WSR-博弈赋权-后悔理论的气膜馆火灾风险评价

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.06.1592

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为提高气膜馆火灾风险评价水平,及时识别火灾隐患,降低火灾风险,构建基于博弈赋权-后悔理论的火灾风险评价模型,采用改进层次分析法(AHP)与熵权法计算指标主客观权重,利用博弈论思想确定组合权重,运用后悔理论评价火灾风险等级。根据物理-事理-人理(WSR)理论,构建含4个一级指标与24个二级指标的气膜馆火灾风险评价指标体系,基于实证研究提出安全管理建议。研究表明:WSR理论适用于构建气膜馆火灾风险评价指标体系;基于博弈论思想确定权重,使结果达到主客观平衡;基于后悔理论评价风险等级,综合定性与定量优势,侧重客观数据,规避行为偏好;基于WSR-博弈赋权-后悔理论模型,评价某气膜馆的火灾风险,评价结果为Ⅳ级,即较低风险,符合该场馆实际情况。

关键词: 物理-事理-人理(WSR), 博弈赋权, 后悔理论, 气膜馆, 熵权法

Abstract:

In order to improve the fire risk assessment level of the air film stadium, identify fire hazards in time and reduce fire risks, a fire risk assessment model based on the game empowerment regret theory was constructed. The improved analytic hierarchy process(AHP)and entropy weight method were used to calculate the subjective and objective weights of indicators, the game theory was used to determine the combined weight, and the regret theory was used to evaluate the fire risk level. Based on the theory of WSR, a fire risk assessment index system for an air film stadium was constructed, including four primary and 24 secondary indicators. Based on empirical research, safety management suggestions were proposed. Research has shown that the WSR theory is suitable for constructing a fire risk assessment index system for air-film stadiums. Determine the weight based on game theory to achieve subjective and objective balance. Evaluate risk level based on regret theory, integrating qualitative and quantitative advantages, focusing on objective data and avoiding behavioral preferences. Based on WSR-game weighting-regret theory model, a fire risk assessment was conducted on a certain air film stadium, and the evaluation result was level IV, which is "lower risk", which is in line with the actual situation of the venue.

Key words: wuli-shili-renli(WSR), game weighting, regret theory, air film stadium, fire risk assessment

李啸然, 陈昕, 谢中朋. WSR-博弈赋权-后悔理论的气膜馆火灾风险评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(6): 174-180.

LI Xiaoran, CHEN Xin, XIE Zhongpeng. Fire risk assessment of air film stadium based on WSR-game weighting-regret theory[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(6): 174-180.

图/表 6

图1

图2

图3

表1

表2

表3

参考文献 18

[1]	白叶飞, 赵淋涛, 康晓龙, 等. 蒙中地区充气膜结构和传统结构体育馆热环境对比[J]. 西安建筑科技大学学报:自然科学版, 2022, 54(1):18-26.
	BAI Yefei, ZHAO Lintao, KANG Xiaolong, et al. Comparison of thermal environmental between gymnasium with membrane structure and traditional gymnasium in central Inner Mongolia[J]. Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology :Natural Science Edition, 2022, 54(1):18-26.
[2]	黄晓家, 王燚, 谢水波, 等. 建筑火灾风险评估方法的发展与回顾[J]. 消防科学与技术, 2021, 40(8):1174-1177.
	HUANG Xiaojia, WANG Yi, XIE Shuibo, et al. Development and review of building fire risk assessment methods[J]. Fire Science and Technology, 2021, 40(8):1174-1177.
[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. Research on fire risk assessment of large urban complex[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2021, 17(8):137-142.
[4]	卢颖, 赵志攀, 姜学鹏, 等. 大数据视域下体育场馆动态火灾风险指标研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(4):155-162. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.04.023
	LU Ying, ZHAO Zhipan, JIANG Xuepeng, et al. Dynamic fire risk indexes for stadiums from perspective of big data[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(4):155-162. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.04.023
[5]	余磊, 李波. 基于熵权的未确知测度理论的高层建筑火灾危险性评价[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2017, 24(1):115-120.
	YU Lei, LI Bo. Fire risk evaluation for high-rise buildings based on entropy weight and uncertainty measurement theory[J]. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 2017, 24(1):115-120.
[6]	彭华. 大型机场航站楼火灾风险评估方法研究[J]. 建筑科学, 2016, 32(1):108-113.
	PENG Hua. Study on fire risk evaluation method of large airport terminal[J]. Building Science, 2016, 32(1):108-113.
[7]	安晶, 张立宁, 庞晓娜, 等. 基于未确知聚类的高层建筑防火风险评估系统[J]. 消防科学与技术, 2022, 41(7):942-945, 950.
	AN Jing, ZHANG Lining, PANG Xiaona, et al. The fire risk assessment system for high-rise buildings based on unascertained clustering method[J]. Fire Science and Technology, 2022, 41(7):942-945, 950.
[8]	顾基发, 唐锡晋, 朱正祥. 物理-事理-人理系统方法论综述[J]. 交通运输系统工程与信息, 2007, 7(6):51-60.
	GU Jifa, TANG Xijin, ZHU Zhengxiang. Survey on Wuli-Shili-Renli system approach[J]. Journal of Transportation Systems Engineering and Information Technology, 2007, 7(6):51-60.
[9]	卢颖, 黄炎, 姜学鹏. 基于贝叶斯网络的养老院火灾风险评估方法研究[J]. 火灾科学, 2021, 30(4):185-191.
	LU Ying, HUANG Yan, JIANG Xuepeng. A fire risk assessment method of nursing home based on FTA and BN[J]. Fire Safety Science, 2021, 30(4):185-191.
[10]	宋瑞敏, 董璐, 周楚. 基于博弈论组合赋权法-后悔理论的知识产权质押融资估值风险评估[J]. 模糊系统与数学, 2021, 35(4):162-174.
	SONG Ruimin, DONG Lu, ZHOU Chu. Evaluation risk evaluation of intellectual property pledge financing based on game theory combination weighting method-regret theory[J]. Fuzzy Systems and Mathematics, 2021, 35(4):162-174.
[11]	涂圣文, 赵振华, 邓梦雪, 等. 基于组合赋权-后悔理论的城市综合管廊运维总体风险评估[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2020, 27(6):160-167.
	TU Shengwen, ZHAO Zhenhua, DENG Mengxue, et al. Overall risk assessment for urban utility tunnel during operation and maintenance based on combination weighting and regret theory[J]. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 2020, 27(6):160-167.
[12]	陈昕, 陈大伟. 基于改进AHP-FCE的高层住宅火灾风险评价研究[J]. 安全, 2020, 41(10):9-13.
	CHEN Xin, CHEN Dawei. Study on fire risk assessment of high rise residential buildings based on improved AHP-FCE[J]. Safety & Security, 2020, 41(10):9-13.
[13]	姜福川, 周师, 吴增彤, 等. 基于熵权-TOPSIS法的煤矿安全投入决策分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(7):24-29. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.07.004
	JIANG Fuchuan, ZHOU Shi, WU Zengtong, et al. Analysis of coal mine safety investment decision based on entropy weight-TOPSIS method[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(7):24-29. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.07.004
[14]	刘同超, 李振福, 陈卓. 基于后悔理论的北极航线安全评价[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2018, 18(6):2069-2074.
	LIU Tongchao, LI Zhenfu, CHEN Zhuo. On the safety evaluation of the arctic route based on the regret theory[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2018, 18(6):2069-2074.
[15]	GB 50016—2014, 建筑设计防火规范(2018年版)[S].
	GB 50016-2014, Code for fire protection design of buildings(2018)[S].
[16]	GB 25201—2010,建筑消防设施的维护管理[S].
	GB 25201-2010, Maintenance management for building fire equipments[S].
[17]	马舒琪, 刘澎, 吕淑然, 等. 基于ISM-DBN的古建筑群火灾风险演化模型[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2022, 29(3):55-61.
	MA Shuqi, LIU Peng, LYU Shuran, et al. Fire risk evolution model of ancient buildings based on ISM-DBN[J]. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 2022, 29(3):55-61.
[18]	VAN WEYENBERGE B, DECKERS X, CASPEELE R, et al. Development of an integrated risk assessment method to quantify the life safety risk in buildings in case of fire[J]. Fire Technology, 2019, 55(4):1211-1242. doi: 10.1007/s10694-018-0763-6

风险等级	风险程度	分数区间
Ⅰ级	极高风险	[0~3)
Ⅱ级	较高风险	[3~5)
Ⅲ级	中等风险	[5~7)
Ⅳ级	较低风险	[7~9)
Ⅴ级	极低风险	[9~10]

准则层	主观权重	客观权重	组合权重	排序	指标层	主观权重	客观权重	组合权重	排序
B₁	0.232 4	0.252 6	0.236 0	3	C₁₁	0.098 3	0.179 0	0.108 2	6
					C₁₂	0.124 2	0.137 5	0.125 8	5
					C₁₃	0.155 7	0.135 6	0.153 2	3
					C₁₄	0.262 2	0.225 0	0.257 6	1
					C₁₅	0.231 4	0.175 2	0.224 5	2
					C₁₆	0.128 2	0.147 7	0.130 6	4
B₂	0.137 7	0.227 7	0.153 8	4	C₂₁	0.325 1	0.224 9	0.307 4	1
					C₂₂	0.116 7	0.203 6	0.132 1	4
					C₂₃	0.147 8	0.165 7	0.151 0	3
					C₂₄	0.260 3	0.167 4	0.243 9	2
					C₂₅	0.070 8	0.132 3	0.081 6	6
					C₂₆	0.079 3	0.106 1	0.084 0	5
B₃	0.359 6	0.276 7	0.344 8	1	C₃₁	0.302 8	0.147 3	0.275 1	1
					C₃₂	0.256 9	0.135 4	0.235 2	2
					C₃₃	0.051 3	0.139 9	0.067 1	6
					C₃₄	0.079 3	0.196 2	0.100 1	5
					C₃₅	0.186 3	0.215 2	0.191 4	3
					C₃₆	0.123 4	0.166 0	0.131 0	4
B₄	0.270 2	0.243 0	0.265 4	2	C₄₁	0.237 9	0.209 0	0.233 4	2
					C₄₂	0.118 4	0.173 5	0.127 0	4
					C₄₃	0.359 5	0.174 5	0.330 7	1
					C₄₄	0.174 2	0.189 5	0.176 6	3
					C₄₅	0.071 1	0.125 4	0.079 6	5
					C₄₆	0.038 9	0.128 1	0.052 8	6

理论模型	评价等级
博弈赋权-后悔理论	Ⅳ级(7.133 9)
模糊综合评价法	Ⅳ级(0.000 0,0.253 1,0.140 0, 0.606 9,0.000 0)
物元可拓模型	Ⅳ级(-0.355,-0.295,-0.171, 0.103,-0.265)