Next Article in Journal
An Innovative Risk Matrix Model for Warehousing Productivity Performance
Next Article in Special Issue
An Experimental and Modeling Study on the Effect of Wall Opening Location on the Under-Ventilated Compartment Fire
Previous Article in Journal
Particularities of Fungicides and Factors Affecting Their Fate and Removal Efficacy: A Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
Study on Evacuation Behavior of Urban Underground Complex in Fire Emergency Based on System Dynamics
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 7
10.3390/su14074057
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Evaluation of the Effective Cognition Area (ECA) of Signage Systems with Backlighting under Smoke Conditions

by
Young-Chan Kim
1,
Sang-Hyun Baek
2,
Young-Hoon Bae
3,
Ryun-Seok Oh
4,* and
Jun-Ho Choi
2,4,*
1
Division of Smart Safety Engineering, Dongguk University-Gyeongju, Gyeongju 38066, Korea
2
Division of Architectural and Fire Protection Engineering, Pukyong National University, Busan 48513, Korea
3
Fire Safety Engineering Group, University of Greenwich, London SE10 9LS, UK
4
Research Institute of Intelligent Fire Safety Technology and Human Behavioral Science, Pukyong National University, Busan 48513, Korea
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(7), 4057; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074057
Submission received: 4 January 2022 / Revised: 14 March 2022 / Accepted: 24 March 2022 / Published: 29 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Fire Safety Technology and Human Behavioural Science for Building Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Signage systems are visual information systems that indicate the direction, allow for identification, and show safety information and regulations to occupants via graphics or text during emergencies. Wayfinding is difficult in large and complex buildings, such as large shopping malls. Occupants can be disoriented while searching for their way in such buildings. This problem can be more serious in emergency situations, such as fires, than in normal situations. Signage systems can be helpful in solving this problem. Domestic and overseas standards on emergency signage systems specify that the signage should be noticeable, easy to read, and easy to understand. However, most regulations do not quantify the effectiveness of such signage systems under emergency situations. To address these issues, in this study, several experiments were conducted considering the viewing distance and angle using a backlit signage system, and changes in cognition under smoke conditions were analyzed. First, the concept of effective cognition area (ECA) was introduced to analyze the relationship between the viewing distance and angle. Experiments were conducted using a backlit emergency exit sign, and the changes in the ECA in a smoke situation were analyzed. Finally, the results of this study were compared with those of previous studies. Furthermore, the extent to which occupants can recognize the signage system was quantified. If the concept of ECA developed in this study is applied to the development of emergency signage design, more diverse evacuation scenarios could be designed.

