PROJECT PERIODIC REPORT - · PDF filePROJECT PERIODIC REPORT Grant ... KL] ... The attached...

PROJECT PERIODIC REPORT

Grant Agreement number: 265717

Project acronym: GETAWAY

Project title: Generating simulations to Enable Testing of Alternative routes to improve WAYfinding in evacuation of over-ground and underground terminals

Funding Scheme: SST.2010.4.1-1

Date of latest version of Annex I against which the assessment will be made:

Periodic report: 1st □ 2nd 3rd □ 4th □

Period covered: from 01/05/2013 to 31/10/2014

Name, title and organisation of the scientific representative of the project's coordinator:

Dr Christos Giachritsis

BMT Group Ltd

Tel: +44 (0)7795364419

E-mail:[email protected]

Project website address:

www.getaway-project.eu

http://www.getaway-project.eu/

Contents

1 Declaration by the scientific representative of the project coordinator .......................... 6

2 Publishable summary ................................................................................................... 9

2.1 Project context and objectives ............................................................................. 9

2.1.1 Context ............................................................................................................. 9

2.1.2 Objectives ........................................................................................................ 9

2.2 Description of work and main results in the period M19-M36 ............................ 10

2.2.1 Completion of evaluation of Trial Series 2 and results ................................... 10

2.2.2 Development of the GETAWAY-IADSS. ........................................................ 11

2.2.3 Evaluation of the GETAWAY-IADSS and results ........................................... 12

2.3 Final results and impact ..................................................................................... 13

2.3.1 Final results .................................................................................................... 13

2.3.2 Impact ............................................................................................................ 14

2.4 Partners ............................................................................................................. 15

2.5 Contact .............................................................................................................. 16

3 Core of the report for the period: Project objectives, work progress and achievements, project management .......................................................................................................... 17

3.1 Project objectives for the period M19-M3 .......................................................... 17

3.2 Recommendations from the previous review ..................................................... 17

3.3 Work progress and achievements during the period ......................................... 18

3.4 WP4 Detection System Development and Integration [M1 – M20: 01/02/2012 – 30/06/2012] .................................................................................................................... 18

3.4.1 Summary of progress in ‘T4.1 Develop integration of ADSS with alarm/detection equipment’ towards task objectives [HE, EL, FGC] ........................... 18

3.4.2 Summary of progress in ‘T4.2 Install ADSS in terminal 1’ towards task objectives [Note: This Task is no longer required] ...................................................... 19

3.4.3 Summary of progress in ‘T4.3 Test ADSS in terminal 1’ towards task objectives [Note: This Task is no longer required] ...................................................... 19

3.4.4 Summary of progress in ‘T4.4 Install ADSS in terminal 2’ towards task objectives [HE, EL, FGC] ............................................................................................ 19

3.4.5 Summary of progress in ‘T4.5 Test ADSS in terminal 2’ towards task objectives [HE, EL, FGC, KL] ..................................................................................... 20

3.4.6 Summary of progress in ‘T4.6 Develop capabilities in the detection system to meet requirements of predictive models and Decision engine.’ towards task objectives [HE, BMT, UoG, EL] ................................................................................................... 21

3.5 WP5 Trial Series 2 [M14 – M26: 01/12/2012 – 31/12/2013] .............................. 22

3.5.1 Summary of progress in ‘T5.5 Trial 1 terminal 2 (Spain)’ towards task objectives [FGC, BMT, EL, HE, UOG] ........................................................................ 22

3.5.2 Summary of progress in ‘T5.6 Trial 2 terminal 2 (Spain)’ towards task objectives [FGC, BMT, EL, HE, UoG] ......................................................................... 24

3.5.3 Summary of progress in ‘T5.7 Simulation of Trial 2 terminal 1 (UK) and analysis of results’ towards task objectives [UOG, FGC, BMT] .................................. 25

3.6 WP7 Development of Decision Engine [M7 – M18: 01/05/2012 – 30/04/2013] 26

3.6.1 Summary of progress in ‘T7.1 Development of ISES library.’ towards task objectives [KL, FGC, BMT, UoG, VSL] ....................................................................... 26

3.6.2 Summary of progress in ‘T7.2 Development of Decision engine interface.’ towards task objectives [BMT, UoG, HE, EL, VSL, FGC] ........................................... 27

3.6.3 Summary of progress in ‘T7.3 Development of Decision Engine’ towards task objectives [BMT, UoG, HE, FGC] ............................................................................... 28

3.6.4 Summary of progress in ‘T7.4 Testing and refinement’ towards task objectives [BMT, UoG, HE, VSL, FGC, KL] ................................................................................. 29

3.7 WP8 Evacuation Software Enhancement [M5 – M17: 01/03/2012 – 31/03/2013] 31

3.7.1 Summary of progress in ‘T8.2 Develop capability to transfer data between the Evacuation Simulation Engine and CCTV data’ towards task objectives [UOG, VSL] 31

3.7.2 Summary of progress in ‘T8.3 Enhancement of evacuation simulation software to produce information required by Decision engine’ towards task objectives [UOG, BMT, HE] .................................................................................................................... 32

3.8 WP9 Simulation of Fire and Evacuation Test Cases [M2 – M14: 01/12/2011 – 31/12/2012] .................................................................................................................... 33

3.8.1 Summary of progress in ‘T9.3 Perform coupled fire-evacuation simulations for 5 scenarios’ towards task objectives [BMT, UOG, FGC, HE] ..................................... 33

3.9 WP10 System Integration [M18 – M28: 01/04/2013 – 28/02/2014] ................... 34

3.9.1 Summary of progress in ‘T10.1 Integration of CCTV and the fire detection system with the Decision engine’ towards task objectives [BMT, HE, VSL, UOG] ..... 34

3.9.2 Summary of progress in ‘T10.2 Integration of Evacuation Simulation Engine with the Decision Engine’ towards task objectives [UoG, BMT, VSL, HE] .................. 36

3.9.3 Summary of progress in ‘T10.3 Integration of Control System with the Decision engine’ towards task objectives [BMT, HE, EL, FGC] .................................. 37

3.9.4 Summary of progress in ‘T10.4 Test System Integration’ towards task objectives [BMT, UOG, EL, FGC, HE, VSL] ............................................................... 38

3.10 WP11 Full Scale Terminal Trials [M28 (01/02/2014) – M34 (31/08/2014)] ........ 40

3.10.1 Summary of progress in ‘T11.1 Up-date system set-up and Testing’ towards task objectives [BMT, HE, FGC, EL, VSL, UoG, KL] .................................................. 40

3.10.2 Summary of progress in ‘T11.2 Trials of GETAWAY intelligent signage system’ towards task objectives [FGC, BMT, HE, EL, VSL, UoG, KL] ........................ 42

3.10.3 Summary of progress in ‘T11.3 Evaluation of results’ towards task objectives [BMT, UoG, HE, EL, VSL, KL, FGC] .......................................................... 43

3.11 WP12 Terminal Design Recommendations [M17 – M36: 01/03/2013 – 31/10/2014] .................................................................................................................... 49

3.11.1 Summary of progress in ‘T12.1 Guidelines for GETAWAY installation’ towards task objectives [HE, BMT, UoG, EL, VSL] ..................................................... 49

3.11.2 Summary of progress in ‘T12.2 Guidelines for GETAWAY use’ towards task objectives [HE, EL, LUL, FGC] ................................................................................... 50

3.11.3 Summary of progress in ‘T12.3 Terminal design recommendations’ towards task objectives [KL, UoG, FGC, HE, VSL, LUL] .......................................................... 50

3.12 WP13 Dissemination and Exploitation [M1 (01/11/2011) – M36 (31/10/2014)] . 52

3.12.1 Summary of progress in ‘T13.1 Dissemination’ towards task objectives [KL, BMT, UoG, EL, FGC, HE, VSL, LUL] .......................................................................... 52

3.12.2 Summary of progress in ‘T13.2 Exploitation’ towards task objectives [KL, BMT, UoG, EL, FGC, HE, VSL, LUL] .......................................................................... 53

3.13 Project management during the period .............................................................. 55

3.14 Consortium management tasks and achievements ........................................... 56

3.15 Changes in the consortium ................................................................................ 57

3.16 Project meetings ................................................................................................ 57

3.17 Project planning and status ............................................................................... 60

3.18 Impact of deviations from the planned milestones and deliverables .................. 62

3.19 Changes to the legal status of any of the beneficiaries ..................................... 68

3.20 Development of the Project website .................................................................. 68

3.20.1 Co-operation between other Project/Programmes ...................................... 68

3.21 Deliverables and milestones tables ................................................................... 69

3.22 Explanation of the use of the resources ............................................................ 69

3.23 Financial statements – Form C and Summary financial report .......................... 69

4 Appendices ................................................................................................................. 70

4.1 Appendix 1: Ethical Approval for Trials Series 3 ................................................ 70

4.2 Appendix 2: Staff roles and responsibilities in Trials Series 3 ........................... 71

4.3 Appendix 3: Screen shots from the advertisement and registration form for Trials Series 3 at Sant Cugat in Barcelona, hosted on the FGC web site ...................... 72

5 References ................................................................................................................. 76

List of Figures

Figure 1. Standard evacuation sign ..................................................................................... 9

Figure 2. The existing exit sign on Platform 2 of the Sant Cugat station (top) fitted with a standard exit sign (bottom) to allow comparison with the ADSS. ....................................... 11

Figure 3.The ADSS installed in Sant Cugat station ........................................................... 11

Figure 4. The GETAWAY-IADSS concept and its components ......................................... 12

Figure 5. The Dynamic Signage System used in Trial Series 3 conveying both positive (viable route) and negative (non-viable route) information. ................................................ 12

Figure 6. Platform 2 at Sant Cugat station ......................................................................... 22

Figure 7. The DDS with a flashing green arrow indicating a viable exit and a flashing red cross indicating a non-viable exit. ...................................................................................... 22

Figure 8. The position of the coloured boxes on Platform 2. Note that Exit B is an exit using an elevator and therefore excluded from the experiment. Therefore, Exit 1=Exit A, Exit 2=Exit C and Exit 3=Exit D. ................................................................................................ 23

Figure 9. Participants colour cards distribution and waiver document collection ............... 23

Figure 10. Participants occupying different coloured boxes before the evacuation begins. ........................................................................................................................................... 24

Figure 11. A red cross over the standard exit sign design. ................................................ 25

Figure 12. The CAE – DE integration ................................................................................ 34

Figure 13. Setup of FDS, CAE, DE and ESE in the control room of the FGC Sant Cugat station. ............................................................................................................................... 40

Figure 14. Left: CCTV BNC connectors. Right: DVRs with Ethernet connectors. .............. 41

Figure 15. Layout of Sant Cugat station building. Distances are a very rough estimate. ... 41

Figure 16.The home page of the updated website ............................................................. 68

1 Declaration by the scientific representative of the project coordinator

I, as scientific representative of the coordinator of this project and in line with the obligations as stated in Article II.2.3 of the Grant Agreement declare that:

The attached periodic report represents an accurate description of the work carried out in this project for this reporting period;

The project (tick as appropriate) 1:

has fully achieved its objectives and technical goals for the period;

□ has achieved most of its objectives and technical goals for the period with

relatively minor deviations.

□ has failed to achieve critical objectives and/or is not at all on schedule.

The public website, if applicable

is up to date

□ is not up to date

To my best knowledge, the financial statements which are being submitted as part of this report are in line with the actual work carried out and are consistent with the report on the resources used for the project (section 3.4) and if applicable with the certificate on financial statement.

All beneficiaries, in particular non-profit public bodies, secondary and higher education establishments, research organisations and SMEs, have declared to have verified their legal status. Any changes have been reported under section 3.2.3 (Project Management) in accordance with Article II.3.f of the Grant Agreement.

1 If either of these boxes below is ticked, the report should reflect these and any remedial actions taken.

Name of scientific representative of the Coordinator: Christos Giachritsis

Date: 23/01/2015.

For most of the projects, the signature of this declaration could be done directly via the IT reporting tool through an adapted IT mechanism.

