Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Psychological Response in Fire: A Fuzzy Bayesian Network Approach Using Expert Judgment

  • Published:
Fire Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In modelling human behavior during a fire, one has to deal with uncertainties regarding the psychological response due to limited or incomplete knowledge database. The purpose of this paper is to develop a new fuzzy Bayesian Network framework to model causal relationship of psychological response at the initial stage of fire events. Firstly, a new conceptual model namely the PRiF (Psychological Response in a Fire) is developed through the literature of human behaviour in fire evacuation modelling and expert opinion approach. Then, the expert elicitation using fuzzy linguistic concept was adapted in quantifying the PRiF model. Finally, an example of expert elicitation study is demonstrated to illustrate the practical application of the proposed methodology. Results show that the proposed methodology is not only able to capture the sequence of psychological reactions in line with the theory of human behavior in a fire but also can quantitatively measure the likelihood of circumstances of possible undesired scenario, and identify the most influential factors or prioritize the root causes of unsuccessful safe evacuation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pires TT (2005) An approach for modeling human cognitive behavior in evacuation models. Fire Saf J 40(2):177–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ahrens M, Evarts B (2020) NFPA’s Fire Loss in the United States During 2019. National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts, United States

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ahrens M (2018) NFPA’s Characteristics of home fire victims. National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts, United States

    Google Scholar 

  4. Evarts B (2011) NFPA’s Human factors contributing to fatal injury based on NFRIS 5.0 field in the civilian casuality module. National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts, United States

    Google Scholar 

  5. Proulx G, Richardson JK (2002) The human factor: building designers often forget how important the reactions of the human occupants are when they specify fire and life safety systems. Can Consult Eng 43(3):35–36

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kuligowski E (2008) Modeling Human Behavior during Building Fires. Technical Note (NIST TN), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861621

  7. Schadschneider A, Klingsch W, Klüpfel H, Rogsch C, Seyfried A (2009) Evacuation dynamics: empirical results, modeling and applications. Encyclopedia of Complexity and System Science. Springer, New York, pp 3142–3176

  8. Gwynne S, Galea E, Owen M, Lawrence P, Filippidis L (1999) A review of the methodologies used in the computer simulation of evacuation from the built environment. Build Environ 34(6):741–749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kuligowski E, Peacock R, Hoskins B (2010) A Review of Building Evacuation Models, 2nd edn. Technical Note (NIST TN), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=906951

  10. Zheng X, Zhong T, Liu M (2009) Modeling crowd evacuation of a building based on seven methodological approaches. Build Environ 44(3):437–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Santos G, Aguire BE (2004) A critical review of emergency evacuation simulation models.In: Proceedings of Building occupant movement during Fire Emergencies, Gaithersburg, Maryland, pp 10–11

  12. Tong D, Canter D (1985) The decision to evacuate: a study of the motivations which contribute to evacuation in the event of fire. Fire Saf J 9:257–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Francis RL, Saunders PB (1979) EVACNET: prototype network optimization models for building. National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC

  14. Bensilum M, Purser D (2003) GridFlow: an object-oriented building evacuation model combining pre-movement and movement behaviours for performance-based design. In: Fire Safety Science: proceeding of the seventh international symposium, pp 941–953

  15. Ketchell N et al. (1993) The EGRESS code for human movement and behaviour in emergency evacuations. Artificial Intelligence Applications Institute, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom

    Google Scholar 

  16. Galea E, Gwynne S, Lawrence P, Filippidis L, Blackshields D, Cooney D (2004) Building EXODUS V4.0 user guide and technical manual. University of Greenwich, UK

  17. Bentley Systems, Incorporated (2021). Legion. Available at https://www.bentley.com/en/products/brands/legion

  18. Tsai J, Fridman N, Bowring E, Brown M, Epstein S, Kaminka G, Tambe M (2011) ESCAPES: evacuation simulation with children, authorities, parents, emotions, and social comparison. In: The 10th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS 2011), pp 457–464

  19. Chu ML, Parigi P, Latombe JC, Law K (2014) SAFEgress: a flexible platform to study the effect of human and social behaviors on egress performance. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Simulation for Architecture & Urban Design, pp 1–8

