China Safety Science Journal ›› 2024, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (4): 226-231.doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.04.0310
• Emergency technology and management • Previous Articles Next Articles
ZHOU Qingchao(), YE Chunming**(
), GENG Xiuli
Received:
2023-10-13
Revised:
2024-01-22
Online:
2024-04-28
Published:
2024-10-28
Contact:
YE Chunming
CLC Number:
ZHOU Qingchao, YE Chunming, GENG Xiuli. Evaluation of emergency logistics facility location plan based on IT2F-BWM-MABAC method[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(4): 226-231.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://www.cssjj.com.cn/EN/10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.04.0310
Tab.1
Semantic scales corresponding to IT2F
量化值 | 具体说明 |
---|---|
((0,0,1;1), (0,0,0.5;0.5)) | 表示属性Ci 强烈劣于属性Cj |
((0,1,3;1), (0.5,1,2;0.5)) | 表示属性Ci 明显劣于属性Cj |
((1,3,5;1), (2,3,4;0.5)) | 表示属性Ci 稍微劣于属性Cj |
((3,5,7;1) (4,5,6;0.5)) | 表示属性Ci 与属性Cj同等重要 |
((5,7,9;1), (6,7,8;0.5)) | 表示属性Ci 稍微优于属性Cj |
((7,9,10;1), (8,9,9.5;0.5)) | 表示属性Ci 明显优于属性Cj |
((9,10,10;1), (9.5,10,10;0.5)) | 表示属性Ci 强烈优于属性Cj |
Tab.3
Description of emergency logistics facility attributes
属性 | 属性描述 |
---|---|
设施建筑结构坚固C1 | 应急物流设施的建筑结构应该坚固可靠,能够承受灾害带来的冲击和压力 |
交通便利程度C2 | 应急物流设施应该位于交通便利的地方,以保证物资的快速运输 |
基础设施C3 | 应急物流设施应该有稳定的供水、供电等基础设施,以保证设施运行的连续性 |
面积充足C4 | 应急物流设施需要充足的面积,以储存大量的物资和设备 |
距离灾害区域较远C5 | 应急物流设施应该远离可能受到影响的灾害区域,以免设施也受到影响 |
周边环境安全C6 | 应急物流设施周边环境应该安全稳定,以保证设施运行的安全性 |
Tab.4
Comparison information of various site selection attributes in BWM
Ci | 最优属性C2 | 最劣属性C6 |
---|---|---|
C1 | ((0,1,3;1), (0.5,1,2;0.5)) | ((7,9,10;1), (8,9,9.5;0.5)) |
C2 | ((3,5,7;1) (4,5,6;0.5)) | ((9,10,10;1), (9.5,10,10;0.5)) |
C3 | ((1,3,5;1), (2,3,4;0.5)) | ((5,7,9;1), (6,7,8;0.5)) |
C4 | ((5,7,9;1), (6,7,8;0.5)) | ((1,3,5;1), (2,3,4;0.5)) |
C5 | ((7,9,10;1), (8,9,9.5;0.5)) | ((0,1,3;1), (0.5,1,2;0.5)) |
C6 | ((9,10,10;1), (9.5,10,10;0.5)) | ((3,5,7;1) (4,5,6;0.5)) |
Tab.6
Evaluation information of interval type II fuzzy schemes provided by expert group
选址方案 | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X1 | ((7,9,10;1), (8,9,9.5;0.5)) | ((9,10,10;1), (9.5,10,10;0.5)) | ((5,7,9;1), (6,7,8;0.5)) | ((3,5,7;1), (4,5,6;0.5)) | ((1,3,5;1), (2,3,4;0.5)) | ((0,0,1;1), (0,0,0.5;0.5)) |
X2 | ((5,7,9;1), (6,7,8;0.5)) | ((9,10,10;1), (9.5,10,10;0.5)) | ((3,5,7;1), (4,5,6;0.5)) | ((3,5,7;1), (4,5,6;0.5)) | ((0,1,3;1), (0.5,1,2;0.5)) | ((0,1,3;1), (0.5,1,2;0.5)) |
X3 | ((5,7,9;1), (6,7,8;0.5)) | ((7,9,10;1), (8,9,9.5;0.5)) | ((5,7,9;1), (6,7,8;0.5)) | ((1,3,5;1), (2,3,4;0.5)) | ((1,3,5;1), (2,3,4;0.5)) | ((1,3,5;1), (2,3,4;0.5)) |
X4 | ((7,9,10;1), (8,9,9.5;0.5)) | ((5,7,9;1), (6,7,8;0.5)) | ((3,5,7;1), (4,5,6;0.5)) | ((5,7,9;1), (6,7,8;0.5)) | ((0,1,3;1), (0.5,1,2;0.5)) | ((3,5,7;1), (4,5,6;0.5)) |
Tab.10
Distance matrix between weighted decision matrix and boundary approximation region decision matrix
选址方案 | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X1 | 0.0247 | 0.022 | 0.024 | 0.006 | 0.008 | 0.004 |
X2 | -0.045 | 0.022 | -0.028 | 0.002 | -0.002 | 0.004 |
X3 | -0.035 | 0.022 | 0.024 | -0.024 | -0.002 | 0. 496 |
X4 | 0.062 | -0.063 | -0.016 | 0.023 | -0. 33 | -0.012 |
Tab.12
AHP evaluation matrix
Ci | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | 1 | ((0,1,3;1), (0.5,1,2;0.5)) | 1/((0,1,3;1), (0.5,1,2;0.5)) | 1/((1,3,5;1), (2,3,4;0.5)) | 1/((5,7,9;1), (6,7,8;0.5)) | 1/((7,9,10;1), (8,9,9.5;0.5)) |
C2 | 1/((0,1,3;1), (0.5,1,2;0.5)) | 1 | 1/((1,3,5;1), (2,3,4;0.5)) | 1/((5,7,9;1), (6,7,8;0.5)) | 1/((7,9,10;1), (8,9,9.5;0.5)) | 1/((9,10,10;1), (9.5,10,10;0.5)) |
C3 | ((0,1,3;1), (0.5,1,2;0.5)) | ((1,3,5;1), (2,3,4;0.5)) | 1 | 1/((0,1,3;1), (0.5,1,2;0.5)) | 1/((1,3,5;1), (2,3,4;0.5)) | 1/((5,7,9;1), (6,7,8;0.5)) |
C4 | ((1,3,5;1), (2,3,4;0.5)) | ((5,7,9;1), (6,7,8;0.5)) | ((0,1,3;1), (0.5,1,2;0.5)) | 1 | 1/((0,1,3;1), (0.5,1,2;0.5)) | 1/((1,3,5;1), (2,3,4;0.5)) |