List of Abbreviations

Abbreviation Definition

ADSS Active Dynamic Signage System

DE Decision Engine

DSS Dynamic Signage System

ESE Evacuation Simulation Engine

FDAS Fire Detection Alarm System

ADSS Intelligent Active Dynamic Signage System

CAS CCTV Analysis Engine

IADSS Intelligent Active Dynamic Signage System

UI User Interface

2 Publishable summary

2.1 Project context and objectives

2.1.1 Context

Modern rail and metro stations are complex due to the interconnections between multiple rail services utilising the station, the mix of modes of transport such as above ground rail and underground rail, the need to move large volumes of people efficiently and the mix of retail and transport related functions. Evacuation from large and complex public buildings such transport terminals is usually hindered by a lack of detailed knowledge of the internal connectivity of the building space. In such premises, occupants are usually unaware of their most suitable means of escape. It is a well know problem [1], that building occupants usually elect to make use of familiar exits, typically the exit through which they entered the building. Meanwhile emergency exits or exits not used for normal circulation are often ignored, and their actual usage heavily reliant on staff for directing the evacuation appropriately. In fire situations, where smoke may also obscure vision, the problem is often fatally compounded. Large scale fires involving fatalities such as King’s Cross Underground Station [2] and Düsseldorf [3] airport are examples of situations where the inability to locate efficient means of escape contributed to loss of life. Other situations, where rapid evacuation of rail/underground systems is essential, could be due to the result of terrorist actions such as the Madrid [4] and London [5] bombings.

The presence of signage within an enclosure has traditionally been an essential aid in reducing the amount of time spent wayfinding [6] particularly in large, complex or unfamiliar structures such as transport terminal buildings. Emergency signage provides occupants with options, suggestions and the opportunity to decide on the best possible route for evacuating an enclosure. Furthermore, a successful signage system can effectively reduce the apparent complexity of an enclosure by increasing the wayfinding efficiency. However, to be effective, the occupants must first be able to see the signage. Research carried out by the University of Greenwich [7] suggests that emergency signage systems can be extremely effective since people follow them if they see them. However, only 38% of people see the present passive signage (Figure 1) in emergency situations. Therefore, there is a need to update the present passive emergency signage with one that is more detectable by passengers. Moreover, a new signage system should be intelligent and adaptable to the changing environment in order to assess and direct occupants to an optimal egress route, based on insight into the shortest route to safety coupled with the provision of minimum exposure to incident hazards such as heat, smoke and toxic gases.

Figure 1. Standard evacuation sign

2.1.2 Objectives

The main objective of GETAWAY is to improve safety in transportation terminals through an innovative signage system which will:

Significantly improve the detectability of signage systems by 50%.

Achieve this without increasing the size of the sign or changing the visual content of the sign, thereby making it acceptable to owners, architects and regulatory authorities.

Make use of environmental information relating to the developing hazardous situation in real time.

Make use of video analysis techniques that can determine the number of people within given regions within the station environment to an accuracy of 90%.

Make use of evacuation simulations involving 100s of people which can be performed at least 3 times faster than real time.

In order to achieve this, GETAWAY has developed and tested an Intelligent Active Dynamic Signage Systems (IADSS) for real time direction of transport terminal passengers during the evacuation of a transport terminal in the event of an emergency.

The GETAWAY system is intended to be included as part of the design of new transport terminals or fitted into existing transport terminals to optimise evacuation from these complex structures.

2.2 Description of work and main results in the period M19-M36

The work in the second period of the GETAWAY project focused on

Completion of evaluation of ADSS in Trial Series 2 Redesign of the DSS Refinement of fire libraries Refinement and testing of Decision Engine Integration of IADSS Evaluation of the effectiveness of IADSS in full scale trials. Recommendation of terminal design. Dissemination and Exploitation of project results

2.2.1 Completion of evaluation of Trial Series 2 and results

In the second half of the project the evaluation of the ADSS was completed during Trial Series 2 in Sant Cugat station with the participation of 307 volunteers. The results showed that with the standard signage system (Figure 2), 99% of the participants used their nearer exit to evaluate the station which may not necessarily be a safe exit. However, when the ADSS (Figure 3) was installed and activated only 57% of participants located near the non-viable exits evacuated the station from these exits. The rest of the participants (43%) evacuated through the safe exit indicated by the ADSS.

Figure 2. The existing exit sign on Platform 2 of the Sant Cugat station (top) fitted with a standard exit sign (bottom) to allow comparison with the ADSS.

Figure 3.The ADSS installed in Sant Cugat station

In total, 63% of the participants used the safe exit indicated by the ADSS. This figure includes those participants initially located close to the safe exit and those that redirected to the safe exit and therefore represents the proportion of the population (63%) that followed the intended procedural intervention posed by the ADSS in Trial Series 2.2.

In addition, analysis of questionnaires indicated that, when only the standard signs were available, most of the participants were aware of them as a source of information. However, the standard signs played a much less important role in their exit selection than the proximity of the exits. On the contrary, when the ADSS was installed, the participants perceived both the no entrance signs and flashing arrow sign and they treated signage as single important factor in their selection of the evacuation exit.

2.2.2 Development of the GETAWAY-IADSS.

In the first period of the project the requirements of the GEATAY IADSS system were defined based on a review regarding the relevant aspects of transport passenger emergency procedures at Railway Stations. The GETAWAY-IADSS consists of five subsystems (Figure 4) each performing distinct functions:

The Fire Detection and Alarm System which monitors the evolution of the fire incident at the transportation terminal through continuous readings of temperature and smoke sensors.

The Image/CCTV Analysis Engine (CAE) which estimates the number of passengers in the affected areas based on footage from CCTV cameras.

Evacuation Simulation Engine (ESE) which will perform faster than real time evacuation simulations based on predefined evacuation scenarios. The simulated scenarios will be passed to the Decision Engine for assessment.

The Decision Engine (DE) which controls the data flow between the GETAWAY components. It passes environmental and crowd data to Evacuation Simulation Engine to perform the evacuation simulations. It also assesses and ranks the evacuation scenarios received from ESE on the basis of a cost function. The Decision Engine User Interface will display the optimal evacuation scenario together with other important information about the fire incident. Based on this information,

the Incident Manager will be able to select an evacuation scenario and activate the ADSS in order to guide passengers to safety.

The ADSS which will guide passengers to safety.

Figure 4. The GETAWAY-IADSS concept and its components

The core components CAE, ESE and DE were completed and initial tests were performed.

In the second half of the project the developments focused on the refinement of the components to meet the requirements of the Sant Cugat station in Barcelona which was used for the final full scale trials. The fire libraries in the DE were updated to match the requirements of the Sant Cugat station. The fire libraries included fire models for different fire scenarios at Platform 2. In addition the ranking algorithms for the different evacuation scenarios generated by the ESE were also updated to take into account the refined fire models. Moreover, the CAE was also refined using footage from Trial Series 2. This was necessary to ensure best possible performance during the final Trial Series 3. Finally, a new signage system was designed and developed to indicate viable (flashing green arrow) and non-viable (flashing red cross) (Figure 5).

Figure 5. The Active Dynamic Signage System used in Trial Series 3 conveying both positive (viable route) and negative (non-viable route) information.

2.2.3 Evaluation of the GETAWAY-IADSS and results

The evaluation of the GETAWAY-IADSS prototype took place during the Trial Series 3 at the Sant Cugat station in Barcelona with the participation of 375 volunteers. The trials demonstrated that the use of the IADSS lead to a significant reduction in the numbers of

people using their nearest exit to evacuate the station (as it was found when the standard sign was installed). For example, video analysis showed that, overall, 66.4% of the participants evacuated the station using the safe exit following the guidance of the IADSS. In addition, 57.3% of the participants that were not near the safe exit followed the IADSS and evacuate the station from the safe exit instead of choosing to evacuate using their nearest exit as they did with the standard signs.

Furthermore, analysis of questionnaires showed that overall there was a strong indication that the ADSS had a positive influence on the participants and that they did not find the signs confusing. For example, 90% of the participants agreed/strongly agreed that they did not need assistance in interpreting the meaning of the signs and 81% agreed/strongly agreed that the signs assisted them in finding an appropriate exit. In addition, there was a strong indication that the ADSS reinforced the feeling that the participants were moving in the correct direction and that the participants had selected the correct exit. For example, 79% of the participants agreed/strongly agreed that the ADSS signs above the exits confirmed that they were going in the right direction and 80% agreed/strongly agreed that the signs made it clear which exit to use.

Analysis of the DE performance showed that the ranking achieved by the emulated and actual test fire were very similar suggesting that using the fire library approach adopted by the IADSS rather than actually simulating the fire has the potential to correctly identify the best and worst exit strategies. In addition, the DE produced a similar exit strategy ranking with an engineer indicating that automatic assessment of complex computer based evacuation simulation output is possible and reliable. The human operator chose a strategy which was ranked 2nd best by the DE therefore less effective than the optimal evacuation strategy (84.4s vs 124.9s evacuation time). This indicates that the DE is capable of automatically selecting an evacuation strategy similar to that of a human operator producing a similar outcome to that of a human operator and, therefore, can be a reliable aid to emergency managers during a crisis.

2.3 Final results and impact

2.3.1 Final results

The GETAWAY project developed and demonstrated an integrated active and intelligent directional emergency signage system, which guides terminal passengers to safety according to the development of the emergency incident. The active nature of the signage system means that more people are likely to notice the directional signs than is currently the case with the present passive signs. In addition, the intelligent nature of the signage system means that the signs provide situation specific directional information. This means that the signage system identifies different routes as the incident develops and congestion, fire and its products, dictate alternatives. The emergency signage system can be integrated to work in harmony with the terminal’s existing fire safety systems.

The GETAWAY IADSS was validated using three full scale tests at an overground station in Barcelona (Sant Cugat Station) and simulations of large crowd evacuations at a London Underground station (Gloucester Road Station) with more complex geometry. The long term aim is for the rail terminal designers to be able to trial new terminal designs on the computer, modelling the efficiency of evacuation procedures with or without the new emergency signage system in place. This will provide not only a demonstration of the potential benefits of the emergency signage system, but also a mechanism by which terminal design can be verified quickly, cheaply and effectively. Furthermore, the proposed

system will have application in other environments such as shopping malls, airport terminals, sports stadia, etc.

GETAWAY achieved all its objectives and improved pedestrian wayfinding in complex structures. In the second half of the project, work demonstrated that

With the standard signage system, 99% of the participants used their nearer exit to evaluate the station which may not necessarily be a safe exit.

With the GETAWAY IADSS, overall 66.4% of the participants used the safe exit indicated by the IADSS.

With the GETAWAY IADSS, overall 57.3% of the participants located near a non-viable exit followed the IADSS to evacuate the station via the safe exit.

90% of participants agreed/strongly agreed that they did not need assistance in interpreting the meaning of the IADSS signs.

82% of participants agreed/strongly agreed that the IADSS signs assisted them in making a rapid decision as to which exit to use.

81% of participants agreed/strongly agreed that the signs assisted them in finding an appropriate exit.

These results clearly show that the use of the IADSS lead to a significant reduction in the numbers of people using their nearest exit and had a positive influence on the participants.

2.3.2 Impact

The European Commission Transport White Paper (2002) states that rail safety should increase regardless of the volume of traffic. In other words, the aim should be to reduce the real numbers of rail mishaps even as safety and security risks and traffic volume increase. Despite efforts to decouple transport demand from economic growth, passenger traffic is still expected to increase by 40% and freight transportation by 70% by 2020.

In order to ensure continued improvement in both railway safety and security, an overall systems approach is clearly necessary, including a full analysis of the interrelated elements and determination of risks. The main targets for research activities in this area include hazard reduction. Among other things, hazard reduction is directly linked to improvements in quality. Thus, improving the overall quality management system is also a key priority.

Although much of the focus is on reducing railway accidents involving trains (collisions etc.), another important area is the need to prepare for the possible evacuation of major crowded rail stations. Some recent serious incidents have highlighted the importance of this aspect of rail transport safety, and have demonstrated the risks of a lack of preparation.

Perhaps the most striking was the disaster in 2003, in which at least 198 people were killed, and at least 147 injured, by a fire that was started by an arsonist in the Jungangno Station of the Daegu Metropolitan Subway in Daegu, South Korea. Reports suggest that various additional factors compounded the disaster, including communication errors and inadequate emergency equipment.

Another incident happened in 2006, after a subway fire started in stored wood ties (wooden sleepers for rail tracks) in Brooklyn, NY, requiring 4000 passengers to be

evacuated, injuring at least 25 people, and causing delays to thousands of peak hour commuters.

Earlier events, such as the fire at King’s Cross Underground station on 18 November 1987 which killed 31 people, also demonstrate the problems that can occur when large crowds need to escape from confined locations. Other high-profile incidents of death and injury resulting from problems in evacuating large numbers of people from burning buildings, have underlined the challenges involved in creating safety policies for areas such as rail terminals, that will ensure the safe evacuation of large groups of people from complex and sometimes confined spaces.

