The number and size of exits were small when compared to the capacity of the facility. Since the above criteria were taken into consideration when defining the model, we compared area and capacity and found a direct correlation between the two. With the assistance of Maple V, we graphed data according to area and capacity and found a linear relationship. From this model, the capacity of a facility classified to group one could be found if the area was known. The smaller the area of the facility, the higher the percentage error of the actual capacity compared to the estimated capacity.
Some facilities maximize capacity by creating decks or other overlapping forms of seating.
This creates a higher capacity within a specific area, which may have caused a discrepancy in our model. Group one could contain a wide variety of areas for facilities. For example, a movie theatre and a coliseum both fit the restrictions of group one, but differ greatly in area. This was a strength because it was widely applicable. This was also a weakness for the same reason.