation elements will be reviewed.

4
1.3 TECHNICAL TERMS

As a background for the review of pedestrian movement research, it is important

to define and understand a number of the technical terms and parameters that

are used. These parameters are used as the input to design criteria for

pedestrian movement. The four major movement characteristics that are most

often studied include: speed, flow, area, and density. The following

definitions of these pedestrian movement parameters are paraphrased from those

given by Fruin (1971).

Speed is defined as the distance traveled by the pedestrian per unit time and

is expressed as feet per minute (fpm), feet per second (fps), miles per

hour (mph), or meters per second (mps).

Density is the number of persons per unit of area, expressed as pedestrians

per square foot (ft ). Because this measure results in fractions of people,

Fruin (1971) chose to use its reciprocal, area , defined as square foot per

pedestrian.

Flow or flow rate is defined as the number of persons passing a point in a

unit of time. It is expressed as pedestrians per foot-width of passageway

per unit time or as pedestrians per foot-width per minute (pfm). Flow

is also equal to the average speed times the average density - or to the

average pedestrian speed divided by the average pedestrian area.

Fruin (1971) noted further that flow is one of the most important traffic

characteristics because it determines the width of the passageway. Since

flow has been defined as pedestrians per foot-width per minute, a reduction

in width will impede movement. Predicting flow rate accurately is thus

5
important in determining the width of a particular circulation element,

whether it be a ramp, a stair, a corridor, a doorway, or the like.

1.4 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT

Much of the research on pedestrian movement has centered around the measurement

of speed, flow and density for level surfaces. Thus, numerous researchers

reported mean walking speeds on level surfaces ranging from about 140 fpm to

470 fpm for level surfaces (Fruin, 1971; Pignataro, 1973; Elkington, McGlynn,

and Roberts, 1976; and Tregenza, 1976). Factors which can influence mean

walking speed include those of surface characteristics, age, sex, counterflow,

carried objects, etc. (Preiser, 1973; Lawton & Azar, 1964; Tregenza, 1976;

Henderson, 1971; Hoel, 1968; Henderson & Lyons, 1972).

After establishing a range of walking speeds under free-flow circumstances,

researchers turned to a consideration of the effects of crowding or increased

pedestrian density upon walking speed. They found a decrease in the range of

walking speeds with increasing density (Fruin, 1971; Tregenza, 1976; Hankin

& Wright, 1958; O'Flaherty & Parkinson, 1972). In fact, once an area of 2-3 ft^

per pedestrian is reached, movement stops for all practical purposes and density

is close to maximum (Fruin, 1971; Tregenza, 1976; Hankin & Wright, 1958). Yet,

at areas only slightly larger than these, 4-5 ft per pedestrian, maximum flow

rates are found (Navin & Wheeler, 1969; Hankin & Wright, 1958; Fruin, 1974).

Observation of the close relationship between speed and density — and

consequently, flow (which is a measure derived from both speed and density

that considers passageway width) — led to the development of mathematical

models which could predict flow volume characteristics for a given passageway.

In addition, the relationships between speed, area, flow, and density led

6
Fruin (1971) to the development of a level-of-service concept in which

different passageway widths for a given volume provide different levels

of crowding and, hence, comfort or discomfort for the pedestrian. Fruin

(1971), suggested six levels of service, ranging from complete free-flow

o conditions at 35 ft per pedestrian to restricted flow conditions at the

o lowest level of 5-10 ft per pedestrian. On the other hand, O'Flaherty and

Parkinson (1972) recommended that a density of about 18 ft per pedestrian

would provide adequate service.

1.5 RAMPS

The research discussed in the previous section refers primarily to level

surfaces. It is also important to determine whether the characteristics of

pedestrian movement on ramps and stairs vary from those for level surfaces,

and if so, in what ways. The data for ramps will be discussed first.

The most significant effect of ramps upon movement might be expected to be

that of the grade or incline of the ramp. Yet, Fruin (1971) noted that

within limits ramp grade appeared to have little effect on free-flow speed

on ramps. He commented that: "There were no statistically significant

differences in walking speed due to grades of up to six percent, according

to a survey of walking speeds by age, sex, and [ramp] grade categories in

the Central Business District of Washington, D.C. Other studies comfirm

that there is no measurable effect on walking speed of up to five percent,

but that there is a gradual linear decline in speeds for steeper grades. A

controlled study of soldiers walking on a variable-grade treadmill revealed

that an increase in positive treadmill grade, from five to ten percent,

decreased average walking speeds by 11.5 percent. A further increase in

7
grade to twenty percent, a slope not normally encountered in most urban

areas, decreased normal walking speeds by only 25 percent" (Fruin, 1971,

p. 41). Tregenza (1976) noted that ramps steeper than eight percent can

be dangerous for the handicapped.

Steinfeld (1975) recommended that ramps designed for the disabled should have

a slope of four to eight percent, with five percent preferred. Handrails

should be provided on both sides. Walter (1971) found that when the various

categories of wheelchair users were considered, a gradient of about 7 percent

was found to be preferrable, although there was a range of 6 to 11 percent.

Foot (1973) found that for pedestrians who walk, the velocities on a 10 percent

ramp vary from 0.35 to 1.40 m/sec. Velocity is heavily dependent upon the

density of flow. He also mentioned a tendency for people to walk up ramps

faster than they walk down. Finally, Foot asserted that pedestrian flow on

stairs is considerably lower than that on ramps and stairways.

In 1935, the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) reported measurements of

pedestrian movement on stairs, ramps, and level surfaces. Although the work

was concerned primarily with exit design, NBS did note a number of differences

in pedestrian movement between the various circulation elements. The NBS

report indicated that previous studies on the Illinois Central Railway system

had shown that flow rate was about equal for level surfaces and ramps (around

27 pfm) but slower for stairs (18 pfm for ascent and 19 pfm for descent).

Again, the area per person under uncrowded conditions was about equal for

level surfaces and ramps (11.1 ft^ and 10.5 ft^) but much smaller for stairs

(5.7 ft^). The NBS study itself found an average of about 8.0 ft^ per person

8
The

9 on ramps at Grand Central Station with a minimum of about 6.2 ft .

study also determined that: "given similar conditions, the discharge rate

on ramps is faster than on stairways. Naturally, the width of stairway

treads reduces the normal 30 inch length stride more than a ramp with a slope

of one in ten or less and would, therefore, result in effecting a slower

discharge rate for the stairway" (NBS, 1935, p. 38).

Tregenza (1976) indicated that ramps with a gradient of five percent or less

have little effect upon walking speed. Yet, he pointed out also that some

data from the Road Research Laboratory suggest that a ten percent ramp gradient

could reduce upward speed by forty percent. "The effect of a downward

gradient is similar; it has been found that under some circumstances people

walk more slowly downhill than uphill, but this generally has not been

observed. Less energy is used in moving downwards, but the greater control

necessary is difficult for the frail and elderly" (Tregenza, 1976, p. 95).

The Traffic Engineering Handbook (Evans, 1950) estimated that while the rate

of egress (flow) is about thirty persons/minute/traffic lane of 22 inch width

for stairs, this figure increases to thirty-seven persons/minute/ traffic lane

(22 inch wide) for ramps. The Handbook also suggested that users generally

prefer ramps and find them safer. The Handbook indicated further that ramps

of six to twelve percent are safer and more commonly used. At these gradients,

speed on ramps does not appear to vary much with slope. Thus, the range

of average speeds for ascent, was found to be about 252 fpm for a twelve

percent ramp and 282 fpm for a two percent ramp. For desceat, the average

9
speed was 270 fpm for the twelve percent ramp and 288 fpm for the two percent

ramp. These figures may be compared with a range of average speed of 210

to 270 fpm for a level passageway (Evans, 1950).

1.6 STAIRS

The pattern of movement on stairs is rather different from that on ramps

and level surfaces. Perhaps because the change in elevation is much more

pronounced than that for ramps or because the steps restrict the pace

distance, both flow rate and speed are slower. Thus, typical speeds for

ascent are about 100-125 fpm with a range of 40-164 fpm (Fruin, 1971). In

descent, speeds are somewhat faster, around 130-150 fpm (Galbreath, 1969).

(Furthermore, Templer (1974) noted that more severe accidents occur in

descent than ascent.) Yet, although speeds are lower than on level surfaces,

density is not increased. In fact, people tend to occupy a smaller area on

stairs, around 7-8 ft per person (Fruin, 1971). Nevertheless, "As with

walkway volume, maximum stairway flow occurs in the region of minimum pedestrian

area occupancy, about at the point of a two tread length and one shoulder

breadth area, or approximately three square feet per person" (Fruin, 1971,

p. 59). A small flow in the opposite direction (counterflow) of the main

flow can almost halve the capacity of a narrow stair (Melinek & Booth, 1975).