Designing and preparing for such eventualities also needs to take account of human behaviour in emergency situations. The public’s behaviour in a fire has to be accommodated by engineers devising evacuation strategies, even though it may, at times, be bizarre or irrational. When automatic fire detection triggers an alarm, occupants’ response is often anything but automatic. Time is often squandered in non-evacuation activities – a phase known as pre-movement time, during which occupants are trying to figure out what is happening and what, if anything, they should do.

Education is the key to making better-informed decisions about a fire and to appreciate the importance of taking appropriate action rapidly. In turn, clear signage has an important part to play in guiding people to safety, but this also needs to have been devised to reflect the station layout and with the best possible understanding of how people are likely to react in that environment.

The GETAWAY project has significantly contributed towards this direction through the development of an effective intelligent active dynamic signage system and recommendations for installation to existing and new terminals.

Even though the GETAWAY system was developed based on the requirements of the Railway Industry and tested in a rail station, it could be used to improve the evacuation of people from different types of complex structures and environments following different types of potentially life-threatening incidences. For example, it could be used to improve the evacuation of large crowds from high rise buildings following a fire incident or underground terminals at risk of stampede following congestion. In addition, the GETAWAY system could help guiding people to safety following a natural or man-made disaster in close as well as open environments provided appropriate technologies have been developed and tested. For example, it could help guiding people to safety when they are attacked by terrorists in a enclosed complex structure (e.g., Nairobi shopping mall attack): based on information about the location of the intruders, the GETAWAY system could guide to exits through routes not controlled by the intruders. Furthermore, following suitable adaptation, the GETAWAY system could be applied in flooding emergences in open spaces showing people the direction to higher ground and safety. As a consequence, the GETAWAY system can potentially have a positive effect in saving more lives and reducing casualties in emergency situations requiring effective evacuation of people.

2.4 Partners

BMT Group Ltd

University of Greenwich

Evaclite Ltd

Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat de Catalunya

Hochiki Europe (U.K.) Ltd

Vision Semantics Ltd

London Underground Ltd

Kingfell Bulgaria

BMT Techmar NV

2.5 Contact

Dr. Christos Giachritsis

BMT Group Ltd

Goodrich House

1 Waldegrave Road

Teddington

TW11 8LZ

UK

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

3 Core of the report for the period: Project objectives, work progress and achievements, project management

3.1 Project objectives for the period M19-M3

The global objectives for the GETAWAY project during the period M19-M36 are the following:

O3. Make use of environmental information relating to the developing hazardous situation in real time.

O4. Make use of video analysis techniques that can determine the number of people within given regions within the station environment to an accuracy of 90%.

O5. Make use of evacuation simulations involving 100s of people which can be performed at least 3 times faster than real time.

Below is a table with the work packages involved, work required and the period which the objective should be achieved.

No Work Packages Work required Period

O3 WP1, WP4, WP7, WP11

Specifications of the Decision Engine

Specifications of the Fire Alarm Detection System

Development and testing of the Decision Engine to control real time data flow among the environmental sensors and the Evacuation Simulation Engine

Testing and evaluating the DE as part of the IADSS with volunteers at Sant Cugat Station in Barcelona

M1-M36

O4 WP1, WP6, WP11 Specifications of the Image Analysis Engine

Development and implementation of new crowd counting algorithms to cope with the demanding geometry and light conditions of the selected railway stations

Testing and evaluating IAE as part of the IADSS with volunteers at Sant Cugat Station in Barcelona

M1-M36

O5 WP1, WP8, WP9 Specifications of the Evacuation Simulation Engine

Enhancement of the EXODUS software to simulate the fire and evacuation scenarios involving hundreds of people evacuating from the geometries of selected train stations

M1-M8

3.2 Recommendations from the previous review

None.

3.3 Work progress and achievements during the period

Overall, there was good progress in the second half of the project achieving all global objectives for the period M19-M36. More specifically, GETAWAY partners have:

Developed the Fire Alarm Output Simulator (FAOS) and integrated it with the ADSS.

Completed Trial Series 2 in which the ADSS was tested using large number of volunteers.

Analysed and evaluated the results of Trial Series 2

Updated the simulation and decision engine software

Finalised the DE interface.

Integrated and tested all the components of the IASS

Installed IADSS at Sant Cugat station to be tested during final Trial Series 3

Completed full scale Trial Series 3 using large number of volunteers

Analysed and evaluated the results of Trial Series 2

Developed terminal design recommendations based on the experimental findings, the current regulations and the requirements of the stakeholders.

3.4 WP4 Detection System Development and Integration [M1 – M20: 01/02/2012 – 30/06/2012]

The fourth work package has the following objectives

Develop integration of Active Dynamic Signage System with alarm/detection equipment,

Install and test the Active Dynamic Signage System at an FGC station

Develop capabilities in the detection system to meet requirements of predictive models and Decision Engine.

3.4.1 Summary of progress in ‘T4.1 Develop integration of ADSS with alarm/detection equipment’ towards task objectives [HE, EL, FGC]

HE has worked on improving the switch unit for controlling the DSS.

3.4.1.1 Deviations from the Annex I workplan

3.4.1.2 Use of resources

Effort (PM)

Partner Estimated for period M19-M36 Actual for period M19-M36

HE 0.1 0.1

EL 0 0

FGC 0 0

Total 0.1 0.1

3.4.1.3 Propose corrective actions.

3.4.2 Summary of progress in ‘T4.2 Install ADSS in terminal 1’ towards task objectives [Note: This Task is no longer required]


Due to the LUL DACCT decision there will be no actual trials to test the ADSS at the Gloucester Road station. Therefore, the installation of ADSS will not take place.


No resources have been used for this task (see Section 2.19 for more detail)


The effort saved from this task has been used to cover extra costs incurred from re-locating TS3 to FGC and conducting simulations of TS2 using the geometry of Gloucester Road station. (see Section 2.19 for more detail)

3.4.3 Summary of progress in ‘T4.3 Test ADSS in terminal 1’ towards task objectives [Note: This Task is no longer required]


Due to the LUL DACCT decision there will be no actual trials to test the ADSS at the Gloucester Road station. Therefore, ADSS will not be tested at the Gloucester Road Station.


No resources have been used for this task (see Section 2.19 for more detail)


The effort saved from this task has been used to cover extra costs incurred from re-locating TS3 to FGC and conducting simulations of TS2 using the geometry of Gloucester Road station. (see Section 2.19 for more detail)

3.4.4 Summary of progress in ‘T4.4 Install ADSS in terminal 2’ towards task objectives [HE, EL, FGC]

FGC has supported HE and EL during the installation of the ADSS system at the Sant Cugat station, by providing the necessary Staff and the specific cabling needed to activate ADSS in the real event that took place in June 2013 at the Sant Cugat station.


Not applicable.


Effort (PM)


HE 0.2 0.2

EL 0.1 0.1

FGC 0.1 0.2

Total 0.4 0.5


Not applicable.

3.4.5 Summary of progress in ‘T4.5 Test ADSS in terminal 2’ towards task objectives [HE, EL, FGC, KL]

FGC has participated in the tests of the ADSS in the Sant Cugat station necessary to ensure the correctness of the system and data gathered, which were carried out on 22/04/2013 and 13/05/2013.

The work in this task will be reported in D4.1 which is due in M20.


The deliverable D4.1 was due in M20 and was delivered in M25. The delay had no impact on the progress of the project. Trial Series 2 were carried out in time as planned.


Effort (PM)


HE 0.1 0.1

EL 0.1 0.1

FGC 0.1 0.2

KL 0 0

Total 0.3 0.4


Not applicable.

3.4.6 Summary of progress in ‘T4.6 Develop capabilities in the detection system to meet requirements of predictive models and Decision engine.’ towards task objectives [HE, BMT, UoG, EL]

UoG’s original task was intended to develop a capability within the Evacuation Simulation Engine to utilise data collected by the Detection system to represent the developing fire. It was determined in the WP9 tasks that the detector data would not provide a good indication of the environmental conditions produced by the fire and as a consequence may result in inappropriate egress strategies being identified. Thus, UoG developed a database of pre-defined plausible fires for the given environment and a fire selection algorithm. Fire detector data from the actual fire is then used in the algorithm to select the case from the fire library that most closely matches the actual fire. This fire is then used in the evacuation simulations. For this task UoG worked with HE to ensure that the simulated fire detector data was a good representation for the data that would have been generated by the HE fire detection system and is appropriate for use in the fire selection algorithm.

UoG also worked with BMT to implement the data exchange interface between the Decision Engine and the Evacuation Simulation Engine that passes the fire data between these two components.


Deviations concerned the use of FAOS instead of an actual FDAS in order to activate the DSS. Nonetheless, the similar fire models were used to simulate fires and develop the predictive models. There was no impact on the Trials testing the ADSS and IADSS.


UoG spent 0.7PM on this task. UoG were allocated 1PM on this task.

Effort (PM)


HE 1.8 0.3

BMT 0.2 1.2

UOG 0.3 0.3

EL 0.2 0.2

Total 2.5 2.0


Not applicable.

3.5 WP5 Trial Series 2 [M14 – M26: 01/12/2012 – 31/12/2013]

The objective of this work package is to undertake the station based trials (Trial Series 2) in order to quantify the effectiveness of the Active Dynamic Signage System. Two trials were carried out: Trial Series 2.1 and Trial Series 2.2. Trial Series 2.1 used the conventional static signage system and Trial Series 2.2 used the developed ADSS, to allow comparison of results and quantify the effectiveness of the system.

The trials took place at Sant Cugat Station in Barcelona on 26/05/2013 and 2/06/2013. The Sant Cugat station was selected as the most appropriate location to carry out the trails based on the degree of fulfilment of their functional requirements. The trials involved evacuation of large number of volunteers following an incident at one of the platform exits. Even though participants were aware of the exercise, they received only minimal information regarding the evacuation procedure. This allowed volunteers to make their choice of escape route based on the signage information alone.

Measures were also taken to ensure that a balance number of males and females participants took part and that the sample was drawn from a representative distribution of ages and FGC usual travellers.

3.5.1 Summary of progress in ‘T5.5 Trial 1 terminal 2 (Spain)’ towards task objectives [FGC, BMT, EL, HE, UOG]

FGC coordinated the Trial 1 at terminal 2 (Trial Series 2.1) which took place at Sant Cugat Station in Barcelona on 26/05/2013 (M19). Platform 2 and the associated three exits were used during Trial Series 2.1 (Figure 6). Exit 1 and Exit 3 lead to the street while Exit 2 is the entrance to the underpass leading to the main entrance by platform 1 (not shown).

Figure 6. Platform 2 at Sant Cugat station

During Trial Series 2.1, the existing exit signs fitted with the standard exit signs (Figure 2) used on platform 2 to indicate the direction of way out, were replaced by new hybrid signs indicating if an exit was viable or non-viable (Figure 7).

Figure 7. The DDS with a flashing green arrow indicating a viable exit and a flashing red cross indicating a non-viable exit.

In addition, seven different colour boxes were painted on Platform 2 in order to control the positioning of the volunteers (Figure 8).

Figure 8. The position of the coloured boxes on Platform 2. Note that Exit B is an exit using an elevator and therefore excluded from the experiment. Therefore, Exit 1=Exit A, Exit 2=Exit C and Exit

3=Exit D.

A total of 30 personnel, including 22 FGC staff, 5 UoG, 2 BMT and 2 EL were involved in running the trails. In addition, 139 volunteers took part in Trial Series 2.1. The trial had three phases: In the first phase, participants arrived at the University Station for registration and allocation into different colour boxes (Figure 9). In the second phase, the actual experiment took place. The volunteers arrived at Sant Cugat by train and occupied the designated coloured boxes (Figure 10). Then an emergency alert and announcement were activated prompting the participants to evacuate the station using the existing signage. After the evacuation, the participants were provided with the research questionnaires and were asked to fill them. In the third phase, the participants were transported by train back to the University Station to hand in the questionnaires and receive their compensation.

Figure 9. Participants colour cards distribution and waiver document collection

Figure 10. Participants occupying different coloured boxes before the evacuation begins.


The deliverable D5.2 was due on M25 (30 November 2013) and was delivered on 17 December 2013. There was no impact on the work progress.


FGC resources devoted to the trial have been significantly higher than planned due to the complexity of the trial and the number of personnel requested to properly carry it out, as besides the recruiting process being more time consuming than expected, trials have meant the disruption of the regular railway traffic and the coordination tasks to resume the service as well as the coordination activities with several external services such as the Police, ambulance, civil protection and other institutions.

