Optimal exit choice during highway tunnel evacuations based on the fire locations

Yuchen Wang; Jianxiao Ma; Yuhang Liu; Yingjia Bai; Le Xu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0256523

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 17, 2021
13 Jul 2021 Decision Letter - Feng Chen, Editor PONE-D-21-19452 Optimal Exit Choice During Highway Tunnel Evacuations Based on The Fire Locations PLOS ONE Dear Dr. ma, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 27 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Feng Chen Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. 3. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: a) The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript b) A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a supporting information file) c) A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new manuscript file) 4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This paper proposes an exit selection strategy in highway tunnels under the a fire event. This research is of practical importance for safety management. The logic of this paper is clear, but there are still some issues needed to revise. The comments of the paper are as follows: (1)The authors used VISSIM to simulate the vehicle distributions when the fire happened. Please explain the advantage of VISSIM. (2)The research framework should be presented to indicate the methodology and contents. (3) The rows in Table 2 should be spaced equally. (4)The flowchart in Figure 4 of the paper is too cumbersome. The authors are advised to streamline it. (5)The images inserted in the paper are blurry. It is recommended to use clear pictures. (6)The format of the references should be consistent. For example, the name of a paper with only reference 1 is capitalized. Reviewer #2: The study investigated an important topic using a simulation based approach. The authors combine two simulation tools for understanding the efficiency of highway tunnel evacuations and assisting the location of evacuation signs. Overall, I found the study interesting and would be of interest to broad audience. A few minor issues need to be corrected before it can be accepted for publication. 1. It is not clear how parameters in VISSIM and BuildingEXODUS are calinbrated, and how the simulation results are validated. The whole calibration process for simulation based study is necessary and the author may want to inlcude more details in supporting information. 2. Only the optimal productivity statistics is used as the index for evaluating the evacuation efficiency. I believe there are many other indexes or metrics that may work in a similar way. The authors should discuss further on the reasoning behind the choice of the index and potentially include the results from other metrics. 3. The figures submitted are of very poor quality. This should be significantly improved. Vectorized images are preferred for scientific publications. 4. The current discussion on major findings is pretty slim. The authors should include more detailed discussion on how the results can inform better evacuation prepration in highway tunnels and what are the major lessons learned from the case study that can be carried over other scenarios. The authors should also discuss the limitations, which is important for simulation based studies. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256523.r001
Revision 1
6 Aug 2021 Author Response Dear reviewers, Thanks very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. I really appreciate all your comments and suggestions! Please find my itemized responses below and my revisions in the re-submitted files. Thank you very much for your consideration. Best regards! Jianxiao Ma Reviewer #1: 1. The authors used VISSIM to simulate the vehicle distributions when the fire happened. Please explain the advantage of VISSIM. Response: Thanks for your suggestions. We have added papers 27 and 28 with more detail about the advantage of VISSIM in the Method section. The specific revises are as follows (Word Lines: 153-156): The car-following model of VISSIM could easily simulate and extract the trajectories of vehicles[27, 28]. Therefore, VISSIM is used to display vehicle distributions and operations in real time when the fire occurs [29], determining the locations of evacuating occupants and obstacles in the tunnel. 2. The research framework should be presented to indicate the methodology and contents. Response: Thank you for your questions. We have added more descriptions to indicate the methodology and contents. The specific revises are as follows (Word Lines: 78-87): The aim in the study is to determine the optimal exit choice for different fire locations and evacuating occupants at different positions. We propose a strategy to obtain the optimal exit choice during highway tunnel evacuations based on fire location. The research framework includes three parts. First, we use BuildingEXODUS and VISSIM to obtain the parameters about vehicle distributions, locations of evacuating occupants, evacuation process and analyze the impacts of different fire locations on evacuation time. Then, the OPS output from BuildingEXODUS is selected as the evaluation index. Next, FCM cluster algorithm is used to capture the feature points of the occupants. Based on the feature points, the relationship between the location of fire and boundary of optimal exit choice under the optimal OPS is obtained through polynomial regression model. 3. The rows in Table 2 should be spaced equally. Response: Thank you for your questions. In the revised version, we have modified Table 2(Word Lines: 278). 4. The flowchart in Figure 4 of the paper is too cumbersome. The authors are advised to streamline it. Response: Thank you for your questions. In the revised version, we have modified Figure 4. 5. The images inserted in the paper are blurry. It is recommended to use clear pictures. Response: Thank you for your questions. In the revised version, we have provided figures of high quality. 6. The format of the references should be consistent. For example, the name of a paper with only reference 1 is capitalized. Response: Thank you for your questions. In the revised version, we have modified the format of the references. Reviewer #2: 1. It is not clear how parameters in VISSIM and BuildingEXODUS are calinbrated, and how the simulation results are validated. The whole calibration process for simulation based study is necessary and the author may want to inlcude more details in supporting information. Response: Thank you for your questions. In the revised version, we have added more descriptions to expand the calibration process. The specific revises are as follows: A set of simulation parameters is required to ensure the facticity of evacuation under the fire environment in the tunnel. In this study, monitoring data and literature data are collected to calibrate those simulation parameters input into BuildingEXODUS and VISSIM before simulation. Literature data are used to provide fire parameters and evacuation speed to ensure the authenticity of simulation. A previous emergency exercise of Maoshan Tunnel is used to validate the evacuation process in the highway tunnel under fire environment. (Word Lines: 236-241) The parameters of fire determined based on both monitoring and literature data are input into the hazard module of BuildingEXODUS. (Word Lines: 244-246) The maximum traffic volume is input into the VISSIM software to simulate the distribution of vehicles from freely flowing to congested traffic after the fire happens. (Word Lines: 260-262) In this study, the average speed is 0.49 m/s, which is input into the movement module of BuildingEXODUS to simulate the movement of occupants in the highway tunnel under fire environment. (Word Lines: 288-291) 2. Only the optimal productivity statistics is used as the index for evaluating the evacuation efficiency. I believe there are many other indexes or metrics that may work in a similar way. The authors should discuss further on the reasoning behind the choice of the index and potentially include the results from other metrics. Response: Thank you for your questions. There are some evaluation indexes used to evaluate evacuation efficiency, such as evacuation time. The calculation of OPS includes not only total evacuation time, but also the time of the last occupant evacuate from exit, which reflects the utilization rate and evacuation efficiency. From the perspective of management, the OPS could be used to measure the utilization rate of evacuation passageway and exit. In the revised version, we have added more descriptions to explain the reason for using the index. The specific revises are as follows (Word Lines: 120-121): The calculation of OPS includes not only total evacuation time, but also the time of the last occupant evacuating from exit, which reflects the utilization rate and evacuation efficiency. 3. The figures submitted are of very poor quality. This should be significantly improved. Vectorized images are preferred for scienific publications. Response: Thank you for your questions. In the revised version, we have provided figures of high quality. 4. The current discussion on major findings is pretty slim. The authors should include more detailed discussion on how the results can inform better evacuation preparation in highway tunnels and what are the major lessons learned from the case study that can be carried over other scenarios. The authors should also discuss the limitations, which is important for simulation based studies. Response: Thank you for your questions. In the revised version, we rewrote conclusion section. The specific revises are as follows (Word Lines: 383-394): Overall, the location of the fire is detected by fire detectors in the highway tunnel. The optimal exit choice during highway tunnel evacuations based on fire location is obtained by our strategy, which could provide valuable information for optimal exit choice and arranging variable evacuation signs in the highway tunnel. In our study, vehicle distribution is an important factor that determines the spatial location of vehicle and initial locations of evacuating occupants. Hence, effective information warning and traffic guidance could reduce the number of trapped vehicles and reduce accident casualties. In the future, we could study the optimal exit choice based on the fire locations, considering several evacuation passageways between the exit and entrance. Alternatively, we could study the impact of different fire parameters on the optimal exit choice of the highway tunnel. Editor: 1. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. Response: We have employed a professional scientific editing service American Journal Experts（AJE）to provide language editing. 2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: Response: We have added captions of Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript and updated any in-text citations to match accordingly. Special thanks to you for your good comments. We have carefully revised and polished the manuscript, please the reviewer to check. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256523.r002
9 Aug 2021 Decision Letter - Feng Chen, Editor Optimal Exit Choice During Highway Tunnel Evacuations Based on The Fire Locations PONE-D-21-19452R1 Dear Dr. ma, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Feng Chen Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: My comments have been addressed by authors. The revised version is suitable for the journal. So my suggestion is Accept. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256523.r003
Formally Accepted
12 Aug 2021 Acceptance Letter - Feng Chen, Editor PONE-D-21-19452R1 Optimal Exit Choice During Highway Tunnel Evacuations Based on The Fire Locations Dear Dr. ma: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Feng Chen Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256523.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .