Comparison of FAHP and TOPSIS for Evacuation Capability Assessment of High-rise Buildings

Authors: Peng Mei, Yan-Jun Qi, Yu Cui, Song Lu, He-Ping Zhang

Abstract:

A lot of computer-based methods have been developed to assess the evacuation capability (EC) of high-rise buildings. Because softwares are time-consuming and not proper for on scene applications, we adopted two methods, fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) and technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution (TOPSIS), for EC assessment of a high-rise building in Jinan. The EC scores obtained with the two methods and the evacuation time acquired with Pathfinder 2009 for floors 47-60 of the building were compared with each other. The results show that FAHP performs better than TOPSIS for EC assessment of high-rise buildings, especially in the aspect of dealing with the effect of occupant type and distance to exit on EC, tackling complex problem with multi-level structure of criteria, and requiring less amount of computation. However, both FAHP and TOPSIS failed to appropriately handle the situation where the exit width changes while occupants are few.

Keywords: Evacuation capability assessment, FAHP, high-rise buildings, TOPSIS.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1061004

References:

[1] UNFPA, State of world population 2010. New York: UNFPA, 2010.
[2] S. Gwynne, E. R. Galea, M. Owen, P. J. Lawrence, and L. Filippidis, "A review of the methodologies used in the computer simulation of evacuation from the built environment," Build. Environ., vol. 34, pp. 741-749, 1999.
[3] S. Gwynne, E. R. Galea, M. Owen, and L. Filippidis, "A systematic comparison of model predictions produced by the buildingEXODUS evacuation model and the Tsukuba pavilion evacuation data," J. Appl. Fire Sci., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 235-266, 1998.
[4] P. A. Thompson, E. W. Marchant, "A computer-model for the evacuation of large building populations," Fire Safety J., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 131-148, 1995.
[5] S. M. Lo, Z. Fang, P. Lin, G. S. Zhi, "An evacuation model: the SGEM package," Fire Safety J., vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 169-190, 2004.
[6] J. P. Yuan, Z. Fang, Y. C. Wang, S. M. Lo, P. Wang, "Integrated network approach of evacuation simulation for large complex buildings," Fire Safety J., vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 266-275, 2009.
[7] T. L. Saaty, The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980.
[8] L. A. Zadeh, "Fuzzy sets," Inform. Control, vol. 8, pp. 338-353. 1965.
[9] R. R. Yager, S. Ovchinnikov, R. M. Tong, H. T. Nguyen, L.A. Zadeh: Selected Papers on Fuzzy Sets and Applications. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1987.
[10] P. J. M. Van Laarhoven, W. Pedrycz, "A fuzzy extension of Saary's priority theory," Fuzzy Set Syst., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 229-241, 1983.
[11] T. L. Saaty, "How to make a decision-the analytic hierarchy process," Interfaces, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 19-43, 1994.
[12] C. L. Hwang, and K. Yoon, Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1981.
[13] L. Shi, Q. Y. Xie, X. D. Cheng, L. Chen, Y. Zhou, and R. F. Zhang, "Developing a Database for Emergency Evacuation Model," Build. Environ., vol. 44, pp. 1724-1729, 2009.
[14] K. Togawa, 1955. Study on Fire Escapes Based on the Observation of Multitude Currents. Japanese Building Research Institute Report 14, Tokyo.
[15] C. Kahraman, S. Cevik, N. Y. Ates, and M. Gulbay, "Fuzzy multi-criteria evaluation of industrial robotic systems," Comput. Ind. Eng., vol. 52, pp. 143-168, 2007.
[16] J. W. Wang, C. H. Cheng, K. C. Huang, "Fuzzy hierarchical TOPSIS for supplier selection," Appl. Soft Comput., vol. 9, pp. 377-386, 2009.