Effort (PM)


FGC 2 4.1

BMT 0.3 0.75

EL 0.4 2.4

HE 0.5 0

UOG 0.25 0.25

Total 3.7 7.50


Not applicable.

3.5.2 Summary of progress in ‘T5.6 Trial 2 terminal 2 (Spain)’ towards task objectives [FGC, BMT, EL, HE, UoG]

FGC coordinated Trial 2 at terminal 2 (Trial Series 2.2) took place at Sant Cugat Station in Barcelona on 02/06/2013 (M20). The evacuation scenario in Trial Series 2.2 used was based on a fire incident that had made Exit 1 and Exit 2 non-viable. These two routes were indicated as being unavailable to the evacuees by the activated ADSS (i.e. a red cross over the standard exit sign design; Figure 11), while the signage system also signifies which route is available (i.e. a flashing arrow over the standard exit sign design; Figure 3).

Figure 11. A red cross over the standard exit sign design.

The experimental procedure was the same with Trial Series 2.1. One hundred and fifty two volunteers took part in Trial Series 2.2.

Details on the trial are described in D5.2 and the results about the evacuation process and the volunteers’ decision-making process are presented in the D5.3.


The deliverable D5.2 was due on M25 (30 November 2013) and was delivered on 17 December 2013. There was no impact on the work progress.


As in the previous task, FGC resources devoted to the trial have been significantly higher than planned due to the complexity of the trial and the number of personnel requested to properly carry it out, as trials have meant the disruption of the regular railway traffic and the coordination tasks to resume the service, as well as the coordination activities with several external services such as the Police, ambulance, civil protection and other related institutions.

Effort (PM)


FGC 2 3.9

BMT 0.3 0.75

EL 0.4 2.6

HE 0.5 0.3

UOG 0.25 0.25

Total 3.7 7.8


Not applicable.

3.5.3 Summary of progress in ‘T5.7 Simulation of Trial 2 terminal 1 (UK) and analysis of results’ towards task objectives [UOG, FGC, BMT]

UoG performed video and questionnaire analysis for the Trials Series 2 trials, which were conducted to assess the effectiveness of the ADSS in comparison with the standard exit signage system. Based on the data derived from the results for the FGC station, UoG performed additional analytical and simulation work for the selected LUL station, compensating for the absence of other ADSS trials originally planned as part of WP5. The

results of all above work were reported in D5.3, which was submitted on the 16th April 2014. The work in this task will be reported in D5.3 (Analysis of Results).

FGC has contributed to the Trials S2 analysis of results by inputting the questionnaire data into a database, performing an initial data analysis and carrying out staff debriefings from personnel taking part in the trials.


The work of WP5 was scheduled to be completed in M26 and it was eventually completed in M30. This delay was due to UoG taking on additional analytical and simulation work in T5.7 compensating for the absence of other ADSS trials planned as part of WP5 and waiting for key data for some analysis. The report (D5.3) describing this effort for WP5 was submitted on the 16th April 2014. While the WP description was changed in the formal modification to the WP, the delivery time was not altered and this contributed to the reported deviation.


Effort (PM)


UOG 8.5 17.25

FGC 0.2 0.2

BMT 0.25 0

Total 8.8 17.45


Not applicable.

3.6 WP7 Development of Decision Engine [M7 – M18: 01/05/2012 – 30/04/2013]

The objective of this work package is the development and testing of the Decision Engine and control software.

3.6.1 Summary of progress in ‘T7.1 Development of ISES library.’ towards task objectives [KL, FGC, BMT, UoG, VSL]

The work in this task was completed in the first period M1-M18. In the second period, the deliverable was completed and submitted.


The delivery date for the document was Month 18 (April 2013). The deliverable was submitted on 08 July 2013. There was no impact on the progress of the work.


Effort (PM)


KL 0 0

BMT 0.03 0.1

UOG 0 0

FGC 0 0

VSL 0 0

Total 0.03 0.13


Not applicable.

3.6.2 Summary of progress in ‘T7.2 Development of Decision engine interface.’ towards task objectives [BMT, UoG, HE, EL, VSL, FGC]

The majority of the work in this task was completed in the first period of the project, M1-M18. In the second period (M19-M3) BMT worked on improvements of the DE and interface in order to meet the requirements of the stakeholder FGC.

VSL has made a contribution to this task by specifying and developing the data interchange module that functions between the CCTV Analysis Engine (CAE) and the Decision Engine (DE). It was decided and agreed between VSL and BMT to integrate the count database in the CAE rather than the DE. This will permit improved data flow from the CAE and facilitate system integration prior to TS3. Original specification for matching counting zones from CAE will be changed to match newly designed Sant Cugat platform coloured zones specified during TS2 trials. The module includes a PostGreSQL database which receives the CAE analysis output as follows:

Region ID Region Description TimeStamp People Count Uncertainty

The work in task T7.2 will contribute towards the deliverable D7.2.

The work in task T7.2 contributed towards the deliverable D7.2.


The deliverable D7.2 was due on M18 (end of April 2013). It was finalised and uploaded on ECAS on 17/12/13. The delay had no impact on the progress of the project. The DE was used in the final Trial Series 3 which took place in May 2014.


Effort (PM)


BMT 1 2.2

UOG 0 0

EL 0 0

FGC 0.5 0

HE 1.3 0

VSL 0 0.3

Total 2.8 2.5


Not applicable.

3.6.3 Summary of progress in ‘T7.3 Development of Decision Engine’ towards task objectives [BMT, UoG, HE, FGC]

The majority of the work in this task was completed in the first period of the project, M1-M18. In the second period, BMT worked with UOG in improving the cost function and the evacuation ranking algorithms to meet the requirements of the stakeholder FGC.

Developing the DE required a number of tasks including the following:

1. Design the selection metric (cost function) for the DE. This would utilise data from each simulated evacuation scenario to identify which evacuation scenario was optimal given the existing fire situation.

2. The selection of a fire library case which best matches the detector data. This is an algorithm which takes detector data and determines which case in the pre-calculated fire library (created in T8.3) best matches the current detector information.

Given that these tasks require considerable evacuation and fire expertise, UoG took primary responsibility for the design of the relevant algorithms. BMT implemented the UoG designed algorithms. BMT also refined the fire selection algorithm and in collaboration with UoG, tuned the algorithms' parameters.

The work in task T7.3 contributed towards the deliverable D7.2.


UoG supported BMT in the development of the decision engine. UoG has taken responsibility for the development of the procedural matrix, given that it is driven by the simulation results.

This work was completed by M21. This delay was due to the task being more complex than originally thought and UoG now being responsible for the design of the cost function, and verification and refinement. This work is related to WP10 - especially T10.2: Integration of Evacuation Simulation Engine with the Decision Engine, which was scheduled to start in M18. However, the modified approach (i.e. that UoG design and test the cost function that is then implemented by BMT in the DE) is a more integrated process - necessarily requiring more interaction between the partners and a more coherent and integrated design for the software components. BMT also specified the protocols and messages for data transfer between the DE and the ESE, which were implemented by BMT and UoG together, and both partners tested and refined these. Given this, it is not anticipated that the slight delay in the completion of D7.2 will have any impact on other tasks.


Effort (PM)


BMT 1 2.2

UOG 0 1.54

FGC 0.25 0

HE 0.6 0

VSL 0 0

Total 1.85 3.74


Not applicable.

3.6.4 Summary of progress in ‘T7.4 Testing and refinement’ towards task objectives [BMT, UoG, HE, VSL, FGC, KL]

Most of the testing and refinement between the DE and the rest of ESE and CAE took place in the first period of the project, M1-M18. In the second period, further testing and refinement was carried out when improvements on the DE interface and the ranking algorithms took place.

VSL has contributed to this task by working with BMT to define, test, and verify the data interchange module functions correctly.


The slight delay in consulting FGC on the UI has not impacted the timeline of any other task, and will be completed by the end of June 2013 (M20).


Effort (PM)


BMT 1 2.15

UOG 0.35 1

FGC 0.25 0.2

HE 0.5 0

VSL 0 0.3

KL 0.2 0.2

Total 1.95 2.85


BMT contacted FGC to discuss and finalise the requirements of the UI.

3.7 WP8 Evacuation Software Enhancement [M5 – M17: 01/03/2012 – 31/03/2013]

This work package has the following objectives

Extend the capabilities of the evacuation simulation software to accommodate the data input and output requirements of GETAWAY

Represent the Dynamic Signage System

Create the parallel implementation to be used in the Trial Series 3 demonstration

3.7.1 Summary of progress in ‘T8.2 Develop capability to transfer data between the Evacuation Simulation Engine and CCTV data’ towards task objectives [UOG, VSL]

VSL has contributed to this task by developing the data interchange module and testing it together with the DE with BMT assistance. The specified data including timestamp, number of people, numbers in detection zones, location of zones, and uncertainty level:

- The interface has been tested with the DE providing: number of people at specific locations;

density of crowd at such locations; rate of update of these values; and the accuracy and

reliability of these measurements. The interface module is implemented in PostgreSQL.

- Tested interface with DE at BMT June 2013. Agreed protocol/procedures with either

Ethernet or WiFi interconnect at Sant Cugat.

- Further active testing carried out during M24+ prior to TS3 using VSL acquired count data

from FGC supplied CCTV data footage.

- Developed asynchronous interface via Database to communicate crowd counts to the DE

(T6.3)

- Successfully tested Database (now in CAE) connectivity against DE over network connection.


The deliverable D8.2 was due in M17 (31 March 2013) and was delivered in M23 (27 September 2013). This delay was due to the improvements introduced in the task T8.1. and had no impact on the progress of the project.


Effort (PM)


UOG 0 0

VSL 0 0.5

Total 0 0.5


This task was slightly delayed, given the modified approach adopted, but did not have an impact on the other tasks as it was not required until later in the project.

3.7.2 Summary of progress in ‘T8.3 Enhancement of evacuation simulation software to produce information required by Decision engine’ towards task objectives [UOG, BMT, HE]

The majority of the work in this task was completed in the first period of the project: M1-M18. However, some further improvements to the fire libraries were required in order to increase the realism of the simulations at Sant Cugat Station.

The work in T8.2 will be contribute towards the deliverable D8.2


The deliverable D8.2 was due on M17 (31 March 2013) and was delivered on 6 September 2013 (M23). This delay was due to the improvements introduced in the task T8.1. and had no impact on the progress of the project.


Effort (PM)


UOG 1.46 1

BMT 0.5 0.5

HE 1 0

Total 2.96 1.5


Not applicable.

3.8 WP9 Simulation of Fire and Evacuation Test Cases [M2 – M14: 01/12/2011 – 31/12/2012]

The objective of this WP is to create a set of five fire and evacuation test cases, four of which will be used in the development of the Decision Engine and one of which will be used in the final assessment of the GETAWAY system.

3.8.1 Summary of progress in ‘T9.3 Perform coupled fire-evacuation simulations for 5 scenarios’ towards task objectives [BMT, UOG, FGC, HE]

The majority of the task was completed in the first period of the project: M1-M18. In the second half, UOG worked on improving the coupled fire-evacuation simulations based on the new fire libraries which were developed for the Sant Cugat station. The fire libraries were necessary for the effective functioning of the IADSS.

The work in T9.3 is reported in D9.3 and D9.4.


The deliverables D9.3 and D9.4 were due on M13 (30 November 2012). The reports (D9.3 and D9.4) submitted in M23. This had no effect on the progress of the work since the results were used in Trial Series 3, M31.

3.8.1.2 Use of resource

See the table below for description of person-months planned and person-months employed. UoG was allotted 6 person-months in total and used 5.24 person-months during period M19-M36. In most WP, UoG have used more person-months than allocated. This is generally due to additional work UoG was assigned as well as the use of less experienced staff than originally envisaged in the proposal. These staff required more time to complete the tasks than a more experienced staff member would require. However, as the less experienced staff are charged at a lower person-month rate than originally budgeted, the additional person-months did not negatively impact the overall budget. In addition, the additional person-months required to complete the tasks did not negatively impact the overall project schedule.

Effort (PM)


BMT 0 0

UOG 0 5.24

FGC 0 0

HE 0 0

Total 0 5.24


Not applicable.

3.9 WP10 System Integration [M18 – M28: 01/04/2013 – 28/02/2014]

This work package has the following objectives

Integrate all the components of the Intelligent Active Dynamic Signage System

Install the Intelligent Active Dynamic Signage System within the FGC over ground station.

3.9.1 Summary of progress in ‘T10.1 Integration of CCTV and the fire detection system with the Decision engine’ towards task objectives [BMT, HE, VSL, UOG]

BMT worked on this task with partners UOG and VSL. UoG and BMT implemented the fire selection algorithm (defined in T7.3, see Section 2.6.3) which allows the fire detection emulation data (i.e. the fire library cases produced in WP8 and WP9) to be used by the DE and ESE to configure the evacuation simulation scenarios. UoG and BMT worked together to test and refine the implementation of the algorithm that integrates the Fire Detection System, the DE and ESE.

UoG, BMT and VSL also worked together to develop a data transfer interface that integrates the CAE, DE and ESE, so that the real-time people counting data can be transferred to the ESE to configure the evacuation simulation scenarios.

Integration of the CCTV Analysis Engine (CAE) with the Decision Engine (DE) was undertaken between partners VSL and BMT building on the Data Interchange Module developed earlier (Figure 12). The data flows are as follows:

Figure 12. The CAE – DE integration

3.9.1.1 Acquiring CCTV Video Streams as data input

The CCTV video streams at Sant Cugat were available from a rack-mounted system in analogue format. All the platform cameras were analogue therefore dedicated hardware i.e. frame-grabbers, were acquired (unbudgeted) to digitise the CCTV feeds for processing by the CAE. Sensoray Model 2226 frame-grabbers were used via a USB 2.0 interface providing H.264 video encoder that supports a variety of resolutions in both PAL/NTSC format. The encoder outputs a H.264 MPEG stream. The selected platform camera streams (4) plus (2) duplicates were fed into the frame-grabbers using BNC cable and the

CAE received the digitized stream from the frame-grabbers via USB. So as not to interfere with normal station CCTV operations, the signal was split using BNC splitters.

3.9.1.2 The CAE person counting module

The CAE person counting module took as input the digitized CCTV video frames as 6 separate streams and produced the estimated number of people in each of the 6 defined count regions together with their uncertainties. As such, it was dependent on the quality of the input image frames and is susceptible to error in the case of poor visibility (e.g. occlusion either due to physical objects or due to people closer to the camera occluding others further away from the camera), unstable lighting (e.g. strong sunlight), reflections and/or flashing signage.

The crowd count estimates were produced by a pre-trained regression model which uses the segmentation-based features extracted from each frame to estimate the number of people in the region.

3.9.1.3 Backend PostgreSQL database

The CAE wrote the computed counts to a back-end PostgreSQL database containing a table which listed the count regions and their current person counts along with the timestamp associated with the count. The table was updated at 1 second intervals to reflect the current person count. Since historical counts were not recorded, the database was minimal (about 6MB on disk) and could conveniently be hosted on the same computer as the CAE.

3.9.1.4 Integration with Decision Engine

To retrieve the detected counts per region at any given time, the DE read the person count table. Hence the interaction between the CAE and the DE was wholly asynchronous and decoupled. The DE connected to the database via a LAN network, i.e. router and Ethernet cable, as WiFi was considered too unreliable and potentially susceptible to interference.

The work in this task will be reported in the deliverable D10.1.


The DE did not receive fire data from an actual fire detection system. The fire data werw emulated using a Hochiki fire model (see Amended DOW).

Deliverable D10.1 was due in February 2014. The report was submitted in January 2015. Nonetheless, the output of the task (software, installation and testing) was completed and used in the final full scale Trial Series 3.


See the table below for description of person-months planned and person-months employed. UoG was allotted 1 person-month in total and used 3.5 person-months during period M19-M36. In most WP, UoG have used more person-months than allocated. This is generally due to additional work UoG was assigned as well as the use of less experienced staff than originally envisaged in the proposal. These staff required more time to complete the tasks than a more experienced staff member would require. However, as the less experienced staff are charged at a lower person-month rate than

originally budgeted, the additional person-months did not negatively impact the overall budget. In addition, the additional person-months required to complete the tasks did not negatively impact the overall project schedule.

Effort (PM)


BMT 1.9 2.2

UOG 1 3.5

HE 2 0

VSL 2 1.7

Total 6.9 7.4


Not applicable.

3.9.2 Summary of progress in ‘T10.2 Integration of Evacuation Simulation Engine with the Decision Engine’ towards task objectives [UoG, BMT, VSL, HE]

UoG and BMT worked together to test and refine the implementation of the data transfer interface between the DE and ESE. UoG also helped BMT implement and test the implementation of the Safe Egress Route Metric (SERM) Algorithm developed by UoG. This work was originally assigned to BMT but was undertaken by UoG as additional effort.

Using UoG supplied data VSL carried out preliminary testing of the CAE against physical regions or zones marked out on the platform. This was introduced by UoG to verify its Evacuation Simulation Engine crowd density/distribution expectations for the TS3 trials. However it was found that platform cameras at Sant Cugat were poorly positioned and required repositioning or new cameras be added by FGC.



See the table below for description of person-months planned and person-months employed. UoG was allocated 3 person-months in total and used 6.5 person-months during period M19-M36. In most WP, UoG have used more person-months than allocated. This is generally due to additional work UoG was assigned as well as the use of less experienced staff than originally envisaged in the proposal. These staff required more time to complete the tasks than a more experienced staff member would require. However, as the less experienced staff are charged at a lower person-month rate than originally budgeted, the additional person-months are not expected to impact the overall budget. In addition, the additional person-months required to complete the tasks did not negatively impact the overall project schedule, as the results were not required until later in the project (WP11).

The repositioned platform cameras at Sant Cugat to accommodate the marked zones meant that new video data had to be acquired over several scenarios and the video analysed to re-train the CAE count models. A laborious task as it required sensitive coordination with Sant Cugat station staff, FGC, checking for video data usefulness and then testing the count models against this data for retraining.



Effort (PM)


BMT 1.9 2.5

UOG 2.9 6.5

HE 2 0

VSL 1 1.0

Total 7.8 10.0


Cameras on Platform 2 were repositioned and new cameras were added to improve coverage, acquire new video data, and retrain count models on CAE.

3.9.3 Summary of progress in ‘T10.3 Integration of Control System with the Decision engine’ towards task objectives [BMT, HE, EL, FGC]

BMT has worked on the integration of the Decision Engine networking events with the User Interface prototype. BMT discussed with FGC the best possible way that the UI could be used by the incident manager within the Sant Cugat station.

FGC has contributed with data on the User Interface (FGC Incident Manager), to be integrated with the Decision Engine and the alarm system. Installation carried out to allow the integration.





Effort (PM)


BMT 1.5 0.1

EL 0.1 0.1

FGC 0.5 0.5

HE 1 0

Total 3.1 0.7


Not applicable.

3.9.4 Summary of progress in ‘T10.4 Test System Integration’ towards task objectives [BMT, UOG, EL, FGC, HE, VSL]

The core subsystems of the IADSS, the emulated Fire Detection System (FDS), CCTV Analysis Engine (CAE), Decision Engine (DE) and Evacuation Simulation Engine (ESE) were integrated and tested by BMT, UoG and VSL. The entire system was then installed at the FGC station with the assistance of FGC for further testing.

Due to requirement for further video data from Sant Cugat (T10.2) before video analysis could be completed and that the DE interface was incomplete this task was delayed until just prior to the TS3 trial using dummy data. BMT and VSL conducted several tests (Feb 2014 @ VSL) over a network to ensure the count data could be polled by the DE using the Data Interchange module and the PostGreSQL DB.

As reported earlier the DB was integrated in the CAE rather than the DE and additional testing was performed to ensure correct functioning.

FGC has carried out the testing of the integrated system and CCTV data have been recorded for 45 hours to update the CCTV DB. The obtained data have been analysed, images extracted and cameras have been repositioned.

The work in this task will be reported in the deliverable D10.1


Due to the late availability of new video data from Sant Cugat it was not possible to comprehensively test/retrain the count models in the CAE prior to the TS3 trial and it was decided to complete the testing during setup of the TS3 trials at Sant Cugat. Not ideal as it was difficult to get enough time for the retraining of the CAE count models while normal operations of Sant Cugat continued.



See the table below for description of person-months planned and person-months employed. UoG was allotted 2 person-months in total and used 4.5 person-months during period M19-M36. In most WP, UoG have used more person-months than allocated. This is generally due to additional work UoG was assigned as well as the use of less experienced staff than originally envisaged in the proposal. These staff required more time to complete the tasks than a more experienced staff member would require.

However, as the less experienced staff are charged at a lower person-month rate than originally budgeted, the additional person-months did not negatively impact the overall budget. In addition, the additional person-months required to complete the tasks did not negatively impact the overall project schedule.

Effort (PM)


BMT 1 1

UOG 2 4.5

EL 0.25 0.25

FGC 0.5 0.5

HE 2 0

VSL 2 2

Total 7.75 8.25


From testing of the CAE in T10.4 it was determined that target accuracy levels were achievable using the CAE determined count zones (ie as seen by camera view), however the requirement to match count accuracy against the UOG defined (painted) zones proved problematic as they did not readily match the CAE automated counting zone. This was artificially applied so that the simulation engine assumptions for platform occupancy could be internally verified.

It is thought that a future system utilizing GETAWAY would have better video coverage with strategies to cope with occlusion, lighting variations and likely crowd distribution on a platform to achieve a reliable crowd estimate in the region of interest to an accuracy ~90%.

3.10 WP11 Full Scale Terminal Trials [M28 (01/02/2014) – M34 (31/08/2014)]

The objective of this WP is to test, quantify and evaluate the performance of the GETAWAY Intelligent Active Dynamic Signage System in a realistic application within a rail terminal. Work package 10 will start in M28.

3.10.1 Summary of progress in ‘T11.1 Up-date system set-up and Testing’ towards task objectives [BMT, HE, FGC, EL, VSL, UoG, KL]

In order to prepare for the TS3 trials that test the GETAWAY IADSS in a realistic application within a rail terminal, UoG had completed the following tasks towards the objectives:

Revised the TS3 trial plan and questionnaire based on the feedback received during the TS2 trials. The questionnaire was then translated into Catalan by FGC.

Worked with EL to improve the design of the dynamic signage to be used in TS3 trials.

Set up the IADSS (see Figure 13) at the FGC station with BMT, VSL, HE and FGC in the control room of the FGC Sant Cugat station three days prior to the trials. The CAE, hosted on VSL’s computer, was connected to the station CCTV system to get a live input of video footage for counting people in the trial area. The (emulated) FDS and DE were hosted on BMT’s computer and connected through virtual Ethernet connection. The ESE was hosted on UoG’s computer in the same room as the DE. The CAE, DE and ESE were connected through an Ethernet hub. Once these subsystems were connected, the integration of the subsystems was tested and refinements were made where necessary.

Prepared the measurement equipment (6 video cameras on the trial platform and 2 on the opposite platform) to be used in the TS3 trials and installed them at the FGC station.

Figure 13. Setup of FDS, CAE, DE and ESE in the control room of the FGC Sant Cugat station.

VSL contributed to the T11.2 Third series intelligent signage system trial by installing, setting up and connecting its CAE to the Sant Cugat CCTV system via analogue to digital video convertors and to the IADSS via the DE by Ethernet. VSL was present during both phases of the tests and ran the CAE to determine crowd numbers waiting to board the train. The CAE (installed on a laptop) was connected to the CCTV system via

Network Hub

CAE FDS & DE

ESE

FGC Station CCTV

Live video

framegrabber hardware to convert the analogue to digital video for the CAE. The Communications Room at Sant Cugat houses the rack-mounted CCTV systems including switches and DVRs (Figure 14):

Figure 14. Left: CCTV BNC connectors. Right: DVRs with Ethernet connectors.

The rack mounted arrangement offered limited space for setting up and connecting the CAE laptop and associated framegrabber hardware. It was determined that the DE would best be located in the Power Room (Figure 15) next to the IADSS and connected via Ethernet cable. The layout of the station building is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 15. Layout of Sant Cugat station building. Distances are a very rough estimate.

Due to some less than optimum coverage from existing CCTV cameras (many blind spots) VSL requested modifications to the camera positions and layouts on both platforms to improve CAE robustness during the trial.

Sant Cugat staff were only able to offer some re-positioning of cameras but were unable to add-in new cameras for the trial, therefore there were some compromises made using only 4 cameras which have views along the platform.

FGC has supervised the up-date system in the Sant Cugat station where trials S3 have been carried out and FGC control and operational staff have been trained in the operation of the GETAWAY system.



The deliverable D11.1 was due in August 2014 (M34) and was submitted on 24 November 2014. This delay had no impact on the progress of work.


Effort (PM)


BMT 1 1.5

UOG 1 2

EL 1 2.0

FGC 1 1.1

HE 0.3 0.3

VSL 2 1.5

KL 0.3 0.3

Total 6.6 8.7


Not applicable.

3.10.2 Summary of progress in ‘T11.2 Trials of GETAWAY intelligent signage system’ towards task objectives [FGC, BMT, HE, EL, VSL, UoG, KL]

FGC has coordinated the final full scale trial series which aimed to test and evaluate the effectiveness of the IADSS. The Trial Series 3 (TS3) took place in Sant Cugat station in Barcelona and included the following three set ups

TS3.1: a comparable case with Trial Series 2.2 where the participant population was distributed across the platform in the seven coloured crowd boxes. It took place on 31/05/2014 with 171 volunteers (not previously taken part in any other trial).

TS3.2 (additional trial): an extreme case where a small participant population was placed at the opposite end to the intended exit (Exit D). It took place on 01/06/2014 with 64 volunteers

TS3.3: a repeat of TS3.1 with a reduced participant population for which the intended exit (Exit D) was their nearest exit. It took place on 01/06/2104 with 139 volunteers.

TS3 used redesigned dynamic signage by EL and UoG so that it could convey both positive information (identifying an exit that could be used) and negative information (identifying exits that should not be used). For example, based on the incident scenario used in both TS2 and TS3 (i.e., Exit 3 is viable and Exits 1 and 2 are non-viable), the DDS installed in Exit 2 (middle exit on Platform 2 at Sant Cugat station, see Figure 6) would indicate that ‘this’ exit (Exit 2) and the exit to the left (Exit 1) are non-viable while the exit to the right (Exit 3) is viable (see Figure 5). In addition, slightly modified voice alarm message which did not instruct participants to exit via their nearest exit were used in TS3.2 and TS3.3.

The experimental procedure was the same with TS2 and comprised of three phases:

1. Registration and allocation to groups,

2. Transportation to Sant Cugat, evacuation and fill in questionnaire

3. Return to the University station, hand in questionnaire and receive compensation

More than 30 professionals from FGC besides some more 20 external people have been involved. Two committees were created to ensure the success of the trials: a TS3 planning committee made up of representative of the various areas of the company involved in the trials organization and implementation and a TS3 ethics committee, responsible of the assessment on the selection and recruitment of volunteers needed to properly carry out the GETAWAY system testing.



The deliverable D11.1 was due in August 2014 (M34) and was submitted on 24 November 2014. This delay had no impact on the progress of work.


As with trials Series 2, FGC use of resources have been higher than planned due to the complexity of the trials and the number of personnel requested to properly carry them out, as trials have meant the disruption of the regular railway traffic and the coordination tasks to resume the regular service as well as the coordination activities with several external services such as the Police, ambulance, civil protection and other related institutions.

Effort (PM)

Partner Estimated for period M19-M36

Actual for period M19-M36

BMT 1 0.75

UOG 1 0.5

EL 1 1.0

FGC 8.5 11.65

HE 1 0.2

VSL 3 2

KL 0.3 0.3

Total 15.8 16.4


Not applicable.

3.10.3 Summary of progress in ‘T11.3 Evaluation of results’ towards task objectives [BMT, UoG, HE, EL, VSL, KL, FGC]

UoG completed the video footage and questionnaire analysis for the TS3 series trials. The deliverable D11.1 reporting the results was submitted on the 29th October 2014.

The deliverable D11.1 presents the results of the Trial Series 3 trials (TS3.1, TS3.2 and TS3.3), which were performed to demonstrate, quantify and evaluate the performance of the ‘Intelligent Active Dynamic Signage System’ (IADSS) in a realistic application within a rail terminal. These three trials involved a total of 374 volunteer participants (171, 64 and 139 in each of the trials respectively). The trials were undertaken on one platform of the station which was occupied only by the trial participants. The evacuation was in response to a hypothetical fire adjacent to the ticket office.

The three trials which took place on the 31st May (TS3.1) and 1st June 2014 (TS3.2 and TS3.3) are:

TS3.1: a comparable case with TS2.2 where the participant population was distributed across the platform in the seven coloured crowd boxes.

TS3.2 (additional trial): an extreme case where a small participant population was placed at the opposite end to the intended exit (Exit D).

TS3.3: a repeat of TS3.1 with a reduced participant population for which the intended exit (Exit D) was their nearest exit.

All three trials used redesigned dynamic signage by EL and UoG so that it could convey both positive information (identifying an exit that could be used) and negative information (identifying exits that should not be used).

The performance of the DE and the overall IADSS system demonstrated in the TS3 trials was evaluated on four levels. In the level 1 analysis, the raw results from the demonstration trials were analysed. The level 2 analysis utilised the results derived from the level 1 analysis and compared them with the results produced from the TS2 series of trials in the same FGC station. The level 3 analysis involved UoG undertaking an analysis of the coupled fire-evacuation simulation for the path selected by the DE. Finally, the level 4 analysis involved FGC analysing the fire scenario and the results of the level 1 and level 3 analysis, and suggesting how FGC would have handled the evacuation.

The level 1 analysis showed that 66.7% of the participant population in TS3.1, 65.6% in TS3.2 and 66.9% in TS3.3 followed the guidance of the IADSS and used Exit D. For those participants for which Exit D was not their nearest exit, 48.6% in TS3.1, 65.6% in TS3.2 and 57.8% in TS3.3 utilised Exit D. Furthermore, rather than 100% of the population utilising their nearest exit, as would be expected (and demonstrated in TS2.1 without the IADSS), in TS3.1 60% of the population whose nearest Exit was Exit A used Exit A and 35% of the population whose nearest exit was Exit C used Exit C; in TS3.2, only 34% elected to use their nearest exit; and in TS3.3, 40% of the population whose nearest Exit was Exit A used Exit A and 45.4% of the population whose nearest exit was Exit C used Exit C. These demonstrated a significant reduction in the numbers using their nearest exit as a result of the impact of the IADSS on exit selection (i.e. guiding all participants to use Exit D only in the evacuation).

VSL undertook a thorough evaluation of the CAE results following the TS2 (CAE not active in trial but tested against live Sant Cugat data) & TS3 trials.

Evaluation of CAE output against know platform counts

In order to evaluate the accuracy of the Crowd Count Module (CCM), we compared the reported counts in the user defined seven different target zone colour boxes drawn on the ground used by UOG to mark the initial count.

Overall, the automatically estimated results by the CCM were very good in those boxes that were clearly visible in the cameras and did not suffer from occlusion. In regions that were inherently occluded severely due to the camera viewpoint being relatively low, CCM accuracy suffered as can be expected. Some boxes were not at all visible in the cameras and hence no automatic counting by the CCM could be performed there.

All tests used 1000 frames and compared counts reported by the CAE against the known initial population in the coloured box. The count accuracy was defined as:

Examples

Yellow Box, Camera 14

In camera 14 we have a clear view of this region without occlusions (see Figure below) during the period when the region was occupied by an initial population of 11 people. Comparing the reported counts against this know population we achieved an accuracy of 94%.

Purple Box, Camera 20

In camera 20 we have a clear view of this region without occlusions during the period when the region was occupied by an initial population of 13 people. Comparing the reported counts against this known population we achieved an accuracy of 89%.

Orange Box, Camera 14 and Camera 20

The Orange box was located directly below camera 14 and 20 and therefore about half of this region was visible in each of the cameras. We estimated the counts in this region by performing counting in each of the visible regions and adding the results, which was compared against the actual number of people of 27 in the box. Since people directly below the cameras would not be visible in either view, we expect some deterioration in accuracy. Nevertheless, we achieved an accuracy of 90% in this region.

White Box, Camera 20

The white box was located behind the purple box in the camera view. Because of this, people in this region were obscured by people in the purple region. Moreover, the distance from the camera meant that visibility was poor in this region and further aggravated by the difference in lighting at the end of the platform. Comparing the reported counts against the actual number of 25 people in this region, we measured an accuracy of 68%.

Comparisons between counts reported by the CAE and the known count of the people of the platform indicates a high level of accuracy (around 90% or above) in regions that were clearly visible, i.e. not too far away from the camera, unobscured by other regions closer to the camera and with stable lighting conditions.

FGC has contributed to the evaluation of results. Feedback from FGC staff was collected after completion of the trial and analysed to understand the reaction from passengers during the trials.

Detailed analysis of results is reported in the deliverable D11.1.


UoG took primary responsibility for the video footage and questionnaire analysis for the TS3 series trials. The deliverable D11.1 was due in August 2014 (M34) and was submitted on 24 November 2014. This delay had no impact on the progress of work.


See the table below for description of person-months planned and person-months employed. UoG was allotted 4.5 person-months in total and used 12.18 person-months during period M19-M36. In most WP, UoG have used more person-months than allocated. This is generally due to additional work UoG was assigned as well as the use of less experienced staff than originally envisaged in the proposal. These staff required more time to complete the tasks than a more experienced staff member would require. However, as the less experienced staff are charged at a lower person-month rate than originally budgeted, the additional person-months did not negatively impact the overall budget. In addition, the additional person-months required to complete the tasks did not negatively impact the overall project schedule.

Effort (PM)


BMT 2 0.1

UOG 2.5 12.18

EL 1.5 1.5

FGC 0.5 0.5

HE 0.5 0

VSL 3 3

KL 0.4 0

Total 10.4 17.28


Not applicable.

3.11 WP12 Terminal Design Recommendations [M17 – M36: 01/03/2013 – 31/10/2014]

The objective of this work package is to assess the results from the trials and develop documents outlining guidance and recommendations obtained from the development and application of GETAWAY

3.11.1 Summary of progress in ‘T12.1 Guidelines for GETAWAY installation’ towards task objectives [HE, BMT, UoG, EL, VSL]

UoG contributed a number of recommendations on the installation of the IADSS. These included the requirements for the ESE, the DE (with BMT), the ISES library (with BMT) and the fire case library. UoG assisted KL to prepare the technical report concerning the guidelines for the GETAWAY installation.

For the installation of a GETAWAY style system using the CAE system for analysing/estimating crowd numbers (based on accuracy evaluation shown above in T11.3), the following design considerations would need to be considered:

CAE Installation Considerations

Comparisons between counts reported by the CAE and the known count of the people of the platform indicated a high level of accuracy (around 90% or above) in those regions that were clearly visible, i.e. not too far away from the camera, unobscured by other regions closer to the camera and with stable lighting conditions.

Because stable lighting is not practically obtainable in an outdoors environment, VSL recommendation is that the CAE only be used in indoors or more controlled environments, where the lighting conditions are predictable and can be calibrated. For outdoors environments light-insensitive cameras such as infrared would be required to guarantee a high degree of accuracy.

Furthermore, cameras need to be close enough to the regions in which counting will be performed to capture the scene without visual ambiguity. As a rule, the system will require the visibility of the scene to be at least as good as a human operator would do in order to manually count the number of people in the scene as this is how supervised training is conducted.



The deliverable D12.1 was due in April 2014 (M30) and was submitted on 9 December 2014. This delay had no impact on the progress of work.


Effort (PM)


BMT 1 1

UOG 1 1.25

EL 1 1.0

HE 1 0

VSL 1 0.4

Total 5 3.65


Not applicable.

3.11.2 Summary of progress in ‘T12.2 Guidelines for GETAWAY use’ towards task objectives [HE, EL, LUL, FGC]

FGC has given input to the Guideline for GETAWAY use concerning the specifications, locations and maintenance issues for the GETAWAY components.



The deliverable D12.2 was due in October 2014 (M36) and was submitted on 9 December 2014.


Effort (PM)


EL 0.5 0.5

FGC 1 0.5

HE 1 0

LUL 1 1

Total 3.5 2.0


Not applicable.

3.11.3 Summary of progress in ‘T12.3 Terminal design recommendations’ towards task objectives [KL, UoG, FGC, HE, VSL, LUL]

UoG assisted KL in preparing the technical report D12.3 concerning the terminal design recommendations, in particular the three levels of the IADSS installation.

2.11.3 VSL contributed towards the Terminal Design deliverable D12.3 and re-iterates the key elements required for a reliable and accurate crowd count performance of the CAE by careful positioning of cameras, controlled lighting, and removal of obstructions where

possible. If lighting cannot be properly controlled then it may be necessary to utilise light-insensitive sensors such as IR to get stable imaging of people on a platform/area.

FGC has contributed to the terminal design handbook with input about constructive design of terminals upon emergency actions and security criteria.



The deliverable D12.3 was due in October 2014 (M36) and was submitted on 9 December 2014.


