IMBSIR 81-2310

Pedestrian Movement Characteristics

on Building Ramps

George Turner

Belinda Collins

,U56

81-2310

1981

C.2

Environmental Design Research Division

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

June 1981

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

IIATlOJIill. BTOBAU

or tftAKPABM

UBRAWr

JUl 2 0 1981

NBSIR 81-2310

r «* PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT CHARACTERISTICS ^ ON BUILDING RAMPS

George Turner

Belinda Collins

Environmental Design Research Division

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

June 1981

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Ernest Ambler, Director
m

VtiVHaa JARtKVjkH

to p vwAflau

!-, .iht-j

rsei 0 s jgf

J* * \

. )

,,i :)'

Mm li%

Mipi

' fi' ores- r 8

wl

.'^'' 5^- m

Ej--’

K^-Xi ai

-I'' »j 7 *

Hr <i 3d! S .^'

;i. «r

"'

*

"" fM* , ' “y. f*^:o&

(i •

’'V !-,

TS-' am

reef »nul,'^#4

'.S^‘ *)• '

" :* I k-

-W-

, ••.,,•/' -TM«

JL.^««I - . • .7 . p* A<JV!AtS ||0 ufefu0 JAWoh*AMT*

m3

W V • ^' ri- *

K'S," ' ss
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

While the authors of this report take complete responsibility for its contents,

we wish to mention the assistance provided by others during its development.

We are indebted to Dr. James J. Filliben, and Dr. Stephen Margulis for their

stimulating thoughts and conversations. We are indebted to Dr. John Fruin,

Ms. Jacqueline Elder, Mr. John Stroik, and Dr. Hsien H. Ku for their helpful

review of an earlier report of the pilot investigation for the project.

We wish to thank Dr. James Harris, Dr. Neil Lerner, Dr. Fred Stahl, and

Mr. A. Jeffery Shibe for their thoughtful and extremely helpful reviews of

this manuscript.

Our thanks go to the Baltimore Colts, the Baltimore Orioles, and the Baltimore

Memorial Stadium Management for their permission to videotape ramp use at the

Stadium and their help in making the arrangements that made our job easier.

iv
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 = 10.76 persons/square meter

Area: Square feet/person = 0.0929 square meters/person

Flow: Persons/foot width/minute = 0.051 persons/meter width/second

Speed: Feet/minute = 0.0051 meters/second

The data in this report are given in metric units. However in citations

where researchers presented their data in English units, these units are retained.

V
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES viii

LIST OF FIGURES ix

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Building Circulation Planning 1 1.2 Building Circulation Research 2 1.3 Rationale for Ramp Research 3 1.4 Summary 4

2. THE LITERATURE ON PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION 5

2.1 Ramps 6

2.2 Level Surfaces 7 2.3 Stairs 8

2.4 Energy Expenditure 8

2.5 Summary of Previous Research 9

3. THE RESEARCH DESIGN 11

3.1 Method of Investigation 11

3.2 Data Collection Site 12

3.3 Data Collection Procedure and Equipment 12

4. TRANSFORMATION OF THE DATA 17

4.1 Videotape Conversion 17

5. RESULTS 21

5.1 Analysis of Covariance 21

5.2 Descriptive Statistics for the Movement Variables 22

5.3 Chi-Square Tests 23

5.4 Population Composition 28

5.5 Pedestrian Locations on Ramps 28

6. DISCUSSION 31

6.1 Results of the Analysis of Covariance 31

6.2 Descriptive Statistics for the Movement Variables 32

6.3 Population Composition 35

6.4 Chi-Square Tests 35

6.5 Pedestrian Locations on Ramps 36

6.6 Ramp Slope 36

6.7 Ramp Flow Capacity 37

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

6.8 Further Research Needs 38

6.9 Summary 39

7. REFERENCES 40

APPENDIX A A-1

APPENDIX B B-1

APPENDIX C C-1

APPENDIX D D-1

APPENDIX E E-1

vii
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

LIST OF TABLES

Pa^

Dimensions for Portions of the Ramps Used in this Study 15

Results of Two Analyses of Covariance 23

Area Per Person 24

Flow Rate 24

Walking Speed 23

Tests of Differences in Area 26

Tests of Differences in Flow 26

Tests of Differences in Speed 27

Tests of Differences in Speed Between Games 27

Population Composition 28

Side-by-side Walking on Ramps 29

Walking Locations of Lone Individuals 30

Walking Locations for Pairs of People 30

Ramp Research Findings Comparison Table 33

viii
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure

1 Plan at lower level promenade showing the relationship between

ramps 13

2 Partial section through ramps 13

3 Typical lower level ramp 14

4 Typical upper level ramp 14
tn

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 BUILDING CIRCULATION PLANNING

Increased knowledge of the characteristics of pedestrian circulation is a critical necessity in building planning and design. An understanding of pedestrian movement characteristics in the various component parts that comprise a building circulation system is the key to effective planning and design. However, movement characteristics for one component type, the ramp, have escaped

detailed research study.

1
Pedestrian circulation systems are made up of vertical, horizontal,

transitional, and indicative components. The vertical components are those

that are specifically designed, located, and used for changes in elevation or level (elevators, stairs, ramps, etc.) The horizontal components are those

that are specifically designed, located, and used for movement on a specific

elevation or level (corridors, aisles, walkways, etc.). The transitional com- ponents are those that are specifically designed, located, and used to control

access to, movement through, and egress from the circulation system (doors,

gates, turnstiles, etc.). Finally, the Indicative components are those that are specifically designed, located, and used for displaying Information,

indicating direction, and identifying elements throughout the circulation

system.

To be effective, a building layout must support all the interrelated activities

that occur within it [Willoughby, 1975]. The pedestrian circulation system is

the primary means by which building activities are Interrelated. Tabor [1969]

points out that the effect of the built form on pedestrian movement in office

buildings is a central relationship between the office function and its physical environment. According to Tregenza [1976], the basic shape of a building

determines the effectiveness of its Internal circulation system — and hence

the effectiveness of the activities which occur within the building.

In addition to determining internal activity relationships, the pattern of

pedestrian circulation can be a significant tool for developing overall building form [White, 1973; 1975]. Many buildings clearly emphasize their circulation patterns in both their plan layouts and overall form. Examples of some

of the most commonly known buildings that visibly express their circulation

designs are the Pentagon in Washington, the Guggenheim Museum in New York, the

McGill University Medical Building in Montreal, the Pompidou (Beaubourg) Center

in Paris, and the Carpenter Center for the Visual Arts at Harvard University.

According to Fruin [1974], the pedestrian system planning problem is readily

defined as the need to balance the vertical and horizontal components in a way

that improves pedestrian movement. Turner and Collins [1979] suggest that all

four component parts of the circulation system should be balanced to facilitate

movement throughout the building. Nevertheless, the elements of building circulation have rarely been assessed as a total system, perhaps because the

performance of the individual elements is at best, imperfectly understood.

1.2 BUILDING CIRCULATION RESEARCH

Despite the need to study all activities occurring in components of the

circulation system, most research in building circulation has been and remains

directed toward the problem of emergency egress. Stahl and Archea [1977]

report that such egress research falls into three distinct areas: studies of

"carrying capacity" (pedestrian density along passageways, walking speeds of

pedestrians on passageways, and pedestrian flow rate in passageways); studies

of signage, lighting and visibility under fire conditions; and studies of

occupant responses to, and experiences in, fires. An additional area of

2
building circulation research is directed toward defining and accommodating

"movement patterns" in circulation systems [Whitehead and Eldar, 1964; Tabor,

1969].

An earlier review of the literature [Turner and Collins, 1979] suggests that

there are three basic or generic categories of building circulation research.

The first category can be termed "movement capacity" and contains those investigations where pedestrian movement* rates (flow, walking speed, density) over various circulation elements are measured [Fruin, 1971; Older, 1968; Navin and

Wheeler, 1969]. The second category, termed "movement patterns", contains

investigations where locations of activities and frequencies of movement

between them are recorded [Tabor, 1969; Willoughby, 1975; Horizontal and Vertical Circulation..., 1962]. The third category is termed "movement psychology

and physiology" and contains experiments in which cognitive and perceptual

behaviors and physiological responses of pedestrians are investigated relative

to circulation system components [Stahl, 1978; Corlett, Hutcheson, DeLugan, and

Rogozenski, 1972].

Although researchers have investigated movement capacities and patterns for all

circulation components, their primary focus has been upon the movement characteristics for horizontal elements such as walkways, or for vertical elements

such as stairs. Because building circulation systems contain elements from all

four basic components, complete Information is needed about the performance of

these components to evaluate, simulate, or design a complete and effective circulation system. Within the vertical, horizontal and transitional components,

pedestrian movement characteristics such as flow rate, walking speed, and

density have been extensively investigated for elements such as stairs, walkways and entry ways. Furthermore, the characteristics of pedestrian circulation have been extensively observed and even modeled mathematically for both

stairs and walkways.

On the other hand, ramps, one part of the vertical component, have received

little research attention. It has been suggested that ramps are so similar to

level surfaces that there should be no difference in pedestrian movement patterns between the two types of elements. However, ramps are typically used to

replace stairs and accomplish a change in elevation. Consequently, ramps may

have movement characteristics that are more similar to those found for stairs

than those for level surfaces. Therefore, there is a need to determine the

pedestrian movement characteristics for ramps, and to compare them with data

obtained for stairs and for level surfaces.

1.3 RATIONALE FOR RAMP RESEARCH

The need to determine detailed movement characteristics for ramps led to the

present investigation of pedestrian movement on ramps in a free-flow situation.

This investigation was designed to expand the existing research base.

* See appendix A for a definition of the movement terms.

3
The current lack of sufficient research attention to ramps may have occurred

because of their apparent similarity to level surfaces, or because of their

infrequent use within buildings. Yet there are at least three major reasons

for studying pedestrian movement on ramps. First, the lack of movement data

specifically for ramps makes them the least understood of all vertical circulation components. As such, they are therefore a weak element in the understanding of overall circulation system performance. Secondly, there are new new legal requirements which mandate the design and maintenance of environments

that are free from architectural barriers to the disabled. Since ramps can provide access for both able and disabled persons, they have the potential for

being an alternative to stairs is some situations. As a result, the carrying

capacity of ramps for normal and emergency situations must be understood.

The third Impetus behind the study of ramps is their potential for greater

safety. The other major non-mechanical element of the vertical component, the

stair, has a very high incidence of accidents [Archea, Collins & Stahl, 1979].

An improved understanding of movement on ramps could result in their wider use and could therefore be effective in reducing accidents on vertical circulation

components. However, issues of safety are not addressed in this report.

1 . 4 SUMMARY

An increased knowledge of the design parameters responsible for more effective

pedestrian circulation remains one of the main needs for building planning.

While an understanding of pedestrian movement characteristics on the various

components that make up a building circulation system is the key to effective

planning, one component, the ramp, has rarely been the subject of building

circulation research. Yet, in order to design an effective circulation system, an understanding of the movement characteristics for all the components is

necessary. In this report, a description of some of the characteristics of

pedestrian movement on ramps is presented, in the hope that it will increase

understanding of the ramp as an element of the vertical circulation system.

4
2. THE LITERATURE ON PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION

The literature cited in the sections that follow focuses on movement

characteristics on ramps, level surfaces, and stairs, as well as on energy

expenditures on ramps and stairs« It is intended to provide a suitable

framework within which to compare the building ramp data obtained in this

study with other ramp and building circulation data in general.