(The effects of small amounts of counterflow are much less apparent for

horizontal surfaces, and center around a ten percent or less decrease in

speed.

10
1.7 ENERGY EXPENDITURE

For stairs, Fruin (1971) indicated that human energy consumption increases

with increasing riser height. For example, an increase in riser height

from 6 inches to 8.25 inches resulted in an increased energy cost of

ninety-six percent in ascent and fifty-eight percent in descent. There

were also significant increases in pulse rate and blood pressure with

greater stair angles. As a result, the ANSI Standard A117.1 (1961)

recommends a maximum riser height of 7 inches where stairs must be provided

in a "barrier free" design.

In contrast, Corlett, Hutcheson, Beluga, and Rogozuski (1972) noted that the

use of ramps may require even more energy consumption than stairs and suggest

that the cardiac cost of climbing a stair of equal height is always less than

that of climbing a ramp. Energy consumption is not the whole picture,

however. "Where knee angle (and probably ankle angle) is important as in

old or lame people, it would appear that a ramp will be easier to negotiate

for a given slope, than any form of fixed stairway, although the maximum ramp

angle requires further study to specify. Where joint rotation and muscle

strength are not limiting factors, however, it would seem that stairs are

more efficient from a physiological cost point of view and that high steps

are less costly to negotiate than low ones. It also appears that the higher

step is negotiated more quickly for a given height of climb" (Corlett, et

al., 1972, p. 200). Thus, from a physiological point of view, joint flexion

must be considered along with energy expenditure for a particular user group

in any choice between stairs and ramps.

11
Both Tregenza (1976) and Templer (1974) found that energy expenditure can be

lower for ramps of small grade but greater for ramps of larger angular

grade. More energy may be required to ascend a ramp than a normal flight

of stairs of the same height. Templer (1974) noted that as the pitch of

the ramp increases to around ten to fifteen percent a gait is adopted which

closely duplicates the energy expended in climbing stairs. Yet, using a ramp

can be physiologically more efficient than climbing a stair and walking the

remaining distance on the level when total distance is considered (Tregenza,

1976; Templer, 1974). Templer (1974) reported that the average pedestrian

speed of 3 mph on ramps appears to be such that energy expenditure is at a

minimum. This speed is also about the same as that found for level surfaces.

Nevertheless, the overall characteristics of pedestrian movement such as flow

and density on ramps remain much less well documented than those for stairs or

level surfaces.

1.8 MODELS OF PEDESTRIAN FLOW

Despite the gaps in the knowledge about pedestrian movement on level surfaces,

ramps, and stairs, a number of attempts have been made to model such movement

mathematically. Successful models are a critical element in predicting movement

for design purposes. Again, the bulk of the modeling effort has focused upon

data for level surfaces.

Henderson (1971) and Henderson and Lyons (1972) collected data on pedestrian

flow on level surfaces in an attempt to use equations of gaseous diffusion

rates as a model of flow. While they were moderately successful in their

attempt, there is some question about the applicability of these models to

human behavior. Henderson and Lyons (1972) commented that their data on

student movement and flow rates did not suitably fit these equations.

12
They found that the diffusion equations applied only if the crowd was

relatively homogeneous in terms of sex, age and similarity of environment

and activity. Thus, in order to apply these equations, one must be sure

that a homogeneous population exists with a more-or-less common trip purpose.

Elkington, et. al., (1976, p. 17) noted that mathematical models can be useful

in predicting pedestrian movement, particularly for areas of high activity.

"The effects on pedestrian activity of change in traffic management and pedestrian

facility provisions can be examined once a suitable model has been developed

and calibrated. However, sophisticated models, capable of predicting flows

in a network, are demanding in both data collection and computation and are

of questionable value in town centres. Simpler models relating numbers of

pedestrians on footways to planning parameters, may be adequate for most

central area planning purposes."

However, there is a need to develop sophisticated mathematical tools for

planning routes for total building circulation and methods of transportation — stairs, ramps, level surfaces, escalators, elevators, and people movers — which are designed specifically to improve pedestrian movement.

1.9 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH

The preceding review of the literature on pedestrian movement on level

surfaces, ramps, and stairs has indicated that characteristics of movement

such as speed, density, and flow have been established for level surfaces

under many different circumstances. The knowledge base appears reasonably

adequate for predicting pedestrian movement characteristics on level surfaces — at least for crowded conditions. However, the characteristics of pedestrian

13
movement on ramps are much less understood. The range of speeds, densities,

and flows is documented in only one study for a transit station where ramps

formed one element of the circulation system. Consequently, the effects

of ramps upon movement in a variety of built environments for a variety

of crowd densities have not been extensively assessed.

In the study to be reported here, a range of flows, densities, and speeds

were measured for pedestrians on ramps in a stadium. These movement

characteristics were compared with the reported data for level surfaces

and stairs. An attempt was then made to determine the extent to which the

use of a ramp (of a particular grade) would alter speed, flow, and density.

Although there is a need to assess other building types, crowd conditions,

and similar factors, these data do represent an initial step in the development

of predictive models of pedestrian flow on ramps. Such models are needed

so that building circulation systems can serve the needs of both handicapped

and non-handicapped populations under normal and emergency conditions.

2. AN INVESTIGATION OF MOVEMENT CHARACTERISTICS ON TWO RAMPS

2.1 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION

2.1.1 Data Collection Site

The data collection site for the project was the Baltimore Memorial Stadium

in Baltimore, Maryland. This site was selected because: 1) it is within

easy driving distance of the Bureau of Standards; 2) spectator vertical

circulation is accomplished exclusively by ramps on the inside of the stadium;

3) it is used virtually year-round since it serves as the home playing field

for both major league baseball and football teams.

14
The stadium was dedicated in 1954 and is typical of stadium construction

during the time. The basic structure and seating tiers are cast-in-place

concrete, and the exterior and interior walls or wall facings are of brick

and concrete block.

Because of the horseshoe-like configuration, the seating capacity for football

is larger than for baseball. Football game capacity is approximately 60,700,

while baseball game capacity is just over 58,300.

The stadium seating can be entered from two levels. Each level is ringed

by a promenade having concession stands and toilet facilities. Ramp

towers located around the outside face of the stadium are the primary

vertical circulation elements for gaining access to the two levels.

The lower level occurs at grade on the east side of the building and is

entered directly from the ticket gates. However, on the west side, the

lower level occurs at about one story-height (+12 ft) above grade and is

reached by walking up two ramp lengths after passing through the ticket

gates. In addition to the ramp towers, one story ramps are located inside

of the stadium on the west side and serve as alternative means for reaching

the lower level from the ticket gates. The upper level is about three and

one half story heights (+ 18 ft) above the lower level and is reached by

walking up seven ramp lengths.

2.1.2 Data Collection Procedure and Equipment

The data collection occurred at the Baltimore Colt-Detroit Lion football game

on Sunday, December 11, 1977. The game started at 2:00 p.m. and ended at about

5:10 p.m. (The game was close until the final seconds when the Detroit Lions

won.) Videotaping locations on the west side of the stadium were selected. The

15
first location (lower level) was at the top of and looking down on the bottom

length of a one story ramp located inside the stadium (Figure 1). The second

location (upper level) was at the top of and looking down on the next-to-last

length of ramp of one of the ramp towers (Figure 2).

Figure 2, Upper Level Ramp (view from

VIDEO TAPING POSITION)

Each of the two ramps selected for study was observed during both egress (down)

and ingress (up) for a total of four samples. For the ramp on the upper level,

a 17.33 ft long section was selected, while for the lower ramp, a length of 10

ft was chosen. The difference in ramp length was deliberate, intended to assess

the effects of length upon the accuracy of timing walking speed. Both ramps were

just about equal in width, with the upper ramp being 5.58 ft wide, and the lower

ramp 5.62 ft wide. Both ramps also had a slope of about 16%. Because the

16
Figure 3. Upper Level Ramp Plan and Section

10' TEST DISTANCE

5' -6'

i

7 &1 —

36'-6"

i ) ^

/

LTl

\

v * yCo

t ^

PIPE RAIL

k. ~

t

Figure 4. Lower Level Ramp Plan and Section

17
two ramps were equivalent dimensionally in terms of width and slope, the effects

of variations in ramp length, as well as in the user's direction of travel, could

be readily compared (see Table 1).

During the filming, the distance being studied was marked on the lower ramp

with two tape strips. The first strip was placed at the beginning of the

ramp while the second strip was located 10 ft from the beginning. The

markers were visible on the videotapes. On the upper ramp, the first tape

mark was placed at the top of the ramp while the second was placed at a

large column located about 17 ft down the ramp (see Figures 3 and 4).