1. Introduction

Earthquakes, fires, and terrorism have recently made the safe evacuation of high-rise commercial buildings and the headquarters of prestigious organizations a priority [1,2]. Various accidents have proven that rapid evacuation is critical for the survival of evacuees when a disaster occurs in such buildings [3]. However, obtaining professional emergency services (e.g., rescue by firefighters and emergency treatment by paramedics) in the early stage of evacuation is challenging [4]. Therefore, in the early stage of an evacuation, building occupants must evacuate on their own or receive assistance from people around them [5]. To reduce the time taken to carry out early stages of evacuation, which is critical to increasing the probability of survival, evacuees must make good decisions and choose the correct paths [6]. Evacuation behavior is particularly important when a building is large and has a complex structure. Most people have to spend time choosing an evacuation route because they are not familiar with the building [7]. Signage systems can help people who are evacuating on their own by providing information regarding directions and shortening the time taken for an evacuation [8].
Signage systems are visual information systems that indicate directions, identification, and safety regulations to occupants via graphics or text during emergencies, such as fire and terrorism incidents [9]. Recently, with the increasing dimensions and complexity of buildings, designing and determining the ideal locations for signage systems is becoming increasingly more important [10,11,12,13]. Under emergency situations, a successful signage system can simplify the process of wayfinding in complex buildings, thus helping occupants evacuate quickly [14]. However, in a rapidly changing environment, such as fire or terrorism incidents, occupants may ignore signage systems because they lack detailed knowledge regarding situational information [15,16,17,18]. Recent research has shown that only 38% of people can decipher conventional signage systems [19]. Xie et al. [20] performed an experiment to see how many people could detect emergency signage at a T intersection. They found that only approximately 38% of the participants (31 out of 82 participants) could detect the emergency signage. Therefore, optimizing the signage system is a challenge for designers, planners, and building managers [21]. In indoor wayfinding, considering the important role of the emergency signage system, international and national guidelines and standards prescribe legible, indelible, and intelligible signage systems [22,23,24]. These guidelines and standards typically contain recommendations for the sizes and colors of the signage systems, the fonts and sizes of text, the locations of signage systems, and additional lighting and materials to be used [19]. However, most guidelines and regulations do not quantify the effectiveness of signage systems under emergency situations [20].
Many researchers have attempted to quantify the interaction between occupants and signage systems. This interaction is generally divided into three phases: (1) perceiving the signage (perception), (2) interpreting the information (cognition), and (3) decision making [25]. Among them, studies focusing on the perception phase have noted several factors: visible distance (visibility) [26], height [27], size [28], color [29], distance between occupants and the signage system [30], viewing angle between occupants and the signage system [31], and smoke effect [32]. In particular, Filippidis et al. [30] suggested the concept of the visibility catchment area (VCA), which indicates the space in which a sign observer can receive information when facing a sign. They quantified the size and shape of the VCA according to the angular separation of the sign and observation angle. Furthermore, Xie et al. [31] investigated the relationship between the maximum viewing distance and viewing angle. They experimented on plastic signs and photoluminescent signs with no separate light source, and found that, as the viewing angle decreased, the maximum viewing distance also decreased.
Notable previous studies are summarized below.
Liu et al. [26] developed a computational model for calculating the effective distance of signage systems. They found that the most realistic values can be obtained by incorporating this concept in an evacuation model. Vilar et al. [27] compared the efficiencies of vertical and horizontal signage systems using virtual reality. They also compared distances moved, evacuation times, and number of stops where the signage was installed. They found that horizontal signage is more effective than vertical signage. Jin et al. [28] analyzed the conspicuousness based on signage size and lighting (flashes) using a full-scale experiment at an underground shopping center. The results showed that the conspicuousness of signage can be improved by flashing, and the degree of improvement varied with the size of the signage. Wong and Lo [29] analyzed four factors influencing the visibility of signage systems (graphics, colors, lighting conditions, and age of the observer) through a full-scale experiment. They made draft designs for effective guiding lights based on the results. Yuki et al. [32] conducted a combustion experiment and proposed a calculation model to quantify the reduction in the visibility of signage after power failures during fires, obscuration by smoke, and the effect of smoke on signage.
However, these studies have several limitations:
(1) Failure to analyze the difference between perception and cognition in interaction between occupants and the signage system;
(2) Failure to consider a backlit emergency exit sign;
(3) Failure to consider changes in cognition in smoke situations.
To address these issues, several experiments were conducted in this study, considering viewing distance and viewing angle using a backlit emergency exit sign, and changes in cognition under smoke conditions were analyzed. First, we introduce the concept of an effective cognition area (ECA), which is different from the VCA concept, to analyze the relationship between the viewing distance and the viewing angle. In addition, experiments were conducted using a backlit emergency exit sign instead of a plastic sign with no separate light source, and the changes of the ECA under a smoke situation were analyzed [33]. Finally, the results of this study were compared with those of previous studies. Furthermore, the extent to which occupants can recognize the signage system was quantified. This study will promote the selection of the optimal installation location and number of the signage system in the future (e.g., Motamedi [21] optimized the installation location of a signage system using Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Dubey et al. [34] proposed an approach to minimize the total evacuation time of occupants by calculating the optimal installation location and number of signage systems). The results are also applicable to the evacuation model of buildingEXODUS towards improving the accuracy of the simulation.

2. Experimental Setting

2.1. Experimental Area

The experiment was conducted in a corridor inside an operational university building in South Korea. The experimental area was selected by considering the universality of the internal structure (e.g., corridor width and ceiling height) and the possibility of controlling other factors that can influence experimental results (e.g., indoor illuminance and foot traffic), except for the viewing distance/angle between the sign and participants.
It was determined, however, that the illuminance at the experimental site may not be constant because of changes in the solar radiation outside the building over time. Therefore, the indoor illuminance was measured during the time period planned for the experiment, from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., to examine the changes in the indoor illuminance. The illuminance of the location of the experiment was measured 20 times (every 30 min), and the average illuminance was maintained at a constant value of 131.47 lux (variance 1.64 lux). This can be interpreted as a statistically insignificant difference. Therefore, it was judged that the indoor illuminance remained constant. The illuminance of the location of the experiment was measured according to the provisions of the Korean Agency for Technology and Standards [35]. Furthermore, the first viewing distance of the sign from the participants was set to 30 m, considering previous studies and related regulations [36], as shown in Figure 1. Viewing angles between the sign and the participants were set by directly adjusting the angle of the sign (15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, 75°, and 90°), as shown in Figure 1, due to spatial limitations, although it is most effective for participants to see the sign at various angles while rotating.