C5 | ((5,7,9;1), (6,7,8;0.5)) | ((7,9,10;1), (8,9,9.5;0.5)) | ((1,3,5;1), (2,3,4;0.5)) | ((0,1,3;1), (0.5,1,2;0.5)) | 1 | 1/((0,1,3;1), (0.5,1,2;0.5)) |
C6 | ((7,9,10;1), (8,9,9.5;0.5)) | ((9,10,10;1), (9.5,10,10;0.5)) | 1/((5,7,9;1), (6,7,8;0.5)) | ((1,3,5;1), (2,3,4;0.5)) | ((0,1,3;1), (0.5,1,2;0.5)) | 1 |
Tab.13
Defuzzification of interval type II fuzzy sets in the AHP evaluation matrix
Ci | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | 1 | 1.083 | 1/1.083 | 1/2.750 | 1/6.750 | 1/8.540 |
C2 | 1/1.083 | 1 | 1/2.750 | 1/6.750 | 1/8.54 | 1/9.667 |
C3 | 1.083 | 2.750 | 1 | 1/1.083 | 1/2.750 | 1/6.750 |
C4 | 2.750 | 6.750 | 1.083 | 1 | 1/1.083 | 1/2.750 |
C5 | 6.750 | 8.540 | 2.750 | 1.083 | 1 | 1/1.083 |
C6 | 8.540 | 9.667 | 1/6.75 | 2.750 | 1.083 | 1 |
[1] |
闫森, 齐金平. 考虑需求不确定的多级应急物流设施选址研究[J]. 运筹与管理, 2022, 31(9):7-13.
doi: 10.12005/orms.2022.0278 |
doi: 10.12005/orms.2022.0278 |
|
[2] |
谷玲玲, 耿秀丽. IIF-ER方法在应急物流设施选址中的应用[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2018, 28(9):183-188.
doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.09.031 |
doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.09.031 |
|
[3] |
邝雨婕, 赵佳虹. 连续时变风险下危险品储运选址-选线问题[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(4):185-191.
doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.04.027 |
doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.04.027 |
|
[4] |
|
[5] |
王恒, 姚艳霞, 于姗姗, 等. 基于区间二型模糊超效率SBM模型的燃煤发电企业碳减排效率评估研究[J]. 热力发电, 2022, 51(1):69-78.
|
|
|
[6] |
|
[7] |
|
[8] |
金腾宇, 耿秀丽, 章慧慧, 等. 基于犹豫模糊BWM与MOORA的多属性决策方法[J]. 机械设计与研究, 2021, 37(5):1-5.
|
|
|
[9] |
|
[10] |
|
[11] |
|
[12] |
|
[13] |
|
[1] | JIANG Xiaobin, JIN Chunyan, REN Hongxiang, ZHANG Zhiheng. Mooring maneuver evaluation system based on 3D virtual ships [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(5): 147-154. |
[2] | LI Changming, ZHAO Kaigong, ZHANG Xiaolei, WANG Ruidi, LI Yansu. Cloud model for risk evaluation of coal mine intelligent projects and its application [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(5): 168-174. |
[3] | WANG Dan, GAO Wenwen. Emergency supply chain reliability evaluation based on combined empowerment-bias order set [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(5): 231-237. |
[4] | WANG Dongying, CHEN Xiaoping, LIU Quan, ZHAO Tianhao, YAN Xu. Risk ranking of oil and gas pipeline based on improved cloud model-FMEA [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(5): 61-68. |
[5] | CHEN Na, HU Yitong, YUAN Yingfeng, QIN Xiangnan, LIU Jun. Risk assessment of firefighter training injury based on game theory combinatorial weighting and cloud model [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(4): 232-238. |
[6] | HU Shenping, LIU Lingling, XI Yongtao, ZHANG Xinxin. Evaluation of pilot comfort performance based on FPN method [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(4): 67-76. |
[7] | ZHOU Enyi, TAN Lu, HU Jinrong. Fire safety assessment of urban buildings [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(3): 179-185. |
[8] | ZHANG Shulin, WANG Lanning, LU Yi. Risk assessment of hydrogen peroxide production technology by using anthraquinone process based on dynamic Bayesian network [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(2): 110-116. |
[9] | DONG Jianjun, ZHANG Ying, LI Xin, MEI Yuan. InSAR deformation monitoring and safety and stability evaluation on surface of coal mine goaf [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(1): 140-149. |
[10] | PENG Yaxiong, ZHOU Zipei, YAO Yingkang, LIU Yunsi, ZUO Qingjun. Study on catastrophe instability criterion of layered surrounding rock in tunnel under blasting [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(1): 171-178. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||