RAMP 1 RAMP 1 RAMP 2 RAMP 2

INGRESS EGRESS INGRESS EGRESS

fldw/area S s s S

speed/area NS NS NS S

speed/flow NS NS NS NS

Table II, TESTS OF INTERACTIONS BETWEEN VARIABLES

Note: s = significant difference at ,05

NS= NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE AT .05

Two identical portable video cameras and recorders, battery-powered, were

mounted on tripods overhead at the videotaping locations. Since the portable

recorders required the use of thirty-minute videotapes and because of a

limited number of batteries, the entire ingress was not taped. Instead,

a sample of the ingress was obtained by taping alternating three minute

18
intervals, starting approximately one hour before game time. Egress was taped

continuously over a period of approximately 30 minutes using the same equipment

and at the same location as for ingress.

There are a number of advantages to the use of film or videotape as a data

collection method (Foot, 1973). Data can be collected at one time and analyzed

at a later date. Furthermore, the record is permanent so that subsequent

reanalysis is possible. With videotape, there is the extra advantage that

there is a monitor so that the data record can be immediately observed for

picture quality and content.

2.1.3 Data Collection Constraints

Several important lessons were learned prior to, during, and after collecting

the data. The first lesson concerned the availability and condition of equipment.

Because it was necessary to borrow some equipment from other reserach units,

scheduling for its use and checking its operating condition was more of

a challenge than had been anticipated. Another lesson learned had to do with

the need to understand the impact of environmental characteristics on the

proper functioning of equipment. The videotaping took place at temperatures

below freezing (around -3°C). The temperature had a dramatic effect on the

service life of the battery packs and caused even the back-up supply of

batteries to be completely exhausted just prior to the termination of egress

at one of the camera locations. In addition, because the sun was setting

at the beginning of egress, the main light sources were the stadium lighting

fixtures which were at less than desirable locations and light levels. In

the absence of prior data collection experience at a particular site, it

is extremely helpful to walk through a practice collecting effort when such

is feasible.

19
A very valuable lesson learned had to do with understanding the relationship

between data collection and analysis. Since ingress to sporting events

usually occurs over a longer period than does egress, the taping/non-taping

intervals chosen turned out to be a very appropriate approach. Approximately

thirty hours of analysis were required for each thirty minute tape; therefore,

a time relationship was established that will be useful when collecting data in

the future.

3. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

3.1 VIDEOTAPE ANALYSIS

When the videotapes were analyzed, horizontal lines indicating the area studied

were drawn on the monitor screen with a felt-tip pen. Because of the difficulty

in determining when a person’s feet crossed these lines in a crowd, a method

was devised to measure the point at which a typical person's head would cross

the two lines. In this method, a person of moderate height was selected from

the first portion of each of the four videotapes (for each ramp and direction).

Once his/her feet were aligned with the beginning of the ramp, a horizontal

line was drawn just touching his/her head. The same procedure was repeated at

the end of the ramp. In this way, head height could be consistently used

as a marker point. Once the horizontal lines representing head-height above

the predetermined marker lines on the ramp had been drawn, the number of

people passing between the marked lines were counted. Their transit time

was also determined. A procedure somewhat akin to that used by Hankin and

Wright (1958) was employed in the counting and timing phase. As they had

done, a person was chosen to mark the end of a group. He/she was timed with

a stopwatch as he/she passed between the two marker lines. At the same

time, all persons who were between the two lines and in front of the marker

20
person at any time during his/her transit were counted as a group. Unlike

Hankin and Wright, the marker person was selected from the persons on the

videotape and was not a member of the research staff. The marker person

was arbitrarily defined as being the last person in a naturally occurring

group separated by an obvious gap from the next group.

For ingress, definition of the marker person was much easier than for egress,

due to the clarity of the videotapes. In addition, the whole ingress process

lasted much longer than egress. Because people began to arrive from as much

as one hour before game time to fifteen minutes after the kick-off, flow

densities were much lower. Egress occurred in about one-half hour with considerable crowding.

Two observers were used to transfer the data from videotape to recording sheets.

As the first step, they selected a marker person for each group. They recorded

some identifying characteristics and the videotape marker numbers on the data

sheet so that the marker person could easily be re-identified. Then, after one

observer had timed the marker person, the other observer recorded his/her transit

time. Once the transit time of the marker person was recorded, then the

number of people in each group was determined. In this count, all of the

people in front of the marker person whose heads were between the two

horizontal lines were counted. These people were considered to form a group

for purposes of data analysis. Each observer counted the people independently,

then, any difference in counts was resolved in a simultaneous recount. Both

the independent and the combined count were recorded.

For ingress, once the overall count had been made, several subsequent

refinements were made. The first involved determination of the total flow

21
(see Figure 5). In this, all persons who were visible between the two marker

lines during each three minute taping interval were counted. Because of

battery problems, ingress on ramp 2 was not recorded as long as on ramp 1.

The tape segment was also retimed using a stopwatch. In this way, the number

of people per unit area per unit time could be determined. The second count

was an attempt to determine the number of women and children. Because of

the bulky winter clothing, it was somewhat difficult to differentiate women

from men, so that the assignment of people to male/female groups is not reported

with overwhelming confidence. Children were defined as anyone whose head was

at least one head below the upper marking line. Again, this categorization is

not perfect; it may include short women or men while excluding tall children.

Nevertheless, an estimate was made of the numbers of women and children using

the ramp. These data are reported in Table 2.

In the third count, a more detailed determination was made of some unique

behavior patterns. Two categories were selected; counterflow and crossover.

Counterflow was defined as movement in the opposite direction from the

marker person. All persons moving between the two marker lines at the

same time as the marker person were included in the count. Although

counterflow is a common term in the circulation literature, whether

pedestrian or vehicular, crossover is not. It is defined here as the

movement of a particular person from one side of the ramp to the other

for no apparent reason. Crossover appeared to occur primarily at

transition points, such as landings and was characterized by the crossing

of one person behind another. The reasons for such "crossover" behavior

are unclear; yet because it can slow or impede flow and speed on the

ramp, the phenomenon is of interest.

22
6

1

t

sQ.

4 -

3"4

2 “

1 -

nrrr;

.v/.v

1 1 RAMP 1

lli&l ramp 2

;Xv!v

0 3 6 9 1215 13 21 24 273033363942 45 48 51 545760

TIME IN MINUTES

63 66

START OF GAME

Figure 5, Ingress Flow Rates

RAMP 1

INGRESS

ramp 2

INGRESS

MEN 71,95% 76.23%

WOMEN 20.48% 16.98%

CHILDREN 7.57% 6.79%

TOTAL 100.00% 100.00%

Table 2, Population Composition

23
Because of the limited instances of counterflow and crossover, they will

not be reported in further detail at this time. However, it is intended

that they will be examined more closely in future research.

Similar detailed counts of women and children, crossover, and counterflow

could not be made for egress because the tapes were continuous rather than

sampled segments and because of battery and lighting problems were not

sufficiently clear for continuous and accurate counting.

3.2 DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

Statistical analyses were made on data points that were derived from the

original individual raw counts and times taken from the videotapes. A

computer program was written for transforming the raw data to four variables:

density, area per person, flow rate, and walking speed (see Appendix A).

These variable values were the basis for the analysis and findings reported

herein.

The second edition of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

(SPSS) [Nie, et. al. , 1975] was used for all statistical analyses. In

particular, the subprograms. Frequencies and Scattergram were used.

In addition, Dataplot, an interactive graphical data analysis program,

[Filliben, 1978] was used for fitting models to the data.

4. FINDINGS

4.1 THE DISTRIBUTION AND CENTRAL TENDENCY OF THE TRANSFORMED VARIABLES

Frequency distributions were created for the following variables: area

per person (area), flow rate (flow), and walking speed (speed). Since

area is the reciprocal of density, density was not used in this data

24
u)itiHOzncomj)-n

inmi-<ozncons'n

RANP 1 INGRESS RAMP 1 EGRESS

AREA (S.F. /PERSON)

RAMP 2 INGRESS RAPIP 2 EGRESS

AREA (S.F. /PERSON)

Figure 6, Area per Person

25
w>mt-»o3tmc©m/0'n

RAflP 1 INGRESS RAW* 1 EGRESS

FLOU (PERSONS/FT UIDTH/HIN)

RAHP a INGRESS

FLOU (PERSONS/FT UIDTH/NIN)

RANP 2 EGRESS

FLOU (PERSONS/FT UIDTH/fllN)

Figure 7, Flow Rate

26
viPiHozmcoinn'<i

wmiiozmconw^

RANP 1 INGRESS RAMP 1 EGRESS

RAMP 2 INGRESS

WALKING SPEED (FT/flIN)

RAMP 2 EGRESS

WALKING SPEED (FT/MIN

)

Figure 8, Walking Speed

27
analysis because area per person is a more useful measure in building

circulation system design. Each of the three variables were analyzed for

both entry (ingress) and exiting (egress) and for both the lower ramp (Ramp

1) and the upper ramp (Ramp 2). Figures 6 through 8 are histograms of

the distributions of the variables of both ramps during ingress and egress.

