基于组合赋权和改进TOPSIS的商业建筑运维阶段结构安全评价

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2025.10.1605

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为预防商业建筑在运维阶段发生结构安全事故,提高商业建筑结构安全评估的客观性与准确性,首先,建立商业建筑运维阶段结构安全评价体系,并采用基于层次分析法(AHP)—指标相关性权重确定法(CRITIC)的主客观组合赋权法,确定体系中各个评价指标的权重;其次,结合引入区间数改进后的优劣解距离法(TOPSIS),确定商业建筑在不同结构安全等级状况下对应安全评价指标的区间值,得到不同安全状况等级下的相对贴近度;最后,以长沙市某商业综合体建筑为例,基于现场检测数据,评价其安全状况,并与专业检测机构鉴定后出具的检测报告结果对比,验证所构建的指标体系和计算结果的准确性和适用性。研究结果表明:结合行业规范和专家经验确立评价指标体系,在现有研究的基础上使用组合赋权方法及区间数改进后的TOPSIS评价法,能够提高商业建筑结构安全评估的客观性和准确性。

关键词: 商业建筑, 运维阶段, 结构安全评价, 组合赋权, 优劣解距离法(TOPSIS)

Abstract:

In order to prevent structural safety accidents in commercial buildings during the operation and maintenance phase and enhance the objectivity and accuracy of structural safety assessments for commercial buildings, the following steps were taken: First, a structural safety evaluation system for the operation and maintenance phase of commercial buildings was established. The weights of each evaluation indicator within the system were determined using a combined objective-subjective weighting method based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the Criteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation (CRITIC) method. Second, by incorporating the improved TOPSIS method with interval numbers, the interval values of safety evaluation indicators corresponding to different structural safety levels of commercial buildings were determined, yielding relative proximity values under different safety condition levels. Finally, taking a commercial complex building in Changsha City as an example, the safety condition was evaluated based on on-site inspection data, and the results were compared with those from the inspection report issued by a professional inspection institution after appraisal to verify the accuracy and applicability of the established indicator system and calculation results. The study indicates that by combining industry standards and expert experience to establish the evaluation indicator system, and using the combined weighting method and the interval-based TOPSIS evaluation method improved with interval numbers on the basis of existing research, the objectivity and accuracy of structural safety assessment for commercial buildings can be enhanced.

Key words: commercial building, operations and maintenance phase, structural safety evaluation, combination weighting, technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution (TOPSIS)

中图分类号:

X913.4安全系统工程

陈大川, 段晓峰, 陈明思, 文征东, 石劲松. 基于组合赋权和改进TOPSIS的商业建筑运维阶段结构安全评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2025, 35(10): 140-148.

CHEN Dachuan, DUAN Xiaofeng, CHEN Mingsi, WEN Zhengdong, SHI Jinsong. Structural safety evaluation of commercial buildings in operation andmaintenance phase based on combined empowerment and improved TOPSIS[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2025, 35(10): 140-148.

图/表 8

图1

图2

表1

表2

图3

图4

表3

表4

参考文献 13

[1]	路世昌, 倪照鹏, 刘鑫, 等. 大型商业综合体消防安全管理探讨[J]. 消防科学与技术, 2019, 38(12): 1752-1755.
	LU Shichang, NI Zhaopeng, LIU Xin, et al. Study on fire safety management of large commercial complexes[J]. Fire Science and Technology, 2019, 38(12): 1752-1755.
[2]	刘勇, 徐志胜, 赵望达. 商业综合体人员密度调查与分析[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2015, 11(5): 175-180.
	LIU Yong, XU Zhisheng, ZHAO Wangda. Investigation and analysis on personnel density in commercial complex[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2015, 11(5): 175-180.
[3]	乔雄, 刘文高, 倪伟淋, 等. 基于爆破荷载等效施加方法的振动波形预测与古建筑安全评估[J]. 地震工程学报, 2024, 46(1): 16-25.
	QIAO Xiong, LIU Wen'gao, NI Weilin, et al. Prediction of vibration waveform and a safety assessment of ancient buildings based on the equivalent simulation method of blasting load[J]. China Earthquake Engineering Journal, 2024, 46(1): 16-25.
[4]	杨斯玲, 黄和平, 刘伟, 等. 基于结构熵权和修正证据理论的装配式建筑施工安全风险评价[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2019, 26(6): 143-149, 153.
	YANG Siling, HUANG Heping, LIU Wei, et al, Safety risk assessment of prefabricated building construction based on structure entropy weight and modified evidence theory[J]. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 2019, 26(6): 143-149, 153.
[5]	HUAN Junzhong, MA Donghui, WANG Wei, et al. Safety-state evaluation model based on structural entropy weight-matter element extension method for ancient timber architecture[J]. Advances in Structural Engineering, 2020, 23(6): 1087-1097. doi: 10.1177/1369433219886085
[6]	SHEN Zhouyang, PAN Peng, ZHANG Dongbin, et al. Rapid structural safety assessment using a deep neural network[J]. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2022, 26(5): 2625-2641. doi: 10.1080/13632469.2020.1785586
[7]	周海怡, 鲍全贵, 叶茂, 等. 基于组合赋权法的城市桥梁可靠性模糊综合评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(增1): 156-161.
	ZHOU Haiyi, BAO Quangui, YE Mao, et al. Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of urban bridge reliability based on combination weighting method[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(S1):156-161. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.S1.2494
[8]	GB 50292—2015, 民用建筑可靠性鉴定标准[S].
	GB 50292-2015, Standard for appraisal of reliability of civil buildings[S].
[9]	江杰, 汤娟, 甘雨, 等. 基于组合赋权法的建筑结构安全评价[J]. 科学技术与工程, 2021, 21(17): 7278-7285.
	JIANG Jie, TANG Juan, GAN Yu, et al. Safety evaluation of building structure based on combination weighting method[J]. Science Technology and Engineering, 2021, 21(17): 7278-7285.
[10]	魏海霞, 赵明, 祝杰. 基于模糊层次分析法的建筑结构安全评价体系研究[J]. 水利与建筑工程学报, 2019, 17(5): 181-186, 198.
	WEI Haixia, ZHAO Ming, ZHU Jie. Safety evaluation system of building structure based on fuzzy analytic hierarchy process[J]. Journal of Water Resources and Architectural Engineering, 2019, 17(5): 181-186, 198.
[11]	HWANG C L, YOON K. Multiple attribute decision making methods and applications[M]. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 1981: 12-23.
[12]	陈文强, 杨睿孜, 赵宇飞, 等. 基于组合权重-TOPSIS的岩质边坡稳定性评价[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2022, 22(3): 1198-1206.
	CHEN Wenqiang, YANG Ruizi, ZHAO Yufei, et al. Rock slope stability evaluation based on combined weighted and TOPSIS[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2022, 22(3):1198-1206.
[13]	段在鹏, 李帆, 郭进, 等. 城市易涝区房屋结构安全集成预警模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(7):173-180. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.07.0759
	DUAN Zaipeng, LI Fan, GUO Jin, et al. Integrated warning model for structural safety of buildings in urban waterlogged area[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(7):173-180. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.07.0759

第一层次指标	第二层次指标	第一层次指标权重	第二层次指标主观权	第二层次指标一致性检验	第二层次指标客观权重	第二层次指标综合权重
M₁	N₁₁	0.368	0.38	通过	0.31	0.464
	N₁₂		0.46		0.21	0.380
	N₁₃		0.07		0.18	0.050
	N₁₄		0.09		0.30	0.106
M₂	N₂₁	0.232	0.09	通过	0.24	0.087
	N₂₂		0.05		0.26	0.052
	N₂₃		0.54		0.25	0.541
	N₂₄		0.32		0.25	0.321
M₃	N₃₁	0.123	0.25	通过	0.22	0.225
	N₃₂		0.05		0.28	0.057
	N₃₃		0.58		0.25	0.594
	N₃₄		0.12		0.25	0.123
M₄	N₄₁	0.166	0.69	通过	0.48	0.797
	N₄₂		0.25		0.28	0.168
	N₄₃		0.06		0.24	0.035
M₅	N₅₁	0.076	0.64	通过	0.45	0.758
	N₅₂		0.08		0.31	0.065
	N₅₃		0.28		0.24	0.177
M₆	N₆₁	0.035	0.28	通过	0.42	0.342
	N₆₂		0.07		0.26	0.053
	N₆₃		0.65		0.32	0.605

第一层次指标	第二层次指标	指标取值
第一层次指标	第二层次指标	A级	B级	C级	D级
M₁	N₁₁	(1.0,2.0]	(0.95,1.0]	(0.9,0.95]	(0,0.9]
	N₁₂	(1.0,2.0]	(0.95,1.0]	(0.9,0.95]	(0,0.9]
	N₁₃	(0,1]	(1,2]	(2,5]	(5,10]
	N₁₄	(1.0,2.0]	(0.95,1.0]	(0.90,0.95]	(0,0.9]
M₂	N₂₁	(1.0,2.0]	(0.95,1.0]	(0.9,0.95]	(0,0.9]
	N₂₂	(0,1/300]	(1/300,1/250]	(1/250,1/200]	(1/200,1/10]
	N₂₃	(75,100] 连接方式正确, 无缺陷	(50,75] 连接方式正确, 局部表面有缺陷	(25,50] 连接方式不当, 结构构件有缺陷	(0,25] 连接方式不当, 构件明显有严重缺陷
	N₂₄	(0,0.1]	(0.1,0.5]	(0.5,1]	(1,10]
M₃	N₃₁	(1.0,2.0]	(0.95,1.0]	(0.9,0.95]	(0,0.9]
	N₃₂	(0,1/300]	(1/300,1/275]	(1/275,1/250]	(1/250,1/10]
	N₃₃	(75,100] 连接方式正确, 无缺陷	(50,75] 连接方式正确, 局部表面有缺陷	(25,50] 连接方式不当, 结构构件有缺陷	(0,25] 连接方式不当, 构件明显有严重缺陷
	N₃₄	(0,0.1]	(0.1,0.5]	(0.5,0.7]	(0.7,10]
M₄	N₄₁	(0,12]	(12,24]	(24,35]	(35,50]
	N₄₂	(0,1/250]	(1/250,1/200]	(1/200,1/100]	(1/100,1/10]
	N₄₃	(0,0.1]	(0.1,0.5]	(0.5,1]	(1,10]
M₅	N₅₁	(1/30,1/10]	(1/35,1/30]	(1/40,1/35]	(0,1/40]
	N₅₂	(0,1/300]	(1/300,1/275]	(1/275,1/250]	(1/250,1/10]
	N₅₃	(0,0.1]	(0.1,0.2]	(0.2,0.4]	(0.4,10]
M₆	N₆₁	(75,100] 楼梯无变形, 强度满足要求	(50,75] 楼梯变形较小, 强度满足要求	(25,50] 楼梯局部破损、变形严重,局部强度不满足要求	(0,25] 楼梯大部分破损、变形严重,不满足要求
	N₆₂	(75,100] 门窗强度高,无变形	(50,75] 门窗强度较高,基本无变形或变形较小	(25,50] 门窗强度一般,部分门窗变形严重	(0,25] 门窗强度差,多数门窗变形严重
	N₆₃	(75,100] 屋顶强度和刚度良好,无破损	(50,75] 屋顶强度和刚度良好,破损较小	(25,50] 屋顶强度和刚度一般,破损裂缝明显	(0,25] 屋顶强度和刚度较差,破损裂缝明显

E	结构安全等级
(0,0.439 8]	D
(0.439 8,0.530 3]	C
(0.530 3,0.620 5]	B
(0.620 5,1]	A

第一层次指标	第二层次指标	指标取值
M₁	N₁₁	[0.93,0.98]
	N₁₂	[0.96,1.02]
	N₁₃	[2,3.45]
	N₁₄	[0.90,1.02]
M₂	N₂₁	[0.95,1.03]
	N₂₂	[1/300,1/250]
	N₂₃	[70,80]
	N₂₄	[0.1,0.3]
M₃	N₃₁	[0.95,1.03]
	N₃₂	[0,1/300]
	N₃₃	[75,85]
	N₃₄	[0.1,0.3]
M₄	N₄₁	[15,18]
	N₄₂	[0,1/250]
	N₄₃	[0.1,0.3]
M₅	N₅₁	[1/35,1/30]
	N₅₂	[0,1/300]
	N₅₃	[0.1,0.3]
M₆	N₆₁	[80,90]
	N₆₂	[75,80]
	N₆₃	[85,90]

[1]	祝连波, 虞芷绮, 陶玉, 方海祥. 基于三度空间的智慧工地安全管理成熟度评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2025, 35(9): 36-44.
[2]	曹妍曦, 马鸿雁, 王顺. 基于FDS的商业建筑火灾温度场预测[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2025, 35(8): 213-218.
[3]	何玉珍, 王文杰, 陈仲杰. 基于G1-RF组合赋权云模型的下向分层开采充填体稳定性评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2025, 35(4): 165-172.
[4]	郑学召, 董贝贝, 童鑫, 王一硕. 应急救援装备保障能力评估模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2025, 35(1): 194-201.
[5]	谢科范, 左凌宇, 彭华涛. 我国电网智能安全技术的关键专利分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(9): 59-68.
[6]	姜福川, 杨浩, 王昊, 金凤春, 安泽文. 基于组合赋权和SPA-TOPSIS的煤矿安全投入决策模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(8): 86-92.
[7]	王丹, 高雯雯. 基于组合赋权-偏序集的应急供应链可靠性评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(5): 231-237.
[8]	潘寒川, 刘丹阳, 张煜睿, 刘志钢, 尚斌. 基于组合赋权-可拓云的城市轨道交通线路运营安全评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(4): 160-166.
[9]	陈娜, 胡毅彤, 袁英峰, 秦向南, 刘军. 基于博弈论组合赋权-云模型的消防员训练损伤风险评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(4): 232-238.
[10]	胡甚平, 刘玲玲, 席永涛, 张欣欣. 基于模糊Petri网的引航员作业舒适度评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(4): 67-76.
[11]	祁云, 薛凯隆, 汪伟, 崔欣超, 王宏祥, 齐庆杰. 矿井煤与瓦斯突出事故应急救援能力评估模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(2): 225-230.
[12]	史洪恺, 祁云, 张国恩, 姜晓宇, 何向, 孙远航. 组合赋权-灰色聚类的煤与瓦斯突出危险评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(S1): 52-57.
[13]	周海怡, 鲍全贵, 叶茂, 朱圣文, 林颖典. 基于组合赋权法的城市桥梁可靠性模糊综合评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(S1): 156-161.
[14]	张任栋, 张礼敬, 陶刚. 模糊推理-组合赋权的化工工艺本质安全度研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(8): 149-155.
[15]	刘欣, 李书玉, 王海宁. 基于Kraljic矩阵的化工园区应急物资分类与储备策略[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(11): 221-230.