5
2.1 RAMPS

The most significant effect of a ramp on pedestrian movement might be expected

to be its grade or incline. Yet, Fruin [1971] noted that, within limits, ramp

grade appeared to have little effect on freeflow walking 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 Busi- ness District of Washington, D.C. [MacDorman, 1957]. Other studies

confirm 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 [Hoel, 1968]. 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 [Evans, 1962]. A further increase in

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].

Foot [1973] found that pedestrian walking speeds on a 5.7° slope grade vary

from 0.35 to 1.40 m/sec. with speed being heavily dependent upon the density

of the 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 level passageways.

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 at the Illinois Central Railway system

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

(around .14 pms) but slower for stairs (.09 pms for ascent and .10 pms for

descent). Again, the area per person under uncrowded conditions was about

equal for level surfaces and ramps (1.03 m^ and .98 m^) but much smaller for

stairs (.53 m^). The NBS study Itself found an average of about .74 m^ per

person on ramps at Grand Central Station with a minimum of about .58 m^. The

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 (.76 m) 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 slope of 3° or less should have

little effect upon walking speed. Yet, he pointed out also that data from the

British Road Research Laboratory [Research on Road Traffic, 1965] suggest that

a 5.7° slope could reduce upward walking speed by forty percent. "The effect

6
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].

Tregenza [1976] noted, furthermore, that ramps steeper than 4.6° can be

dangerous for the handicapped, while Steinfeld [1975] recommended that ramps

designed for the disabled should have a slope of 2.5° to 4.6°, with 3° preferred. Handrails should be provided on both sides. On the other hand, Walter

[1971] found that when various categories of wheelchair users were considered,

a slope of about 4° was preferrable, although there was an acceptable range of

3.4° to 6.3°.

The Traffic Engineering Handbook [Baerwald, 1965] reports from a study by the

Portland Cement Association that while the rate of egress (flow) is about

thirty persons/minute/traf f ic lane (.5 persons/sec.) of 22 inch (.56 m) width

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

(22 inch wide) (.62 persons/sec ./ .56 m wide) for ramps. The Handbook also

suggested that users generally prefer ramps and find them safer. Based on the

Portland Cement study, the Handbook indicated further that ramps 7.1° to 9.5° are commonly used in stadia or grandstands. From data collected by the Chicago

surface lines, the Handbook points out that at slopes less than 7° speed on ramps does not appear to vary much. Thus, based on the Chicago surface lines

figures, the range of average speeds for ascent was found to be about 4.2 fps

(1.31 m/s) for a 6.8° ramp and 4.7 fps (1.43 m/s) for a 1° ramp. For descent,

the average speed was 4.5 fps (1.37 m/s) for the 6.8° ramp and 4.8 fps (1.46

m/s) for the 1° ramp.

To summarize, there have been a number of studies which have assessed the

effect of ramp slope upon walking speed. These studies have suggested that

slopes of less than 3.4° do not affect speed [MacDorman, 1957; Hoel, 1968;

Tregenza, 1976]. In fact, the Traffic Engineering Handbook [Baerwald, 1965]

reports slopes less than 7° appear not to affect walking speed. However, the

British Road Research Laboratory [1965] points out that a slope of 5.7° can reduce walking speed by forty percent.

Although there are discrepancies in the reported ramp slope below which there

is no effect on walking speed, the majority of research findings indicate that

at very small slopes walking speed is not affected. Because the conditions

surrounding the measurement of walking speed varied between the different

research studies, there may have been many unreported variables other than

slope that affected the results.

2.2 LEVEL SURFACES

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

of speed, flow, and density for level surfaces. Researchers have reported mean

7
walking speeds on level surfaces ranging from about 2.33 fps (.71 m/s) to 7.88

fps (2.40 m/s) [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 and Azar, 1964; Tregenza, 1976; Henderson, 1971;

Hoel, 1968; Henderson and Lyons, 1972].

Researchers have reported a decrease in the range of walking speeds with

increasing pedestrian density [Fruin, 1971; Tregenza, 1976; Hankin and Wright,

1958; O’Flaherty and Parkinson, 1972]. In fact, once an area of 2-3 ft^ (.19-

.28 m2) per pedestrian is reached, movement stops for all practical purposes

and density is close to maximum [Fruin, 1971; Tregenza, 1976; Hankin and Wright,

1958]. Yet, at areas only slightly larger than these, 4-5 ft^ (.37-. 45 m^) per

pedestrian, maximum flow rates are found [Navin and Wheeler, 1969; Hankin and

Wright, 1958; Fruin, 1974]. Observation of the close relationship between

speed and density — and consequently, flow (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 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 conditions at

35 ft2 (3.26 m2) per pedestrian to restricted flow conditions at 5-10 ft2

(.46-. 93 m2) per pedestrian. On the other hand, O'Flaherty and Parkinson [1972]

recommended that a density of about 18 ft2 (1.67 nj2) per pedestrian would

provide adequate service.

2.3 STAIRS

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

level surfaces. Perhaps because the method of movement on stairs is related

more to climbing than walking, both flow rate and speed are slower. Thus,

typical speeds for ascent are about 100-125 fpm (.51-. 64 mps) with a range of

40--. 64 fpm (.2-. 83 mps) [Fruin, 1971]. In descent, speeds are somewhat faster,

around 130-150 fpm (.66-. 76 mps) [Galbreath, 1969]. The slower speeds on stairs were not accompanied by high densities. 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 and Booth, 1975]. (The effects

of small amounts of counterflow are much less apparent for horizontal surfaces,

and result in only a ten percent or less decrease in flow.)

2 . 4 ENERGY EXPENDITURE

Corlett, Hutcheson, DeLugan, and Rogozenski [1972] noted that the use of a ramp

may require even more energy consumption than a stair and suggested that the

8
cardiac cost of climbing a stair of equal height is always less than that of

walking 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.

However, 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 (1.34 m/s) 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.

2.5 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 to be reasonably adequate

for predicting pedestrian movement characteristics on level surfaces. The knowl

edge base for pedestrian movement on ramps appears to be restricted to determinations of speed with no assessment of flow or density effects. Furthermore,

the bulk of the data was collected over 40 years ago [Baerwald, 1965; NBS, 1935]

Consequently, the effects of ramps upon all movement variables for a variety of

built environments and for a variety of crowd densities remains to be assessed.

Although there is a need to assess the effects of other building types, crowd

conditions, and similar factors upon movement characteristics for ramps, data

from the present investigation do represent an Initial step in the development

of information about pedestrian movement on ramps. Such information is needed

to design building circulation systems to serve the needs of both able-bodied

and disabled populations under normal and emergency conditions.

9

3. THE RESEARCH DESIGN

3. 1 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION

The descriptive method of research was used for this study [Isaac and Michael,

1971]. Descriptive research as used here is defined as the systematic delineation of the facts and characteristics of a given population or area of interest, factually and accurately. It is the accumulation of a data base that is

primarily representative and does not necessarily attempt to determine or explain relationships, test hypotheses, make predictions, or explain meanings

11
and implications although research aimed at these more powerful purposes may

include descriptive methods [Issac and Michael, 1971],

A descriptive method was used because the lack of existing data on ramps and

limitations in the scope of the study prohibited a more elaborate quasiexperimental investigation. The research design was intended to collect

factual information that describes pedestrian movement on ramps; to identify

problems if possible or justify current design practices; and to make

comparisons with the work of other researchers.

3.2 DATA COLLECTION SITE

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

in Baltimore, Maryland. This site was selected because: (1) spectator vertical circulation is accomplished exclusively by ramps on the inside of the

stadium; and (2) it is used virtually year-round since it serves as the home

playing field for both major league baseball and football teams.

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

that 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, upper and lower. 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 ver- tical 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 (3.6 m) 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 (5.4 m) above the

lower level and is reached by walking up seven ramp lengths. See figures 1 and 2.

3. 3 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE AND EQUIPMENT

Data were collected at a Baltimore Colt football game on Sunday, December 11,

1977 and at Baltimore Orioles baseball game on Sunday, September 17, 1978.

Both games were played in the afternoon. The temperature during the football

game was about -3°C and about 21°C during the baseball game. Attendance at

the football game was 45,124 while attendance at the baseball game was only

4,436. Videotaping locations were on the west side of the stadium. A different,

but similar, pair of ramps was investigated for each game. (See figures 1 and

2.) The ramps were different because, upon the advice of the stadium management.

12
Figure 1. Plan at lower level promenade showing the relationship

between ramps (not to scale)

13
locations were selected where maximum numbers of users were expected. The

interior locations (lower level or ramp 1) were at the top of and looking down

on the bottom length of a one story ramp (figure 3). These ramps led directly

to lower level seats. Perimeter locations (upper level or ramp 2), were at

the top of and looking down on the next-to-top length of ramp of the perimeter

ramp towers (figure 4). These ramps provided access to lower level seats and

sole access to upper level seats.

Figure 3. Typical lower level ramp (view

from video taping position).

Figure 4. Typical upper level

ramp (view from

video taping

position)

The west side of the stadium was selected because its exposure to the afternoon

sun provided higher lighting levels inside the stadium for video taping. The

actual ramps selected were those recommended by the stadium management as the

most likely to reach high densities and flow rates.

Each of the four ramps selected for study was observed during both Ingress (up)

and egress (down) for a total of eight samples. The ramps were similar dimensionally and table 1 gives a dimensional comparison. Data were collected by means of video cameras and recorded on videotape for later analyses.

14
There are a number of advantages to the use of film or videotape as a data

collection method [Foot, 1973]. The data can be preserved intact and transcribed at a later date, making analysis more flexible. Furthermore, the

record is permanent so that subsequent reanalysis is possible. With videotape,

there is the extra advantage of a monitor in the camera that allows the data

record to be immediately observed for picture quality and content. However,

the primary disadvantage to videotape is the need for large numbers of batteries

if there is no electrical power available and if videotaping is done over long

periods of time.

Football Game

Ramp 1 Ramp 2

Width

T

1 1.72 m T1 1.70 m

1

1 2.13-2.51 m

T

1 1.69 m Length 1 3. 00 m 1 5.20 m 1 3.95 m 1 6. 50 m

Area 1 5.23 m2 1 8.98 m2 1 9.83 m2 1 11.15 m2

Slope 1

1

1:6. 4(8. 9°) 1

1

1:6. 3(9.1°) 1 1:6. 4(8. 9°)

1

1

1

1:6. 4(8. 9°)

Baseball Game

Ramp 1 Ramp 2

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

Identical battery-powered, portable video cameras and recorders were mounted

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

required the use of thirty-minute videotapes, the entire ingress was not taped.

Instead, a sample of the ingress was obtained by taping alternating three

minute intervals, starting approximately one hour before game time. Because

ingress to scheduled events such as athletic games has been reported to be a gradual, long, and continuous process [Roytman, 1975], alternating, evenly

spaced, time intervals were believed to be a valid means of reducing the length

of the process while maintaining its basic structure. Egress was taped continuously over a period of approximately 30 minutes using the same equipment at

the same location as for ingress.

15
iv-* ”* II ^ ^*' ....#!? loi: ,

* •''

f,

.^db^t«.p^T*i^

'Ht^i ,,r.. •

I' •-'{« •«^ ifiSS^^sy ao^#. 9 »'i«i4>;'j^S3t||.i

?wlns!’;JBd Hc» ^ s7fe4*atr ag*jBl l>j>iA *rf:) eX yrx,8**i7<^_^3 ^''/^

I '-iM ' •'

^T

?’V<« ^L‘U-4--

i.