Note that area comprises a discrete condition so that there is a gap between

the area occupied by one person and that occupied by two persons (see Figure

6). Tables 3, 4, and 5 give the statistics associated with each condition.

Areas per person for both ingress and egress were similar for Ramp 1 such

that a Chi square (X )-Test revealed no significant difference. For Ramp

2, however, area per person during ingress was significantly different from

and larger than during egress. Furthermore, comparisons of both egress and

ingress revealed a difference between Ramp 1 ingress and Ramp 2 ingress

but no difference between Ramp 1 egress and Ramp 2 egress (see Table 8).

Comparisons of mean flow data between the two ramps did reveal some additional

similarities. Both ingress and egress flow rates were similar for Ramp 1.

In addition, egress flow rate was similar for both ramps. Ingress flow rate

was significantly different from egress flow rate for Ramp 2. In addition,

ingress flow rates were significantly different between the ramps (see Tables

6 and 9). The average speed on both ramps in both directions ranged from

238 fpm to 333 fpm. Both ingress and egress tended to be slower for Ramp

1 than for Ramp 2. In addition, ingress speed was faster than egress speed

for both ramps. Both T-tests and X -tests revealed that all comparisons of

mean pedestrian speed were significant beyond the .05 level. (See Tables

7 and 10). The average speed on both ramps in both directions ranged from

238 fpm to 333 fpm.

28
RAM3 1

INGRESS RAM3 1EGRESS

RAM* 2

INGRESS RAM5 2

EGRESS

r-EAN 27,79 24,71 44.98 34.72

MODE 28,13 28.13 48.35 24.17

VARIANCE 2^4,01 201,22 706,01 805.78

STANDARD DEVIATION 15,62 14.19 26,57 28.39

MINIMUM 7.03 7.03 8.79 7.44

MAXI MM 56,25 56.25 96,7 96,7

RANGE 49,22 49,22 87,91 89.26

N OF OBSERVATIONS 208 63 101 68

Table 3, Area per Person

RAM5 1

INGRESS RAM3 1

EGRESS

RAM5 2

INGRESS RAM5 2

EGRESS

MEAN 12,02 32,65 10.01 12.29

MODE 30.67 10.67 7.17 14.34

VARIANCE 32,03 43,57 36,4 33.4

STANDARD DEVIATION 5,66 6,6 6,03 5.78

MINIMUM 3,56 3,56 2,83 2.34

MAXIMUM 42.67 29,87 39,43 25.09

RANGE 39.11 26.31 36.6 22.75

N OF OBSERVATIONS 208 63 101 68

Table 4, Flow Rate

RAM5 1

INGRESS

RAMP 1

EGRESS

RAM3 2

INGRESS RAM3 2

EGRESS

MEAN 268,91 237,87 333,06 295.96

MODE 300 200 346.6 346,6

VARIANCE 6334.73 2474,55 6885.15 9686.69

STANDARD DEVIATION 79.59 49.75 82.98 98,

MINIMUM 142.86 142,86 231.07 138.64

MAXIMUM 600 428.57 7^,71 577,67

RANGE 457.14 285.71 511.64 439,03

N OF OBSERVATIONS 208 63 101 68

Table 5, Walking Speed

29
RAPP 1

INGRESS RAPP 1EGRESS RAPP 2

INGRESS RAPP 2

EGRESS

RAPP 1

INGRESS

- NS S NS

RAMP 1

EGRESS

- S NS

RAPP 2

INGRESS - s

Table 6. t-Test of Flow Rate

RAMP 1

INGRESS RAPP 1

EGRESS RAPP 2

INGRESS RAPP 2EGRESS

RAPP 1

INGRESS

- S S s

RAPP 1

EGRESS

- S s

RAPP 2

INGRESS

- S

Table 7, t-Test of Walking Speed

RAMP 1

INGRESS RAMP 1EGRESS

RAPP 2

' INGRESS RAMP 2

EGRESS

RAMP 1

INGRESS - NS S NS

RAMP 1

EGRESS

- S NS

RAMP 2

INGRESS - S

Table 8, Test of Area per Person

Note: s = significant difference at .05

NS= NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE AT .05

30
RAM5 1

INGRESS

RAM3 1

EGRESS

RAM3 1

INGRESS RAM3 1EGRESS

NS

RAM3 2

INGRESS

s

s

RAMP 2

EGRESS

s

NS

RAM5 2

INGRESS

Table g, X2 Test of Flow Rate

RAM3 1

INGRESS RAMP 1EGRESS

RAM3 2

INGRESS RAMP 2EGRESS

RAM5 1

INGRESS - S s s

RAM5 1

EGRESS - s s

RAM5 2

INGRESS - s

Table 10, Test of Walking Speed

ramp 1 RAMP 1 ramp 2 RAMP 2

INGRESS EGRESS INGRESS EGRESS

fldw/area S S S S

speed/area NS NS NS S

speed/flow NS NS NS NS

Table 11, Tests of Interactions Between Variables

Note: s = significant difference at ,05

NS= NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE AT .05

31
Both ingress and egress tended to be slower for Ramp 1 than for Ramp 2.

In addition, ingress speed was faster than egress speed for both ramps.

O Both T-tests and X -tests revealed that all comparisons of mean pedestrian speed were significant beyond the .05 level. (See Tables 7 and 10).

4.2 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN VARIABLES

In order to test some of the differences between variables, each variable

(speed, flow, area) was divided into three classes. Thus, three levels of

area were chosen: "Small” (less than 10 ft^), "medium" (10-25 ft^) and "large”

(greater than 25 ft ). Three levels of speed and flow were also chosen

representing slow, moderate, and rapid. Because the speed and flow were

much higher for ingress than egress, different cut-off points were selected

for the three classes for ingress and egress. Consequently, for flow, for

ingress, "slow" was less than 15.7 pfm, "moderate" was 15.7-28.3 fpm, and

"fast" was greater than 28.3 fpm, while for egress, the cut-off values were

10.73 fpm and 17.9 fpm. Similarly for speed, for ingress, "slow" was less

than 348.4 fpm, "moderate" was 348.4-509.06 fpm and "fast" was greater than

339.23 fpm. Three by three contingency tables were set up and each of

O the three relationships was tested using a X analysis. Table 11 lists the

results of the tests for differences.

Based on the curvilinear bivariate relationships that have been reported by

Henderson (1971), Henderson and Lyons (1972), Hankin and Wheeler (1969),

Older (1969), and Fruin (1971), an attempt was made to fit curves to certain of

the relationships. The walking speed/area, flow/area, and speed/flow relationships were modeled (see Figures 9 to 12).

32
The criteria for fitting curves were as follows:

1. If a curve is found that satisfies the speed/area relationship such

that speed equals some geometric conditions of area, then the curve for the

flow/area relationship must express flow in terms of the speed/area curve

(flow = speed/area).

2. The curve must pass a lack of fit test involving determining an F-ratio.

The ratio follows an F-distribution and must satisfy that distribution at

the five percent level of significance. [Draper & Smith, 1966, pp. 29 & 63.]

3. The curve must be logical in terms of the way zero speed or flow is

approached. In other words, it has been shown by others and is intuitively

logical that as the area per person diminshes, the walking speed and the

consequent flow is diminished.

With the given criteria, no curves were found that were capable of satisfying

all three criteria. Most curves would satisfy only criterion 2. Figures 9

through 12 show the data points through which an attempt was made to fit the

curves. While the data indicated certain curvilinear relationships between

variables, no generalizable curve was found that could be applied across

relationships, ramps, or direction of movement (ingress and egress).

5. DISCUSSION

5.1 BASIC MOVEMENT VARIABLES IN PREVIOUS RESEARCH: SPEED, FLOW AND AREA

5.1.1 Walking Speed

The mean speeds reported in this report tended to be somewhat faster than

the mean speed of 265 fpm for level surfaces found by Fruin (1971). Only

Ramp 1 egress was slower (238 fpm). Mean speed for all four situations was

33
omntin

onmio

corii

AREA

FLOW

Figure 9, Ramp 1 Ingress

34
cor-n

AREA

Figure ID. Ramp 1 Egress

35
U.-J03

VXLUtua

(A0.UUO

49

39

29 -

19

• • S s

• 8

I -r

29

-L 49 69 AREA

I

I

89 199

AREA

Figure H. Ramp 2 Ingress

36
</)0L

IaIUJO

Figure 12 , Ramp 2 Egress

37
calculated to be about 284 fpm. Pignataro (1973) reported mean speeds of

267 fpm for men and 245 fpm for women with a combined range of 204-315

fpm. Elkington et al. , (1976) noted, however, that the Ministry of Transport

reported an average speed of 300 fpm (5 fps) for adults. Navin & Wheeler

(1969) reported an average walking speed of 4.3 fps (158 fpm) while Hoel

(1968) reported an average speed of 288 fpm for pedestrians in Pittsburgh,

with a mean speed for men of 296 fpm and one of 278 fpm for women. Thus,

the range of speeds calculated for the various ramp measurement situations

was within that reported by other researchers for level surfaces. Nevertheless,

Ramp 1 ingress does appear to have a higher speed (333 fpm) than that generally

reported. This is higher than the speed data for ramps reported in the

Traffic Engineering Handbook (1950) which suggested that the average speeds

range from 252 fpm to 288 fpm depending upon gradient and direction of movement. Needless to say, the variations in speeds should be expected because

the experimental conditions (circulation component, temperature, lighting,

etc.) differed widely between the studies.

5.1.2 Area Per Person

Comparison of the mean area occupied by pedestrians on the Baltimore ramps

with previous research also revealed some interesting findings. The average

2 area per person calculated for these ramps ranged from 25-27 ft for ingress

2 2 and egress on Ramp 1 to 45 ft for ingress on Ramp 2 and 35 ft for egress.

O The minimum area was calculated to be 7 ft for Ramp 1. For Ramp 2, the

minimum area was 7.44 ft /person for egress and 8.79 ft /person for ingress.

These calculated areas are somewhat larger than those found by previous

researchers. For example, previous NBS research (1935) reported an average

area of about 8 ft /person on ramps in Grand Central Station with a minimum

38
2 area of 6.2 ft . Finally, measures of area per person on level surfaces

2 range upwards from an absolute minimum of 2-3 f t^/pedestrian (Fruin, 1971).

Clearly, the condition assessed for the Baltimore ramps did not reflect the

extremes of pedestrian density which have been found for transportation

facilities

5.1.3 Flow

Similarly, average flow rates determined for the Baltimore ramps were much

lower (10-12.5 pfm) than those (20-25 pfm) suggested by Fruin as the optimum

for achieving maximum flow volumes. Nevertheless for Ramp 2 ingress, high

flow rates of 20-39 pfm occurred for a small percent of the samples. For

Ramp 2 egress, high flow rates of 20-25 pfm occurred for several samples.

For Ramp 1 egress the range of high flow rates was much slower, from 11-20

pfm. Finally for ingress Ramp 1, the high range was from 20 to 43 pfm. It

should be noted that for Ramp 1 the minimum area was 7.03 ft^/person. This

is very close to the 7 ft that Fruin (1971) suggested for peak flows.

Fruin (1971) noted that to achieve a flow of 30 pfm requires extremely

favorable walkway conditions and traffic composition. Hankin & Wright

(1958) recommended that level passageways be designed for about 27 pfm and

stairs for 12-31 pfm. Navin and Wheeler (1969, p. 33) found that for flow:

"starting from the point of maximum speed, the flow increases rapidly

with minimum reduction in average stream speed to a critical flow at

approximately 26.4 pfm. The speed at this point is four feet per second.

The flow and speed reduce rapidly until complete congestion occurs at zero

flow and velocity.” Complete congestion did not occur during data collection

on the Baltimore ramps. It should be noted that the extent to which metering

39
of flow caused by turnstiles and ticket taking at ingress, and metering of

flow by cross circulation and aisle congestion at egress will have a direct

effect on the figures obtained.

5.2 MOVEMENT BIVARIATE RELATIONSHIPS

As noted earlier, a number of researchers developed mathematical models

or curves which relate speed, flow, area, and density data (Henderson,

1971; Hankin & Wright, 1958; Older, 1968; Navin & Wheeler, 1969; and

O'Flaherty and Parkinson, 1972). In addition, Fruin (1971) plotted his data

in a curvilinear form from which a general mathematical model could be

derived. Since none of these models or curves were developed from data

collected on ramps, the data from the current project offered an opportunity

to apply such models and compare ramp data with similar relationships found

on other circulation system elements.

In general, the following relationships were determined. Fruin (1971) found

for horizontal surfaces that as area increased, speed also increased until a

maximum speed was achieved. Beyond that speed, increasing area made little

or no difference. The ramp data collected in this investigation showed the

same relationship between speed and area as that described by Fruin. However,

densities on the ramps were not sufficiently high to produce areas of less

than 7 ft per person. Therefore, there were no data points in the range

where Fruin showed a rapid reduction toward zero for walking speed. Nevertheless, the ramp data does correspond very closely to Fruin’ s curve for areas

o greater than 7 ft person.

Fruin also determined that the relationship between flow and area is distinctive

There is low flow at small areas, followed by a rapid increase in flow to a

40
2 maximum at around 7 ft /person, followed by a gradual decline in flow as area

increases. Once again the ramp data show this same relationship between flow

and area. As was the case with speed, there were no data points for the

o smaller areas; therefore, the rapid increase in flow between 2 and 7 ft /person

was not indicated. Hankin & Wright (1958), Older (1968), and O'Flaherty

and Parkinson (1972) all found a decrease in speed with increasing density.

Finally, Navin and Wheeler (1969) and Older (1968) found that when speed and

flow were plotted together, speed had a wide range of values at lower flows

and tended toward an average as flow increased. The smaller range of speeds

at higher flows is due to pacing and passing restrictions at a higher density.

The ramp data appear to have this same tendency when speed and flow are

plotted together.

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 CONCLUSIONS

While it is not intended that definitive conclusions should or can be drawn

on the strength of this project, the findings do suggest certain characteristics of pedestrian movement on ramps that merit elaboration. Contrary to

2 expectation, the results of both the T-tests and X tests did not indicate that

there is a significant difference between ingress and egress in a stadium

for a sporting event. Nevertheless, the data do suggest that there is a

significant difference in walking speeds betweeen ingress and egress and for

each ramp. One of the more interesting aspects of the findings has to do with

the results of the X tests of the relationships between flow and area, speed

and area, and speed and flow. According to the tests, there is no statistically

significant relationship between speed and flow, and speed and area. However,

the results indicated a very strong interaction between flow and area. This

41
interaction was the same for both ramps and for both ingress and egress. Flow,

was the same for both ramps and for both ingress and egress. Since flow,

defined as the ratio of speed, to area, is associated more strongly with area

than with speed this has environmental design and management implications.

Area is the physical component that the designer controls, while speed is the

user's response to the environment. If this suggested relationship proves to

be the case in subsequent research, then the designer can manipulate the

environment to provide the desired rates of flow.

The characteristics of pedestrian movement outlined for ramps raise further

questions to be answered and point to numerous potential research designs.

However, these findings represent the requisite first step to understanding the

part that individual circulation elements play in the movement of people

throughout buildings.

6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

In order to develop a more generalized understanding of pedestrian movement on

ramps, there are several areas of research which should be investigated. The

research reported in the previous section has indicated that some of the basic

relationships between flow, speed, and area uncovered for other elements appear

to hold for ramps. The lack of data for high density flow conditions, however,

makes it difficult to determine both maximum and minimum flows for the areas

studied. In addition, the lack of clarity in the egress tapes makes any

conclusions drawn about differences between ingress and egress somewhat tentative

at this time. Therefore, there is a need to collect additional high density

data on ramps. In addition, such data should be collected for different

outdoor temperatures, for different sporting events, and different populations.

Because of the bitter cold during the data collection effort, egress movement,

in particular, may have been affected.

42
Once the basic variables of speed, flow, and density have been established for

a particular ramp grade, and a good set of experimental procedures developed,

other variables pertaining to ramps should be assessed. These include ramp

width, slope, interactive effects such as counterflow and direction of travel,

and effects on pedestrian gait. Eventually, the investigation should be

extended to other building types — particularly those in which ramps handle

a high volume of pedestrian traffic. Additional research on ramps is needed

to compare movement characteristics on them with that on other elements of

building circulation systems. The most obvious comparison is with stairs,

which are also used for vertical circulation within a building. Previous

research by Fruin (1971) and others has indicated that both flow and speed

are lower for stairs than for horizontal surfaces. Because sufficiently low

densities were not obtained with the present ramp data, it is not yet clear

whether flow and speed are more similar to stairs or to horizontal surfaces.

Furthermore, counterflow has a marked effect upon flow on stairs, quickly

reducing it to half the normal volume — yet a similar amount of counterflow

on a horizontal surface may only reduce it by ten percent. A closer

examination of the relationship between counterflow and flow-volume for

ramps is needed, in particular, when the potential for using ramps as a

major element of the vertical circulation system is considered.

