城市建筑物消防安全评估

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.03.0201

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为降低城市建筑物消防安全风险,提高建筑单体抵御火灾事故的能力,从建筑消防设计、建筑消防设施和消防安全管理3方面综合识别消防安全影响因素,构建城市建筑物消防安全评估指标体系;采用信息熵和结构熵组合权重-逼近理想解法(TOPSIS)模型综合评估城市各类建筑及各区域的消防安全风险,并以我国西部X市5大区域262个建筑物加以验证;最后得到消防安全指数和综合排序,进而明晰城市建筑物消防现存的薄弱点。结果表明:消防安全综合评估排序为商业综合体>中小学>文物古建筑>高层建筑,城中>城北>城东>城西>城南,需重点关注高层建筑和城市边缘区县的消防安全风险;用该模型得到的评估结果与现状概况相符。

关键词: 城市建筑物, 消防安全评估, 组合权重, 逼近理想解法(TOPSIS), 指标体系

Abstract:

In order to reduce the fire safety risk of urban buildings and improve the ability of building units to resist fire accidents, the influencing factors of fire safety were identified from three aspects: building fire protection design, building fire protection facilities and fire safety management, and the assessment index system of fire safety of urban buildings was constructed. A combined weighting-TOPSIS model of structural entropy and information entropy was applied to assess the fire safety risk of each district and each type of building in the cities. The model was validated with 262 buildings in 5 major areas of X city in western China. Finally, fire safety index and comprehensive ranking were obtained, and then the existing weak points of urban buildings fire protection were clarified. The results indicate that comprehensive evaluation order of fire safety is commercial complexes > primary and secondary schools > heritage buildings > high-rise buildings, city center > north of the city > east of the city > west of the city > south of the city. The fire safety risk of urban fringe counties and high-rises need to be paid attention to. The assessment results calculated with this model are consistent with the current situation.

Key words: urban buildings, fire safety evaluation, combination weight, technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution (TOPSIS), index system

中图分类号:

X913.4安全系统工程

周恩毅, 谭露, 胡金荣. 城市建筑物消防安全评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(3): 179-185.

ZHOU Enyi, TAN Lu, HU Jinrong. Fire safety assessment of urban buildings[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(3): 179-185.

图/表 6

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

图1

参考文献 14

[1]	易斌. 基于ISM和AHP的城市消防安全评价分析[J]. 消防科学与技术, 2016, 35(3):423-425.
	YI Bin. Analysis of urban fire safety evaluation based on ISM and AHP[J]. Fire Science and Technology, 2016, 35(3): 423-425.
[2]	陈志芬, 黄靖玲, 李亚. 适应城市消防规划需求的火灾风险评估研究[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2019, 15(5):185-191.
	CHEN Zhifen, HUANG Jingling, LI Ya. Research on fire risk assessment adapted to urban fire planning needs[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2019, 15(5): 185-191.
[3]	肖国清, 黄仁和, 邹瑞, 等. 大型城市综合体火灾风险评估研究[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2021, 17(8):137-142.
	XIAO Guoqing, HUANG Renhe, ZOU Rui, et al. Fire risk assessment study of large urban complexes[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2021, 17(8): 137-142.
[4]	王梦瑶, 张靖岩, 杨玲, 等. 面向韧性城市的高层建筑消防安全韧性评估[J]. 建筑科学, 2020, 36(5):115-119.
	WANG Mengyao, ZHANG Jingyan, YANG Ling, et al. Fire safety resilience assessment of high-rise buildings facing resilient citys[J]. Building Science, 2020, 36(5): 115-119.
[5]	官钰希, 方正, 刘非. 层次分析法在古建筑群火灾风险评估中的应用:以湖北省古建筑群为例[J]. 消防科学与技术, 2015, 34(10):1387-1396.
	GUAN Yuxi, FANG Zheng, LIU Fei. Application of hierarchical analysis method in fire risk assessment of ancient building complexes in Hubei province[J]. Fire Science and Technology, 2015, 34(10): 1387-1396.
[6]	王爱, 张强, 陆林, 等. 多源数据支持下城市火灾风险评估及规划响应[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(3):148-155. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2021.03.021
	WANG Ai, ZHANG Qiang, LU Lin, et al. Urban fire risk assessment and planning response based on multi-source data[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(3): 148-155. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2021.03.021
[7]	LI Shiyu, TAO Gang, ZHANG Lijing. Fire risk assessment of high-rise buildings based on Gray-FAHP mathematical model[J]. Procedia Engineering, 2018, 211: 395-402. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.12.028
[8]	GB 55037—2022, 建筑防火通用规范[S].
	GB 55037-2022, General code for fire protection of buildings and constructions[S].
[9]	GB 51080—2015, 城市消防规划规范[S].
	GB 51080-2015, Code for planning of urban fire control[S].
[10]	WU Kaiya, JIN Juliang. Attribute recognition method of regional ecological security evaluation based on combined weight on principle of relative entropy[J]. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2008, 28(6): 754-758. doi: 10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2008.06.754
[11]	王新, 杨任农, 于洋. 基于TOPSIS的空战效能多指标评估模型[J]. 航空工程进展, 2020, 11(1):69-76.
	WANG Xin, YANG Rennong, YU Yang. Multi-Indicator evaluation model of air combat effectiveness based on TOPSIS[J]. Aviation Engineering Progress, 2020, 11(1): 69-76.
[12]	CUI Wenhua, YE Jun. Improved symmetry measures of simplified neutrosophic sets and their decision-making method based on a sine entropy weight model[J]. Symmetry, 2018, 10: DOI: 10.3390/sym10060225.
[13]	程启月. 评测指标权重确定的结构熵权法[J]. 系统工程理论与实践, 2010, 30(7):1225-1228. doi: 10.12011/1000-6788(2010)7-1225
	CHENG Qiyue. Structural entropy weighting method for determining the weights of evaluation indicators[J]. Systems Engineering-Theory & Practice, 2010, 30(7): 1225-1228.
[14]	王晓翠, 张礼敬, 陶刚, 等. 基于TOPSIS法的桥梁火灾韧性评估模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2018, 28(4):59-64. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.04.011
	WANG Xiaocui, ZHANG Liijng, TAO Gang, et al. Bridge fire resilience assessment model based on TOPSIS method[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2018, 28(4): 59-64. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.04.011

维度	指标
建筑消防设计A	建筑消防合法性A₁;建筑使用情况A₂;总平面布局A₃;平面布置A₄;安全疏散和消防电梯A₅;建筑内部装修A₆;防火构造A₇;通风空调系统A₈;建筑防爆A₉
建筑消防设施B	消防供配电设施B₁;火灾自动报警系统B₂;消防给水设施B₃;消火栓系统B₄;自动喷水灭火系统B₅;气体灭火系统B₆;机械加压送风系统B₇;机械排烟系统B₈;消防应急照明及疏散指示系统B₉;消防应急广播系统B₁₀;消防专用电话B₁₁;防火分隔设施B₁₂;消防设施联动控制功能B₁₃;灭火器B₁₄;消防站配置B₁₅;其他消防设施检查B₁₆
消防安全管理C	消防工作组织C₁;消防安全制度C₂;防火检查巡查及隐患整改C₃;消防安全宣传教育和培训C₄;安全疏散设施管理C₅;消防控制室管理C₆;用火用气用电消防安全管理C₇;消防安全重点部位管理C₈;专职或志愿消防队C₉;灭火救援响应能力C₁₀;灭火和应急疏散预案演练管理C₁₁;消防设施维护和保养C₁₂;消防档案管理C₁₃;人员消防安全意识C₁₄

建筑类型	Z_D	Z_E	Z_N	Z_W	Z_S	合计
P_H	10	29	32	10	30	111
P_C	12	2	5	0	9	28
P_T	4	9	0	4	8	25
P_S	16	35	27	10	10	98
合计	42	75	64	24	57	262

维度	指标	组合权重	全局权重
A	A₁	0.146 9	0.055 7
	A₂	0.162 9	0.061 7
	A₃	0.132 2	0.050 1
	A₄	0.085 4	0.032 4
	A₅	0.078 5	0.029 8
	A₆	0.073 3	0.027 8
	A₇	0.078 9	0.029 9
	A₈	0.103 6	0.039 3
	A₉	0.138 2	0.052 4
B	B₁	0.040 7	0.012 4
	B₂	0.039 0	0.011 9
	B₃	0.037 9	0.011 5
	B₄	0.039 2	0.011 9
	B₅	0.035 9	0.010 9
	B₆	0.123 3	0.037 5
	B₇	0.099 8	0.030 3
	B₈	0.072 9	0.022 2
	B₉	0.065 6	0.019 9
	B₁₀	0.051 5	0.015 7
	B₁₁	0.069 3	0.021 1
	B₁₂	0.073 2	0.022 3
	B₁₃	0.060 7	0.018 5
	B₁₄	0.068 3	0.020 8
	B₁₅	0.058 8	0.017 9
	B₁₆	0.063 8	0.019 4
C	C₁	0.048 8	0.015 5
	C₂	0.046 4	0.014 7
	C₃	0.061 5	0.019 5
	C₄	0.069 2	0.021 9
	C₅	0.088 2	0.027 9
	C₆	0.066 4	0.021 0
	C₇	0.069 7	0.022 1
	C₈	0.079 0	0.025 0
	C₉	0.084 3	0.026 7
	C₁₀	0.073 6	0.023 3
	C₁₁	0.083 6	0.026 5
	C₁₂	0.078 3	0.024 8
	C₁₃	0.085 9	0.027 2
	C₁₄	0.065 1	0.020 6

建筑类型	维度A		维度B		维度C		综合评估
建筑类型	贴近度	排序	贴近度	排序	贴近度	排序	贴近度	排序
P_H	0.259 7	4	0.506 2	4	0.352 2	3	0.471 7	4
P_C	0.763 4	1	0.709 6	1	0.574 4	1	0.567 2	1
P_T	0.267 3	3	0.541 4	3	0.329 6	4	0.498 5	3
P_S	0.274 1	2	0.543 4	2	0.565 9	2	0.553 1	2
总体均值	0.319 6		0.545 2		0.453 7		0.514 9

区域	维度A		维度B		维度C		综合评估
区域	贴近度	排序	贴近度	排序	贴近度	排序	贴近度	排序
Z_D	0.476 1	1	0.604 9	1	0.528 2	1	0.545	1
Z_E	0.285 5	4	0.541 9	4	0.463	3	0.530 8	2
Z_N	0.296 7	3	0.562 4	3	0.490 7	2	0.539 7	3
Z_W	0.260 1	5	0.535 9	5	0.425 3	5	0.509	4
Z_S	0.426 3	2	0.572	2	0.448 3	4	0.506	5
总体均值	0.319 6		0.545 2		0.453 7		0.514 9