  20. Gwynne SMV, Kuligowski ED, Kinsey MJ, Hulse LM (2016) Modelling and influencing human behaviour in fire. Fire Mater 41:412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kinateder M et al. (2014) Virtual reality for fire evacuation research. In: 2014 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, pp 313–321

  22. Arias S, Ronchi E Wahlqvist J, Eriksson J, Nilsson D (2018) ForensicVR: investigating human behaviour in fire with Virtual Reality. Lund University, Sweden

  23. Shaw E, Lawson G, Roper T, Cobb SVG, Nilsson T, Miller D (2019) The heat is on: exploring user behaviour in a multisensory virtual environment for fire evacuation. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp 1–13

  24. Santos G, Aguirre BE (2004) A critical review of emergency evacuation simulation models. In: NIST Workshop on Building Occupant Movement During Fire Emergencies, pp 25–50

  25. Shiwakoti N, Sarvi M, Rose G (2008) Modelling pedestrian behaviour under emergency conditions: state-of-the-art and future directions. In: 31st Australasian Transport Research Forum (ATRF), pp 457–473

  26. Cheng Y, Liu D, Chen J, Namilae S, Thropp J, Seong Y (2019) Human behavior under emergency and its simulation modeling: a review. In: Cassenti DN (ed) Advances in Human Factors in Simulation and Modeling. Springer, Berlin, pp 313–325

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Kobes M, Helsloot I, de Vries B, Post JG (2010) Building safety and human behaviour in fire: a literature review. Fire Saf J 45(1):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Matellini DB, Wall AD, Jenkinson ID, Wang J, Pritchard R (2013) Modelling dwelling fire development and occupancy escape using Bayesian network. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 114:75–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Rahman A, Mahmood AK, Schneider E (2008) Using agent-based simulation of human behavior to reduce evacuation time. In: Pacific Rim International Conference on Multi-Agents pp 357–369

  30. Gwynne SMV (2012) Translating behavioral theory of human response into modeling practice, NISTGCR—12-972. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA

  31. Oberkampf WL, Deland SM, Rutherford BM, Diegert KV, Alvin KF (2002) Error and uncertainty in modeling and simulation. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 75:333–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Persson M (2002) Quantitative risk analysis procedure for the fire evacuation of a road tunnel. Department of Fire Safety Engineering, Lund University, Sweden

    Google Scholar 

  33. Guanquan C, Jinhui W (2012) Study on probability distribution of fire scenarios in risk assessment to emergency evacuation. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 99:24–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Shi L, Shuai J, Xu K (2014) Fuzzy fault tree assessment based on improved AHP for fire and explosion accidents for steel oil storage tanks. J Hazard Mater 278:529–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Wang J, Yan W, Xu H, Zhi Y, Wang Z, Jiang J (2018) Investigation of the probability of a safe evacuation to succeed in subway fire emergencies based on Bayesian theory. KSCE J Civ Eng 22(3):877–886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Brooker P (2011) Experts, Bayesian belief networks, rare events and aviation risk estimates. Saf Sci 49:1142–1155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Dempster A (1990) Construction and local computation aspects of network belief functions. In: Oliver RM, Smith JQ (eds) Influence diagrams, belief nets, and decision analysis. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hanea D, Ale B (2009) Risk of human fatality in building fires: a decision tool using Bayesian networks. Fire Saf J 44(5):704–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Matellini DB, Wall AD, Jenkinson ID, Wang J, Pritchard R (2012) A Bayesian network model for fire development and occupant response within dwellings. In: Proceedings of IEEE 2012 Prognostics and System Health Management Conference, pp 1–7

  40. Matellini DB, Wall AD, Jenkinson ID, Wang J, Pritchard R (2013) A study of human reaction during the initial stages of a dwelling fire using a Bayesian network model. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part O J Risk Reliab 227(2):207–221