The previous paragraph has dealt with the need to determine and compare

pedestrian movement characteristics for all forms of vertical and horizontal

circulation within a building. There is also a need, however, to determine

the effects of population differences upon movement, particularly for ramps

and stairs. It has already been mentioned that the people studied on the

43
Baltimore ramps were primarily adult males — females and children accounted

for only ten to twenty percent of the pedestrians sampled. Yet Henderson and

Lyons (1972) have pointed out that female/male pedestrian populations differ

significantly in their movement characteristics. Still another research

question is that of the relative ease of movement for different population

groups on both stairs and ramps. There are two questions here. The first

is that while ramps clearly facilitate access for the handicapped in wheelchairs,

is this facilitation also true for the elderly, those on crutches, or those with

ankle/knee movement problems? A stair may in fact be easier to negotiate for

some — but not all handicapped persons. Conversely, limited observation has

suggested that many non-handicapped persons tend to choose a ramp over a stair.

Thus, a second research question is the conditions under which ramps are used

instead of stairs. There is, consequently, the need to research a design

in which both handicapped and non-handicapped persons are asked to use both

a ramp and a stair, and their choices as well as the movement characteristics

for each element/population type are experimentally determined. Finally, ensuring

optimal performance for all circulation systems depends upon knowledge not

only of basic movement variables such as speed, flow, and area but also

of fundamental environmental characteristics such as illumination, surface

texture, and signage.

6.3 SUMMARY

In summary, the research described in these pages represents a preliminary

investigation of the pedestrian movement characteristics on building ramps.

Variables of pedestrian movement, speed, flow, and area and the relationships

between them are reported. In addition, the specific measures of these variables

44
and their relationships are compared with similar measures determined by other

researchers. Finally, suggestions for further research into pedestrian movement

on ramps and other building circulation elements are made.

45
7. REFERENCES

1. Basic Building Code , Sixth Edition, Building Officials and Code

Administrators International, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, 1975.

2. Corlett, E. N. , Hutcheson, F., De Lugan, W. A., & Rogozenski, J.

Ramps or Stairs - The Choice Using Physiological and Bio-mechanical

Criteria. Applied Ergonomics , 1972, 195-201.

3. Draper, N. R. , & Smith, H. Applied Regressing Analysis , New York:

John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966.

4. Elkington, J., McGlynn, R. , & Roberts, J. The Pedestrian: Planning

and Research - A Literature Review and Annotated Bibliography . London: Transport and Environment Studies (Test), 1976.

5. Evans, H. K. (Ed). Traffic Engineering Handbook . New Haven, Connecticut:

Institute of Traffic Engineerings (Second Edition), 1950, 98-112.

6. Filiben, J. J.

" Dataplot - An Interactive System for Graphics, Fortran

Functions, and Linear/ Non-Linear Fitting . " Proceedings of the Statistical

Computer Sections of the American Statistical Associations, 1978.

7. Foot, N. I. S. Pedestrian Traffic Flows, DMG-DRS Journal: Design Research

and Methods . 1973, 1_ (2), 162-167.

8. Fruin, J. J. Pedestrian Planning and Design . New York: Metropolitian

Association of Urban Designers and Environmental Planners, Inc., 1971.

9. Fruin, J. J. Pedestrian System Planning for High Rise Buildings.

Transportation Engineering Journal , August 1974, 675-686.

10. Galbreath, M. Time of Evacuation by Stairs in High Buildings . (Fire

Research Note No. 8). Ottawa: National Research Council of Canada,

May 1969.

11. Hankin, B. D. , & Wright, R. A. Passenger Flow in Subways. Operational

Research Quarterly , 1958, (2), 81-88.

12. Henderson, L. F. The Statistics of Crowd Fluids, Nature, 1971, 229,

381-383.

13. Henderson, L. F., & Lyons, D. J. Sexual Differences in Human Crowd

Motion, Nature , 1972, 240, 353-355.

14. Hoel, L. A. Pedestrian Travel Rates in Central Business Districts.

Traffic Engineering , January 1968, 10-12.

15. Lawton, A. H. , & Azar, J. Some Observations of Behavior of Older

Pedestrians. Medical Times, 1964, 92 (1), 69-74.

46
16. Melinek, S. J., & Booth, S. An Analysis of Evacuation Times and the

Movement of Crowds in Buildings. (Building Research Establishment Current

Paper). 96/75, October 1975.

17. National Bureau of Standards. Design and Construction of Building

Exists . NBS Miscellaneous Publication, M151, October 1935.

18. Navin, F. P. D. , & Wheeler, R. J. Pedestrian Flow Characteristics.

Traffic Engineering , June 1969, 30-36.

19. Nie, N. H. , Hull, C. H. , Jenkins, J. G. , Steinbrenner , K. , & Brent, D. H.

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences . (Second Edition).

New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1975.

20. O’Flaherty, C. A., & Parkinson, M. H. Movement on a City Centre Footway.

Traffic Engineering and Control , February 1972, 435-438.

21. Older, S. J. Movement of Pedestrians on Footways in Shopping Streets,

Traffic Engineering and Control , August 1968, 160-168.

22. Pignataro, L. J. Traffic Engineering: Theory and Practice . Englewood

Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1973, 252-257.

23. Preiser, W. Analysis of Pedestrian Velocity and Stationary Behavior

in a Shopping Mall . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania

State University, March 1973.

24. Specifications for Making Buildings and Facilities Accessible to and

Usable by the Physically Handicapped. New York: American National

Standards Institute, ANSI A117. 1-1961.

25. Standard Building Code , Southern Building Code Congress International

Incorporated, Birmington, Alabama, 1976 Edition.

26. Steinfeld, E. Interim Report: Barrier-free Access to the Man-made

Environment. A Review of Current Literature . U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development, Contract N. H.-220QR, October 1975.

27. Templer, J. A. Stair Shape and Human Movement . Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Columbia University, 1974.

28. Tregenza, P. The Design of Interior Circulation. New York: Van Nostrand

Reinhold Co., 1976.

29. Uniform Building Code , 1976 Edition, International Conference of Building

Officials, Whittier, California, 1976.

30. Walter, F. Four Architectural Movement Studies for the Wheelchair and

Ambulant Disabled. London: The Disabled Living Foundation, April 1971.

47
Appendix A

c

c

cc

c

c.

PED.MOV — PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT VARIABLES

THIS VERSION WAS WRITTEN FDR AND USED ON A

DEC SYSTEM- 10

C

C

C

C

c

e

c

c

c

WRITTEN BY GEORGE E. TURNER-. RESEARCH ARCHITECT

ARCHITECTURAL RESEARCH PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN RESEARCH DIVISION

CENTER FOR BUILDING TECHNOLOGY

NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

WASHINGTON? D. Ci d. UE'34

C

C

C

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

cc

c

c

cc

THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES THE PEDESTRA1N MOVEMENT

VARIABLES DENSITY (PERSONS/SQUARE FOOT) ? AREA (SQUARE ‘ FEET /PERSDN> ? FLOW (PERSONS/FOOT WIDTH/MINUTE) ? AND SPEED

(FEET/MINUTE) FROM TWO BASIC VARIABLES? TIME (WALKING TIME

BETWEEN TWD POINTS IN SECONDS) AND COUNT (THE NUMBER OF

PERSONS WITHIN A PARTICULAR SQUARE FQOTAGE) . IN ADDITION?

THE PROGRAM CAN BE USED TO NORMALIZE THE TWD BASIC VARIABLES

TD A STANDARD TIME MEASURING DISTANCE AND COUNTING AREA.

THE NORMALIZED BASIC VARIABLES CAN BE USED FOR CALCULATING

THE PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT VARIABLES.

THE PROGRAM ALSO OFFERS THE OPTION OF CONVERTING THE

CALCULATED VARIABLES DENSITY? AREA? FLOW? AND SPEED TD METRIC

UNITS.

FIRST ENTER THE NUMBER DF OBSERVATIONS? CASES? ETC. OR

SOME LARGE NUMBER FOR SITUATIONS WITH UNEQUAL N'S.

N = (SOME NUMBER)

IF THE BASIC VARIABLES ARE TD BE NORMALIZED? GIVE NBAS

A VALUE OF 1 OR IF NOT? A VALUE OF 0.

NBAS = (1 OR 0)

IF THE NORMALIZED BASIC VARIABLES ARE TO BE USED IN THE

CALCULATION OF THE PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT VARIABLES? GIVE NNORM A

VALUE OF 1 OR IF NOT? A VALUE OF 0.

NNORM = (0 OR 1)

IF ORIGINAL (NON-NORMAL I ZED) BASIC VARIABLES ARE TO BE

USED IN THE CALCULATION DF THE PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT VARIABLES?