*rv

attJouo<o «sw a'5f»|«oD»:»- bn8,,,e«B«B:> 4»fo.fv j

3a5*bJt>09^T-a3iiBiJro%»'-^ ^>^s;w|S 1

. h»<^a:3 Joix <aBW»' to;lb^^;btfe>j4S.y4i »b

9S3i<J ^flilaaidiXa anXQ*4 ipi b^^ti^adc si^ eeuB^aS vamiJ ?cr6g dTolsiX itiod ^p:%X9‘^.m

«; ^d o3 bs3aoq!k'l ,H99r}. «i8if S^Rg

Yln$v^s *gftli.Ba3flijLs ^]ciBoj\oJSJ /a«8iS«>;iq ,S(iloi' M I >W..ial% i^Mr ^ ^ r« /• iflL.#Wi^ ^ T V Jk ^ i4^ rA -Ihiiiifei^.lltdiV'' 'ant atai^ 'Li iwtifoJiit thti}* ' .nn^M H^afi»i 'i9j3' gfllbiib.!&ir '^0 Ml'JfcV (> >d «J - b&qB^ aaw ?a&7,'a3 *b.5«4atfl.li8 oX««d aXl,

^

aj; j#i^qiwp» sKtJia ^^3 gttiao c-^jtmiiw OS -#•

.a.ff^i1J^»^^ 7 ^' :>cf(Ba' iwfd 6^*®’"'

>jU*» Of x\\'^':- 9t4d%^t» ui'

' ^€»4 \ lie^fcitlfl

y *pti > iTB'.K'tf' tiK'^-^''' ij .# '• V -'^ »> it ‘* la^ nu

4Vt *'

X'''^''

f '.»V *'V i'

' ^ Of vl&C

f I'- 4 * m»^rr~^i.^*'it

'' ii i\V-;.i,> f; I, ’^‘ ',' :: i-i '1^ j „

',1. ;, iS^ . Jpte=iifc^^ . < '<:» tht

juHyoD

mm

Li’SSBi'

,.. w>

Htutis?

,'l-i
A. TRANSFORMATION OF THE DATA

4.1 VIDEOTAPE CONVERSION

The test distances on the ramps over which pedestrian movement data were

collected were indicated on the videotapes during taping. When the videotapes

were analyzed, horizontal lines indicating the length of the ramp 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 on the ramp in a crowd,

the location of the floor lines were projected up so that the estimated point

17
at which a person's head would cross the two lines could be observed. A person

of average height was selected from the first portion of each of the videotapes

(for each ramp and direction). When the person's feet were aligned V7ith the

beginning and end points of the test length of the ramp, horizontal lines were drawn just touching his/her head. Once the horizontal lines representing headheight above the predetermined marker lines on the ramp had been drawn, the

number of people passing between the lines were counted. Their transit time was also determined. In the counting and timing phases, a procedure somewhat

akin to that used by Hankin and Wright [1958] was employed in which a single

person was chosen to mark the end of a group. This person was timed with a stopwatch as he/she passed between the two marker lines. At the same time, all

other persons between the two lines and in front of the marker person at any

time during his/her transit were counted as a group. Unlike Hankin and Wright,

the marker person was selected from people 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 occurlng group separated by an obvious gap from the

next group. The procedure for identification of the marker person was the same for both ingress and egress for both games.

Two observers transferred the walking time and group counts from the videotapes

to recording sheets. As the first step, they jointly selected a marker person

for each group. They recorded some identifying characteristics and the videorecorder counter number on the data sheet so that the marker person could easily

be re-identified. Once the transit time of the marker person was recorded, 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 constitute the density associated

with the marker person's walking speed. 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.

Once the overall count had been made, several subsequent refinements were made.

The first involved determination of the proportion of adult men, adult women,

and children in the observed samples. Because of the bulky winter clothing

worn at the football game, it was somewhat difficult to differentiate women

from men. Furthermore, the videotapes of football egress were not as clear as for ingress due to fading light conditions. However, the baseball game attire

did not present any particular difficulty in assigning people to male/female

groups. Children were defined as anyone whose head was at least one head

height below the marker lines. Again, this categorization is not perfect; it

may include very short adults while excluding tall children. The number of

women at the football game is reported with a 95 percent confidence of being

within +2.6 percent of the actual number. The numbers of children at both the

football and baseball game are reported with a 95 percent confidence of being

within + 1.8 percent and + 3.5 percent of the actual numbers respectively.

18
The number of observations varied between ingress and egress for each ramp.

The variation was relatively slight for the baseball game but particularly

pronounced for the football game. Since each "observation" is for a group of

people (as defined earlier), differences in the number of observations may be

due to a difference in the manner in which pedestrians group, as well as to a difference in the absolute number of people.

Ingress occurred over a longer time period than did egress, people arrived

individually and generally in small groups. The Individuals and small groups

were all counted and timed for walking speeds. Because egress occurred more quickly than Ingress, many of the individuals and small groups observed during

ingress became members of larger groups during egress. In addition, it is

possible for people to chose to leave by a different ramp than used for entering. Furthermore, the below freezing temperatures at the football game may have

caused some people to leave prior to egress video taping.

For the baseball game however, slightly more observations were made during

egress than during the football game egress despite the overall smaller attendance. People may have chosen a different ramp for ingress than for egress or the smaller overall attendance may not have produced larger groupings of people

during egress.

5 . RESULTS

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

original individual raw counts and times taken from the videotapes. Area per

person was determined by dividing the area of the portion of the ramp used by

the individual groups of people. Walking speeds were derived by dividing the

transit time for the marker person by the length of the portion of the ramp

used. Finally, flow rate was calculated by dividing sp’eed by area. A computer

program was written for transforming the raw data and creating data files

containing four variables: density, area per person, flow rate, and walking

21
speed [Turner and Collins, 1979]. Values for these variables form the basics

statistics for the analyses and findings reported herein.

The results include: an analysis of the relationships between movement

variables, ramp location, and game type; and descriptive statistics for three

movement variables (area per person, flow rate, and walking speed). Additional

examinations focused on: the composition of the population in terms of men,

women, and children; comparison of the distributions of movement variables;

and a determination of the physical location of people on the ramps.

5.1 ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE

The first statistical relationship to be considered is the effect of ramp

location, movement direction and game type upon both flow and speed. Two

analyses of covariance was conducted for: flow or speed as dependent variables;

ramp (1 or 2), direction (ingress or egress), and game (football or baseball)

as Independent variables; and area per person as the covariate. ^ Area was used

as a covarlate in order to remove, to the extent possible, the extraneous variation in flow resulting from the different dimensions of the portions of the

ramps used in the study.

The main effects of ramp, direction, and game were significant for speed, while

only game showed a significant effect upon flow. There was a significant 2-way

interaction for direction and game for both flow and speed although the other

2-

way interactions, ramp-direction, and ramp-game, were not significant. The

3-

way Interactions were not significant. Table 2 gives a summary of the results

of the analyses.

5.2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR THE MOVEMENT VARIABLES

Descriptive statistics Including mean, mode, standard deviation and range were computed for three movement variables: area per person (area), flow rate

(flow), and walking speed (speed). Each of the three variables was analyzed

for: entry (ingress) and exiting (egress); for the lower ramp (ramp 1) and

the upper ramp (ramp 2); and for the football game and the baseball game.

^ The second edition of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)

[Nle, et al. , 1975] was used for all statistical analyses. In particular,

procedures entitled "Frequencies" and "Scattergram" were used.

^ The analyses were two separate univariate tests, nonorthogonal (unequal cell)

three-way analyses of variance using SPSS Subprogram ANOVA [Nie, et al.,

1975] with the default option (classic experimental approach) analysis

method.

22
I

i

I

1

i

I. M'.'

I -

! |.,.<

I

I f£.

;

I S = significant, a ^ 0.05

!| “ NS = non-significant a > 0.05

!i Table 2. Results of Two Analyses of Covariance

Area per person was reported instead of its reciprocal, density, because area

per person is a more useful measure for building circulation system design.

However, descriptive statistics for density are given in appendix B. Tables 3,

4, and 5 give summaries of the descriptive statistics for each variable across

all conditions. Differences in the descriptive statistics between ramps and

i between games for area per person and flow are influenced by differences in the

dimensions of the portions of the ramps used in the study (see table 1). The

I dimensional differences resulted from differences in ramp widths and camera

viewing angle caused by practical necessities encountered at the site. Since

walking speed was measured over a linear dimension rather than being derived

from an area, it can be readily compared across conditions.

I 5.3 CHI-SQUARE TESTS

[ Further analysis consisted of examinations of the differences between the

I distributions of the movement variables with respect to the ramp location,

direction of movement, and type of game. The distributions were tested by

collapsing them to five categories proportioned to the overall range of values

Source of Variation Flow Speed

Covariate

Area

Main Effects

Ramp

Direction

Game

NS

NS

S

2-Way Interactions

Ramp-Direction

Ramp-Game

Direction-Game

NS

NS

S

NS

NS

S

3-Way Interactions

Ramp-Direct ion-Game NS NS

23
Football Game

T

1

1 Baseball Game

1 Ramp 1

1 Ingress

1

I Ramp 1

1 Egress

1

Ramp 2

Ingress

1

1 Ramp 2

1 Egress

1

1

1

1

1

Ramp 1 Ingress

1

I Ramp 1

1 Egress

1

T

1

1

1

Ramp 2

Ingress

1 Ramp 2

1 Egress

Mean 1 2.58

1

1 2.30 4.18

1

1 3.23

1

1 5.07

1

1 4.29

1

1 6.74 1 4.48

Mode 1 2.61 1 2.61 4.49 1 2.25 1 2.46 1 4.91 1 5.58 1 5.58

Variance 1 2.11 1 1.74 6.08 1 6.95 1 8.69 1 6.62 1 10.40 1 12.34

Std. Dev. 1 1.45 1 1.32 2.47 1 2.63 1 2.95 1 2.57 1 3.22 1 3.51

Minimum 1 0.65 1 0.65 0.82 1 0.69 1 1.97 1 0.76 1 1.59 1 0.86

Maximum 1 5.23 1 5.23 8.98 1 8.98 1 9.83 1 9.83 1 11.15 1 11.15

Range 1 4.58 1 4.58 8.16 1 8.29 1 7.86 1 9.07 1 9.56 1 10.29

N of Obs

1 208 1 63

1

101 1 68

1

1

1

44 1 58

1

1

1

38 1 39

Table 3. Area Per Person (m^/person)

Football Game r

1

1 Baseball Game

1 Ramp 1

1 Ingress

1

1 Ramp 1

1 Egress

1

1 Ramp 2

1 Ingress

1

1

1

1

1 Ramp 2 | Egress |

1

Ramp 1 Ingress

1 Ramp 1

1 Egress

1

T

1

1

1

Ramp 2

Ingress

j Ramp 2

1 Egress

Mean 1 0.66

1

1 0.69 I 0.55

1

1

1 0.67 1 0.261

I 0.37

1

1 0.25 1 0.48

Mode 1 0.58 1 0.58 1 0.39 1 0.78 1 0.23 1 0.20 1 0.16 1 0.14

Variance 1 0.10 1 0.13 -

1 0.11 1 0.10 1 0.02 1 0.04 1 0.02 1 0.10

Std. Dev. 1 0.31 1 0.36 1 0.33 1 0.32 1 0.14 1 0.19 1 0.14 1 0.31

Minimum 1 0.19 1 0.19 1 0.15 1 0.13 1 0.04 1 0.08 1 0.09 1 0.12

Maximum 1 2.33 1 1.63 1 2.16 1 1.37 1 0.63 1 0.88 1 0.77 1 1.18

Range 1 2.14 1 1.44 1 2.01 1 1.24 I 0.59 1 0.80 1 0.68 1 1.06

N of Obs. 1 208 1 63

1

1 101 1

1

68 1

1

44 1 58

1

1

1

38 1 39

Table 4. Flow Rate (persons /meter-width/ second)

