Simulation of behaviors in emergencies is an interesting subject that helps to understand evacuation processes and to give out warnings for contingency plans. Individual and crowd behaviors in the earthquake are different from those under normal circumstances. Panic will spread in the crowd and cause chaos. Without considering emotion, most existing behavioral simulation methods analyze the movement of people from the point of view of mechanics. After summarizing existing studies, a new simulation method is discussed in this paper. First, 3D virtual scenes are constructed with the proposed platform. Second, an individual cognitive architecture, which integrates perception, motivation, behavior, emotion, and personality, is proposed. Typical behaviors are analyzed and individual evacuation animations are realized with data captured by motion capture devices. Quantitative descriptions are presented to describe emotional changes in individual evacuation. Facial expression animation is used to represent individuals’ emotions. Finally, a crowd behavior model is designed on the basis of a social force model. Experiments are carried out to validate the proposed method. Results showed that individuals’ behavior, emotional changes, and crowd aggregation can be well simulated. Users can learn evacuation processes from many angles. The method can be an intuitional approach to safety education and crowd management.
BernardiniGQuagliariniED’OrazioM.Towards creating a combined database for earthquake pedestrians’ evacuation models. Saf Sci2016; 82: 77–94.
2.
GuZLiuZShiwakotiNet al. Video-based analysis of school students’ emergency evacuation behavior in earthquakes. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct2016; 18: 1–11.
3.
GarcimartínAZuriguelIPastorJMet al. Experimental evidence of the “faster is slower” effect. Transp Res Proc2014; 2: 760–767.
4.
SoriaSAJosensRParisiDR.Experimental evidence of the “faster is slower” effect in the evacuation of ants. Saf Sci2012; 50(7): 1584–1588.
5.
ParisiDRSoriaSAJosensR.Faster-is-slower effect in escaping ants revisited: ants do not behave like humans. Saf Sci2015; 72: 274–282.
6.
SobhaniASarviMDuivesDet al. Exploring the relationship of exit flow and jam density in panic scenarios using animal dynamics. Transp Res Proc2014; 2: 745–751.
7.
HaghaniMSarviM.Human exit choice in crowded built environments: investigating underlying behavioural differences between normal egress and emergency evacuations. Fire Saf J2016; 85: 1–9.
8.
DruryJNovelliDStottC.Managing to avert disaster: explaining collective resilience at an outdoor music event. Eur J Soc Psychol2015; 45(4): 533–547.
WagnerNAgrawalV.An agent-based simulation system for concert venue crowd evacuation modeling in the presence of a fire disaster. Exp Syst Appl2014; 41(6): 2807–2815.
11.
ShiwakotiNSarviMBurdM.Using non-human biological entities to understand pedestrian crowd behaviour under emergency conditions. Saf Sci2014; 66: 1–8.
12.
BernardiniGD’OrazioMQuagliariniEet al. An agent-based model for earthquake pedestrians’ evacuation simulation in urban scenarios. Transp Res Proc2014; 2: 255–263.
13.
ChuMLParigiPLawKet al. Modeling social behaviors in an evacuation simulator. Comput Animat Virtual Worlds. 2014; 25(3–4): 373–382.
14.
ChuMLParigiPLawKHet al. Simulating individual, group, and crowd behaviors in building egress. Simulation2015; 91(9): 825–845.
15.
D’OrazioMSpalazziLQuagliariniEet al. Agent-based model for earthquake pedestrians’ evacuation in urban outdoor scenarios: behavioural patterns definition and evacuation paths choice. Saf Sci2014; 62: 450–465.
16.
D’OrazioMQuagliariniEBernardiniGet al. EPES – earthquake pedestrians’ evacuation simulator: a tool for predicting earthquake pedestrians’ evacuation in urban outdoor scenarios. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct2014; 10: 153–177.
17.
XiaoM-LChenYYanM-Jet al. Simulation of household evacuation in the 2014 Ludian earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng2016; 14(6): 1757–1769.
18.
OkayaMTakahashiT.Evacuation guidance and agent behavior in evacuation simulations. Electron Commun Jpn2015; 98(10): 41–48.
19.
BemardiniGD’OrazioMQuagliariniE.Towards a “behavioural design” approach for seismic risk reduction strategies of buildings and their environment. Saf Sci2016; 86: 273–294.
20.
ViswanathanVLeeCELeesMHet al. Quantitative comparison between crowd models for evacuation planning and evaluation. Eur Phys J B2014; 87(2): 11.
21.
SunRYangK.Fire and evacuation simulation: PyroSim + Pathfinder Chinese tutorial and engineering applications. Chinese ed. Beijing: Chemical Industry Press, 2014.
22.
KormanováAVargaMAdamkoN. Hybrid model for pedestrian movement simulation. In: 10th international conference on digital technologies, DT 2014, Zilina, Slovakia, July 9–11, 2014, pp.152–158. Zilina: IEEE Computer Society.
23.
ReillyWSN. Believable social and emotional agents. PhD dissertation. Carnegie-Mellon University, USA, 1996.
24.
BadlerNIReichBDWebberBL.Towards personalities for animated agents with reactive and planning behaviors. In: TrapplRPettaP (eds) Creating personalities for synthetic actors: towards autonomous personality agents. Berlin: Springer, 1997, pp.43–57.
25.
ChiDCostaMZhaoLet al. The EMOTE model for effort and shape. In: Proceedings of the 27th annual conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques, New Orleans, USA, July 23–28, 2000, pp.173–182. New York: ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing.
26.
PradaRPaivaA.Teaming up humans with autonomous synthetic characters. Artif Intell2009; 173(1): 80–103.
27.
FungeJTuXTerzopoulosD. Cognitive modeling: knowledge, reasoning and planning for intelligent characters. In: Proceedings of the 26th annual conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques, Los Angeles, USA, August 8–13, 1999, pp. 29–38. New York: ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing.
28.
DurupinarFPelechanoNAllbeckJet al. How the ocean personality model affects the perception of crowds. IEEE Comput Graphics Appl2011; 31(3): 22–31.
29.
OrtonyACloreGLCollinsA.The cognitive structure of emotions. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
30.
PicardRW.Affective computing. London: MIT Press, 1997.
31.
El-NasrMYenJIoergerT.FLAME: fuzzy logic adaptive model of emotions. Auton Agents Multi Agent Syst2000; 3(3): 219–257.
32.
SuW-PPhamBWardhaniA.Personality and emotion-based high-level control of affective story characters. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graphics2007; 13(2): 281–293.
MarsellaSCGratchJ.EMA: a process model of appraisal dynamics. Cogn Syst Res2009; 10(1): 70–90.
35.
LimMYAylettR.An emergent emotion model for an affective mobile guide with attitude. Applied Artif Intell2009; 23(9): 835–854.
36.
DurupinarFGudukbayUAmanAet al. Psychological parameters for crowd simulation: from audiences to mobs. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graphics. 2016; 22(9): 2145–2159.
37.
LiuZLuYS. A motivation model for virtual characters. In: Proceedings of the seventh international conference on machine learning and cybernetics, San Diego, USA, December 11–13, 2008, pp.2712–2717. Kunming: ICMLC.
38.
HatfieldECacioppoJTRapsonRL.Emotional contagion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
39.
JaniceRK.Mood and emotion in groups. In: HoggMATindaleRS (eds) Blackwell handbook of social psychology: group processes. Massachusetts, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2008. pp.164–181.
40.
WangJHLoSMSunJHet al. Qualitative simulation of the panic spread in large-scale evacuation. Simulation2012; 88(12): 1465–1474.
41.
FuLSongWLvWet al. Multi-grid simulation of counter flow pedestrian dynamics with emotion propagation. Simul Model Pract Theory2016; 60: 1–14.
42.
BosseTDuellRMemonZAet al. Agent-based modeling of emotion contagion in groups. Cogn Comput. 2015; 7(1): 111–136.
43.
AydtHLeesMLuoLet al. A computational model of emotions for agent-based crowds in serious games. In: 2011 IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on intelligent agent technology, Lyon, France, August 22–27, 2011, pp.72–80. Lyon: IAT.
44.
WalterFBruchH.The positive group affect spiral: a dynamic model of the emergence of positive affective similarity in work groups. J Organ Behav2008; 29(2): 239–261.
45.
BispoJPaivaA. A model for emotional contagion based on the emotional contagion scale. In: 2009 3rd international conference on affective computing and intelligent interaction and workshops, Amsterdam, Netherlands, September 10–12, 2009, pp.1–6. Amsterdam: ACII.
46.
EricsonC.Real-time collision detection. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 2005.
47.
HelbingDFarkasIVicsekT.Simulating dynamical features of escape panic. Nature2000; 407(6803): 487–490.