GIVE -JR EG A VALUE OF 1 DR IF NOT? A VALUE OF 0.

JPEG = (0 DR 1)

48
c.cc

c

c

c

c

c

C

c

c

c

c

c

c

IF THE PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT CALCULATIONS ARE TO BE CONVERTED TO METRIC UNITS? GIVE MNORM (.CALCULATIONS MADE FROM

NORMALIZED BASIC VARIABLES'* AND/OR MREG (CALCULATIONS MADE

FROM THE ORIGINAL BASIC VARIABLES) A VALUE OF 1 OR IF NOT? A

VALUE OF 0.

MNORM = <0 OR 1>

MREG = CO OR 1)

DECLARE THE REAL NUMBER VARIABLES AND DIMENSION ARRAYS

WITH THE VALUE ASSIGNED TO N EARLIER.

REAL SOFT? LENGT? TIME CN> ? COUNT <N> ? DENS I CN> ? AREA CN> ? 1 FLOW CN> ? SPEED CN> ? NT I ME CN> ? NCOIJN CN> ? MDENS <N> ? MAREA CN> ? 1 MSPEE CN> ? MFLOW CN> ? NDENS <N> ? NAREA CN> ? NSPEE CN> ? NFLOW CN>

1 MDEN CN> ? MARE CN> ? MSPE CN> ? MFLO CN>

ENTER THE DISTANCE? IN FEET? BETWEEN THE TWO POINTS

USED FOR TIMING A PERSDN WALKING.

C

C

c

c

c

LENGT = (SOME NUMBER'*

ENTER THE AREA? IN SQUARE FEET? OF THE LOCATION WHERE

COUNTS OF THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WERE MADE. THIS WOULD BE THE

AREA BETWEEN THE TWO POINTS USED FDR TIMING.

SOFT = (SOME NUMBER)

C

C ENTER THE ORIGINAL DATA?

C OF SOME NUMBER OF PEOPLE. THI

C THE DATA FROM A DISK? HOWEVER?

C DESIRED CAN BE USED.

C

c

c

CALL I F

LE <?

' PED . DAT '

DO 10 1=1 ?N

TIME IN SECONDS AND A COUNT

S PROGRAM IS WRITTEN TO READ

CARDS? TAPES? OR ANY MEANS

READ C 1 ? 0 ? END= 1 5) T

ME < I )

COUNT C I

C

FORMAT CF3. 1 ? IX? Fc!. 0)

10 CONTINUE

C

c A TEST IS MADE TD DETERMINE IF THE BASIC VARIABLES

C ARE TD BE NORMALIZED.

C

15 IF (NBAS . EQ . 0) GD T 0 35

C

C IF NORMALIZATION IS TO BE DONE? THE FOLLOWING CALCUC L AT IONS ARE MADE.

C

DO £0 1=1 ?N

C

49
NT I ME <1

= T I ME C I ) C A CORRECT I DM FfiCTOR DERIVED FROM

1 ft PROPORTIONAL RELATIONSHIP OR

1 OTHERWISE)

NCOUN C I > = COUNT C I) CA CORRECTION FACTOR DERIVED FROM

1 A PROPORTIONAL RELATIONSHIP OR

1 OTHERWISE)

C

£0 CONTINUE

C

C THE RESULTING NORMALIZED VARIABLES ARE FILED FOR

C FUTURE USE.

C

C

C

CALL OF I LE <21 ? ' NBAS . DAT '

)

DO 30 1 = 1 »N

C

C

WR I TE <2 1 ? 25) NT I ME < I ) ? NCOUN C I

)

FORMAT CF3. 1 ? IX? F3. 0)

C A TEST IS MADE TO DETERMINE IF THE NORMALIZED VARIABLE

C ARE TD BE USED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE PEDESTRIAN MOVEC MENT VARIABLES.

C

I F CNNORM . EQ . 0) GO TO 35

C

c IF THE NORMALIZED VARIABLES ARE TO BE USED* THE FOLLOW

C ING CALCULATIONS ARE MADE:

C

DO 31 1 = 1 ?N

C

NDENS C I ) =NCOUN C I ) /SOFT

C

C

c

31

C

c

C FOR

C

C

CNAREA Cl ) =SQFT /NCOUN CI)

NSPEE <1 ) = C6 LI --NT I ME C I ) ) LENGT

NFLDW CD =NSPEE Cl) /NAREA Cl)

CONTINUE

THE RESULTING PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT VARIABLES ARE FILED

FUTURE USE.

CALL OFILE C£1 ? 'NDRM.DAT')

DO 33 1=1 ? N

WR I T E C£ 1 , 3£) NDENS CDs NAREA CD? NFLDW CD? NSPEE C I )

50
32 FORMAT CF3. 2? 1X?F5.2? 1X?F5.£? 1X?F6.£>

C

33 CONTINUE

C

c

ccc

c

c

c

c

c

A TEST IS MADE TO DETERMINE IF THE BASIC VARIABLES

ARE TO BE USED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT

VARIABLES.

I F CJREb . Eu . U bQ 1 0 45

IF THE BASIC VARIABLES ARE TO BE USED? THE FOLLOWING

CALCULATIONS ARE MADE:

DO 40 1=1 ?N

C

c

c

c

4 0

c

DENS I CI> =COUNT <I> SOFT

AREA CI> =SQFT.--COUNT <I>

S PEED a > = < 6 0 TIME < I > > LENG

flow t.i> =speed I area <. i •• CONTINUE

C THE RESULTING PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT VARIABLES ARE FILED

C FOR FUTURE USE.

C

CALL OF I LE <2 1 ? REG . DAT " > DO 42 1=1 jN

C

WR I TE C2 1 ? 4 1 > DENS 1 <> ? AREA I > ? FLOW <I> ? SPEED < I

C

4 1 FORMAT <F3 . 2 ? 1 X

F5 . 2 ? 1 X ? F5 . £ ? 1 X

F6 . £>

C

42 CONTINUE

C

C A TEST IS MADE TO DETERMINE IF THE PEDESTRIAN

MOVEMENT VARIABLE OBTAINED FROM NORMALIZED BASIC VARIABLES

ARE TO BE CONVERTED TO METRIC UNITS.

45 IF CMHORM. EQ. 0> GO TD 66

C

C IF METRIC CONVERSION IS DESIRED?

C CALCULATIONS ARE MADE:

C

DO 50 1=1 ?N

C

MDENS < I > =NDENS < I > 0 . 0929

THE FOLLOWING

51
MAREA C I > =MHRER C I > 0 . 0929

MSPEE C I > =NS PEE < I > 0 . 3 043

MFLOW C I > =MSPEE C I > --'MR PER < I >

0 CONTINUE

THE RESULTING CONVERTED VARIABLES ARE FILED FDR

FUTURE USE.

CALL. DFLE C£ 1 * ' MNDRM . DAT ' > C

DO 65 1=1 »N

C

I OR I TE C£ 1 5 6 0> MDENS C I > ? MARE A I > ? MFLOW Cl > » MSPEE C I >

6 0 FORMAT CF4. £ ? 1XjF4.£j 1Xi.F6.Ej 1XjF6.£>

65 CONTINUE

C

C A TEST IS MADE TO DETERMINE IF THE PEDESTRIAN

C MOVEMENT VARIABLES OBTAINED FROM THE BASIC VARIABLES ARE

C TO BE CONVERTED TO METRIC UNITS.

C

66 I F CMREG . EQ . 0> GO T 0 8 0

C

c IF METRIC CONVERSION IS DESIRED? THE FOLLOWING

C CALCULATIONS ARE MADE:

C

DO 7 0 1 = 1 j N

C

MDEN <I> =DENSI CI> O. 09£9

C

MARE C I > =AREA C I > 0 . 09£9

C

MSPE C I > =SPEED C I> 0 . 3 043

MFLO C I > =MSPE < I > /MARE C I

70 CONTINUE

C THE RESULTING CONVERTED VARIABLES ARE FILED FOR

' FUTURE USE.

CALL OFILECSl? 'MREG.DAT O .

WRITE <21 ?73> MDEN Cl > ?MARECI> ?MFLOCI> >MSPECI>

C

73 FORMAT CF4.£? 1X?F4.£? 1XjF6.£j 1XjF6.2>

C

75 CONTINUE

C

c THIS ENDS THE PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT VARIABLES PROGRAM.

C

80 STOP

C

END 52
APPENDIX B

RAMP REGULATIONS IN THE MODEL BUILDING CODES

The Uniform Building Code (1976) requires that ramps should not exceed a

slope of one vertical to eight horizontal (twelve percent). Ramps with

slopes of greater than 1:15 six percent are required to have landings

at both top and bottom as well as handrails. Furthermore, the surface

of all ramps should be roughened or made of non-slip material.