    Google Scholar 

  41. Pires TT (2005) An approach for modeling human cognitive behavior in evacuation models. Fire Saf J 40(2):177–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Radianti J, Granmo O-C (2014) A framework for assessing the condition of crowds exposed to a fire hazard using a probabilistic model. Int J Mach Learn Comput 4(1):14–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Jensen FV (2001) Bayesian networks and decision graphs, 2nd edn. Springer, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Fenton N, Neil M (2011) The use of Bayes and causal modelling in decision making, uncertainty and risk. Eur J Inf Prof 12(5):10–21

    Google Scholar 

  45. BayesFusion, LLC (2020) GeNIe Modeler. Available at https://www.bayesfusion.com/genie/

  46. Zadeh LA (1975) The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning - I. Inf Sci 8(4):199–249

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. Klir GJ, Yuan B (1995) Fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic theory and applications. Prentice Hall PTR, New Jersey

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Ren J, Wang J, Jenkinson I, Xu DL, Yang JB (2007) A Bayesian network approach for offshore risk analysis through linguistic variables. China Ocean Eng 21(3):371–390

    Google Scholar 

  49. Chen C-T, Lin C-T, Huang S-F (2006) A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management. Int J Prod Econ 102(2):289–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Ferreira L, Borenstein D (2012) A fuzzy-Bayesian model for supplier selection. Expert Syst Appl 39(9):7834–7844

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Mahamud KRK, Othman M (2010) Fuzzy subjective evaluation of Asia Pacific airport. J ICT 9:41–57

    Google Scholar 

  52. Li P, Chen G, Dai L, Zhang L (2012) A fuzzy Bayesian network approach to improve the quantification of organizational influences in HRA frameworks. Saf Sci 50(7):1569–1583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Pinto A (2014) QRAM a qualitative occupational safety risk assessment model for the construction industry that incorporate uncertainties by the use of fuzzy sets. Saf Sci 63(2014):57–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Ren J, Jenkinson I, Wang J, Xu DL, Yang JB (2008) A methodology to model causal relationships on offshore safety assessment focusing on human and organizational factors. J Saf Res 39(1):87–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Ren J, Jenkinson I, Wang J, Xu DL, Yang JB (2009) An offshore risk analysis method using fuzzy Bayesian network. J Offshore Mech Arct Eng 131(4):1–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Rajakarunakaran S, Kumar AM, Prabhu VA (2015) Applications of fuzzy faulty tree analysis and expert elicitation for evaluation of risks in LPG refuelling station. J Loss Prev Process Ind 33:109–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Breaux J, Canter D, Sime JD (1976) Psychological aspects of behaviour of people in fire situations. In: International Fire Protection Seminar, 5th. University of Surrey, Guilford, UK, pp 22–24

  58. Tong D, Canter D (1985) The decision to evacuate : a study of the motivations which contribute to evacuation in the event of fire. Fire Saf J 9:257–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Bryan JL (2002) Behavioral response to fire and smoke. In: DiNenno PJ, Drysdale D, Beyler CL, Walton WD, Custer RLP, Hall JR, Watts JM (eds) SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering. Quincy, Massachusetts 02269: National Fire Protection Association, 3rd edn, pp 315–341

  60. Fridolf K, Nilsson D, Frantzich H (2013) Fire evacuation in underground transportation systems: a review of accidents and empirical research. Fire Technol 49(2):451–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Kuligowski E (2009) The process of human behavior in fires. Technical Note (NIST TN), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=902507

  62. Proulx G (1993) A stress model for people facing a fire. J Environ Psychol 13(2):137–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Brennan P (2000) Modelling cue recognition and pre-evacuation response. In: Fire safety science: proceedings of the sixth international symposium, pp 1029–1040

  64. Graham T, Roberts D (2000) Qualitative overview of some important factors affecting the egress of people in hotel fires. Int J Hosp Manag 19(1):79–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Drury J, Cocking C (2007) The mass psychology of disasters and emergency evacuations: a research report and implications for practice. University of Sussex, Brighton

    Google Scholar 

  66. Hofinger G, Zinke R, Künzer L (2014) Human factors in evacuation simulation, planning, and guidance. Conf Pedestr Evac Dyn 2:603–611

    Google Scholar 

  67. Proulx G, Fahy R (1997) The time delay to start evacuation: review of five case studies. In: Fire Safety Science—Proceedings of The Fifth International Symposium pp 783–794