24
Football Game Baseball Game

1 Ramp 1

1 Ingress

1

1 Ramp 1

1 Egress

1

Ramp 2

Ingress

1 Ramp 2

1 Egress

Ramp 1 Ingress

1

1 Ramp 1

1 Egress

1

T

1

1

1

Ramp 2

Ingress

1 Ramp 2 |

1 Egress I

Mean 1 1.36

1

1 1.21 1.69 1 1.50 1.02

1

1 1.19

I

1 1.35 1 1.32 1 Mode 1 1.52 1 1.02 1.76 1 1.76 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.22 1 1.10 1 Variance 1 0.16 1 0.06 0.18 1 0.25 0.15 1 0.09 1 0.09 1 0.11 1 Std. Dev. 1 0.40 1 0.25 0.42 1 0.50 0.38 1 0.30 1 0.30 1 0.33 1 Minimum 1 0.73 1 0.73 1.17 1 0.70 0.40 1 0.32 1 0.61 1 0.73 1 Maximum 1 3.05 1 2.18 3.77 1 2.93 2.67 1 2.23 1 1.94 1 2.20 1 Range 1 2.32 1 1.45 2.60 1 2.23 2.27 1 1.91 1 1.33 1 1.47 1 N of Obs

1 208 1 63

1

101 1 68 44 1 58

1

1

1

38 1 39 1

Table 5. Walking Speed (meters /second)

of the movement variable under consideration. Since the technical literature

on pedestrian movement gave no guidance as to an appropriate number of categories, five classes were arbitrarily selected. Appendix C gives the tables

used in the Chi-square tests.

Examination of the distributions of area per person and flow was limited to

comparisons of ingress and egress on each ramp. As discussed in the previous

section, differences in area and flow between ramps were due to differences in

the dimensions of the portions of the ramps used in the study.

Table 6 shows the results of the examination of area. The results indicate

that area per person does not differ significantly between ingress and egress

for ramp 1, but does differ significantly between ingress and egress for

ramp 2

Table 7 shows the results of the examination of flow rate. The results

indicate a significant difference in flow rates between ingress and egress,

for ramp 2 but not for ramp 1.

In table 8, results of the examination of walking speed are given. The

consistent differences between movement direction and ramp location obtained

for the football game do not all occur for the baseball game. Table 9 gives

the results of a further analysis which tests differences between the football

and baseball games. The results indicate that there is a significant difference in ingress walking speeds between the football and baseball games, but

that there is no difference in egress speeds.

25
Area per Person |

Football I Ramp 1 Ingress - Ramp 1 Egress | NS

Game 1 1

I Ramp 2 Ingress - Ramp 2 Egress | S

Baseball I Ramp 1 Ingress - Ramp 1 Egress | NS

Game 1 I

I Ramp 2 Ingress - Ramp 2 Egress | S

S = significant, a ^ 0.05

NS = non-significant, a > 0.05

Table 6. Tests of Differences in Area

Flow Rate 1

Football I Ramp 1 Ingress - Ramp 1 Egress 1 NS

Game 1 I

1 Ramp 2 Ingress - Ramp 2 Egress | S

Baseball I Ramp 1 Ingress - Ramp 1 Egress | NS

Game I 1

1 Ramp 2 Ingress - Ramp 2 Egress | S

S = significant, a ^ 0.05

NS = non-significant, a > 0.05

Table 7. Tests of Differences in Flow

26
Walking Speed | |

1 1

1

1

1

1 Football

1 Game

1

1

1

1 1 Ramp 1 Ingress - Ramp 1 Egress | S | Ramp 2 Ingress - Ramp 2 Egress 1 S I

1 1

1 1 Ramp 1 Ingress - Ramp 2 Ingress 1 S 1 Ramp 1 Egress - Ramp 2 Egress | S I

1 1

1

1

1

1 Baseball

1 Game

1

1

1

1 1 Ramp 1 Ingress - Ramp 1 Egress | S I Ramp 2 Ingress - Ramp 2 Egress I NS 1

1 I

1 1 Ramp 1 Ingress - Ramp 2 Ingress | S 1 Ramp 1 Egress - Ramp 2 Egress I NS |

1 1

S = significant, a ^ 0.05

NS = nonsignificant, a > 0.05

Table 8. Tests of Differences in Speed

Football vs Baseball | j

1 1

1

1

1

1 Walking

1 Speed

1

1

1

1 1 Ramp 1 Ingress - Ramp 1 Ingress I S | Ramp 1 Egress - Ramp 1 Egress I NS 1

1 1

1 1 Ramp 2 Ingress - Ramp 2 Ingress | S I Ramp 2 Egress - Ramp 2 Egress I NS I

1 1

S = significant, a ^ 0.05

NS = non-significant, a > 0.05

Table 9. Tests of Differences in Speed Between Games

27
5.4 POPULATION COMPOSITION

The composition of the population in terms of adult men, adult women, and

children was estimated for ingress on both ramps during the football game. The same observation was made for both ingress and egress on both ramps during the

baseball game. Table 10 summarizes the results of the counts per category in

terms of percentages of the total. It is apparent from the table that adult

males accounted for approximately three quarters of the population of the football game but less than one half of the population of the baseball game.

Although the percentage of adult women attending the baseball game was only

slightly higher, the number of children attending the baseball game was 20 percent higher than at the football game. More elderly people and individuals

with walking handicaps were observed at the baseball game, although formal

counts were not made for these categories.

Football Game

1

1

1 Ramp 1 Ramp 2 Ramp 1 Ramp 2

Number of Observations

1

1

1

581 265 391 228

Men

1

1

1 71.95% 76.23% 44.00% 47.80%

Women

1

1

1 20.48% 16.98% 28.10% 26.80%

Children

1

1

1 7.57% 6.79% 27 .90% 25.40%

Total

1

1

1 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Baseball Game

Table 10. Population Composition

5.5 PEDESTRIAN LOCATIONS ON RAMPS

Building regulations use a standard 22-inch unit of width as the basis for

sizing circulation system components. It is assumed that 22 inches will allow

for the passage of a single file of people. The widest and most narrow ramps

used in the study (see figure 1) were divided by 0.55 m (22 inches) in order

to determine the number of single files that each ramp could accommodate. From

the videotapes for the two ramps, the number of single files (alone and sideby-side walking) occurring during ingress and egress were counted.

28
Table 11 shows the frequencies of alone and side-by-slde walking. Since the area of study for ramp 1 was a trapezoid shape and varied between just under 4 and just over 41/2 single files, it was treated as being able to accommodate

four files.

A record was also made of the location on the ramps where people positioned

themselves while walking. Alone and side-by-side walking were examined for the

location of individuals relative to the center line of the ramp. The intention

of the observation was to examine the extent to which the right hand lane driving rule applied to pedestrian walking. Table 12 shows the results of walking

location counts for lone individuals.

Table 13 shows the results of walking location counts for pairs of people.

1 Ramp 1 1 Ramp 2

(3.87 to 4.56 units of width*) | (3.07 units of width)

r

Number of persons]

1 1 iNumber of persons]

walking abreast I] walking abreast ] per observation 1

1 Frequency % ]per observation ]] ] Frequency %

1 1 1 63] 72 ]] 1 ] 54 70

2 1 19 22 1 2 1 22 29

3 1 6 6 1 3 ] 1 1 4 1

1

0 0 1

]

4 ]

]

0 0

1 1 1 80] 58 ]] 1 ] 64 52

2 1 49 36 1 2 1 53 43

3 1 7 5 1 3 1 6 5 4 1

1

1 1 1

]

4 ]

]

0 0

* Unit of width = 22 in.

Table 11. Slde-by-Side Walking on Ramps

29
1

1 Ingress

1 Ramp 1

1

1

I Ingress

I Ramp 2

I

1 Egress

1 Ramp 1 Egress

Ramp 2

1 RC 1 32%

1

I

I 17%

1

1 63% 61%

1 C 1 33%

1

1

I 33%

1

1 31% 33%

1 LC 1 35%

1

1

1 50%

1

1 6% 6%

RC = right of center

C = center

LC = left of center

Table 12. Walking Locations of Lone Individuals

1 1

1 Ingress | Ingress

1 Lower level ramp 1 Upper level ramp

1 1

1

I Egress

I Lower level ramp

I

1

I Ingress

I Upper level ramp

I r

RC/C 1

1 31%

1

1 10%

1

I

I 54%

I

I

I 61%

1 1 RC/LC 1

1 50%

1

1 30%

1

I

I 39%

I

1

1 37%

1

1 C/LC 1

1

19%

1

1 60%

1

I

I 7%

I

1

1 2%

1

RC/C = right of center and center

RC/LC = right of center and left of center

C/LC = center and left of center

Table 13. Walking Locations for Pairs of People

30
6. DISCUSSION

6.1 RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE

By removing, to the extent possible, extraneous variation caused by the

covariate area per person, the effects of variations in ramps, direction of

movement, and type of athletic game were examined for flow rate and walking

speed. The variables studied do not by any means acccoiint for all of the varia*

tion found in flow rates and walking speeds. They merely represent variables

for which some comparison can be made. Since many factors can confound the

31
results of an observational study such as this, any interpretation of the

findings must be speculative.

Walking speed was significantly different for ramp, direction, and game, while

flow showed a significant difference only for game. Because walking speed is

a function of area per person, it tends to be nearly uniform at very small areas and variable or unrestricted at larger areas [Fruin, 1971]. Plots of

the relationships of the standard deviations of walking speeds on the ramps at

varying areas per person appear similar to the functional relationship reported

by Fruin (see appendix D). Fruin reports areas at or below 0.465 m^/person on level surfaces and 0.372 m^/person on stairs as being representative of crowded

conditions. However, areas below 0.65 m^/person did not occur at either of the

games. In addition, since variations were calculated for fewer observations at

the larger areas than at the smaller areas, the results are speculative and

point out the need for further investigation.

The only two-way interaction showing a significant difference was that of

direction-game. Consequently, the differences that can be attributed to either

game or direction separately must be qualified by specifying the level or category of the other.

6.2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR THE MOVEMENT VARIABLES

The descriptive statistics for each ramp for both games can be compared with

similar information for other field investigations of pedestrian movement on ramps. Table 14 gives a comprehensive overview of the movement parameters from

several other studies. Ramp dimensions and the environmental context are also

provided in order to illustrate both the differences and similarities of the

studies

6.2.1 Area Per Person

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

that reported by previous researchers revealed some interesting differences.

The average area per person for the Baltimore ramps ranged from 2.58-6.74 m^

for ingress and 2.30-4.48 m^ for egress. Previous NBS research [1935] reported

average areas of 0.753 m^ for ingress (movement up) and 0.734 m^ for egress

(movement down) on ramps in Grand Central Station. The average areas observed

on the Baltimore ramps were generally much larger with even the smallest being over twice as large as the Grand Central average. According to Fruin [1971],

it is possible to have areas as small as 0.27 m^/person before total immobilization occurs. If 0.27 m^ is considered to be the approximate minimum area required for movement, it is obvious that the observed areas per person for

the Baltimore ramps were very large by comparison.