The BOCA Basic Building Code (1975) allows ramps with a gradient of not

more than one in twelve (eight percent) to be used as an exit way component.

Steeper ramps of one and one-half in twelve (twelve percent) may be used

except for special occupancies. All ramps with a slope greater than one

in twelve, or wherever there is danger of slipping, should be surfaced

with non-slip materials. Handrails are required for all ramps on at least

one side. Landings are required at all entrances, exits, turns and doors

to ramps.

The Standard Building Code (1976) limits the slope of ramps to one in ten

(ten percent) and requires a non-slip surface. As with the other two codes,

all requirements for stairways apply insofar as they are applicable. For

all public buildings (where access for the handicapped is essential), the

slope cannot be greater than one in twelve. Handrails and landings are also

required.

53
' . r 9m.
FEDERAL INFORMATION PROCESSING STANDARD SOFTWARE SUMMARY

01. Summary date

-< 2o Day

: 7 M il i 0 9

04. Software date

Yr. Mo.

- •

. —D 3y 7 8 0 4 2 1

02. Summary prepared by (Name and Phone)

George E. Turner (301) 92]-2102

05. Software title Pedestrian Movement Variables

06. Short title PED . MOV

03. Summary action New Replacement Deletion 53

Previous Internal Software ID

07. Internal Software ID

08. Software type

Automated Data

| | System

Computer Program

j | Subroutine/Module

09. Processing mode 10. General

Application area

Specific

[ | Interactive Batch

| | Combination

Computer Systems

j~| Support/Utility

|~]j: Scientific/Engineering

| | Bibliographic/Textual

Management/

Business

Process Control Other

Calculation

variables

of movement

11. Submitting organization and address Architectural Research Program

Environmental Design Research Division

Center for Building Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

12. Technical contact(s) and phone

George E. Turner (301) 921-2102

13. Narrative

PED. MOV is used to calculate the pedestrian movement variables density, area per person,

flow rate, and walking speed from two basic variables, time (walking time between two

points) and count (the number of persons within a particular square footage between

the previous two points). In addition, the program can be used to normalize the two

basic variables to a standard time measuring distance and counting area. The program

also offers the option of converting the calculated variables density, area, flow, and

speed to metric units. Input/output is via punched cards and line printer, or via

terminal.

14. Keywords

Pedestrian circulation; Pedestrian flow; Pedestrian movement

15. Computer manufr and model Digital Equipment

Corporation

16. Computer operating system

DECsystem-10

17. Programing language(s)

Fortran V

18. Number of source program state- ments

19. Computer memory requirements

10.5k 1024 words/K

32 Bit Words

20. Tape drives 21. Disk/Drum units 22. Terminals

23. Other operational requirements

24. Software availability 25. Documentation availability

Available Limited In-house only

Cf

Available 3

Inadequate In-house only

contact: George E. Turner

(301) 921-2102

26. FOR SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION USE

Standard Form 185

1974 July

U.S. Dept, of Commerce—NBS

(FIPS. Pub. 30)

185-101
INSTRUCTIONS

01. Summary Date. Enter date summary prepared. Use Year, Month, Day format: YYMMDD.

02. Summary Prepared By. Enter name and phone number (including area code) of individual who prepared this summary.

03. Summary Action. Mark the appropriate box for new summary, replacement summary or deletion of summary. If this software summary is a replace- ment, enter under “Previous Internal Software ID” the internal software identification as reported in item 07 of the original summary, and enter the new internal software identification in item 07 of this form; complete all other items as for a new summary. If a software summary is to be deleted, enter under “Previous Internal Software ID" the internal software identification as reported in item 07 of the original summary: complete only items 01 , 02 , 03 and 11 on this form.

04. Software Date. Enter date software was completed or last updated. Use Year, Month, Day format: YYMMDD.

05. Software Title. Make title as descriptive as possible.

06. Short Title. (Optional) Enter commonly used abbreviation or acronym which identifies the software.

07. Internal Software ID. Enter a unique identification number or code.

08. Software Type. Mark the appropriate box for an Automated Data System (set of computer programs), Computer Program, or Subroutine/Module, whichever best describes the software.

09. Processing Mode. Mark the appropriate box for an Interactive, Batch, or Combination mode, whichever best describes the software.

10. Application Area. General: Mark the appropriate box which best describes the general area of application from among: Computer Systems Support/ Utility Process Control Management/Business Bibliographic/Textual

Scientific/Engineering Other

Specific: Specify the sub-area of application; e.g.: “COBOL optimizer” if the general area is “Computer Systems Support/Utility”; "Payroll” if the general area is "Management/Business”; etc. Elaborate here if the general area is "Other.”

11. Submitting Organization and Address. Identify the organization responsible for the software as completely as possible, to the Branch or Division level, but including Agency, Department (Bureau/Administration), Service, Corporation, Commission, or Council. Fill in complete mailing address, including mail code, street address, city, state, and ZIP code.

12. Technical Contact(s) and Phone: Enter person(s) or office(s) to be contacted for technical information on subject matter and/or operational aspects

of software. Include telephone area code. Provide organization name and mailing address, if different from that in item 11.

13. Narrative. Describe concisely the problem addressed and methods of solution. Include significant factors such as special operating system modifications, security concerns, relationships to other software, input and output media, virtual memory requirements, and unique hardware features. Cite references, if appropriate.

14. Keywords. List significant words or phrases which reflect the functions, applications and features of the software. Separate entries with semicolons.

15. Computer Manufacturer and Model. Identify mainframe computer(s) on which software is operational.

16. Computer Operating System. Enter name, number, and release under which software is operating. Identify enhancements in the Narrative (item 13).

17. Programing Language(s). Identify the language(s) in which the software is written, including version; e.g., ANSI COBOL, FORTRAN V, SIMSCRIPT 11.5, SLEUTH II.

18. Number of Source Program Statements. Include statements in this software, separate macros, called subroutines, etc.

19. Computer Memory Requirements. Enter minimum internal memory necessary to execute software, exclusive of memory required for the operating system. Specify words, bytes, characters, etc., and number of bits per unit. Identify virtual memory requirements in the Narrative (item 13).

20. Tape Drives. Identify number needed to operate software. Specify, if critical, manufacturer, model, tracks, recording density, etc.

21. Disk/Drum Units. Identify number and size (in same units as “Memory"—item 19) needed to operate software. Specify, if critical, manufacturer, model, etc.

22. Terminals. Identify number of terminals required. Specify, if critical, type, speed, character set, screen/line size, etc.

23 Other Operational Requirements. Identify peripheral devices, support software, or related equipment not indicated above, e.g., optical character devices,

facsimile, computer-output microfilm, graphic plotters.

24. Software Availability. Mark the appropriate box which best describes the software availability from among: Available to the Public, Limited Availability

(e.g.: for government use only), and For-ln-house Use Only. If the software is "Available”, include a mail or phone contact point, as well as the price and form in which the software is available, if possible.

25. Documentation Availability. Mark the appropriate box which best describes the documentation availability from among: Available to the Public, In- adequate for Distribution, and For In-house Use Only. If documentation is “Available”, include a mail or phone contact point, as well as the price and form in which the documentation is available, if possible. If documentation is presently “Inadequate", show the expected availability date.

26. For Submitting Organization Use. This area is provided for the use of the organization submitting this summary. It may contain any information deemed useful for internal operation.

GPO : 1974 O - 554-655
NBS-114A (REV. 9-78)

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. NBSIR 79-1729Z. fcaclptem's Accession No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT ON RAMPS - A PRELIMINARY

INVESTIGATION

5. Publication Date March 1979

$. Perforating Organization Code

.

7. AUTHOR(S)

George E. Turner and Belinda L. Collins

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, DC 20234

Praject/Task/Work Unit No. tai

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street, City, State, ZIP)

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234

13. Type of Report & Period Covered

14. Soon

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

, X Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most si ghificant information. If document includes a signi ficant bibliography or

literature survey, mention it here.) The research described in this report was a preliminary investigation of

pedestrian movement characteristics on two specific building ramps. Variables

of pedestrian movement such as speed, flow, and area were studied, as well as

the relationships between these variables. In addition, the specific measurements

of speed, flow and area were compared with similar measurements determined by

other researchers not only for ramps, but also for stairs and level surfaces.

Finally, suggestions were made for additional research into the characteristics

of pedestrian movement on various elements of the building circulation system.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name;

separated by semicolons) Building circulation; building ramps; pedestrian circulation;

pedestrian flow; pedestrian movement; pedestrian ramps; ramps

18. AVAILABILITY Unlimited

r i For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

IZ_ Order From Sup. of Doc., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

20402, SD Stock No. SN003-003-

1 Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCLASSIFIED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

61

22. Price

$5.25

USCOMM-DC