4.6 Article

Artificial neural network based modeling on unidirectional and bidirectional pedestrian flow at straight corridors

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.physa.2019.123825

关键词

Pedestrian movement modeling; Artificial neural network; Unidirectional flow; Bidirectional flow

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71704168, U1933105]
  2. Anhui Provincial Natural Science Foundation, China [1808085MG217]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, China [WK2320000040]
  4. State Key Laboratory of Fire Science in the University of Science and Technology of China [HZ2018-KF12]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pedestrian modeling is a good way to predict pedestrian movement and thus can be used for controlling pedestrian crowds and guiding evacuations in emergencies. In this paper, we propose a pedestrian movement model based on artificial neural network. In the model, the pedestrian velocity vectors are predicted with two sub models, Semicircular Forward Space Based submodel (SFSB-submodel) and Rectangular Forward Space Based submodel (RFSB-submodel), respectively. Both unidirectional and bidirectional pedestrian flow at straight corridors are investigated by comparing the simulation and the corresponding experimental results. It is shown that the pedestrian trajectories and the fundamental diagrams from the model are all consistent with that from experiments. And the typical lane-formation phenomena are observed in bidirectional flow simulation. In addition, to quantitatively evaluate the precision of the prediction, the mean destination error (MDE) and mean trajectory error (MTE) are defined and calculated to be approximately 0.2 m and 0.12 m in unidirectional flow scenario. In bidirectional flow, relative distance error (RDE) is about 0.15 m. The findings indicate that the proposed model is reasonable and capable of simulating the unidirectional and bidirectional pedestrian flow illustrated in this paper. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据