Analysis of Evacuation Efficiency for Differently-Abled People in Multi-Layered Buildings Based on Assistance Ratio

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The researchers established a mixed evacuation model based on the characteristics of evacuation behavior exhibited by both special individuals and ordinary individuals. The model simulated the impact of evacuation strategies on different floors for special individuals at various assistance ratios. The study conducted a comparative analysis of various evacuation strategies to determine the most effective approach for multi-layered buildings with special individuals. The findings suggest that for stair-based evacuation strategies, when the proportion of assisting personnel exceeds 70%, there is a noticeable improvement in overall evacuation efficiency. On the other hand, for Elevator-determined Evacuation strategies, evacuating middle floors with unrestricted methods enhances evacuation efficiency. Overall, this paper presents an interesting study that addresses the important issue of evacuation efficiency in multi-layered buildings with special individuals. The findings contribute valuable insights into the impact of different evacuation strategies and assistance ratios on overall efficiency. The developed analysis model offers practical guidance for decision-making in emergency situations. I have only a few minor suggestions for the authors to consider:

The reference list is quite short. Please consider expanding the prior work section by including more citations of both classic and recent evacuation studies.

The readability of Table 2 is challenging. Please consider visualizing the data in a more accessible format.

Figure 11 lacks clarity and appears to lack supporting evidence. Please consider enhancing it by incorporating additional supporting arguments or evidence.

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English writing is suitable. 

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors propose a mechanism to optimize evacuation in multi-layered buildings during emergencies. 

 

In abstract, "times of danger" could be replaced by emergencies (better known expression)

 

In the affiliation, authors should specify the country, and not only the province (I believe Shaanxi is China, right)

 

The proposed model and achieved results seem to be consistent. At this point, the paper sounds scientifically consistent, with practical applicability. However, the paper lacks some important formalisms as a scientific work. Here are my considerations to improve that:

 

- A last paragraph for the Introduction section indicating the expected organization of the paper would be valuable. This way, readers would know what to expect.

 

- The paper addresses a problem with a vast literature about evacuation during an emergency. However, it is poorly explored by the authors. Such a paper, which was submitted to a relevant scientific journal, should be scientifically anchored in the literature. For that, authors are expected to create the section "2. Related Works", reviewing the literature about emergency detection, rescuing and evacuation. Here are some interesting papers to be cited:

 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.104057

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103864

https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3180033

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2023.105271

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2023.07.012

etc

 

This is required to create the "anchors" of your paper. Then, section "3. Evacuation Scenario Setup" comes...

Remember to compare the papers and say why yours is “better” (in some aspects)

 

- There is a failure in the format when Figure 1 is presented. Correct

 

- In section 2.3, "...would exceed the fire safety evacuation time". What time is this? Specify!

 

- What is Pathfinder software? Define (or cite)

 

- Figure 11 has poor quality and should be vectorized!

 

- The evaluation scenarios (defined as (1), (2), (3), and (4)) are hard to follow because they are not previously presented and discussed in the beginning of the sections. Authors should first formalize the scenarios (maybe using a clearer notation as S1, S2, etc) and only after that the results for the scenarios are discussed.

 

- Is your work reproduceable? Where are the simulation codes so anyone can run the tests?

 

Some minor corrections:

 

In introduction (first paragraph), when authors say "in the modern individual", what does they mean?

 

Still in introduction, "For instance, Tian studied..." and no refence is mentioned. How can we know who (what) is Tian? Reference to [1] should be brought closer.

 

Avoid writing "above" and "below" in the text. Use "before" or "after" instead.

 

References are not in the right format. I believe the paper was not written in Latex (this is why it is poorly formatted). 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is fine, in general

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary: The paper proposes an optimal evacuation efficiency of different floors in multi-layered buildings where special and ordinary individuals reside in times of danger. The authors presented a comparative analysis of various evacuation strategies and constructed an evacuation efficiency analysis model suitable for multi-layered buildings. 

 

Positives: The paper addresses a significant research gap in the field of evacuation strategies, specifically including the needs of special people, which are often neglected. 

 

Negatives: Overall, the paper writing can be improved. I found unwanted capitalized words and typos in the first few pages of the paper. Figures captions have multiple typos, too. Authors should do a thorough reading to get rid of typos. 

Example typos - Elevator-determined Evacuation strategies. Why is E in the evacuation capital?

 

“For instance,Tian studied the variation of evacuation time in high-rise buildings with changes in individual density, including special individuals. The results indicate that evacuation time increases with the increase in individual evacuation density [1].Koo” 

Space missing after comma and full stop. 

 

I suggest changing the special people term to differently-abled people and mentioning the mobility-related disability earlier in the abstract. 

 

Secondly, it was not clear till the end of the introduction that the evacuation strategy was for the evacuation scenarios in locations specifically designed for special individuals. Please mention that at the beginning. 

 

 

The total number of people based on “This experimental model consists of five floors, each with a height of 3.3 meters. In the floor plan structure of each level, there are 30 special individual members and 30 ordinary individuals, totaling 240 people.” should be 300. Only when you pay attention to Figure 1 and count the number of floors, it turns out to be 4 and thus 240 people. This confusion should be resolved. 

 

It is tough to comprehend “Table 2. Evacuation Times for Different Scenarios (Unit/ seconds).” quickly. The results need to be shown differently. And why were 28 scenarios selected? Why the number 28. Please provide the logic. 

 

"The reason for the lack of improvement in evacuation efficiency beyond 70% assistance ratio in scenario C6 is explained in Section 2.2." -Is it Section 2.2 or some other section?

 

The text in Figure 11 should be bigger. 

 

Figure 6. Comparison

Figure 7.Comparison of Reduced Times for C15 and C17

Figure 8 .Comparison of Evacuation - 

The full stop and the gaps for the above three figures are different. Moreover, sometimes, the Figure caption is above the figure and sometimes below. Please standardize it. 

 

The authors have not explained the reason behind choosing “Pathfinder software”. Does it represent human panic wayfinding behavior? 

 

What happens when authors simulate 7,8,9,10 floors? Will the provided result remain the same? 

 

Also, in most evacuations, elevators are not supposed to be used. I was not sure why the authors simulated a scenario using elevators. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please improve the writing of the entire paper. I found multiple typos. Specially, the full stop and gaps between word and Figure caption. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have improved the paper, following my recommendations.

Overall, the paper is better. Although I believe that more effort could still be given to better stating the scientific problems, the paper could be considered for publication.

Finally, about the Figure 12, although it was redraw, it was not vectorized! A vectorized figure does not lose quality when zooming in. It has to be made from scratch, in software like Corel Draw or Draw IO, being saved in PDF or EPS format. This is my last recommendation for the authors. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is not superb, it is acceptable

Author Response

Thank you for introducing the method of making the graph. The graph has been vectorized.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing the comments. 

Author Response

Thank you for pointing out the problem. I have carefully checked and changed some references, and the changes have been marked in yellow.