Effort (PM)


UOG 0.5 1.5

FGC 0.5 0.3

HE 1 0

VSL 1 0.4

LUL 0.5 0.5

KL 3.5 3.63

Total 7 6.33


Not applicable.

3.12 WP13 Dissemination and Exploitation [M1 (01/11/2011) – M36 (31/10/2014)]

The objectives of this work package are

Disseminate GETAWAY results to a technical, political and commercial audience of the GETAWAY project results

Creation a business plans to exploit these results beyond the life of the project

3.12.1 Summary of progress in ‘T13.1 Dissemination’ towards task objectives [KL, BMT, UoG, EL, FGC, HE, VSL, LUL]

BMT has been updating and maintaining the project website (http://www.getaway-project.eu/). BMT with KL also participated at TRA 2014 in Paris disseminating research outcomes.

UoG (with the help of KL) organised and hosted a public workshop about the GETAWAY project on the 13th October 2014 at Greenwich. Prof Galea presented some GETAWAY results at a public lecture at the University of Greisswald Germany on 12th August, at a conference in Copenhagen dealing with evacuation of disabled people on the 4th Sept and an IOSH one day seminar in London on 9th Oct.

Vision Semantics by collaborating with the Queen Mary University of London Computer Vision Research Labs and several other computer vision research groups continues to be very active in disseminating any technological advancement it has made to the research and video content analysis community through many published papers, talks, conferences, commercial partners and through its website. VSL has also published a patent for ‘Crowd Estimation’ covering the original work it has done under this project.

FGC, besides the regular internal dissemination activities mainly linked with the organization of the trials and the training of the Staff being involved, has widely disseminated the GETAWAY project in the framework of the trials Series 2 and Series 3 organization and recruitment processes (Barcelona local press, FGC website, ticket vending machines, TV network at FGC stations, railway organizations websites, twitter, facebook…….). The trials carried out in the framework of the project have significantly contributed to widely spread GETAWAY objective and results.

Dissemination activities linked withTS3 trials:

http://www.fgc.cat/esp/simulacre.asp

http://www.finanzas.com/noticias/empresas/20130409/busca-voluntarios-para-simulacro-2270806.html

http://www.totsantcugat.cat/ca/cercador.php?search_cci24=Projecte+Getaway

http://www.vilaweb.cat/ep/ultima-hora/4103211/20130409/fgc-seleccionada-projecte-ue-getaway-devacuacio-destacions.html

http://www.totsantcugat.cat/ca/notices/2014/05/es-faran-dos-simulacres-a-l-estacio-de-fgc-de-sant-cugat-21291.php

http://www.agrupament.cat/portal/2013/04/fgc-seleccionada-pel-projecte-getaway-devacuacio-destacions/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDgJoQwu834



http://www.fgc.cat/esp/simulacre.asp



http://www.totsantcugat.cat/ca/cercador.php?search_cci24=Projecte+Getaway







https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDgJoQwu834

http://www.lavanguardia.com/local/sabadell/20130409/54371072420/fgc-acoge-plan-piloto-evacuaciones-emergencia.html

http://www.vialibre-ffe.com/noticias.asp?not=10532

The Discovery Channel has also created a documentary about GETAWAY: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbVT5OZfMF4&feature=youtu.be


Not applicable.


Effort (PM)


BMT 0.1 0.5

UOG 0.35 0.8

EL 0.4 0.4

FGC 0.45 0.48

HE 0.8 0

VSL 0 0.2

LUL 0.5 0.5

KL 0.2 1

Total 2.8 3.88


Not applicable.

3.12.2 Summary of progress in ‘T13.2 Exploitation’ towards task objectives [KL, BMT, UoG, EL, FGC, HE, VSL, LUL]

The exploitation strategy had been developing throughout the project and was based on both the project developments and the individual partner exploitation plans. This was reported through a questionnaire prepared by KL. In addition, partners have been actively promoting and exploiting GETAWAY results and technologies within different markets. For example, EL has continued to actively marketing the new dynamic signage system to industries requiring evacuation systems including developers and owners of complex civil structures. UOG has also been marketing the improved EXODUS software to existing commercial partners. BMT has been planning the incorporation of Decision Engine into their own fire simulation software for oil rigs.

VSL has been actively trawling the technology it has developed under the project with several commercial partners and other entities interested in reliable automated crowd estimation. VSL has contributed towards the D13.3 Exploitation Strategy deliverable and is extending its coverage internationally for its patent on novel algorithms for crowd estimates.



http://www.vialibre-ffe.com/noticias.asp?not=10532

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbVT5OZfMF4&feature=youtu.be

FGC has contributed to the GETAWAY exploitation strategy giving input from the end user point of view and has taken part in the exploitation workshop organized at the end of the project, which took place in London, on 13th October 2014.

The activities in this task are reported in the deliverables D13.3 and D13.4


VSL has expended more time than budgeted on Exploitation & Dissemination largely because extra time was required to draft and lodge a patent and also because of its research links to Queen Mary University of London it has jointly published several scientific papers on crowd counting that are receiving excellent citations.

The deliverables D13.3 and D13.4 were due in October 2013 and October 2014, respectively. Deliverable D13.3 was uploaded on ECAS on 25 May 2014 and deliverable D13.4 was submitted on 1 December 2014. The delays had no impact on the progress of the work.


Effort (PM)


BMT 0.1 0.1

UOG 0.395 0.5

EL 0.65 0.65

FGC 0.75 0.41

HE 0.85 0

VSL 0 0.2

LUL 0.5 0.5

KL 0.1 0.73

Total 3.345 3.09


Not applicable.

3.13 Project management during the period

The purpose of project management (T14.1) is to carry out the, contractual, ethical, financial and administrative management of the Getaway project to ensure that the deliverables and periodic reports are produced in accordance with the work plan and grant agreement.

BMT have led the overall project management of this task including the organisation of consortium and technical meetings the delivery of management and technical reports and the adherence to the work plan.

In the second period of the project, communication between the partners has also been effective, facilitated by emailing and the Teamspace tool. In addition, communication between the partners beyond emailing and Teamspace has always been encouraged, with phone conversations, teleconferences and face to face meeting where available and when appropriate.

3.14 Consortium management tasks and achievements

This task (T14.1) covers management of the GETAWAY project to ensure the delivery of project deliverables in accordance with the work schedule and include day-to-day management, risk management, planning, stage control, administrative management and liaison with the Project Officer.

The management team has ensured that the planned work has been carried out successfully and that the Trials will be run on schedule. In the second period of the project (M19-M13), the evaluation of ADSS (Trials Series 2) was carried out on 26/05/2013 (TS2.1) and 2/06/2013 (TS2.2) as planned with the participation of 317 volunteers. Similarly, the IADSS was evaluated during Trial Series 3 which took place on 31/05/2014 (TS3.1) and 01/06/2014 (TS3.2 and TS3.3) with the participation of 375 volunteers.

This was achieved through effective communication of planned work as well as assessment of potential risks that could have potentially compromise the progress of the project. The effective communication was achieved through

Technical meetings

General Assembly meetings

One Extraordinary General Meeting

Teleconferences

All partners were encouraged to communicate their concerns regarding work progress while the management team facilitated the resolution of those concerns through prompt intervention.

Problems, how they were solved or envisaged solutions

3.15 Changes in the consortium

Not applicable.

3.16 Project meetings

Date Location Country Title Purpose Attendees

14/05/2013 BMT, London

UK Integration and testing of IADSS

Integrate and test communication between CAE-DE and DE-ESE

Daniel Roythorne

Hui Xie

Linda Hogg

Yogesh Raja

23/05/2013 FGC,

Barcelona

Spain

TS2 preparations Reviewing TS2.1 set up and procedures.

Carles Terés

Albert Flores

Christos Giachritsis

Ed Galea

24/05/2013 Sant Cugat station,

Barcelona

Spain

TS2 preparations Rehearsal of TS2.1


Daniel Roythorne

Ed Galea

Hui Xie

Steve Deere

Brian Stevens

Bernard McDonagh

Carles Terés

Albert Flores.

Linda Hogg

30/05/2013 FGC,

Barcelona

Spain

TS2 preparations Reviewing TS2.2 set up and procedures.

Carles Terés

Albert Flores


Ed Galea

Brian Stevens

Bernard McDonagh

Leonard Manning

31/05/2013 Sant Cugat station,

Barcelona

Spain

TS2 preparations Rehearsal of TS2.2


Daniel Roythorne

Ed Galea

Hui Xie

Steve Deere

Brian Stevens

Bernard McDonagh

Carles Terés

Albert Flores.

Linda Hogg

Leonard Manning

07/10/2014 Queen Mary University, London

UK Fourth General Assembly Meeting

Six months (M19-M24) progress review and planning for the next sixth months (M25-M30)

Bob Koger

Linda Hogg

Sean Gong


Daniel Roythorne

Ed Galea

Hui Xie

Angus Grandison

Steve Deere

Brian Stevens

Bernard McDonagh

Carles Terés

Carmen Ceinos

Leonard Manning

Paul Bryant

Tony Cash

Paul Ebbutt

10/02/14 VSL,

London

UK CAE/DE Integration meeting with BMT

H&S CAE/DE Integration

Daniel Roythorne

Bob Koger

Linda Hogg

Michael Jones

Sean Gong

Luk Zalewski

18/02/2014 BMT, London

UK Integration and testing of IADSS

Integrate and test communication between DE-ESE

Daniel Roythorne

Hui Xie

28/04/2014 University of Greenwich, London

UK Fifth General Assembly Meeting

Six months (M25-M30) progress review and planning for the next sixth months (M31-


Ed Galea

Huie Xie

Steve Deere

M36) Brian Stevens

Bernard McDonagh

Carles Terés

Leonard Manning

Bob Koger

Linda Hogg

Paul Bryant

Paul Ebbutt

29.04.14 UOG

London

UK IADSS testing Integration discussions

Linda Hogg

Bilal Souti


Ed Galea

Hui Xie

Steve Deere

28/05/2014 FGC,

Barcelona

Spain

TS3 preparations Reviewing TS3 set up and procedures.

Carles Terés

Albert Flores


Daniel Roythorne

Ed Galea

Hui Xie

Bob Koger

Linda Hogg

Brian Stevens

Bernard McDonagh

Leonard Manning

30/05/2014 Sant Cugat station, Barcelona

Spain TS3 preparations Installation and testing of IADSS and rehearsal of TS3

Carles Terés

Albert Flores


Daniel Roythorne

Ed Galea

Hui Xie

Bob Koger

Linda Hogg

Brian Stevens

Bernard McDonagh

Leonard Manning

10/10/2014 University of Greenwich, London

UK Sixth General Assembly Meeting

Six months (M31-M36) progress review and planning for project conclusion.


Ed Galea

Huie Xie

Steve Deere

Brian Stevens

Bernard McDonagh

Carles Terés

Bob Koger

Linda Hogg

Paul Bryant

Paul Ebbutt

13/10/2014 Mitre Passage, Greenwich,London

UK Workshop Disseminating GETAWAY results to industry and stakeholders


Ed Galea

Huie Xie

Steve Deere

Brian Stevens

Bernard McDonagh

Carles Terés

Bob Koger

Linda Hogg

Paul Bryant,

Nicole Hoffmann

Tomasz Stachowicz

+ delegates

3.17 Project planning and status

By end of the period M19-M36, the project achieved all global objectives.

No Title Achieved? (Yes/No/Partially)

Comments

O1 Significantly improve the detectability of signage systems by 50%

Y The detectability of the DSS was shown to be increased by 103% compared to standard signs.

O2 Achieve this without increasing the size of the sign or changing the visual content of the sign, thereby making it acceptable to owners, architects and regulatory authorities

Y The size and visual content of the DSS is the same with the standard signs.

O3 Make use of environmental information relating to the developing hazardous situation in real-time.

Y This is was achieved in the second period M19-M36 and demonstrated during the full scale Trial Series 3 which evaluated the IADSS. The IADSS uses crowd data and also the temperature and smoke sensor data.

O4 Make use of video analysis techniques that can determine the number of people within given regions within the station environment to an accuracy of 90%

Y Initial lab tests of the algorithms that were developed for people counting indicated that the 90% accuracy could be exceeded. However, uncontrolled

lighting may affect this accuracy (see T11.3)

O5 Make use of evacuation simulations involving 100s of people which can be performed at least 3 times faster than real time.

Y This has been achieved. The combination of new algorithms and computing power has achieved evacuation simulations three times faster than real time.

3.18 Impact of deviations from the planned milestones and deliverables

The following table shows the deviations from the planned deliverables and milestones and their impact on the progress of the project in the second period (M19-M36) as well as its five global objectives (see Section 3.1). Note that the order of the table is based on the Milestones delivery dates.

Milestones Deliverables

No Name Delivery Date

Completion Date

No Deliverable Name

Delivery Date

Submission Date

Comments

MS8 Simulation of Emergency Scenarios

M14 M20 D8.1 Report concerning performance of parallel implementation for WP11 station (and software implementation)

M9 11/05/2013 There was a long delay with the completion of MS8 and submission of D8.1, due to the improvements on the computational models it was delivered on 11 May 2013. However, this delay will have no impact on the schedule, as it is not required until later in the project (WP11). See Section 2.11.1.1 for a more detailed explanation of this deviation from the planned deadline.

D8.2 Report describing new evacuation simulation software capabilities

M17 27/09/2013 There was a seven month delay in this submission (delivered in M23). This was primarily due to the additional effort required in T8.1 and in building the fire library and in the development and completion of the cost function being taken on by UoG. However, this delay is not expected to affect the schedule Trial Series 3 which were completed in time.

D9.1 Evacuation model for LUL

M5 31/05/2012 The submission of D9.1 was slightly delayed (about one and a

station to be used in T8.1

half months) due to the selection of the stations taking longer than expected, as well as the change in trial plans. This had no impact on the progress of the project.

D9.3 Perform fire and coupled fire-evacuation simulations for 4 scenarios and fire simulation for the 5th scenario

M13 27/09/2013 The work was scheduled to be completed in M13. There was a delay due to UoG taking on work previously planned for BMT (as it made more sense for UoG to complete this work) and due to additional effort that was required to address the problems associated with using the sensor data. However, the work has now been completed. The report D9.3 was compiled and submitted in M23.

D9.4 Perform comparative analysis (report)

M14 27/09/2013 The work was scheduled to be completed in M14. This delay was due to UoG taking on work previously planned for BMT (as it made more sense for UoG to complete this work) and due to additional effort that was required to address the problems associated with using the sensor data. However, the work has now been completed. The report D9.4 was compiled and submitted in M23.

MS7 Development of Decision Engine

M18 M20 D7.1 Report describing ISES

M18 27/09/2013 By M20 the scenarios for the libraries have been specified. However, the report D7.1 has been uploaded to ECAS with three

months delay on 08/07/2013. There is no impact on the progress and objectives of the project since the scenarios are already been used in the development of the Evacuation Simulation Engine and Decision Engine which will be tested during Trial Series 3 in M28-M30.

D7.2 Decision engine software report (and software)

M18 24/09/2014 By M19, the Decision Engine algorithms and the software have been finalised and tested on 14/05/2013.

The deliverable D7.2 was uploaded on ECAS on 17/12/2013. This delay has no impact on the progress of the project or its objects. The Decision Engine software and interface was ready for integration and testing with the IADSS which took place in M28-M30.

MS5 Installed and tested ADSS in terminals

M20 M20 D4.1 Report on ADSS installation and tests results report

M20

24/09/2014 The work toward MS5 finished in time and the Trial Series 2 was completed according to plan. The deliverable D4.1 was delayed by three months without implication for the progress of the project.

D4.2 Report and software concerning new Detection system capabilities

M20 23/12/2014 As explained in the amended DOW, due to the unavailability of the Gloucester Road Station (LUL) the Trial Series 2 and 3 tool place in Sant Cugat Station (FGC) in Barcelona. In Sant Cugat Station there were no legacy fire alarm systems installed and therefore

there was no need to develop software enabling integration of the fire detection system with the IADSS. Instead, HE developed the Fire Alarm Output Simulator (FAOS) (see D4.1) to activate the Dynamic Signage System (DDS) once the DE has evaluated the alternative evacuation strategies and produced the optimal evacuation route.

Thus the long delay of the submission of D4.2 had no effect on Trial Series 2 and 3 which were completed in time. This deliverable reports the current standards, detection performance and decision criteria as well as the types of fire detection systems that could potential be integrated into the GETAWAY IADSS.

D5.1 Summary report describing trials in terminal 1

N/A 16/12/2014 Due to the cancellation of installing and testing the ADSS at LUL, the work that would have been included in this deliverable was no longer required. Nonetheless, since the deliverable was included in the updated DOW, D5.1 has been submitted with an explanation about the cancelled effort.

D5.2 Summary report describing trials in terminal 2

M25 24/09/2014 Trial Series 2 were completed in time according to plan. The description of the trial was completed in M26 and the deliverable D5.2 was uploaded on

ECAS on 17/12/2013. However, it was not submitted till M35 due to a misunderstanding of the submission procedure by the coordinator.

D5.3 Report describing effectiveness of signage system

M26 24/09/2014 Trial Series 2 were completed in time according to plan. The analysis of results was completed in M31 and the deliverable D5.3 was uploaded on ECAS on 08/05/2014. However, it was not submitted till M35 due to a misunderstanding of the submission procedure by the coordinator

MS9 Software Integration

M28 M28 D10.1 System integration and testing report (and software)

M28 20/01/2015 The integration and testing of IADSS was completed in time for the Trial Series 3 in February 2014. The delay of the deliverable did not affect the progress of the Trial Series 3 and or their evaluation.

MS10 Full scale Trials of GETAWAY

M34 M36 D11.1 Evaluation of full scale terminal results

M34 24/11/2014 Trial Series 3 were completed in time according to plan on 1/06/2014. The analysis of results was completed and reported in M36.

MS11 Recommendations M36 M36 D12.1 Guidelines for GETAWAY installation

M30

09/12/2014 This deliverable was delayed with no implication for the project outcome.

D12.2 Guidelines for GETAWAY use

M36 09/12/2014 This deliverable was delayed with no implication for the project outcome

D12.3 Terminal design M36 09/12/2014 This deliverable was delayed with

handbook no implication for the project outcome.

D13.3 Exploitation of Project results Y2

M24 24/09/2014 This deliverable was delayed with no implication for the project outcome.

D13.4 Exploitation of Project results Y3

M36 16/12/2014 This deliverable was delayed with no implication for the project outcome.

3.19 Changes to the legal status of any of the beneficiaries

Not applicable.

3.20 Development of the Project website

A GETAWAY project website has been updated and can be accessed from the addresses below (http://www.getaway-project.eu). A video explaining the IADSS concept has also been added to the home page (Figure 16).

Figure 16.The home page of the updated website

3.20.1 Co-operation between other Project/Programmes

KL has been investigating possible collaborations between GETAWAY and the SECURESTATTION project. There were discussions in combining trials bur this did not progress since it was considered too risky for the GETAWAY final full scale trials.


3.21 Deliverables and milestones tables

See online Deliverables and Milestones tables.

3.22 Explanation of the use of the resources

This section of the report provides an explanation of personnel costs, subcontracting and any major costs incurred by each beneficiary, such as the purchase of important equipment, travel costs, large consumable items, etc., linking them to work packages.

VSL incurred additional costs in manpower and expenses due to poor positioning (in a computer vision sense) of cameras at Sant Cugat station platform chosen for the TS2 and TS3 trials. Apart from an extra trip to Barcelona to assess the CCTV system and determine how to reposition cameras, it was also necessary to purchase additional portable hard disks and analogue to digital conversion hardware to be able to access the video streams for the Project.

FGC encountered difficulties in recording sufficient and adequate test video footage from the CCTV system and this caused delays and difficulties in testing the counting models being developed to ensure the CAE was capable of performing to the accuracy required during the active IADSS trials (TS3).

With no ready access locally to LUL CCTV systems for the trials as was originally planned and budgeted, VSL expended further unbudgeted logistics costs on obtaining extra video data remotely from Barcelona.

More positively VSL developed algorithms and associated technology for crowd estimation was sufficiently innovative to warrant filing a patent in GB and EU. This patent has survived examination after some revision and has now been published in both the UK and EU. Costs associated with the patent filing have been included in the VSL financial statements.

[NOTE: The detailed costs have been reported in Form C]

3.23 Financial statements – Form C and Summary financial report

Please submit a separate financial statement from each beneficiary (if Special Clause 10 applies to your Grant Agreement, please include a separate financial statement from each third party as well) together with a summary financial report which consolidates the claimed Community contribution of all the beneficiaries in an aggregate form, based on the information provided in Form C (Annex VI) by each beneficiary.

When applicable, certificates on financial statements shall be submitted by the concerned beneficiaries according to Article II.4.4 of the Grant Agreement.

Besides the electronic submission, Forms C as well as certificates (if applicable), have to be signed and sent in parallel by post.

See submitted Form C on ECAS.

4 Appendices

4.1 Appendix 1: Ethical Approval for Trials Series 3

4.2 Appendix 2: Staff roles and responsibilities in Trials Series 3

Role Personnel Responsibility Communication Device

FGC Controller (FC)

FGC_1 Overall charge of the station, the trains and the participants.

Trial Controller (TC)

UOG_1 (EG) Overall charge of the smooth running of the trial.

1 walkie-talkie and 1 mobile phone or other device suitable for remote communication between stations.

TEAM1 EL_1, EL_2, FGC_2, HE_1

Signage team, needed throughout the trial. Made up of 4 people.

4 walkie-talkie required if Signage activation option 2 required

TEAM2 UOG_2, UOG_3, FGC_3

Video team, needed throughout the trial. Made up of 3 people.

1 walkie-talkie

TEAM3 GW_1, GW2_, FGC_4 to FGC_7

Questionnaire team, needed throughout the trial. Made up of at least 6 people. Need 3 Spanish speakers, one at each exit. The FGC staff must also speak English.

3 walkie-talkies

TEAM4 FGC_8 to FGC_16, UOG_4

Participant Management team, needed at the start of the trial and the end of the trial. Made up of at least 10 people.

1 mobile phone or other device suitable for remote communication between stations.

TEAM5 FGC_17, FGC_18, FGC_19, BMT_1

Platform Management team, needed during the trial. Made up of at least 4 people. The FGC staff must speak English.

1 walkie-talkie

TEAM6 VSL_1, VSL_2 CCTV Analysis Engine operation team. Made up of 2 people.

TEAM7 UOG_2, UOG_3, BMT_2

Decision Engine team, overseeing the Decision Engine operation. Made up of 3 people.

1 walkie-talkie (taken from TEAM2)

4.3 Appendix 3: Screen shots from the advertisement and registration form for Trials Series 3 at Sant Cugat in Barcelona, hosted on the FGC web site

Advertisement

http://www.lavanguardia.com/sucesos/20140319/54403236921/fgc-busca-figurantes-para-un-simulacro-de-accidente-en-sant-cugat.html



http://www.cugat.cat/noticies/societat/97820/ferrocarrils-organitza-dos-nous-simulacres-d_evacuacio-a-l_estacio-de-sant_cugat



http://www.naciodigital.cat/latorredelpalau/noticia/31338/es/busquen/participants/dos/simulacres/estacio/sant/cugat



Registration Form

5 References

[1] London Underground, “Station Planning Standards and Guidelines - Good Practice Guide”, G-371A, A2, May 2007.

[2] D. Fennell, Investigation into the King's Cross Underground Fire. The Stationery Office Books, 1988; ISBN 0-10-104992-7.

[3] Weinspach, P., M., Gundlach, J., Klingelhofer, H.,G., Ries, R., Schneider, U.,Analysis Of The Fire On April 11th, 1996, Recommendations And Consequences For Düsseldorf Rhein-Ruhr-Airport, Staatskanzlei Nordrhein-Wstfalen, Mannesmannufer 1 A, 40190 Düsseldorf, Germany, 1997.

[4] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/europe/2004/madrid_train_attacks/default.stm

[5] Report of the 7 July Review Committee, Greater London Authority, Chairman, Richard Barnes, ISBN 1 852618787, June 2006

[6] Gwynne, S., Galea, E. R., Owen, M., Lawrence, P. J., Escape As A Social Response, Published by the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, 1999.

[7] Xie, H., Filippidis, L., Galea, E.R., Blackshields, D., and Lawrence, P.J.."Experimental Study of the Effectiveness of Emergency Signage". Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Human Behaviour in Fire, Robinson College, Cambridge, UK, 13-15 July 2009, ISBN 978-0-9556548-3-1, 2009, pp. 289-300. pp. 289-300

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/europe/2004/madrid_train_attacks/default.stm

Date post:	13-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dinhquynh
View:	215 times
Download:	2 times

PROJECT PERIODIC REPORT - · PDF filePROJECT PERIODIC REPORT Grant ... KL] ... The attached...

Documents