Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T05:22:06.693Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Examining the effect of exit separation on aircraft evacuation performance during 90-second certification trials using evacuation modelling techniques

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

S. J. Blake,
E. R. Galea,
S. Gwynne,
P. J. Lawrence and
L. Filippidis
S. J. Blake
Affiliation:
Fire Safety Engineering Group, University of Greenwich, UK
E. R. Galea
Affiliation:
Fire Safety Engineering Group, University of Greenwich, UK
S. Gwynne
Affiliation:
Fire Safety Engineering Group, University of Greenwich, UK
P. J. Lawrence
Affiliation:
Fire Safety Engineering Group, University of Greenwich, UK
L. Filippidis
Affiliation:
Fire Safety Engineering Group, University of Greenwich, UK
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the influence of exit separation, exit availability and seating configuration on aircraft evacuation efficiency and evacuation time. The purpose of this analysis is to explore how these parameters influence the 60-foot exit separation requirement found in aircraft certification rules. The analysis makes use of the airEXODUS evacuation model and is based on a typical wide-body aircraft cabin section involving two pairs of Type-A exits located at either end of the section with a maximum permissible loading of 220 passengers located between the exits. The analysis reveals that there is a complex relationship between exit separation and evacuation efficiency. A main finding of this work is that for the cabin section examined, with a maximum passenger load of 220 and under certification conditions, exit separations up to 170ft will result in approximately constant total evacuation times and average personal evacuation times. This practical exit separation threshold is decreased to 114ft if another combination of exits is selected. While other factors must also be considered when determining maximum allowable exit separations, these results suggest it is not possible to mandate a maximum exit separation without taking into consideration exit type, exit availability and aircraft configuration.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 106 , Issue 1055 , January 2002, pp. 1 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2002 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Federal Aviation Regulations, 1999, Washington, USA.Google Scholar
2. JAR Section 1 Part 25.807, Large aeroplanes: subpart D design and construction, Joint Aviation Requirements (Change 15), 2001.Google Scholar
3. FAR Part 25.807 Airworthiness standards: transport category airplanes including amendment 25–98, Federal Register, 8 February 1999, Washington, USA.Google Scholar
4. FAR Part 25.807 Airworthiness standards: transport category airplanes including amendment 25–67, Federal Register, 16 June, 1989, Washington, USA.Google Scholar
5. Galea, E.R. and Galprarsoro, J.M.P. EXODUS: An evacuation model for mass transport vehicles, Technical Report, UK CAA Paper 93006, 1993.Google Scholar
6. Owen, M., Galea, E.R., Lawrence, P.J. and Filippidis, L. The numerical simulation of aircraft evacuation and its application to aircraft design and certification, Aeronaut J, June/July 1998, 102, (1016), pp 301–312.Google Scholar
7. Galea, E.R., Owen, M. and Lawrence, P. The role of evacuation modelling in the development of safer air travel, 1997, AGARD-CP–857, proceedings of AGARD PEP 88th Meeting on Aircraft Fire Safety, Dresden, 14–18 October 1996,36–1–36–13, 1997.Google Scholar
8. Galea, E.R., Owen, M. and Lawrence, P. Computer modelling of human behaviour in aircraft fire accidents, Toxicology, 1996, 115, (1–3), pp 63–78.Google Scholar
9. Galea, E.R. A general approach to validating evacuation models with an application to EXODUS, J Fire Sciences, 16, pp 414–436 Sept/Oct, 1998.Google Scholar
10. Galea, E.R., Blake, S.J. and Gwynne, S. Validating the airEXODUS evacuation model using derivative wide and narrow bodied data from certification trials, UK CAA report in preparation.Google Scholar
11. Blake, S.,J., , Galea, E.R., Gwynne, S., Lawrence, P.J. and Filippidis, L. Examining the effect of exit separation on aircraft evacuation performance using evacuation modelling techniques: Is the 60-foot rule rele vant?, 2001, University of Greenwich CMS Press.Google Scholar
12. Gwynne, S., Galea, E.R., Owen, M. and Filippidis, L. A systematic comparison of model predictions produced by the buildingEXODUS evacuation model and the Tsukuba Pavilion evacuation data, Applied Fire Science, 1998, 7, (3), pp 235–266.Google Scholar
13. Owen, M., Galea, E.R. and Dixon, A.J.P. 90-second certification trial data archive report, March 1999, prepared for the UK CAA for project 049/SRG/R&AD.Google Scholar
14. FAR Part 25. Appendix J airworthiness standards: transport category airplanes including amendment 25–98, Federal Register, 8 February 1999, Washington, USA.Google Scholar
15. Owen, M., Galea, E.R., Lawrence, P.J. and Filippidis, L. AASK — Aircraft accident statistical knowledge: a database of human experience in evacuation reports, Aeronaut J, August/September 1998, 102, (1017), pp 353–363.Google Scholar
16. Galea, E. R., Cooney, D., Dixon, A., Finney, K. and Siddiqui, A. The AASK database - aircraft accident statistics and knowledge: a database to record human experience of evacuation in aviation accidents. Report for UK CAA project 277/SRG/R+AD, April 2000.Google Scholar