Study on resilience of airport infrastructure under blizzard weather

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.12.2542

Abstract

Abstract:

To ensure the safety of airport operations under major natural disasters, the resilience index system consisted of physical resilience, functional resilience, economic resilience and organizational resilience was proposed, and the resilience index was evaluated by expert questionnaires. CFA model was established, and the influence of various resilience index on the resilience of airport infrastructure was systematically analyzed. The weight of the evaluation index was determined by CFA model. Based on a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation, the resilience level of airport infrastructure was evaluated. Results show that the established evaluation index of airport infrastructure resilience has good reliability and convergence validity. The proposed evaluation system of resilience indexes is reasonable. Compared with the physical, economic and organizational resilience, the functional resilience is the most significant for the resilience of airport infrastructure. Through fuzzy comprehensive evaluation, the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation value of airport infrastructure is 73.4, which indicates that the airport infrastructure has a good resilience level, and the proposed quantitative evaluation method can be used to evaluate the resilience of infrastructure.

Key words: blizzard disaster, airport infrastructure, resilience index, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model, fuzzy comprehensive evaluation

HUANG Xin, TAN Chengsong, WU Kun, QI Lin, CHEN Yu. Study on resilience of airport infrastructure under blizzard weather[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(12): 198-205.

Figures/Tables 8

Fig.1

Tab.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

Tab.4

Fig.2

Tab.5

Tab.6

References 13

[1]	BRUNEAU M, CHANG S E, EGUCHI R T, et al. A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities[J]. Earthquake Spectra, 2003, 19(4): 733-752. doi: 10.1193/1.1623497
[2]	BRUNEAU M, REINHORN A. Exploring the concept of seismic resilience for acute care facilities[J]. Earthquake Spectra, 2007, 23(1): 41-62. doi: 10.1193/1.2431396
[3]	李瑞奇, 黄弘, 周睿. 基于韧性曲线的城市安全韧性建模[J]. 清华大学学报:自然科学版, 2020, 60(1): 1-8.
	LI Ruiqi, HUANG Hong, ZHOU Rui. Resilience curve modelling of urban safety resilience[J]. Journal of Tsinghua University: Science and Technology, 2020, 60(1): 1-8.
[4]	毕玮, 汤育春, 冒婷婷, 等. 城市基础设施系统韧性管理综述[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(6): 14-28. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.06.003
	BI Wei, TANG Yuchun, MAO Tingting, et al. Review on resilience management of urban infrastructure system[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(6): 14-28. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.06.003
[5]	CIMELLARO G P, REINHORN A M, BRUNEAU M. Framework for analytical quantification of disaster resilience[J]. Engineering Structures, 2010, 32(11): 3639-3649. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.08.008
[6]	刘振亮, 苑溦, 李素超. 地震及次生突发灾害下公路桥梁网络韧性评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(8): 176-184. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.08.1457
	LIU Zhenliang, YUAN Wei, LI Suchao. Resilience assessment of highway bridge networks subjected to both earthquakes and earthquake-induced secondary emergencies[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(8): 176-184. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.08.1457
[7]	王超峰, 王德龙. 考虑机场等级的机场网络级联失效抗毁性研究[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2022, 22(1): 43-50.
	WANG Chaofeng, WANG Delong. Safety influencing factors of transmission line crossover construction: based on improved DEMATEL[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2022, 22(1): 43-50.
[8]	王兴隆, 赵俊妮, 王进. 恶劣天气下机场离场航班运行韧性评估及恢复[J/OL]. 北京航空航天大学学报:1-17. [2022-10-31].https://doi.org/10.13700/j.bh.1001-5965.2022.0193.
	WANG Xinglong, ZHAO Junni, WANG Jin. Resilience assessment and recovery of airport departure flights under severe weather[J/OL]. Journal of Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1-17. [2022-10-31]. https://doi.org/10.13700/j.bh.1001-5965.2022.0193.
[9]	COMES T, WARNIER M, FEIL W, et al. Critical airport infrastructure disaster resilience: a framework and simulation model for rapid adaptation[J]. Journal of Management in Engineering, 2020, 36(5):DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000798.
[10]	黄润建. 基于风险交互分析的4F机场灾害韧性评价研究[D]. 广州: 暨南大学, 2020.
	HUANG Runjian. Research on 4F airport disaster resilience evaluation based on risk interaction analysis[D]. Guangzhou: Jinan University, 2020.
[11]	李航, 郭晓梅, 胡小兵. 灾害性天气下航空公司天气成本测算模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(6): 7-12. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.06.002
	LI Hang, GUO Xiaomei, HU Xiaobing. A calculation model for airlines' weather-related costs under disastrous weather conditions[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2019, 29(6): 7-12. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.06.002
[12]	FATURECHI R, LEVENBERG E, MILLER H E. Evaluating and optimizing resilience of airport pavement networks[J]. Computers and Operations Research, 2014, 43: 335-348. doi: 10.1016/j.cor.2013.10.009
[13]	庄伟卿, 刘震宇. 一种基于结构方程模型的模糊综合评价算法的改进与系统实施[J]. 统计与决策, 2013(12): 11-13.

一级指标 (潜变量)	二级指标(观察变量)	标志符号
物理韧性- 起降设施	核心飞行区道面(跑道、机坪、滑行道系统等)	N₁
	空管设施	N₂
	目视助航及灯光设施	N₃
物理韧性- 辅助设施	航站区(航站楼、服务设施、进场路等)	N₄
	机务维修区	N₅
	机场排水系统	N₆
	机场地面交通设施	N₇
	机场供电系统	N₈
功能韧性	道面排水坡度(飞行区)	F₁
	航站区空侧旅客通行效率	F₂
	保障设施服务能力(如除雪设施)	F₃
经济韧性	客货运盈利损失	W₁
	除雪设备以及除雪剂等救灾消耗物资	W₂
	调机、食宿费用	W₃
	人员、财产伤亡直接损失	W₄
组织韧性	应急救灾物资储备	O₁
	机场人员管理	O₂
	场监系统(预警技术、覆盖范围等)	O₃
	滑行道与联络道布局	O₄
	各部门协同联动性	O₅

成分	初始特征值			提取载荷平方和			旋转载荷平方和
成分	总计	方差占比/%	累积/%	总计	方差占比/%	累积/%	总计	方差占比/%	累积/%
1	11.343	56.716	56.716	11.343	56.716	56.716	4.975	24.874	24.874
2	1.28	6.398	63.114	1.28	6.398	63.114	4.154	20.77	45.644
3	1.14	5.7	68.814	1.14	5.7	68.814	2.956	14.781	60.425
4	0.87	4.348	73.162	0.87	4.348	73.162	2.547	12.737	73.162

构面	指标	参数显著性估计				标准化因子负荷量	题目信度	CR	AVE	内在信度 Cronbach's α
构面	指标	Unstd	SE	t值	P	标准化因子负荷量	题目信度	CR	AVE	内在信度 Cronbach's α
机场基础设施韧性	物理韧性	1	—	—	—	0.954	0.910	0.968	0.884	0.958
	功能韧性	1.083	0.142	7.64	^***	0.994	0.988	—	—	—
	经济韧性	0.972	0.118	8.241	^***	0.896	0.803	—	—	—
	组织韧性	0.977	0.108	9.066	^***	0.913	0.834	—	—	—
物理韧性	起降设施	1	—	—	—	0.876	0.767	0.912	0.839	0.911
物理韧性	辅助设施	1.065	0.124	8.603	^***	0.954	0.910	—	—	—
功能韧性	F₁	1	—	—	—	0.678	0.460	0.798	0.571	0.782
	F₂	1.049	0.128	8.17	^***	0.756	0.572	—	—	—
	F₃	0.955	0.108	8.828	^***	0.826	0.682	—	—	—
经济韧性	W₁	1	—	—	—	0.798	0.637	0.839	0.567	0.830
	W₂	0.955	0.1	9.592	^***	0.764	0.584	—	—	—
	W₃	1.021	0.102	10.031	^***	0.792	0.627	—	—	—
	W₄	1.011	0.128	7.87	^***	0.647	0.419	—	—	—
组织韧性	O₁	1	—	—	—	0.863	0.745	0.927	0.719	0.929
	O₂	1.172	0.082	14.21	^***	0.880	0.774	—	—	—
	O₃	1.098	0.074	14.807	^***	0.900	0.810	—	—	—
	O₄	1.015	0.084	12.074	^***	0.805	0.648	—	—	—
	O₅	1.004	0.086	11.612	^***	0.786	0.618	—	—	—
起降设施	P₃	1	—	—	—	0.847	0.717	0.859	0.671	0.885
	P₂	1.13	0.102	11.111	^***	0.846	0.716	—	—	—
	P₁	0.845	0.058	14.506	^***	0.761	0.579	—	—	—
辅助设施	P₈	1	—	—	—	0.764	0.584	0.877	0.588	0.874
	P₇	0.96	0.095	10.065	^***	0.811	0.658	—	—	—
	P₆	1.027	0.111	9.265	^***	0.755	0.570	—	—	—
	P₅	1.115	0.116	9.639	^***	0.781	0.610	—	—	—
	P₄	1.034	0.118	8.773	^***	0.720	0.518	—	—	—

指标	χ²	df	χ²/df	RMR	GFI	AGFI	PGFI	NFI	IFI	TLI	CFI	RMSEA
推荐值	N/A	N/A	<3	<0.05	>0.8	>0.8	>0.5	>0.8	>0.9	>0.9	>0.9	<0.08
文中结果	302.826	162	1.869	0.045	0.825	0.773	0.636	0.872	0.936	0.924	0.935	0.079

一级指标	因子负荷量	指标权重	二级指标	因子负荷量	指标权重
物理韧性	0.954	0.254	N₁	0.761	0.121
			N₂	0.846	0.135
			N₃	0.847	0.135
			N₄	0.720	0.115
			N₅	0.781	0.124
			N₆	0.755	0.120
			N₇	0.811	0.129
			N₈	0.764	0.121
功能韧性	0.994	0.265	F₁	0.678	0.300
			F₂	0.756	0.335
			F₃	0.826	0.365
经济韧性	0.896	0.238	W₁	0.798	0.266
			W₂	0.764	0.254
			W₃	0.792	0.264
			W₄	0.647	0.216
组织韧性	0.913	0.243	O₁	0.863	0.204
			O₂	0.880	0.208
			O₃	0.900	0.212
			O₄	0.805	0.190
			O₅	0.786	0.186