32
O • 00 00 00 lO

m l/N CO CO 00 ON tH CM CO 1 CO o o CO CO Ps. CM rH o n£> x> in CO CM iH tH o X) CN •-H CM •H CO CM tH z o

0)

/**N c CO rH CM 00 o 00

m CO ON CO x> -4 CM CO CO

00 •H \0 ON CM 00 in iH CO

O o 00 CM P^ CO nD X> CO v£> O CO 1 CM CO •H v£> <r CM in rH CO CO <r 4 1 E so t-H rH rH tH iH iH rH tH rH iH iH iH rH o Oa c O o m tH rH CM CM

CO

m 00m •4* rH r>s CO s 1 CM CM in CO 1 CO CO CO 1 • u a; o • • m • • • • t~i

0) 00 s f-H iH tH tH tH rH tH

m

u cd NO

a;

p ON

B 0)

CO > «o CO CTn CO <r

m

u < c CO 00 UO NO On in 0^ CO 0) 1 CO <r 00 in 1 •4 4- m 1 3 Ck4 s rH •H rH rH tH tH iH 3

4J 3 c

0) 3 B 3

0) CO r«. Ps. 00 CM CM

m On

O ON CO > 5 in n£» ON r>- vO P^ CM CO o tc O B \D m CM CM 1 vD vO CO 00 o s > iH • < bL, CL o o O o t—i O o o O O rH MX 0) c sD sO x> sD 00 CM B -H • • • • • • to 3 B 1 vD CM o ON 1 1 ON 00 1 O > •H <r 3N CO CO nD < o a > w bL

/-N

m CO a CN} 00 iH Ch CO m m 00 4 CO

00 0) \ 00 fN. CO uo ON CM ON CO ON > I-ICN m O ps. p^ 1 CM CM CM P^

<e < B • • • « « CM in \0 o CM CO o

CO

00z

CL

m in in

m e o cn cn • • 1 CO CO • • 1 (U o 1 o^ o^ 1 ON ON H w CM CM CM CM *

•u

>:

0) 4-1 4J B s X s s s y X X X X X X Li c •H CU CL, Ql. CL, 1 cu CL CL, CL, c^ CLi 1 O 0 H a o 3 * * 3 • • ea » • CQ • •H B e B B 4J U B tH rH E B B B 4J 4J tH 4J X

0> 3 3 3 3 CO CO <v 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 u

4J •H •H •H •H 4J 4^

u •H » •H •H •H •H 4-1 4-1

O t 4J •H •o •o "O '3 CO CO •H *3 3 3 3 3 3 CO CO •H 3 CO 3

cn CO CO CO CO LH 3 •3 3 3 3 3 3 H-i 3 C

4^ 4J 4J iJ Qd 02 VM 4J •H •H 4J 4J 4^ 4J pci 0^ M-l •H 3

CO CO C/5 CO as. o CO CO CO CO CO CO CO Pd PC

O CO 0^ ON

Ps. ON

t^

q; CO <f 4- P-. in

Cl o 0 0 0 0 O o 0 o in O CTN ON ON Pv Ps. X) X) NO X> ON 00 CO ON 3

iH c

C/5 00 ON 00 00

m X> in in CM rH •H rH tH rH rH rH tH rH •HrH

rHoo

CO /*~S c .C CO 3 o 4J t-i IT> CO CO CO 00 lO CO CO CO 00 00 C

•H 00 <u CM r*^ o pN. o CM P^

O P«»O

O 3

CO

C <u CO in 00m CO in 00 00 c (1) 0) 1 1 1 1 1 1 • U

0)

b CM CM rH CM rH CM rH rH 3 B tH •H tH rH <r 4 C

•H Li Q 3H

/«-N CO iH o x: M • C5

4J 0) tn CM CM o^ CO iH iH CO ON in CM CO ON CO iH 4- ON CO

r

4J *-H

O

A

CO CO o O in tH

O 1 00 00

O 4 4 ^ 0) r*^ nO ON m o '4' CO P^ P>. NO ON m o 4 ON o ? B r CO iH CO m X> CO ON rH iH CM rH rH CO in 4 iH

CO

0> <

•co < OQ

U

Q td bL o ffi IH 3 < 00

O

Q bJ bL

O 3 i>£ C-> 33O

CJ

Xi

CO HCou

COaBO

CJo

COo;

CO

c;a£

CO 02

0) f—

x>

CO H

33
The average flow rates observed on the Baltimore ramps varied from 0.25 pms to

0.69 pms. Fruin [1971] reports that on level surfaces a flow rate of 1.10 pms

is possible under a variety of walkway and traffic conditions. He further

points out that a flow rate of 1.39 pms can be attained under favorable conditions, and a rate of 1.65 pms is possible under the most favorable conditions

of walking and traffic composition. Either much higher flow rates are possible

on the Baltimore ramps or there may be a real difference in possible movement

between ramps and level surfaces.

The average flow rates for ramps reported by NBS [1935] based on observations

at Grand Central Station are very similar to the typical rate of 1.10 pms for

level surface reported by Fruin [1971]. It is possible that the areas observed

for the Grand Central ramps were similar to those for level surfaces observed

by Fruin. If the areas on the Grand Central ramps were similar to those

reported by Fruin for level surfaces, much higher flow rates are possible on

the Baltimore ramps. If the Grand Central areas were lower than Fruin' s, the

higher flows may have resulted from the greater widths of the ramps. The

Baltimore ramps were about one half the width of the Grand Central ramps.

6.2.3 Walking Speed

The measure most common to all the studies is mean walking speed. The mean

speed varies from 1.022 meters per second to 1.691 meters per second across

all studies. Although characteristics of the environmental context vary a good deal, as do ramp dimensions, the majority of the mean walking speeds are between approximately 1.3 and 1.4 meters per second. Variations in reported

walking speed may be attributable to variations in environmental conditions.

For example, Hoel [1968] found that walking speeds on level surfaces decreased

as ambient temperature increased and Evans [1962] found that walking speed

decreased as slope increased on treadmills.

The average walking speed on the Baltimore ramps ranged from 1.02 - 1.6 mps for

ingress and from 1.19 - 1.50 mps for egress. The slopes of the Baltimore ramps,

approximately 9°, are greater than the slopes for other ramps where walking

speeds have been observed. The traffic Engineering Handbook [Baerwald, 1965]

reports the range of average speeds walking up ramps to be from 1.28 mps on 6.8° inclines to 1.48 pms on 1.1° inclines. The range of average speeds walking down ramps is reported to be from 1.37 mps on 6.8° slopes of 1.46 mps on 1.1° slopes [Baerwald, 1965].

Although there are differences in the slopes of ramps and various other

conditions between the studies reporting average walking speeds, the reported

difference between minimum and maximum average speeds for all studies is about

.66 meters per second or a little over 1 mile per hour.

Various researchers have reported average walking speeds on level surfaces

ranging from about 0.71 mps to 2.37 mps [Fruin, 1971; Pignataro, 1973;

Elkington, et al. , 1976; and Tregenza, 1976]. While the range of average

walking speeds on ramps is within in the range of average walking speeds on

34
level surfaces, the range on ramps tends not be as large because of a lower

maximum value. This might be an indication that the slope of the surface can affect the frequency of, or tendency for, fast walking. Yet the range of

average speeds on ramps far exceeds that reported for stairs (0.51-.76 mps).

Thus, unlike stairs, ramps appear to allow more rapid speeds of movement while

accomplishing a change in elevation.

6.3 POPULATION COMPOSITION

Although the populations (ramp users) for the two games appeared to be quite

different in terms of the proportions of adult males and children, the proportion of adult females was only slightly larger for the baseball game. Research

by Henderson and Lyons [1971, 1972] has suggested that males and females behave

as though they belong to different populations in otherwise homogeneous crowds.

They determined that walking speed distributions were different for males and

females within the same crowd. Although not specifically investigated in this

project, variations in population composition such as sex or age may result in

differences between movement variables. It is possible, however, that the

greater percentage of children at the baseball game may have accounted for the

significant difference in walking speed observed for baseball ingress.

6.4 CHI-SQUARE TESTS

The Chi-square test results indicated that the distributions of area per person

differed significantly between ingress and egress only on ramp 2 during both

games. Ingress at sports events tends to occur over an extended time period

as people gradually arrive from the time the gates are open until the start of

game. Egress, on the other hand, tends to be of relatively short duration with

the simultaneous departure of large numbers of spectators. Thus, differences

in the distributions of area per person between ingress and egress are to be

expected. The lack of significant differences in area for ramp 1 suggests that

the use of the ramp may not have corresponded with the model of gradual ingress

and quick egress.

The distributions of flow rates differed significantly between ingress and

egress for both the football and baseball games for ramp 2. The lack of significant differences between ingress and egress flows for ramp 1 can be attributed

to the lack of difference in areas because flow is derived from area.

Although the flow rates discussed herein are derived from and represent discrete

points, actual flow on a circulation system component is continuous over any

time interval of use. The derived flow rates merely represent flows that are possible if the area per person and walking speed remains constant.

Tests for differences in the distributions of walking speeds were significant

for both the ramp and the direction of movement in all but two out of eight

tests. No significant difference was found between ramp 2 ingress and ramp 2 egress and ramp 1 egress and ramp 2 egress for the baseball game. Walking

speeds tend to be variable or unrestricted when area per person is not a limiting

35
factor. As a result, the data suggest that people were free to walk at a speed

of their own choosing, unaffected by crowd movement or density.

Chi-square analyses were also made between walking speed distributions on the same ramp locations for both games. A significant difference in the distribution of walking speeds occurred only for ingress between the two games. While

walking speed for ingress varied on the same ramp locations between games,

egress did not. This difference may have occurred because ingress lasted for

a much longer time than egress. As a result. Ingress could allow greater

differences in walking speeds that the short duration and simultaneous nature

of egress prohibited.

6.5 PEDESTRIAN LOCATIONS ON RAMPS

The observation of walking patterns indicated that the majority of the people

using the ramps were walking alone. There is no obvious reason why most people

would walk alone, particuarly since in many Instances it was obvious that

although the individual was part of a group or pair, he/she chose to walk in a single file fashion. There were no obvious advantages to single file walking

such as a commonly used hand rail. Where side-by-side walking occurred, it never exceeded the calculated number of files based upon the 22-in width unit

used as the basis for current building circulation requirements. As noted

earlier, though, the area per person was typically large with high densities

occurring in very few instances.

An analysis of the position of lone individuals walking on the ramps indicated

that during ingress a majority of people walked to the left of center and

ignored the right of center convention used by vehicular traffic. However,

during egress the right of center convention predominated. Since the position

of most individuals agreed with the direction of wind of the ramp during

ingress and egress, an "inside track" type of behavior was being exhibited.

It appears that most people tend to take the shortest physical distance.

The locations of pairs of people did not indicate a tendency for any one location in either direction to be used more frequently. It may be that simultaneous effects of two or more individuals on the walking location of each

other prevents the more regularized positioning observed for lone Individuals.

6.6 RAMP SLOPE

Ramp slope was not one of the conditions that could be varied in this study.

Slope was a constant 9° (+0.1°) for all ramps in the Baltimore Stadium.

However, the review of the literature suggested several interesting means for

evaluating the effects of slope upon movement parameters and human positioning.

One method for determining the maximum slope that will permit normal walking is

based on the premise that the equilibrium of a person walking down a ramp will

be maintained if an associated retaining moment is equal to or greater than a

36
tilting moment due to the ramp slope [Roytman, 1975]. Calculations of the

moments are made using the following equations:

Mj. = P(cos a )s, = P(sln a)h

where: Mj. is the retaining moment in kg meters

Mf- is the tilting moment in kg meters

P = weight of the person in kg

h = height of the center of gravity above the ramp floor in meters

s = arm of the retaining moment in meters (length of the shod foot)

a = angle of the ramp relative to the horizontal

There is to an underlying fallacy with the tilting moment equation in that the

height of the whole body center of gravity was measured perpendicular to the

ramp. Observation of the videotapes, showed that people compensate for slope

by leaning forward when walking up a ramp and backwards when walking down.

Therefore, calculations were made using the retaining and tilting moment equations with center of gravity measured from the ramp floor but perpendicular to

the horizontal, and using the anthropometric dimensions of the 50 percentile

adult male [Dreyfuss, 1967], the maximum slope for a ramp should be 17°.

A study by Corlett, et al. [1972] concluded that where knee angle and ankle

angle are important, a ramp is easier to use than a stair. Consequently, a biomechanical method for determining maximum slope was used. Murray, et al.

[1964] reported the rotation angles of ankle, knee, and hip joints for normal

men during the walking cycle for horizontal surfaces. Based on the assumption

that the walking gait is used on ramps, ramp slopes were added to the normal

flexions and extension of ankle, knee, and hip joints until a governing maximum was reached for the 50th percentile adult male [Dreyfuss, 1967]. It was calculated that the ankle extension was the governing rotational limit with a ramp of 17° being maximum. In other words, a normal walking gait would have

to be changed for ramps above 17° to an augmented gait in order to compensate

for joint rotation limits. However, there is no evidence to indicate that

other aspects of gait such as the heel to toe action of the foot and the variation in the rate of forward movement of the body center of gravity are not

more critical considerations than joint rotation.

6.7 RAMP FLOW CAPACITIES

The maximum flow rate observed on the Baltimore ramps was 2.33 pms at an area

of 0.5 square meters per person. (See Appendix E. ) Fruin [1971] reported

maximum flow rates on stairs and level surfaces at areas of approximately

0.23 m^ and 0.45 m^ respectively. Various other researchers [Togawa, 1955;

Older, 1968; Navin and Wheeler, 1969; Fruin, 1971] have shown that as the area

per person decreases the flow rate will increase, until the area is so small

that all movement stops. Since maximum flow rates for both stairs and level

surfaces [Fruin, 1971] occur at smaller areas per person than those at which

the maximum flow rates on the Baltimore ramps occurred, these ramps may be

capable of a much higher flow rate than observed. If the maximum average

37
speed of 1.69 pms observed at Baltimore (ramp 2 ingress), is divided by the areas at which Navin and Wheeler [1961] observed maximal flow (.37-. 45 m^),

then a maximum possible flow rate of 3.8 to 4.6 pms is possible. It should be

noted that this theoretical flow rate is greater than that prescribed by the

Life Safety Code [Sharry, 1978] (The Life Safety Code prescribes flow capacities for ramps such as those in the Baltimore stadium to be 100 persons per

unit of exit width per minute both up and down the ramp. This translates to a flow rate of 3 persons per meter width per second (pms), with density unspecified). These calculations suggest that it may be possible to achieve much

higher flow rates on ramps than those specified by the Code.

The NBS report [NBS, 1935] dealing with the design of building exits places

ramps between level surfaces and stairs in terms of flow rate with stairs

having the lowest rate. Fruin [1971] reported average flow rates for level

surfaces at between 0.82 pms and 0.66 pms for areas per person between

1.39 m^ and 1.86 m^. He reported average flow rates for stairs at between

0.33 pms and 0.26 pms in the up direction and between 0.38 pms and 0.31 pms in

the down direction for areas between 1.39 m^ and 1.86 m^. Average flow rates on the Baltimore ramps were equal to or greater than Fruin* s data for level

surfaces and were consistently greater than those for stairs in both the up

and down directions for areas per person between 1.39 m^ and 1.86 m^. This

suggests that, at similar densities of pedestrians, ramps having slopes up

to 9° can allow flow rates in either the up or down direction that are equal

to or greater than flow rates for level surfaces, and far greater than those

for stairs reported by Fruin.

6.8 FURTHER RESEARCH NEEDS

In order to develop a comprehensive understanding of pedestrian movement on ramps in general, there are several areas of research that remain to be

addressed. The research reported herein describes variables of pedestrian

movement and the relationships between them on one design of a ramp. Once the

basic variables of speed, flow, and density have been established for a particular ramp design, 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 of 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 had indicated that both flow and speed are lower for stairs than

for 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 partluclar, when the potential for using ramps as a major element of the vertical circulation system is considered.

38
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. While the proportions of adult males, adult females and children using

the Baltimore ramps were reported, there is no indication as to how this population affected movement rates. Yet, Henderson and Lyons (1972) 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 for 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 condition 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.

6.9 SUMMARY

An effective pedestrian circulation system is one of the primary requirements

in building planning. Circulation system design requires an understanding of

the characteristics of pedestrian movement in buildings. Pedestrian movement

throughout an entire building can be characterized by movement rates on each

of the individual circulation system components. Ramps are one of the variety

building component parts designed and used exclusively for circulation.

Consequently, movement rates on ramps are important in their design and

regulation.

In order to satisfy the requirement for continuity of movement rates throughout

the circulation system, it is necessary to understand the differences in movement rates between different components and between different sizes or designs

of the same component. This report has presented the results of observations

of pedestrian movement on ramps as a step in developing an understanding of

pedestrian movement in buildings in general.

39
REFERENCES

[1] Archea, J., Collins, B. L. , and Stahl, F. 1, Guidelines for stair

safety . Washington, D.C. : National Bureau of Standards, BSS-120,

May, 1979.

[2] Baerwald, J. E. (Ed.). Traffic Engineering Handbook (2nd ed.).

Washington, D.C.: Institute of Traffic Engineering, 1965, pp. 122-125.

[3] Corlett, E. N. , Hutcheson, F., DeLugan, W. A., and Rogozenski, J. Ramps

or stairs - The choice using physiological and bio-mechanical criteria.

Applied Ergonomics , 1972, 195-201.

[4] Dreyfuss, H. The measure of man: Human factors in design . (2nd ed.).

New York: Whitney Library of Design, 1967.

[5] Elkington, J. , McGlynn, R. , and Roberts, J. The pedestrian: Planning

and research - A literature review and annotated bibliography . London:

Transport and Environment Studies (Test), 1976.

[6] Evans, W. 0. The effect of treadmill grade on performance decrement

using a titration schedule . Fort Knox, Kentucky: United States Army

Medical Research and Development Command. Report No. 535, 1962.

[7] 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.

[8] Foot, N. I. S. Pedestrian traffic flows. DMG-DRS Journal: Design

Research and Methods . 1973, 2.» 162-167.

[9] Fruin, J. J. Pedestrian planning and design . New York: Metropolitian

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

[10] Fruin, J. J. Pedestrian system planning for high rise buildings.

Transportation Engineering Journal , 1974, 100 , 675-686.

[11] Galbreath, M. Time of evacuation by stairs in high buildings . Ottawa:

National Research Council of Canada, Fire Research Note No. 8, May, 1969.

[12] Hankin, B. D. and Wright, R. A. Passenger flow in subways. Operational

Research Quarterly , 1958, 81-88.

[13] Henderson, L. F. The statistics of crowd fluids. Nature, 1971, 229,

338-383.

[14] Henderson, L. F. and Lyons, D. J. Sexual differences in human crowd

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

40
[15] Hoel, L, A. Pedestrian travel rates in central business districts.

Traffic Engineering , 1968, 10-13.

[ 16 ] Horizontal and vertical circulation in university instructional and

research buildings . University Facilities Research Center. Madison,

Wisconsin: May, 1962.

[17] Isaac, S. and Michael, W. B. Handbook in research and evaluation . San

Diego, Calif.: Edits Publishers, 1971.

[18] MacDorman, L. C. An investigation of pedestrian travel speeds in the

business district of Washington, D.C. Unpublished master’s thesis.

Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., 1957.

[19] Lawton, A. H. and Azar, J. Some observations of behavior of older

pedestrians. Medical Times , 1964, 9^, 69-74,

[20] Melinek, S. J. and Booth, S. An analysis of evacuation times and the

movement of crowds in buildings. Borehamwood, England: Building

Research Establishment Current Paper. 96/75, October 1975.

[21] Murray, M, P, , Drought, A, B, , and Korry, R. C, Walking Patterns of

Normal Men. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery , 1964, 46-A , 335-360.

[22] National Bureau of Standards. Design and construction of building

exits . NBS Miscellaneous Publication, M151, October 1935.

[23] Navin, F. P, D, and Wheeler, R. J. Pedestrian flow characteristics.

Traffic Engineering , 1969, J_9, 30-36.

[24] Nie, N. H, , Hull, C, H, , Jenkins, J. G. , Steinbrenner , K. and

Brent, D, H, Statistical package for the social sciences . (2nd ed.).

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

[25] O' Flaherty, C. A. and Parkinson, M. H. Movement on a city centre

footway. Traffic Engineering and Control , 1972, _0, 435-438.

[26] Older, S. J. Movement of pedestrians on footways in shopping streets.

Traffic Engineering and Control , 1968, J^, 160-168,

[27] Pignataro, L. J, Traffic engineering: Theory and practice . Englewood

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

[28] Preiser, W. Analysis of pedestrian velocity and stationary behavior in

a shopping mall . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State

Unversity, State College, Pennsylvania, March 1973.

41
[29]

Research on road traffic * Road Research Laboratory, HMSO, London, 1965.

[30] Roytman, M. Y. Principles of fire safety standards for building

construction . General editor: Prof. N. A. Strel'Chuk, Translated from

Russian, Construction Literature Publishing House, Moscow, 1969. Published for the NBS , DOC, and NSF Washington, D.C. by Amerind Publishing

Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 1975.

[31] Sharry, John A., (Ed.) Life Safety Code Handbook (1st ed. ) Boston,

Mass.: National Fire Protection Association, 1979.

[32] Stahl, Fred I. Final report on the "BFires/Version 1" computer

simulation of emergency egress behavior during fires: Calibration and

analysis . Washington, D.C.: National Bureau of Standards, NBSIR

79-1713, October 1978.

[33] Stahl, F. I. and Archea, J. An assessment of the technical literature

on emergency egress from buildings . Washington, D.C.: National Bureau

of Standards. NBSIR 77-1313, October 1977.

[34] Steinfeld, E, Interim Report: Barrier-free access to the man-made

environment. A review of current literature . Washington, D.C. : U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Contract N. H.-2200R,

October, 1975.

[35] Tabor, P. Pedestrian circulation in offices . Cambridge, England:

University of Cambridge: Centre for Land Use and Built Form Studies,

Working Paper 17, 1969.

[36] Templer, J. A. Stair shape and human movement . Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Columbia University, New York, 1974.

[37] Togawa, K. Study of fire escapes basing on the observation of multitude

currents . Japan: The Building Research Institute, Ministry of Construction, Report No. 14, February, 1955.

[38] Tregenza, P. The design of interior circulation. New York: Van

Nostrand Reinhold Co.

,

1976.

[39] Turner, G. E. and Collins, B. L. Pedestrian movement on ramps - A

preliminary investigation . Washington, D.C.: National Bureau of

Standards, NBSIR 79-1729, 1979.

[40] Walter, F. Four architectural movement studies for the wheelchair and

ambulant disabled. London, England: The Disabled Living Foundation,

April, 1971.

[41] White, E. T. Ordering systems: An introduction to architectural

design. Tucson, Arizona: Architectural Media, Ltd., 1973.

42
[42] White, E. T, Concept Sourcebook: A vocabulary of architectural forms . Tucson, Arizona: Architectural Media Ltd., 1975.

[43] Whitehead, B. and Eldars, M. Z. An approach to the optimum layout of

single-story buildings. The Architects Journal , 1964, J_7, 1373-80.