2.2. Participants

All procedures of our experiments were approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the university. This experiment was conducted in a university, and volunteers were recruited through a Facebook page. Thus, most participants were students. In total, 120 participants volunteered in this experiment (70 males and 50 females; average age: 24 years). Because eyesight is an important variable in this experiment, the staff performed vision checks before the experiments and selected participants who met the minimum Korean standards (left: 0.97, right: 0.87 for both men and women) [37]. Only the participants whose left/right visual acuity was 1.0 or higher were recruited. Furthermore, only participants who had no problems with perception, cognition, and movement were recruited.
Kwee-Meier et al. [38] found, through simulation experiments, that differences in the preferred signage designs can be categorized by the age of the participants (young: 20–30 years old vs. elderly: 60–77 years old). This suggests that such differences must be considered when analyzing perception or cognition of signage. In this study, the experiments conducted focused only on young people (20–29 years old).

2.3. Materials

Emergency exit/direction signs were used in this experiment. The display surface of the signs was highlighted using a backlight, and the evacuation direction was communicated using pictograms including an arrow and a running man. As shown in Figure 2A, signs were installed at a height of 2.3 m from the floor [36], and the luminance was 486.6 cd/m2. The luminance of the signs was measured according to the provisions of the Korean Agency for Technology and Standards [39].
The best method for implementing a smoke situation is to directly generate real fire smoke at the experiment site. However, uniformly controlling the concentration and flow of smoke when generating smoke in a space with a straight distance of 30 m or more is challenging. Furthermore, it is difficult to uniformly control smoke because the participants move continuously during the measurements. In this study, translucent eyepatches [40] were fabricated and used, as shown in Figure 2B. The eyepatches were made of polyvinyl chloride and a tinting film to reduce the light transmittance. Hence, they had the advantages of implementing an environment similar to smoke generation and uniform control of the degree of visual limitation because a constant light transmittance could be maintained. One disadvantage of the eyepatch is that it cannot reproduce the psychological pressure induced by actual smoke. Figure 2B shows the view of the participants when they wear the translucent eyepatch. Two types of translucent eyepatches with light transmittances of 60.38% and 34.8% were used. The eyepatches can be used to emulate the visual environment at a desired smoke concentration using the Lambert–Beer law [41] by adjusting the PVC and number of tinting films. For example, the environment in which a participant wearing a translucent eyepatch with a visible light transmittance of 60.38% sees an object at a distance of 15 m is similar to an environment in which there is smoke with a depreciation coefficient of 0.034 m−1. The visibility distances and images of each translucent eyepatch type are shown in Figure 2C. They make it possible to intuitively understand the degree of visibility obstruction of each eyepatch.

2.4. Procedures

First, participants walked towards the emergency exit/direction signs installed at a distance of 30 m, as shown in Figure 1. Seven types of emergency exit/direction signs were used in this experiment, and the participants were not made aware of the type of signs installed. The participants were preliminarily instructed to perform a certain action, as shown in Figure 3, when they recognized the installed sign while walking. If the action matched the pre-explained action, it was determined that the participant recognized the installed sign. The staff used this method to determine whether the participant correctly recognized the signage. Furthermore, because the participants may have found it difficult to memorize all the content of the signage as there were seven choices, we provided a manual that detailed the pre-explained actions taught to the participants. The experiments were conducted in this manner while changing the viewing angle between the participants and the sign. The same experiments were repeated with participants wearing the translucent eyepatch. In the experiment, different types of signage were presented in a random order for each measurement to remove the learning bias of the participants for signage. Thus, the experiments were performed under three cases: case 1 (without the translucent eyepatch), case 2 (wearing a translucent eyepatch with a light transmittance of 60.38%), and case 3 (wearing a translucent eyepatch with a light transmittance of 34.8%). Each case was implemented with 40 participants.

3. Definition of ECA

In general, cognition and perception have different meanings. Humans acquire information through their visual perception system. In this process, it is defined as perception, which gives meaning to visually information, and cognition is the interpretation of visual information through individual experience and knowledge [42].
This study analyzed the viewing distance and angle at which an occupant recognizes a signage system. The VCA of an object is defined as the region of space from where visual information of the object can be obtained. The ECA proposed in this study is defined as the area from which an observer can receive the information of a sign cognitively as well as visually.
For example, an observer inside the ECA can not only see the point of the sign, but can also accurately understand the information and act on it. However, observers outside the ECA and inside the VCA can only see the sign but cannot accurately understand the information and act on it. Therefore, the concept of the ECA is clearly different from that of the VCA used in existing studies. Figure 4 shows the concept of the ECA. Installing signage without applying the concept of ECA, as shown in Figure 5, can reduce the viewing angle between the signage and the observer.
This causes the observer (evacuee) to fail to detect the signage or requires them to take time to understand its content in an evacuation situation, which negatively affects rapid and accurate evacuation. Therefore, calculating the ECA of signage that provides visual information in an evacuation situation is an indispensable factor for a successful evacuation plan.

4. Experimental Results

4.1. Overall Results

The viewing distance was analyzed according to the viewing angle between participants and signs based on the measurements obtained through the experiment. The results are outlined in Table 1, which lists the 10% truncated mean and standard deviation used to remove outliers from the results. The change rates of the viewing distance, based on the reduction in the viewing angle when the participants look at the signage under normal conditions (viewing angle: 90°), are also listed for each case. The change rate is the percentage of the reduction in viewing distance when the viewing angle is changed based on the viewing distance at a viewing angle of 90°.
The experimental results show that the viewing distance decreased as the viewing angle decreased and as the smoke concentration increased. Furthermore, the smoke situations (cases 2 and 3) had notable characteristics compared to the general situation (case 1).
In case 1, as the viewing angle decreased, the viewing distance decreased, and the change rate of the viewing distance gradually increased. However, in cases 2 and 3, the viewing distance increased—by 11.85% and 8.00%, respectively—when the viewing angle was 75°.
In case 1, as the viewing angle between the sign and participants decreased, the viewing distance also decreased. Within the viewing angle range of 90°–60°, the change rates of the viewing distance were relatively small (0–7.23%). When the viewing angle was below 45°, the change rates increased to over 10%, showing relatively large differences.
The results for case 2 were different from those for case 1. The viewing distance was larger at a 75° viewing angle than at a 90° viewing angle. However, except for the viewing angle of 75°, the viewing distance showed a generally decreasing trend as the viewing angle between the signs and participants decreased.
Similar to case 2, in case 3, the viewing distance was larger at a 75° viewing angle than at a 90° viewing angle. Furthermore, except for the viewing angle of 75°, the viewing distance showed a generally decreasing trend as the viewing angle between the signs and participants decreased. The reason for this phenomenon is presumed to be light scattering. In the smoke situation and while wearing the translucent eyepatch, light scattering makes the signs appear blurry to the observer. The intensity of scattering increases with increased luminance of the sign, thus making the sign appear blurrier [43].
Therefore, because the luminance of the sign was the highest at a 90° viewing angle, the degree of blurriness of the sign was also the highest at this angle, and the degree of blurriness decreased with decreasing viewing angle. Thus, the visibility of the sign, due to a reduced viewing angle and the degree of blurriness, according to the change in the luminance of the sign, should be considered in the ECA analysis process. In cases 2 and 3, the viewing distance at a 75° viewing angle appeared to be larger because the effect of the sign’s luminance was greater than the decrease in the visibility of the sign due to the decreased viewing angle.
In addition, the differences between the condition in which there were no viewing restrictions (case 1) and the conditions with viewing restrictions (case 2 and 3) were compared when analyzing the change in viewing distance according to the reduction in the viewing angle. The results are outlined in Table 2, which lists the change rates of the viewing distance according to the viewing angle and the degree of viewing restriction, given the condition that a 90° viewing angle represented no viewing restriction. The table uses the 10% truncated mean of the results.
A comparison of the viewing distance at a 90° viewing angle in cases 1–3 showed that the viewing distance in conditions in which the light transmittance was 60.38% (case 2) was 16.12 m, and the change rate of the viewing distance decreased by 39.85% compared to case 1. The viewing distance in conditions in which the light transmittance was 30.80% (case 3) was 5.40 m, and the change rate of the viewing distance decreased by 79.76% compared to that in case 1.

4.2. Scope of ECA

ECA was derived on the basis of the results obtained in the previous section. However, the ECA derived using the average of the viewing distances may not be completely reliable because the sample size of this physical experiment is insufficient, and the deviations of measurements are large. Therefore, the trend line was used in the analysis. Trend lines are generally used to show data trends in a graph and analyze prediction problems. The trend line and its function were calculated using the least squares method. This method makes it possible to obtain a function that represents the correlation between independent and dependent variables. It is a type of regression analysis and can be used to predict values of a range in which actual data do not exist. The trend line can be used to visually identify changes in the viewing distance according to the viewing angle and to derive the ECA. The results of each case can be expressed as follows:
Case   1 :   y   = − 0.0019 + 0.3459 x + 10.167
Case   2 :   y   = − 0.0022 + 0.3169 x + 5.5448
Case   3 :   y   = − 0.0008 + 0.1191 x + 1.1348 ,
where x   v i e w i n g   a n g l e   ( ° ) ;   y   : viewing   distance   ( m ) ; = viewing distance (m).
Figure 6 shows the results of deriving the ECA through the trend line. In general, the viewing distance decreased as the viewing angle decreased. For viewing angles of 0–5°, the signs were assumed to be noncognizable, and the viewing distance was assumed to be 0 m.

5. Discussion

The derived ECA was compared with the VCA developed by Filippidis et al. [30]. Furthermore, the cognition between signs and participants in a smoke situation was discussed. The discussion focused on the difference between visually receiving (perception) and cognitively receiving (cognition) sign information in a general situation (with no smoke generation). Therefore, the scope of ECA was predicted to be narrower than that of VCA until the experimental results were analyzed. However, the ECA was found to be broader than the VCA, as shown in Figure 7.
Researchers believe that the differences between the experimental results and the prediction can be attributed to the following reasons.
First, the existence of a backlit sign: In the experiment for deriving the VCA, plastic signs and photo luminescent signs without backlight were used. In contrast, backlit emergency exit signs were used in the experiments for deriving the ECA. Therefore, as the visual performance of the signs increased due to the backlight, the measured viewing distance of the ECA probably increased.
Second, the differences in the shape of the sign display surface: Examining the shapes of the ECA and VCA in detail, the viewing distances were measured almost identically in the viewing angle range between 90° and 75°. However, as the viewing angle decreased from the 75°, the variation in the viewing distance increased. VCA was derived from experiments using signs on flat display surfaces; however, ECA was derived from experiments using signs on projected display surfaces. Therefore, participants probably recognized the signs more easily, even at lower viewing angles.
Third, differences in experimental conditions: The VCA and ECA were derived through experiments under different conditions, such as the size of the space, indoor illuminance of the space, size of the emergency signage, luminance of the emergency signage, and installation height of the emergency signage.
Finally, differences in the characteristics of participants: The participants in the experiments have different physical, psychological, and cultural characteristics. These characteristics might have affected the sign cognition process of the participants.
The viewing distance, based on the degree of viewing restriction, was analyzed by comparing the viewing distances at 90° in cases 1–3. We wanted to compare our results with those of previous studies on similar topics, but could not find any studies that measured and analyzed the viewing distance with a quantified viewing restriction. Instead, a previous study that developed an emergency signage design method using the relationship between distance/angle and the emergency signage’s visibility was analyzed. Based on this finding, the utilization plan of ECA, which was developed in this study, was presented. Dubey et al. [44] developed a model for simulating an agent’s wayfinding by applying the interaction between the agent and the signage. In the model, VCA developed by Filippidis et al. [30] was applied for setting the region in which the agent can perceive signage. It was found, however, that ECA is wider than VCA. Because this changes the region in which signage affects the agent, the agent’s trajectory and travel distance derived through the model may vary. As discussed earlier, there is a difference between VCA and ECA because the backlight and the display surface of signage, as well as indoor illuminance, are different. Therefore, when a wayfinding model that reflects the interaction between the agent and the signage is developed, the use of ECA will make it possible to implement more diverse evacuation scenarios.

6. Conclusions

Signage systems are visual information systems that indicate directions and safety regulations to building occupants via graphics or text during emergencies. With the increasing dimensions and complexity of buildings, correctly designing and determining ideal locations for signage systems is becoming increasingly more important. In indoor wayfinding, considering the important role of the emergency signage systems, international and national guidelines and standards prescribe legible, indelible, and intelligible signage systems. However, most of these guidelines and regulations do not quantify the effectiveness of signage systems in emergency situations.
To address these issues, we analyzed the relationships between the viewing distance and viewing angle by applying the concept of ECA (ECA, proposed in this study, is defined as the area from which an observer can receive the information of a sign cognitively as well as visually).
Methods for designing emergency signage through simulation modeling or evacuation experiments in virtual reality have been developed recently [45]. The results of previous studies, however, cannot be generalized due to insufficient data for the range in which emergency signage can be visually detected in virtual reality. If the concept of ECA developed in this study is applied to the development of emergency signage design, more diverse evacuation scenarios could be designed.
Although the current regulations related to emergency signage specify the installation locations and installation intervals of emergency signage, they do not consider the practical range in which the contents of emergency signage can be recognized. If signage systems are designed using the effective cognition area (ECA) derived in this study, it will be possible to establish effective evacuation plans by removing blind spots inside buildings where signage cannot be recognized.
Because only participants in their twenties were included in this study, it is difficult to generalize about the research results. In future research, experiments will be performed with children and the elderly to analyze whether there is a difference in ECA depending on age.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft, Y.-C.K.; writing—review and editing, S.-H.B., Y.-H.B., R.-S.O. and J.-H.C.; data curation, Y.-C.K., S.-H.B., Y.-H.B. and R.-S.O.; supervision, J.-H.C. and R.-S.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant (No. NRF-2018R1A2B3005951), which was funded by the Korean government (MSIT). This paper was supported by the “National Fire Agency” R&D program (20016433).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Pukyong National University (protocol code 1041386-20180314-HR-005-03, 14 March 2018).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Acknowledgments

This paper was written by revising and developing the second author’s master’s thesis [46]. This data can be found here: [https://academic.naver.com/openUrl.naver?doc_id=561976127&linkType=doclink, (accessed on 3 January 2022)].

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cowlard, A.; Bittern, A.; Abecassis-Empis, C.; Torero, J. Fire safety design for tall buildings. Procedia Eng. 2013, 62, 169–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Fahy, R.F.; Proulx, G. Human behavior in the world trade center evacuation. Fire Saf. Sci. 1997, 5, 713–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Oven, V.; Cakici, N. Modelling the evacuation of a high-rise office building in Istanbul. Fire Saf. J. 2009, 44, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Purser, D.A.; Bensilum, M. Quantification of behaviour for engineering design standards and escape time calculations. Saf. Sci. 2001, 38, 157–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Rubadiri, L.; Ndumu, D.T.; Roberts, J.P. Predicting the evacuation capability of mobility-impaired occupants. Fire Technol. 1997, 33, 32–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kobes, M.; Helsloot, I.; de Vries, B.; Post, J.G. Building safety and human behaviour in fire: A literature review. Fire Saf. J. 2010, 45, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wong, L.; Kwan, C. Assessing the Exit Sign Legibility for Building Occupants. Archit. Sci. Rev. 2005, 48, 153–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Meier, S.T.; Bützler, J.; Schlick, C.M. The influence of information presented on digital escape route signage on decision-making under mentally and emotionally strenuous conditions. In Proceedings of the 19th Triennial Congress of the IEA, Melbourne, Australia, 9–14 August 2015. [Google Scholar]
  9. Calori, C.; Vanden-Eynden, D. Signage and Wayfinding Design: A Complete Guide to Creating Environmental Graphic Design Systems; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 114–126. [Google Scholar]
  10. Nassar, K. Sign visibility for pedestrians assessed with agent-based simulation. Transp. Res. Rec. 2011, 2264, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Fu, L.; Cao, S.; Song, W.; Fang, J. The influence of emergency signage on building evacuation behavior: An experimental study. Fire Mater. 2019, 43, 22–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Heskestad, A.W. Performance in smoke of wayguidance systems. Fire Mater. 1999, 23, 375–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Meacham, B.J. Integrating Human Factors Issues into Engineered Fire Safety Design. Fire Mater. 1999, 23, 273–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zhang, Z.; Jia, L.; Qin, Y. Optimal number and location planning of evacuation signage in public space. Saf. Sci. 2017, 91, 132–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sime, J.D. Movement toward the Familiar: Person and Place Affiliation in a Fire Entrapment Setting. Environ. Behav. 1985, 17, 697–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Shields, T.; Boyce, K. A study of evacuation from large retail stores. Fire Saf. J. 2000, 35, 25–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Nilsson, D.; Frantzich, H.; Saunders, W. Influencing exit choice in the event of a fire evacuation. Fire Saf. Sci. 2008, 9, 341–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Boyce, K.; McConnell, N.; Shields, J. Evacuation response behaviour in unannounced evacuation of licensed premises. Fire Mater. 2017, 41, 454–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Galea, E.R.; Xie, H.; Deere, S.; Cooney, D.; Filippidis, L. An international survey and full-scale evacuation trial demonstrating the effectiveness of the active dynamic signage system concept. Fire Mater. 2017, 41, 493–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Xie, H.; Filippidis, L.; Galea, E.R.; Blackshields, D.; Lawrence, P. Experimental analysis of the effectiveness of emergency signage and its implementation in evacuation simulation. Fire Mater. 2012, 36, 367–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Motamedi, A.; Wang, Z.; Yabuki, N.; Fukuda, T.; Michikawa, T. Signage visibility analysis and optimization system using BIM-enabled virtual reality (VR) environments. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2017, 32, 248–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. National Fire Protection Association. NFPA 101: Life Safety Code, 2018th ed.; National Fire Protection Association: Quincy, MA, USA, 2018; pp. 87–90. [Google Scholar]
  23. BSI 5499-1:2002; Graphical Symbols and Signs-Safety Signs, Including Fire Safety Signs-Specification for Geometric Shapes, Colours and Layout; British Standard Institution: London, UK, 1990.
  24. GB 15630-1995; Requirements for the Placement of Fire Safety Signs; Ministry of Public Security of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 1995.
  25. Xie, H. Investigation into the Interaction of People with Signage Systems and Its Implementation within Evacuation Models. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Greenwich, London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  26. Liu, M.; Zheng, X.; Cheng, Y. Determining the effective distance of emergency evacuation signs. Fire Saf. J. 2011, 46, 364–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Vilar, E.; Rebelo, F.; Noriega, P. Indoor Human Wayfinding Performance Using Vertical and Horizontal Signage in Virtual Reality. Hum. Factors Ergonom. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 2014, 24, 601–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Jin, T.; Yamada, T.; Kawai, S.; Takahashi, S. Evaluation of the conspicuousness of emergency exit signs. Fire Saf. Sci. 1991, 3, 835–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Wong, L.; Lo, K. Experimental study on visibility of exit signs in buildings. Build. Environ. 2007, 42, 1836–1842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Filippidis, L.; Galea, E.R.; Gwynne, S.; Lawrence, P.J. Representing the influence of signage on evacuation behavior within an evacuation model. J. Fire Prot. Eng. 2006, 16, 37–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Xie, H.; Filippidis, L.; Gwynne, S.; Galea, E.R.; Blackshields, D.; Lawrence, P.J. Signage legibility distances as a function of observation angle. J. Fire Prot. Eng. 2007, 17, 41–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Yuki, A.; Takeyoshi, T.; Hidekazu, S. Calculation method for visibility of emergency sign in fire taking into account of smoke adherence. Fire Saf. Sci. 2005, 8, 1093–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Nilsson, D.; Frantzich, H.; Saunders, W. Coloured flashing lights to mark emergency exits—Experiences from evacuation experiments. Fire Saf. Sci. 2005, 8, 569–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Dubey, R.K.; Khoo, W.P.; Morad, M.G.; Hölscher, C.; Kapadia, M. AUTOSIGN: A multi-criteria optimization approach to computer aided design of signage layouts in complex buildings. Comput. Graph. 2020, 88, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. KS C 7612; Illuminance Measurements for Lighting Installations; Korean Agency for Technology and Standards: Seoul, Korea, 2018.
  36. NFSC 303; Fire Safety Standard on Safety Signs; National Fire Agency: Seoul, Korea, 2017.
  37. National Health Insurance Service. National Health Screening Statistical Yearbook; National Health Insurance Service: Seoul, Korea, 2017.
  38. Kwee-Meier, S.T.; Mertens, A.; Schlick, C.M. Age-related differences in decision-making for digital escape route signage under strenuous emergency conditions of tilted passenger ships. Appl. Ergon. 2017, 59, 264–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. KS C 7613; Methods of Luminance Measurements in Lighting Fields; Korean Agency for Technology and Standards: Seoul, Korea, 2014.
  40. Jeon, G.Y.; Hong, W.H. Translucent Eye-Patch for Simulating Evacuation Environment on Fire; Application No. 1020080027130; Korean Intellectual Property Office: Seoul, Korea, 2008.
  41. Mäntele, W.; Deniz, E. UV-VIS absorption spectroscopy: Lambert-Beer reloaded. Spectrochim. Acta Part A—Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 2017, 173, 965–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Jung, W.S. Human Cognition; Kyoyook Book: Seoul, Korea, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  43. Szokolay, S.V. Environmental Science Handbook for Architects and Builders; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1980; pp. 88–102. [Google Scholar]
  44. Dubey, R.K.; Thrash, T.; Kapadia, M.; Hoelscher, C.; Schinazi, V.R. Information theoretic model to simulate agent-signage interaction for wayfinding. Cogn. Comput. 2021, 13, 189–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Huang, H.; Lin, N.C.; Barrett, L.; Springer, D.; Wang, H.C.; Pomplun, M.; Yu, L.F. Automatic optimization of wayfinding design. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2017, 24, 2516–2530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Baek, S.H. An Evaluation of Emergency Exit Signs’ Effectiveness through Cognitive Distance Measurement by Angles of View. Master’s Thesis, Pukyong National University, Busan, Korea, 2019. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 14 04057 g001 550
