Factors That Control Egress Factors That Control Egress Through Type-III ExitsThrough Type-III Exits

- The Cicada View -- The Cicada View -

Factors That Control Egress Factors That Control Egress Through Type-III ExitsThrough Type-III Exits

- The Cicada View -- The Cicada View -

G. A. ‘Mac’ McLean, Ph.D.G. A. ‘Mac’ McLean, Ph.D.Cynthia L. Corbett, M.A.Cynthia L. Corbett, M.A.

Protection and Survival Research LabProtection and Survival Research Lab

FAA Civil Aerospace Medical InstituteFAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute

 Clear Air Smoke

Type III Type IV Type III Type IV

PPBE 1.70 / 0.12 3.30 /0.15 2.00 / 0.09 3.30 / 0.16

No PPBE

1.40 / 0.08 2.90 / 0.16 1.70 / 0.08 2.60 / 0.12

Time in sec = mean / std err. n = 20 per group in clear air / 80 per group in smoke

CAMI 1989

Average Type-III and Type-IV Exit Crossing Times

CAMI 1989Individual Egress Times Through The Type-III Exit

Evacuation Trials

Configuration 1 2 3 4 mean

6” single 1.65 / 0.56 1.81 / 1.03 1.49 / 0.48 1.53 / 0.64 1.62 / 0.71

10” single 1.75 / 0.56 1.41 / 0.39 1.47 / 0.48 1.44 / 0.56 1.52 / 0.51

20” single 1.67 / 0.71 1.50 / 0.45 1.29 / 0.33 1.31 / 0.36 1.44 / 0.50

6” dual OBR 1.46 / 0.41 1.38 / 0.32 1.37 / 0.63 1.28 / 0.37 1.37 / 0.45

Times in seconds = mean / std. dev. n = 33 per group

CRANFIELD 1989

Total Cumulative Evacuation Times For The First 30 Subjects To Evacuate

Competitive Trials Non-Competitive

Trials

Passageway

Configuration

1st trial 2nd trial Mean Mean

3”a 83.8 / 11.2 84.0 / 0.0 83.9* / 9.7

3”b 61.9 / 4.6 81.0 / 17.0 71.4*/ 15.0 53.2 / 1.8

6” OBR 55.1 / 11.6 48.6 / 1.4 53.2 / 10.0 39.6 / 2.5

13” 54.6 / 13.4 57.5 / 6.3 55.9 / 10.3 39.9 / 3.3

18” 49.1 / 6.5 58.5 / 7.7 53.7 / 8.20 37.2 / 0.2

25” 54.9 / 14.3 54.9 / 10.0 54.9 / 11.5 40.8 / 2.7

34” 57.2 / 5.7 67.3 / 7.2 62.3 / 8.10 35.3 / 0.6

Times in seconds = mean / std. dev. * = significant (p<.05)

CRANFIELD 1990

Total Cumulative Mean Evacuation Times For The First 30 Subjects To Evacuate

Passageway

Configuration

Competitive

Trials

Non-Competitive

Trials

Smoke

Trials

6” OBR 53.2 / 10.0 39.6 / 2.5 59.6 / 9.9

13” 55.9 / 10.3 39.9 / 3.3 51.6 / 14.9

18” 53.7 / 8.20 37.2 / 0.2 49.6 / 7.0

34” 62.3 / 8.10 35.3 / 0.6 57.9 / 3.2

Times in seconds = mean / std. dev.

CAMI 1992

Total Group Evacuation Times And Mean Subject Flowrates

Passageway Configuration / Seat Assemblies

Trial 20” Single

Triples

10” Single

Triples

w/Breakover

10” Single

Duals

6” Triple OBR

Triples

1 91.67 / 2.21 74.03 / 1.78 81.86 / 1.92 72.36 / 3.00

2 74.90 / 1.80 82.50 / 1.96 87.37 / 2.13 39.00 / 1.50

3 64.20 / 1.53 89.83 / 2.14 80.93 / 1.92 46.60 / 1.96

4 77.16 / 1.86 82.54 / 2.04 62.36 / 1.48 43.90 / 1.99

Mean 76.98 / 1.85 82.23 / 1.98 78.13 / 1.86 50.47 / 2.11

Times in seconds = Total group time / flowrate in seconds persubject n = 39 per group

CAMI 1992Time To Remove The Exit Plug

Passageway Configuration / SeatAssemblies

Trial20” Single

TripleSeats

10” Single

Triplesw/Breakover

10”Single

DualSeats

6” TripleOBR

TripleSeats

1 6.83 5.37 6.43 10.84

2 4.47 8.86 4.14 5.77

3 5.13 3.70 7.23 6.14

4 4.14 4.87 4.03 5.84

MeanTimes

5.15 5.70 5.46 7.18

Times in seconds n = 39 per group

CRANFIELD 1992 Evacuation Times From Competitive Evacuations In Non-toxic Smoke

Configuration AllEvacuations

Evacuations WithoutOutliers

6” OBR 70.7 / 16.2 70.7 / 16.2

13” 55.3 / 9.20 55.3 / 9.2

18” 64.1 / 20.5 57.2 / 6.7

34” 58.2 / 19.7 51.5 / 6.2

Times in seconds = mean / std dev. n = 30 per cell

CRANFIELD 1992

Comparison of Evacuation Times From Competitive And

Non-Competitive Evacuations In Non-toxic Smoke

Configuration Non-Competitive

Evacuations

Competitive

Evacuations

6” OBR 59.6 / 9.9 70.7 / 16.2

13” 51.6 / 14.9 55.3 / 9.2

18” 49.6 / 7.0 57.2 / 6.7

34” 57.9 / 3.2 51.5 / 6.2

Times in seconds = mean / std dev. n = 30 per cell

CRANFIELD 1993Mean Times To Operate The Exit And Step Onto The Wing

12.5kg Exit Plug 15kg Exit plug 25kg Exit Plug

6” 13” 6” 13” 6” 13”

N 11.35 / 4.0 7.66 / 2.4 13.87 / 8.6 12.88 / 7.7 15.91 / 7.1 9.96 / 2.10

Male D 20.49 / 12.3 12.86 / 4.5 15.05 / 7.9 13.12 / 4.3 25.60 / 13.6 21.95 / 11.5

N 17.08 / 4.7 11.53 / 3.2 26.56 / 16.2 13.33 / 6.3 80.65 / 48.2 19.63 / 7.2

Female D 65.29/ 46.3 21.97 / 13.3 87.57 / 42.6 29.61 / 16.9 76.25 / 43.5 31.87 / 14.1

Note that times do not include reaction time to begin the evacuation or time for moving thedummy.

Times in seconds = mean / std. dev. N = No dummy D = Dummy n = 8 per cell

CAMI 1995Group Egress Times At Each Passageway Width

Passageway WidthSubjectGroup

6” 10” 13” 15” 20”

Younger 43.78 42.77 38.03 35.85 36.39

Older 61.65 51.72 49.68 51.06 49.82

Combined 52.72 47.24 43.86 43.46 43.11

Times in seconds = mean / std. dev. n = 37 per age group

CRANFIELD 1996

Cumulative Evacuation Times For The First 30 Competitive Subjects To Evacuate

PassagewayConfiguration

TrialMeans

StandardDeviations

3” 71.48* 15.04

6” 70.10* 16.18

10” 52.22 11.09

13” 55.92 10.38

18” 53.75 8.27

25” 54.90 11.54

34” 62.32 8.14

6” OBR 53.29 10.06

Times in seconds * = significant (p<.05)

Access to Egress2001

Study Highlights

2,544 subjects participated in 48 “naïve” evacuations

Each group completed another 3 evacuations (192 total)

192 of those “naïve” subjects opened the exit

4 independent variables

Naïve versus repeated measures data analyzed separately

Exit Plug: Inside Outside

Passageway:

Density Motive6” 10” 13” 20” 6” 10” 13” 20”

Low Gp1 Gp 2 Gp 3 Gp 4 Gp 5 Gp 6 Gp 7 Gp 8Low

(30) High Gp 9 Gp 10 Gp 11 Gp 12 Gp 13 Gp 14 Gp 15 Gp 16

Low Gp 17 Gp 18 Gp 19 Gp 20 Gp 21 Gp 22 Gp 23 Gp 24Medium

(50) High Gp 25 Gp 26 Gp 27 Gp 28 Gp 29 Gp 30 Gp 31 Gp 32

Low Gp 33 Gp 34 Gp 35 Gp 36 Gp 37 Gp 38 Gp 39 Gp 40High

(70) High Gp 41 Gp 42 Gp 43 Gp 44 Gp 45 Gp 46 Gp 47 Gp 48

Research Design Factors

* 6” passageway is OBR configuration

Passageway Configuration

Passageway Configuration

6” dual passageways with outboard seat removed

10” passageway with 14” aft seat encroachment

13” passageway with 10” aft seat encroachment

20” passageway with 5” aft seat encroachment

Hatch Operator Briefings

Hatch Effects

Start Signal To Exit Ready-To-Use Time Hatch Location Main Effect

5.11 6.15

0

2

4

6

8

10

In Out

Hatch Location

Mean

Tim

e i

n S

eco

nd

s

p = .004

Start Signal To Exit Ready-To-Use Time Passageway Width Main Effect

5.80

6.30

5.295.10

0

2

4

6

8

10

6" 10" 13" 20"

Passageway Width

Mean

Tim

e i

n S

eco

nd

s

p = .074

Start Signal To Exit Ready-To-Use TimePassageway Width X Hatch Location Interaction

5.655.14

5.05

4.57

8.03

5.95

5.07

5.54

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

6" 10" 13" 20"

Passageway Width

Me

an

Tim

e in

Se

co

nd

s

In

Out

Hatch Location

p = .001

Conclusions Exit preparation time was influenced little by passageway

configuration - except for “outside” hatch disposal at the 10”

configuration - which was dependent on ergonomic constraints.

Subjects can and will comply with hatch removal and disposal

instructions when they understand what is expected.

Positive review of briefing cards by hatch operators allowed

them to understand the intended method of hatch operation.

The results indicate that passengers can be more effective

survivors if they are properly informed about emergency

procedures.

Evacuation Effects

Design Factors Effects on

Individual Egress Time

Subject Egress TimeHatch Location Main Effect

1.591.60

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

In Out

Hatch Disposal Location

Mean Indiv

idual E

gre

ss T

ime in

Seconds

p = .56

Subject Egress TimeGroup Motivation Main Effect

1.64

1.55

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Low High

Group Motivation

Mean

In

div

idu

al

Eg

ress T

ime i

n S

eco

nd

s

p = .001

Subject Egress TimeGroup Density Main Effect

1.601.611.56

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Low (30) Medium (50) High (70)

Group Density

Mean

In

div

idu

al

Eg

ress T

ime i

n S

eco

nd

s

p = .46

Subject Egress Time Passageway Width Main Effect

1.50

1.661.661.56

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

6" 10" 13" 20"

Passageway Width

Mean

In

div

idu

al

Eg

ress T

ime i

n S

eco

nd

s

p < .001

Subject Egress Time Passageway Width X Hatch Disposal Interaction

1.54

1.75

1.581.54

1.47

1.58

1.74

1.58

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

6" 10" 13" 20"

Passageway Width

Mean

In

div

idu

al

Eg

ress T

ime i

n S

eco

nd

s

In

Out

Hatch Disposal

p = .001

Hatch Obstruction

Conclusions Passageway configuration effects were small and generally

correlated with the human subject effects.

Hatch removal and disposal effects were small and were

resistant to interactions with passageway width.

Motivation effects were small and not qualitatively different

from each other; there were no interactions between

motivation level and the other design factors.

Subject group density effects were small and not predictive of

subject egress time.

Human Subject Effects onIndividual Egress Time

Evacuation Effects

Subject Egress Time Subject Gender Main Effect

1.70

1.49

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Male (n=1180) Female (n=1129)

Gender

Mean

In

div

idu

al

Eg

ress T

ime i

n S

eco

nd

s

p < .001

Subject Egress TimeSubject Age Main Effect

1.57

1.441.34

1.71

2.01

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

18-22 23-32 33-42 43-52 53-65

Age in Years

Mean

In

div

idu

al

Eg

ress T

ime i

n S

eco

nd

s

p < .001

Subject Egress TimeSubject Waist Size Main Effect

1.35 1.431.51

1.72

1.96

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

24-30 31-33 34-37 38-40 41-62

Girth in Inches

Mean

In

div

idu

al

Eg

ress T

ime i

n S

eco

nd

s

p < .001

Subject Egress Time Subject Height Main Effect

1.591.52 1.55

1.58

1.74

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

57-64 65-66 67-68 69-71 72-79

Height in Inches

Mean

In

div

idu

al

Eg

ress T

ime i

n S

eco

nd

s

p = .174

Conclusions

Human subject effects accounted for most of the variance

in the subject egress time data.

Age, waist size, and gender were predictive of subject

egress time, as older and larger subjects, particularly

females, were found to egress more slowly.

These findings replicate and extend those from previous

evacuation research employing practiced subjects.

Relative Magnitude of Effects on Subject Egress Time

0

3

6

9

12

15

GroupMotivation

HatchLocation

GroupDensity

PassagewayWidth

DesignFactor

Interactions

Egress Factors

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

To

tal E

ffe

ct

Relative Magnitude of Effects on Subject Egress Time

0

3

6

9

12

15

SubjectHeight

SubjectGender

Subject Age

WithinSubject

Interactions

Subject Girth

Egress Factors

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

To

tal E

ffe

ct

Relative Magnitude of Effects on Subject Egress Time

0

3

6

9

12

15

GroupMotivation

HatchLocation

GroupDensity

SubjectHeight

PassagewayWidth

SubjectGender

DesignFactor

Interactions

Subject Age

WithinSubject

Interactions

Subject Girth

Egress Factors

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

To

tal E

ffe

ct