[44] Willoughby, T. M. Building forms and circulation patterns. Environment

and Planning B , II (1975), 1975, 59-87.

43
.Tin-:, <1,ilk

-.I

‘ l]i- "' ' ^ ^3 .T . »,

. Jti^ ,, t^l'l

.fnaji

- -

t^,^' P&m.r

-

r.

, v

';-''1 'nt »v, Joa;i (Ed.) £>».,. *:^-n ,‘ ^utJcix:-^>l 'fiJHii

.

' "' '"

,

'''

i-UiSt**. Jffcs/2’ TV /’f„TuU, v4S^_fc, c?f^

- s . -at&’iil - • ''»"«* ' ';. *2

<3 f i^’/tii

'' I'

--•• ! 3t«ls*£«4*)i. S. ttit*tfj8 .SUtt'^t^ti ' ^ ,»| . r vr^^mt mft m/M i

.

O'^P^'r ficjArtf

" 'of- »j'V!*'. 'lt?;fft^»i

'

•> v

* i <jWr , ',®75*

fy.HA

»

- PM Varsity

!*ap«iy I?, iW*--

f *>tt -trrpJ -’. A. 2S5A?i

• ^1. %»'.<'» t»C ix> It f . y

'.' '4' i t K, 'study »y t- :£A'^

iltfl, BAiixitt. tA, 'if0t.T&-rT'V ''l;^

•• ' ;^ '' A. *' ;

' ,' ' v^>a , , ,. _

‘SP

.*'

.

' •""• '' *

';; .V|i.i,^nJt«, P«

* ' • '

’'5/*'
APPENDIX A

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 parameers 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). On ramps, the distance traveled is measured

along the inclined or sloped surface and does not represent speed with respect

to either the horizontal or vertical component of the slope.

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

per square foot (ft^) or pedestrians per square meter (m^). Because this mea- sure results in fractions of people, Fruin [1971] chose to use its reciprocal, area , defined as square feet or square meters per pedestrian.

F low 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 or meter-width

of passageway per unit time or as pedestrians per foot-width per minute (pfm)

or pedestrians per meter-width per second (pms). Flow is also equal 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 unit-width per time, a reduction in width

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

determining the width of a particular circulation element, whether it be a ramp, a stair, a corridor, a doorway, or the like.

A-1
i:is9

,/ ,, ittiidicM^isi p.i tl: iMix.mB't

nj^JfS 'fcirij

rtss.1 i>3 . l%£il

v.i3 -'?>w>a 98GfiJ Cioii bissfi^dQK':^6r 4is

brm Bthl:i '^.ftq n4iiJ»Bb5K| bd-3 aall® ,(aqi) ha^9j<^s^»i^|g

hft-'iyj>fean ftl ba.lavfc^i: &3443 si^' 4dJ' <^c»»i :^ 3q bS»;>oflr

:d 3 iw bs>*'iia ina^aaqid %Bi^l3iaX^fA3-^li^l6. 9fU. 3.0 in9noqte />44|'|^'^'*a<> I4a^l^f^i^i:

Ajf % - soa-HJaaboq 84 t mbt

36’%"trt« i'^ mPpTBtl 3b ':t®dii«#^ »da^ ~oam s£d3 ' 48o4,^aa v(-^£n,),. 3 a3 »m biaops- 3 »q' ^o; ioqf

.l&oCjqXaMTintl &Bif 03 SJiodb mei]

i'rf«j3^3a®b4q

i*>it|' STba,^ To*|fa&3 84

mWS^ B ii] dnl-oq. a, ^.CTiear4 eiipa^swj lO: i&<tiiw« bd^3^

riJbtw~-i!S 3 ac5 10 ibbi-Wr-bob’i laq . 6p4l- 13,»ab&q

(mXq) oijynifB i»q rtibivr^bo^ toq sqiiitpP^bibq^M ,|4

a>fii 01 Xfebpb oal'is at wol'l j(iuaq> 'tobai#; eia»4&abdq ItbJ

,fe0 ia ft«xi5'ibl)sq agaiava btfi' ,;^il^^feivlb babipi. ^^ 4Xi 3 e:»|i||^g4^v«^

a.fciSfill inaiibqEffl dec® arfiX' 3o ©flo ,ai bai^--tlV^X}'^-:)tt;^^

wol’i ©3r?f« .yswogaaa-bq bdd lb rfifclw aadjisidblisb ^1

ifibjw ol fioilbubai B »s«i3 ibq dlfejtw-'lMb 44:

ni jjnaaioqisl Btfiil al vibibiabbfe, ©lad ^

tj -ad il 19/13 sdw ,.Ja^»Xi» ooXdfiXbbtb'

b: %,' ddbl#^

4®iJbC. ®di\'jb.V,^V:ii«iobb a,. ’,/•> , •j'f'jir

.

'

' : r r: - . ,,W

fe.s

'! ,'''*' 'l^-

/r

''&*

>&' I

',

!'v '^:a

•l“*A i

;r^',•; '
APPENDIX B

1

1 Football Game Baseball Game

1

1 Ramp 1

1 Ingress

1

1 Ramp 1

1 Egress

Ramp 2 Ingress

1

1 Ramp 2

1 Egress

1

1 Ramp 1

1 Ingress

1 Ramp 1 1

1 Egress I Ramp 2 Ingress

1 1

1 Ramp 2 |

1 Egress I

1 1

Mean

1

1 0.53

1

1 0.61 0.33

1

1 0.51

1

1 0.26 1 0.34 1 0. 19

1 1

1 0.40 1

1 I Mode

1

1 0.43

1

1 0.43 0.22

1

1 0.32

1

1 0.41 1 0.20 1 0.18

1 I

1 0.18 1

1 1 Variance

1

1 0.07

1

1 0.10 0.04

1

1 0.12

1

1 0.02 1 0.06 1 0.01

1 I

1 0.08 1

1

1 Std. Dev.

1

1 0.26

1

1 0.31 0.20 1 0.35

1

1 0.13 1 0.25 1 0. 12

1 I

1 0.28 1

1

1 Minimum

1

1 0.22

1

1 0.22 0.11

1

1 0.11

1

1 0.10 1 0.10 1 0.09

1 1

1 0.09 1

1 1 Maximum

1

1 1.51

1

1 1.51 1.18

1

1 1.40

1

1 0.51 1 1.32 1 0.63 1 1.17 1

1 I Range

1

1 1.29

1

1 1.29 1.07

1

1 1.29

1

1 0.41 1 1.22 1 0.54

1 1

1 1.08 1

1 1 N of Obs.

1

I 208

1

1 63 101

1

1 68

1

1 44 I 58 1 38

1 1

1 39 1

1 1

Table 1-B. Descriptive Statistics for Density

APPENDIX C

Area

Classes

Football

Ramp 1 Ingress

Football

Ramp 1 Egress Area

Classes

Football

Ramp 2 Ingress

Football

Ramp 2 Egress

0.65 - 1.56 55 22 0.69 - 2.34 34 39 1.57 - 2.48 42 8 2.35 - 4.00 11 11 2.49 - 3.39 69 25 4.01 - 5.66 39 8 3.40 - 4.31 0 0 5.67 - 7.32 0 0 4.32 - 5.23 42 8 7.33 - 8.98 17 10

Baseball Baseball Baseball Baseball Area Ramp 1 Ramp 1 Area Ramp 2 Ramp 2 Classes Ingress Egress Classes Ingress Egress

0.76 - 2.57 15 20 0.86 - 2.91 4 20 2.58 - 4.38 6 10 2.92 - 4.97 5 4 4.39 - 6.20 12 20 4.98 - 7.03 17 8 6.21 - 8.01 0 0 7.04 - 9.09 0 0 8.02 - 9.83 11 8 9.10 -11.15 12 7

Figure 1-C. Area (m^ per person) Frequency Tables used for Chi-square Tests

Flow

Classes

Football

Ramp 1 Ingress

Football

Ramp 1 Egress

Flow

Classes

Football

Ramp 2 Ingress

Football

Ramp 2 Egress

0.19 - 0.61 116 35 0.13 - 0.53 65 27 0.62 - 1.04 66 15 0.54 - 0.94 26 25 1.05 - 1.47 24 11 0.95 - 1.34 8 15 1.48 - 1.90 1 2 1.35 - 1.75 1 1 1.91 - 2.33 1 0 1.76 - 2.16 1 0

Flow

Classes

Baseball

Ramp 1 Ingress

Baseball

Ramp 1 EgressFlow

Classes

Baseball

Ramp 2 Ingress

Baseball

Ramp 2 Egress

0.04 - 0.20 17 1- C . 09 - 2.3: 3: 2

0.21 - 0.3‘ 1‘ 21 :.3i - 2 .52 t 5 0.38 - 0 .54 9 14 0.53 - 0.74 1 6 0.55 - 0.71 1 5 0.75 - 0.96 1 5 0.72 - 0.88 0 4 0.97 - 1.18 0 4

Figure 2-C. Flow (pms) Frequency Tables used for Chi-square Tests

C-1
Football Football Football Football

Speed Ramp 1 Ramp 1 Speed Ramp 2 Ramp 2 Classes Ingress Egress Classes Ingress Egress

0.73 - 1.19 70 35 0.70 - 1.31 5 25 1.20 - 1.65 106 26 1.32 - 1.92 84 32 1.64 - 2.12 16 1 1.93 - 2.54 7 7 2.13 - 2.58 14 1 2.55 - 3.15 2 4 2.59 - 3.05 2 0 3.16 - 3.77 3 0

Football Football Football Football

Speed Ramp 1 Ramp 2 Speed Ramp 1 Ramp 2 Classes Ingress Ingress Classes Egress Egress

0.73 - 1.33 121 12 0.70 - 1.14 27 17 1.34 - 1.94 68 77 1.15 - 1.59 34 23 1.95 - 2.55 17 7 1.60 - 2.03 1 19 2.56 - 3.16 2 2 2.04 - 2.48 1 5 3.17 - 3.77 0 3 2.49 - 2.93 0 4

Figure 3-C. Speed (mps) Frequency Tables used for Chl-isquare Tests

Baseball Baseball Baseball Baseball

Speed Ramp 1 Ramp 1 Speed Ramp 2 Ramp 2 Classes Ingress Egress Classes Ingress Egress

0.32 - 0.79 10 2 0.61 - 0.92 4 5 0.80 - 1.26 26 39 0.93 - 1.24 11 13 1.27 - 1.73 7 14 1.25 - 1.56 10 12 1.74 - 2.20 0 2 1.57 - 1.88 12 6 2.21 - 2.67 1 1 1.89 - 2.20 1 3

Baseball Baseball Baseball Baseball

Speed Ramp 1 Ramp 2 Speed Ramp 1 Ramp 2 Classes Ingress Ingress Classes Egress Egress

0.40 - 0.85 13 3 0.32 - 0.70 2 0 0.86 - 1.30 23 14 0.71 - 1.08 20 10 1.31 - 1.76 7 18 1.09 - 1.46 28 15 1.77 - 2.21 0 2 1.47 - 1.84 6 11 2.22 - 2.67 1 0 1.85 - 2.23 2 3

Figure 4-C. Speed (mps) Frequency Tables used for Chi-;square Tests

^

C-2
Speed

Classes

Football

Ramp 1 Ingress

Baseball

Ramp 1 Ingress

0.40 - 0.93 13 20 0.94 - 1.46 130 20

1.47 - 1.99 46 3 2.00 - 2.52 10 0 2.53 - 3.05 9 1

Speed

Classes

Football

Ramp 2 Ingress

Baseball

Ramp 2 Ingress

0.61 - 1.24 3 15 1.25 - 1.87 82 22 1.88 - 2.50 11 1 2.51 - 3.13 2 0 3.14 - 3.77 3 0

Speed

Classes

Football

Ramp 1 Egress

Baseball

Ramp 1 Egress

0.32 - 0.70 0 2 0.71 - 1.08 20 20 1.09 - 1.46 33 28 1.47 - 1.84 8 6 1.85 - 2.23 2 2

Speed

Classes

Football

Ramp 2 Egress

Baseball

Ramp 2 Egress

0.70 - 1.14 17 14 1.15 - 1.59 23 18 1.60 - 2.03 19 6 2.04 - 2.48 5 1 2.49 - 2.93 4 0

Figure 5-C. Speed (mps) Frequency Tables used for Chi-square Tests

C-3
"iri V

'

<i ‘ f ti^.