Figure 1. Outline of the place of experiment and the method. The viewing angles between the sign and the participants were set by directly adjusting the angle of the sign (15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, 75°, and 90°).
Figure 1. Outline of the place of experiment and the method. The viewing angles between the sign and the participants were set by directly adjusting the angle of the sign (15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, 75°, and 90°).
Sustainability 14 04057 g001
Sustainability 14 04057 g002 550
Figure 2. (A) Installation height and type of emergency signage; (B) translucent eyepatch; (C) visibility when a translucent eyepatch is worn.
Figure 2. (A) Installation height and type of emergency signage; (B) translucent eyepatch; (C) visibility when a translucent eyepatch is worn.
Sustainability 14 04057 g002
Sustainability 14 04057 g003 550
Figure 3. Action guideline for ECA measurement.
Figure 3. Action guideline for ECA measurement.
Sustainability 14 04057 g003
Sustainability 14 04057 g004 550
Figure 4. Concept of effective cognition area (ECA) defined in this study: VCA and ECA have different viewing distances and angles. The person who can find a location using VCA cannot receive information about the sign cognitively; the person who can find a location using ECA can receive information about the sign cognitively.
Figure 4. Concept of effective cognition area (ECA) defined in this study: VCA and ECA have different viewing distances and angles. The person who can find a location using VCA cannot receive information about the sign cognitively; the person who can find a location using ECA can receive information about the sign cognitively.
Sustainability 14 04057 g004
Sustainability 14 04057 g005 550
Figure 5. Examples of signage installed without calculating the effective cognition area (ECA).
Figure 5. Examples of signage installed without calculating the effective cognition area (ECA).
Sustainability 14 04057 g005
Sustainability 14 04057 g006 550
Figure 6. Effective cognition area of cases (1–3).
Figure 6. Effective cognition area of cases (1–3).
Sustainability 14 04057 g006
Sustainability 14 04057 g007 550
Figure 7. Comparison between ECA and VCA.
Figure 7. Comparison between ECA and VCA.
Sustainability 14 04057 g007
Table
Table 1. Experimental results (TM, 10% truncated mean; SD, standard deviation; CR, change rate of viewing distance).
Table 1. Experimental results (TM, 10% truncated mean; SD, standard deviation; CR, change rate of viewing distance).
Viewing AngleCase 1Case 2Case 3
TM (m)SD (m)CR (%)TM (m)SD (m)CR (%)TM (m)SD (m)CR (%)
90°26.683.650.0016.124.380.005.401.490.00
75°25.154.84−5.7318.034.48+11.855.831.51+8.0
60°24.756.03−7.2315.834.99−1.805.082.10−5.93
45°23.875.97−10.5315.134.43−6.145.201.53−3.70
30°17.616.57−34.0013.635.01−15.453.741.55−30.74
15°15.545.61−41.759.474.20−41.252.781.37−48.52
Table
Table 2. Change rate of the viewing distance by the viewing angle and degree of viewing restriction.
Table 2. Change rate of the viewing distance by the viewing angle and degree of viewing restriction.
Viewing AngleCase 1Case 2Case 3
TM (m)CR (%)TM (m)CR (%)TM (m)CR (%)
90°26.680.0016.12−39.855.40−79.76
75°25.15−5.7318.03−32.425.83−78.15
60°24.75−7.2315.83−40.675.08−80.96
45°23.87−10.5315.13−43.295.20−80.51
30°17.61−34.0013.63−48.913.74−85.98
15°15.54−41.759.47−64.512.78−89.58
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kim, Y.-C.; Baek, S.-H.; Bae, Y.-H.; Oh, R.-S.; Choi, J.-H. Evaluation of the Effective Cognition Area (ECA) of Signage Systems with Backlighting under Smoke Conditions. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4057. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074057

AMA Style

Kim Y-C, Baek S-H, Bae Y-H, Oh R-S, Choi J-H. Evaluation of the Effective Cognition Area (ECA) of Signage Systems with Backlighting under Smoke Conditions. Sustainability. 2022; 14(7):4057. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074057

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kim, Young-Chan, Sang-Hyun Baek, Young-Hoon Bae, Ryun-Seok Oh, and Jun-Ho Choi. 2022. "Evaluation of the Effective Cognition Area (ECA) of Signage Systems with Backlighting under Smoke Conditions" Sustainability 14, no. 7: 4057. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074057

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop