Risk assessment model of compound disaster evacuation considering uncertainty

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.07.0273

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to solve the uncertainty problem of evacuation under the typical complex disaster scenario of earthquake and rainstorm, the risk assessment of evacuation was studied. Firstly, based on the planning characteristics of China's evacuation system, the risk control objectives of urban evacuation under the combined disaster of earthquake and rainstorm were put forward. Then, considering the uncertainty of evacuation time and the evacuation characteristics of earthquake-rainstorm compound disaster, a rapid evaluation model of urban road capacity under earthquake-rainstorm compound disaster was established. Secondly, considering the uncertainty of risk acceptance degree of different refuge demand points, the acceptable risk level coefficient based on the characteristics of urban planning land was put forward. Finally, considering the uncertainty characteristics of the above evacuation process, the optimal algorithm was adopted to calculate the decision-making model of the location of the maximum coverage emergency facilities, and the evacuation risk assessment model based on earthquake and rainstorm combined disasters was constructed. Taking the disaster prevention and evacuation responsibility area of a northern city as an empirical object, this paper probed into the risk situation under the combination of multi-risk control objectives and multi-planning schemes, and put forward the planning scheme of the shelter with minimum evacuation risk in this disaster prevention and evacuation responsibility area. The research shows that the model can make a more practical evacuation risk assessment for earthquake-rainstorm combined disaster scenarios, realize the quantitative analysis of uncertain factors, and achieve an effective connection between risk assessment and spatial planning.

Key words: uncertainty, compound disaster, evacuation risk, evaluation model, planning scheme

WEI Miling, WANG Wei, RONG Qingwen, LIU Xiaoran, LIU Chaofeng. Risk assessment model of compound disaster evacuation considering uncertainty[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(7): 203-212.

Figures/Tables 14

Tab.1

Fig.1

Tab.2

Fig.2

Tab.3

Acceptable risk level coefficient index value

用地类型	居住用地	商业办公用地	文化活动用地	教育科研用地	医疗卫生用地	其他
β₁	0.36	0.48	0.60	0.36	0.48	0.6~1
容积率	<0.8	0.8~ 1.2	1.2~ 1.8	1.8~ 2.5	2.5~5	>5
$β 2$	0.84	0.72	0.60	0.48	0.36	0.24
建设年代	1945年以前	1945— 1960年	1960— 1975年	1975— 1990年	1990— 2010年	2010 以后
β₃	0.24	0.36	0.48	0.60	0.72	0.84

Tab.3

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Tab.4

Fig.8

Tab.5

Fig.9

References 16

[1]	2021年福岛地震:一场来自10年前“东日本大地震”的余震[EB/OL].(2021-02-14). https://new.qq.com/rain/a/20210214A06P6100.
[2]	持续更新丨四川泸县6.0级地震已致3死146伤[EB/OL].(2021-09-16). http://m.news.cctv.com/2021/09/16/ARTIHPBDRY1vsxxwL4Yg5DWD210916.shtml.
[3]	SAARINEN T F, HEWITT K, BURTON I. The hazardousness of a place: a regional ecology of damaging events[J]. Geographical Review, 1973, 63(1): DOI:10.2307/213252. doi: 10.2307/213252
[4]	LEONARD M, WESTRA S, PHATAK A, et al. A compound event framework for understanding extreme impacts[J]. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:Climate Change, 2014, 5(1): 113-128. doi: 10.1002/wcc.2014.5.issue-1
[5]	宋守信, 陈明利, 翟怀远. 反脆弱机制在安全风险管控中的策略研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(12): 8-15. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2020.12.002
	SONG Shouxin, CHEN Mingli, ZHAI Huaiyuan. Research on strategy of antifragile mechanism in safety risk management[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2020, 30(12): 8-15. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2020.12.002
[6]	久貝寿之. 防災性能評価に基つく市街地整備計画に資する地レベル区道路の防災性能評価手法の構築[D]. 東京: 東京大学, 2000.
[7]	尹之潜. 地震损失分析与设防标准[M]. 北京: 地震出版社, 2004:1-120.
[8]	陈志芬, 周健, 王家卓, 等. 应急避难场所规划中避难人口预测的简便方法:以地震灾害为例[J]. 城市规划, 2016, 40(9): 105-112.
	CHEN Zhifen, ZHOU Jian, WANG Jiazhuo, et al. A simple way to predict the evacuation population in the emergency shelter planning: exemplified by earthquake disasters[J]. City Planning Review, 2016, 40(9): 105-112.
[9]	高杰, 冯启民, 张海东. 城市群体建筑物震害模拟方法研究[J]. 震灾防御技术, 2007, 2(2): 193-200.
	GAO Jie, FENG Qimin, ZHANG Haidong. Study on earthquake damage simulation method of urban group buildings[J]. Technology for Earthquake Disaster Prevention, 2007, 2(2): 193-200.
[10]	杜鹏. 交通系统震害预测中瓦砾堆积问题的改进[J]. 世界地震工程, 2007(1): 161-164.
	DU Peng. Improvement for the calculating method of debris piling problem in the earthquake damage forecasting of the transportation system[J]. World Earthquake Engineering, 2007(1): 161-164.
[11]	陈鹏, 张继权, 孙滢悦, 等. 城市内涝灾害居民出行困难度评价:以长春市南关区为例[J]. 人民长江, 2017, 48(24): 20-25.
	CHEN Peng, ZHANG Jiquan, SUN Yingyue, et al. Assessment of residents going-out difficulty in urban waterlogging disaster: case of Nanguan district of Changchun city[J]. Yangtze River, 2017, 48(24): 20-25.
[12]	宋英华, 张哲, 方丹辉. 城市洪涝下承灾体暴露性及行人失稳风险分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(10): 105-111. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2020.10.015
	SONG Yinghua, ZHANG Zhe, FANG Danhui. Analysis on exposure of disaster-bearing bodies and pedestrians' instability risk under urban waterlogging[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2020, 30(10): 105-111. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2020.10.015
[13]	夏军强, 董柏良, 周美蓉, 等. 城市洪涝中人体失稳机理与判别标准研究进展[J]. 水科学进展, 2022, 33(1): 153-163.
	XIA Junqiang, DONG Bailiang, ZHOU Meirong, et al. Research Progress on human instability mechanism and criterion in urban flood[J]. Advances in Water Science, 2021, 33(1): 153-163.
[14]	段满珍, 轧红颖, 李珊珊, 等. 震害道路通行能力评估模型[J]. 重庆交通大学学报:自然科学版, 2017, 36(5): 79-85.
	DUAN Manzhen, YA Hongying, LI Shanshan, et al. Assessment model for traffic capacity after seismic disaster[J]. Journal of Chongqing Jiaotong University:Natural Science, 2017, 36(5): 79-85.
[15]	王述红, 张泽, 侯文帅, 等. 综合管廊多灾种耦合致灾风险评价方法[J]. 东北大学学报:自然科学版, 2018, 39(6): 902-906.
	WANG Shuhong, ZHANG Ze, HOU Wenshuai, et al. Risk assessment method on multi-disaster coupled hazard for urban utility tunnel[J]. Journal of Northeastern University, 2018, 39(6): 902-906.
[16]	俞武扬. 突发事件下人员转移与应急资源配置决策研究[M]. 杭州: 浙江大学出版社, 2016: 1-151.

内涝风险	积涝水深/cm	道路状态描述	完好程度系数P_d	P_r
道路基本完好	0	路基、路面无明显积水,车辆、行人可正常通行	1.0~0.95	P_r=P_d
道路轻度内涝	0~15	道路轻微积水,可在短时间内迅速排出;车辆、行人仍可以正常通行	0.95~0.75
道路中度内涝	15~25	水深超过15 cm时,驾驶员无法判断车道的位置,对车辆行驶安全和行驶速度造成影响;水还未开始淹没人行道,对行人无影响	0.75~0.45
道路重度内涝	25~50	汽车发动机熄火;水将没过鞋帮,影响行人安全出入;交通中断	0.45~0.25	P_r =0
道路完全淹没	>50	道路完全丧失交通功能	<0.25	P_r =0

T	p
T	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
27	无解
28	无解			24.00	12.25	12.02	11.85	14.01
29	无解			17.10	7.93	8.48	8.73	9.00
30	无解			12.35	5.40	6.15	5.81	7.92
31	无解		42.05	7.88	2.72	3.00	4.14	5.33

p	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
最小风险值	无解			12.35	5.40	6.15	5.81	7.92
组合方案	—			B、C、D、G	B、C、D、F、G	B、C、D、E、F、G	A、B、C、D、F、G、H	A、B、C、D、E、F、G