  68. Ramachandran G (1991) Informative fire warning systems. Fire Technol 27(1):66–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Viswanathan V, Lees M (2014) An information processing based model of pre-evacuation behavior for agent based egress simulation. In: Weidmann U, Kirsch U, Schreckenberg M (eds) Pedestrian and evacuation dynamics 2012, vol 16. Springer, Switzerland, pp 125–133

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  70. Jiang Z, Zhang P, Shang R, Tian X (2014) Investigation and simulation on human evacuation behaviour in large hospital building in Shenyang. Proc Eng 71:101–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Li L, Zhu G (2013) The questionnaire of influence factors in the commercial building evacuation. Proc Eng 52:171–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–292

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  73. Ortony A, Turner TJ (1990) What’s basic about basic emotions? Psychol Rev 97(3):315–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Dolan RJ (2002) Emotion, cognition, and behavior. Science 298:1191–1194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Smith CA, Ellsworth PC (1985) Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. J Personal Soc Psychol 48(4):813–838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Zoumpoulaki A, Avradinis N, Vosinakis S (2010) A multi-agent simulation framework for emergency evacuations incorporating personality and emotions. In: Hellenic conference on artificial intelligence, pp 423–428

  77. Raubal M, Egenhofer MJ (1998) Comparing the complexity of wayfinding tasks in built environments. Environ Plan B Plan Des 25(6):895–913

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Kobes M, Helsloot I, de Vries B, Post JG, Oberijé N, Groenewegen K (2010) Way finding during fire evacuation; an analysis of unannounced fire drills in a hotel at night. Build Environ 45(3):537–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Benthorn L, Frantzich Ê (1999) Managing evacuating people from facilities during a fire emergency. Facilities 17(9):325–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Pan X, Han CS, Dauber K, Law KH (2006) Human and social behavior in computational modeling and analysis of egress. Autom Constr 15:448–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Ozel F (2001) Time pressure and stress as a factor during emergency egress. Saf Sci 38:95–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Ng CMY, Chow WK (2006) A brief review on the time line concept in evacuation. Int J Archit Sci 7(1):1–13

    Google Scholar 

  83. Sime JD (1986) Perceived time available: the margin of safety in fires. In: Grant CE, Pagni PJ (eds) Fire safety science: proceedings of the first international symposium, Hemisphere, Washington, pp 561–570

  84. Kendik E (1983) Determination of the evacuation time pertinent to the projected area factor in the event of total evacuation of high-rise office buildings via staircases. Fire Saf J 5(3–4):223–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Kowalski-Trakofler KM, Vaught C, Scharf T (2003) Judgment and decision making under stress: an overview for emergency managers. Int J Emerg Manag 1(3):278–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Vorst HCM (2010) Evacuation models and disaster psychology. In: First international conference on evacuation modeling and management, vol 3, pp 15–21

  87. Sime JD (1995) Crowd psychology and engineering. Saf Sci 21:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Hofinger G, Zinke R, Strohschneider S (2011) Role-specific psychological requirements in preparing public transportation staff for disaster response. Disaster Prev Manag 20(4):398–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Aguirre BE (2005) Emergency evacuations, panic, and social psychology. Psychiatry 68(2):121–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Glauberman G, Qureshi K (2018) Exploratory qualitative study of fire preparedness among high-rise building residents. PLoS Curr 10:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  91. Neapolitan RE (2004) Learning Bayesian networks, vol 38. Prentice Hall, Connecticut

    Google Scholar 

  92. Weber P, Medina-Oliva G, Simon C, Iung B (2012) Overview on Bayesian networks applications for dependability, risk analysis and maintenance areas. Eng Appl Artif Intell 25(4):671–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Wang J, Zhang Q (2014) Model and algorithm design for cargo shipping safety based on fuzzy- precise bayesian network. J Netw 9(8):2137–2144

    Google Scholar 

  94. Kong D, Lu S, Xie Q, Lo S, Lu S, Kang Q (2014) Fuzzy risk assessment for life safety under building fires. Fire Technol 50(4):977–991