Vo.

a'S'v E^-‘

tJ,^-^^3, ,

,

' J .f

'

‘

' " ', ?*?-. ,w'i ^

i, \^0 .a -

‘ASO “- !

y

, ,vi3# > i^iip

.'.ir€< - ‘ •.’•|j 8 ' u,.*8 i'.£ - Xs* - 1 .(35 s

,

'' „

il63»;t<j.3 t f©ip(tt1*ik|i

LStgftSf^Zs

(A.(73 ,l i .. i21 I

, . L&4ftS ' (i$e?Vl - titll A 9^ J .? 7 J£ 0 .i

-• •'

III* V OC«vt "

i^4*KS

'"' i

'c. >?!,, . If;

'** 'M:it

a, </?•'

>»

flj &

'' >• '

.

• ta . . v' •''JlS XXfcrf».^/fea ,,

, .IJ*d3tK3fit ,j, 1 , 1^41 (-ne-f Wl'i

"S 5>-Js«i5gr, •t.*

- ,i -

.

j, ^a,| * it4

=?.'31 ;/,* ^1

I a iM

i - ^. .-

f' 5_

''

. £-

X r, j K

'«'•<'' " ,j-

^ .CA*3f^'

~ i,0

$fjui. -• i^nii A

SJ¥i

m m.

t»sr» i '*»»’’’ -'* 4 ^uii

•«, -"-^ i '. '^ .W <fjl7 • .* I.'> -v..

j It.. a

.’^-l;.' ifj M '-“!•

4 «V* «

a,

}ji'"

'•p Pl'i.'i ''5l.;f,»

Ss-

¥

iff.'.M Ir/

Kl 'J'' _ (S

..ES^;3^,

ES ifta**.j

£-a

g” 1^.

i&

r.t •vVAl^

". JA'i,
APPENDIX D

Standard deviations were calculated for distributions of walking speeds at

different classes of area per person and are listed in table 1-E. The calculations were made in order to examine the relationship of walking speed as a function of area per person. If there is the freedom to walk at many different

speeds as more space is available to an individual, and if the freedom to walk

at increasingly different speeds is exercised by Individuals, variance in

walking speeds should increase as the area per person increases.

1

1 Classes 1 of Area I

1

Football

Ramp 1 Ingress

1

1 Football

1 Ramp 1

1 Egress

1

1

1 Football

1 Ramp 2

1 Ingress

1

1

1 Football

1 Ramp 2

1 Egress

1

1 Baseball

1 Ramp 1

1 Ingress

1

1 Baseball

1 Ramp 1

1 Egress

1

1

1 Baseball

1 Ramp 2

1 Ingress

1

1 Baseball

1 Ramp 2

1 Egress

0.01-

1 l.ool

1 0. 207

1

1 0.

1 114

1

1

I -

1

1 0.

1 118 -

1

I 0.

I 247

1

1

1 -

i 0. 164

1.01-

i 2.001

1 0. 302

1

1 0.

1 286

1

1 0.

1 261

1

1 0.

1 335 -

I

I 0.

I 141

1

1

1 -

1 0. 219

2.01-

1 3.001

1

0. 237 1 0.

1 226

1

1 0.

1 182 1 0.1 327 1 0. 268

I

I 0.

I 176

1

1 0.

1 200 1 0. 307

3.01- 4.001

1

-

1

1

1

-

!

1

1

-

1

1

1

-

1 0. 308 I 0.

I 164

1

1 0.

1 295 1 0. 272

4.01-

1 5.001

1

-

1

1

1

-

1

1 0.

1 276

1

1 0.

1 458 1 0. 249 I 0.I 338

1

1

1

- -

5.01-

1 6.001

1 0. 577

1

1 0.

1 288

1

1

1

-

1

1

1 - -

I

I

I -

1

1 0.

1 241 1 0. 313

6.01-

1 7.001

1 - )

1

1

1 -

1

1

1 -

1

1

1 - -

I

I

I -

1

1

1 - -

7.01-

1 8.001

1 -

1

1

1 -

1

1

1 -

1

1

1 - -

I

I

I

-

1

1

1 - -

8.01-

1 9.001

1 -

1

1

1

-

1

1 0.

I 753

1

1 0.

1 548 -

I

I

I -

1

1

1

- -

1 9.00-10.001

( -

I

1

1

-

I

1

1

-

1

1

1

-

1 0. 627

I

I 0.

I 387

1

1

1 - -

10.01-

1 ll.ool

1

-

1

1

1

-

1

1

1 -

1

1

I - -

I

I

I -

1

1

1 - -

11.01-

1 12.001

1

-

1

1

1

-

1

1

1

-

1

1

1

- -

I

I

I

-

1

1 0.

1 266 1 0. 278

Table 1-D. Walking Speed Standard Deviations at Various Classes of Area Per Person

The standard deviation of walking speeds is always greater at the largest area

per person than at the smallest area for each ramp and direction of movement.

However, the standard deviation did not continuously increase from the lowest

to highest area as might be anticipated.

The results of the calculations are not intended to provide the basis for

drawing inferences of any sort, but rather are intended to provide a description of the relationship between walking speed and area per person with respect

to the Baltimore Stadium ramps.

D-1
'if

^S'

6 sn ^<1^jfl'fiw

' *±Q qirifeitdO^aX^l alH ^h&Ss 9*d^®’bi'|r

vTf^xar’Ja Mt^ o3 • sxf? sii::».i&'rtd . ^<*0!r|.»q.

0^',s»(i&-k®-3| ©rlj- iX>n© ob'i^^ '»\i^%X$*<h 4h ""i 0 s^attftiGv »eXj:iiJ»fclvJtbw-i , fei i<^‘s0’it- lb.-.

• aaafisibnl obaofdq T^q foLsd/^a isb^sq^a

»

' »il*0

\i . 4^1 .u I

I I

t,lB^a»t.\

t v^ffna I «iMi-i^'>l i XT

WS.d

m.O;

T

llaAMti i 4i«<JQi®*4 i i «^«*«;? H ^waJ' £ <|saaj

v4»ii3rsa

kct.d''

'%ii

4 jLndtio*^ 1 •qf'A4>

f

' i m,J

ii#V.i}

f, I

ASE',0

:

'

ilSivOM rfXX.'O 4"

sa^H

V ,:. u*. «0

W£.{) «?.a

OdS.iJ

i’‘4^ I

. f«»1«<el I

- IM»lA,_;^^'iJH

7

t0£.O ^»O0.£'HM*O

JOO.S -10 .X;

&?r..

£CS>0

•k&i.

JS5

loai^ -xc^e:

1

' ^ I

dA4 .0 T'M

>5! Li-i

4J

-

i ,, \-jnu xu.o i«j.i -xb;e

1^*- --vs»'^

lob.t

iDOii '-io*r

I ,

• '*/ 1'^ '

' -^'

4, K > V

*^

' 4 '

Suoe 3 .»^ [fj'^ affiA aaeeaXD aboX-^sV 6.^2* iiAiXXj!i|| iM,

mV/.t 1i( o'

ai^-ae Sf^H Xo- aoldl^lyab' l5ta(abxi4^«^^

.ipai!i»vhm %o r,aii.:}&7lb/ht]k' »H:i la rt£iXJ;. noW..aqX,idq

i',\4WoX f/4? ^Isyotfflid'flOb 'b^bb&a »rfa .

4 ,, '^.f ' .,f^. ^. , 3dgi«' 8.&

..ll. « ...,,• .» • .

i&jg, S^^^rtsgkSAiib^

.* ^^Ivddq.^o0,'^b}i93rti,ft \?o«. ,lo; asoflaie^fiX ^aXv»^b

r(dXvJ’'!,xi682&q'',.*x,d<I' b*»ta

bita gift gldaoei^^ls? artt'Sllty''nol3,

''’" ‘ "' '”' ffiuXbaS'J& o0: b:i
APPENDIX E

AREA AREA

a.

2.0 -

s

p

E

E

» 1.5 h

1.0 -

0.5 I I I I - t I I

AREA

2 3 AREA

3.5

3.0

I

E

E

® 2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

o

2.5

2.0

o

__ O O S

_ P

E

e 0 e o E ^ • 0 1.5 _ o o e

_ o

' o e e

e e • o

- o o

- e o B • _ ^0^0 o o 0 o o ®

® *•*•*•* ft o e 0 * 1.0 __*oeeoe o o

* o e o • o o

- o o ^ ^

* - .• •• -F* _ • o • 0.5 ' 0.5 1.0 1.5 FLOU

2.0 2.5

Figure 1-E. Football Game

Ramp 1 Ingress

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75

FLOU

Figure 2-E. Football Game

Ramp 1 Egress

E-1
le

AREA

S

P

E

E

D

e.e e.5 i.e i.s a.e a.

e.a e.4 e.e e.s i.e i.a

FLOU FLOU Figure 3-E.

Ramp 2 Football

Ingress

Game Figure 4-E.

Ramp 2 Football GameEgress

E-2
F

L0U

Figure 5-E.

Ramp 1

Baseball Game

Ingress

Figure 6-E.

Ramp 1

Baseball Game

Egress

E-3
F

t

0

U

sp

E

E

D

Figure 7-E.

Ramp 2

Baseball Game

Ingress

Figure 8-E.

Ramp

Baseball Game

2 Egress

E-4
I, NBS-114A (REV. 2 -80 ) U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET (See instructions)

1. PUBLICATION OR

REPORT NO.

NBSIR 81-2310

2. Performing Organ. Report No. 3. Publication Date

July

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT CHARACTERISTICS ON BUILDING RAMPS

5. AUTHOR(S)

George Turner; Belinda L. Collins

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS, see instructions)

national bureau of standards

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

7. Coniract/Grant No.

8. Type of Report & Period Covered

Final

9.

SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street, City. State, ZIP)

NBS

10.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

I I Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Softvk'are Summary, is attached.

11.

ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information,

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here)

If document includes a significant

Knowledge of design for effective predestrian circulation is one of the main requirements in building planning. While an understanding of pedestrian movement

characteristics on the various conponent parts that make up a building circulation

system is the key to effective planning, one component type, the ramp, has rarely

been the subject of building circulation research.

The research described in this report is the result of an investigation of pedestrian

movement characteristics on four specific building ramps during two different

professional athletic contests. Variables of pedestrian movement such as speed, flow,

and density were studied as well as the relationships between them. In addition,

counts of pedestrians by sex were made. Results were compared for the specific ramps

and with previously reported data obtained for ramps, stairs, and level surfaces.

12.

KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolon s) Building circulation, building ramps, pedestrian circulation, pedestrian flow,

pedestrian movement, pedestrian ramps, ramps.

13. AVAILABILITY

[X_| Unlimited For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

20402.

iv~1 Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

15. Price

lj^8. 00

USCOMM-DC 6043-P80