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Griffiths TL, Kemp C, Tenenbaum JB (2008) Bayesian models of cognition. In: Sun R (ed) The Cambridge handbook of computational psychology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–49

    Google Scholar 

  96. Knol AB, de Hartog JJ, Boogaard H, Slottje P, van der Sluijs JP, Lebret E, Hoek G (2009) Expert elicitation on ultrafine particles: likelihood of health effects and causal pathways. Part Fibre Toxicol. https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-8977-6-19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Uusitalo L (2007) Advantages and challenges of Bayesian networks in environmental modelling. Ecol Model 203:312–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.11.033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Burgman M, Fidler F, Mcbride M, Walshe T, Wintle B (2006) Eliciting expert judgement. a review. ACERA, Melbourne, Australia

  99. Moore CJ, Miles JC (1991) Knowledge elicitation using more than one expert to cover the same domain. Artif Intell Rev 5:255–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Klir GJ, Yuan B (1995) Fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic: theory and applications. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  101. Ross TJ (2010) Fuzzy logic with engineering applications, 3rd edn. Wiley, West Sussex, UK

    Book  Google Scholar 

  102. Detyniecki M, Yager RR (2000) Ranking fuzzy numbers using alpha-weighted valuations. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst 8(5):573–592

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  103. Haiqin W (2004) Building Bayesian networks: elicitation, evaluation, and learning. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  104. Radl A, Lexer MJ, Vacik H (2017) A Bayesian belief network approach to predict damages caused by disturbance agents. Forests 9(1):15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Jensen FV, Aldenryd SH, Jensen KB (2007) Symbolic and quantitative approaches to reasoning with uncertainty. In: Froidevaux C, Kohlas J (eds) Symbolic quantitative approaches to reasoning and uncertainty: European conference, ECSQARU ’95 (pp 243–250). Springer, Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75256-1

  106. van der Gaag LC, Renooij S, Coupé VMH (2007) Sensitivity analysis of Probabilistic Networks. In Lucas P, Gámez J, Salmerón A (eds) Advances in Probabilistic Graphical Models, Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, vol 214. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 103–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68996-6_5

  107. Laskey KB (1995) Sensitivity analysis for probability assessments in bayesian networks. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 25(6):901–909. https://doi.org/10.1109/21.384252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Coupe VMH, van der Gaag LC (2002) Properties of sensitivity analysis of bayesian belief networks. Ann Math Artif Intell 36:323–356

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is supported by Hajj Research Cluster, University Sains Malaysia (USM), Malaysia (No. 203.PTS.6720008). We would like to express gratitude to the experts in the field of Psychology in USM for the interviews, constructive comments and suggestions for this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mathematics Division, School of Distance Education, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800, Penang, Malaysia

    Nurulhuda Ramli & Noraida Abdul Ghani

  2. School of Quantitative Sciences, Universiti Utara Malaysia, 06010, Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia

    Nazihah Ahmad

  3. School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800, Penang, Malaysia

    Intan Hashimah Mohd Hashim

Authors
  1. Nurulhuda Ramli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Noraida Abdul Ghani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nazihah Ahmad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Intan Hashimah Mohd Hashim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nurulhuda Ramli.

Appendix A: Case Study Data

Appendix A: Case Study Data

See Tables

Table 7 Conditional Probability of Variable Emotional Stability (ES)\(P(ES|FC,LF,FK,TP)\)
Full size table

7,

Table 8 Conditional Probability of Variable Stress (ST) \(P(ST|ES,TP)\)
Full size table

8,

Table 9 Conditional Probability of Variable Perceived Hazard (PH), \(P(PH|FK, ST)\)
Full size table

9,

Table 10 Conditional Probability of Variable Psychological Incapacitation (PI), \(P(PI|ST)\)
Full size table

10,

Table 11 Conditional Probability of Variable Escape (E), \(P(E|PH, PI)\)
Full size table

11.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ramli, N., Ghani, N.A., Ahmad, N. et al. Psychological Response in Fire: A Fuzzy Bayesian Network Approach Using Expert Judgment. Fire Technol 57, 2305–2338 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-021-01106-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-021-01106-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation