Urban rail transit line operation safety evaluation based on combined weighting-extension cloud method

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.04.2513

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to solve the problems of lack of timeliness in the evaluation indicators of urban rail transit operation safety and some safety evaluation models ignoring the fuzzy boundaries of evaluation levels, a new evaluation index system for the operation safety of urban rail transit lines was reconstructed, including new indicators such as the implementation of infectious disease prevention and control measures by employees, the degree of cooperation between relevant units, and the completeness of prevention and control equipment. Secondly, the combination weighting of various indicators was carried out using the Best Worst Method (BWM) based on the minimization of dispersion and the anti-entropy weighting method. Then, the extension cloud was applied to determine the safety evaluation level of urban rail transit line operation. Finally, take Shanghai Metro Line 17 as an example for analysis. The results indicate that the comprehensive cloud correlation degrees of various indicators for the operational safety assessment of Shanghai Metro Line 17 are below 0.5, with a confidence level exceeding 0.99, among which the confidence levels for personnel factors, line factors, and management factors are all 1. This suggests that the employed indicator system and evaluation model are closely aligned with the current operational conditions of urban rail transit, accurately reflecting the safety levels of urban rail transit operations. Further analysis of the sensitivity of indicator values reveals that the reliability of station operational equipment has the most significant impact on the actual operational safety of the line. In practical operations, the degree of passenger cooperation in preventing and controlling infectious diseases at stations has the greatest potential to improve the indicator. It can help subway companies establish a more scientific and effective safety evaluation system to ensure the safety of daily line operations.

Key words: combination weighting, extension cloud model, urban rail transit, line operation, safety evaluation, infectious diseases

CLC Number:

X951交通运输安全

PAN Hanchuan, LIU Danyang, ZHANG Yurui, LIU Zhigang, SHANG Bin. Urban rail transit line operation safety evaluation based on combined weighting-extension cloud method[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(4): 160-166.

Figures/Tables 7

Fig.1

Fig.2

Tab.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

Weight values of safety evaluation index

一级指标	权重系数	二级指标	BWM法权重	反熵权法权重	综合权重
A₁	0.248	B₁	0.097	0.070	0.081
		B₂	0.024	0.048	0.038
		B₃	0.113	0.062	0.084
		B₄	0.027	0.058	0.045
A₂	0.364	B₅	0.038	0.055	0.048
		B₆	0.205	0.054	0.117
		B₇	0.087	0.066	0.075
		B₈	0.061	0.055	0.058
		B₉	0.087	0.050	0.066
A₃	0.184	B₁₀	0.010	0.083	0.052
		B₁₁	0.012	0.069	0.045
		B₁₂	0.022	0.050	0.038
		B₁₃	0.048	0.050	0.049
A₅	0.204	B₁₄	0.034	0.045	0.040
		B₁₅	0.016	0.066	0.045
		$B 1 6$	0.043	0.050	0.047
		B₁₇	0.076	0.069	0.072

Tab.3

Tab.4

Fig.3

References 10

[1]	苏旭明, 王艳辉, 祝凌曦. 改进的故障模式及影响分析在城市轨道交通运营安全评价中的应用[J]. 城市轨道交通研究, 2011, 14(5):65-69.
	SU Xuming, WANG Yanhui, ZHU Lingxi. Safety evaluation of urban rail transit operation based on improved fault model and effect analysis[J]. Urban Mass Transit, 2011, 14(5):65-69.
[2]	王艳辉, 黄雅坤, 李曼. 基于组合赋权方法的城轨线路运营安全评价[J]. 同济大学学报:自然科学版, 2013, 41(8):1243-1248.
	WANG Yanhui, HUANG Yakun, LI Man. Evaluation of urban rail transit line operational safety based on combination weighting method[J]. Journal of Tongji University:Natural Science, 2013, 41(8):1243-1248.
[3]	姜林林. 基于BP神经网络的城市轨道交通运营安全评价与设计[D]. 大连: 大连交通大学, 2014.
	JIANG Linlin. Urban rail transit operation safety evaluation and design based on BP neural network[D]. Dalian: Dalian Jiaotong University, 2014.
[4]	黎新华, 李俊辉. 基于DEMATEL和ISM融合的城市轨道交通车站运营安全评价方法研究[J]. 铁道运输与经济, 2018, 40(7):116-121.
	LI Xinhua, LI Junhui. A study on an assessment system on safe operation of urban rail stations based on DEMATEL and ISM[J]. Railway Transport and Economy, 2018, 40(7):116-121.
[5]	鹿颖. 基于风险矩阵法的城市轨道交通运营安全评价研究[D]. 长春: 吉林大学, 2019.
	LU Ying. Research on safety evaluation of urban rail transit operation based on risk matrix method[D]. Changchun: Jilin University, 2019.
[6]	任刚, 陈佳洁, 高瑾瑶, 等. 基于改进可拓物元法的地铁车站运营安全评价方法[J]. 城市轨道交通研究, 2020, 23(3):136-139.
	REN Gang, CHEN Jiajie, GAO Jinyao, et al. Safety assessment of metro station operation based on improved extension and matter element method[J]. Urban Mass Transit, 2020, 23(3):136-139.
[7]	WU Huawen, ZHEN Jin, ZHANG Jing. Urban rail transit operation safety evaluation based on an improved CRITIC method and cloud model[J]. Journal of Rail Transport Planning & Management, 2020, 16:1002-1006.
[8]	张渺. G1-EW组合赋权云模型下地铁运营安全风险评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(6):163-170. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.06.0947
	ZHANG Miao. Risk assessment of metro operation based on G1-EW combination weighting cloud model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(6):163-170. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.06.0947
[9]	GB50157—2013,地铁设计规范[S].
	GB50157-2013, Code for design metro[S].
[10]	李国良, 王磊, 杨晓严, 等. 我国交通基础设施发展水平比较研究[J]. 公路交通科技, 2021, 38(11):97-105. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-0268.2021.11.012
	LI Guoliang, WANG Lei, YANG Xiaoyan, et al. Comparative study on development level of transport infrastructure in China[J]. Journal of Highway and Transportation Research and Development, 2021, 38(11):97-105.

评价指标	Ⅰ级	Ⅱ级	Ⅲ级	Ⅳ级	Ⅴ级
B₁	(0.40,1.133,0.05)	(1.20,1.133,0.05)	(2.00,1.133,0.05)	(2.80,1.133,0.05)	(3.60,1.133,0.05)
B₂	(30.00,10.000,0.05)	(65.00,1.167,0.05)	(75.00,1.167,0.05)	(85.00,1.167,0.05)	(95.00,1.167,0.05)
B₃	(0.40,1.133,0.05)	(1.20,1.133,0.05)	(2.00,1.133,0.05)	(2.80,1.133,0.05)	(3.60,1.133,0.05)
B₄	(0.40,1.133,0.05)	(1.20,1.133,0.05)	(2.00,1.133,0.05)	(2.80,1.133,0.05)	(3.60,1.133,0.05)
B₅	(0.40,1.133,0.05)	(1.20,1.133,0.05)	(2.00,1.133,0.05)	(2.80,1.133,0.05)	(3.60,1.133,0.05)
B₆	(40.00,13.333,0.05)	(82.50,0.833,0.05)	(87.50,0.833,0.05)	(92.50,0.833,0.05)	(97.50,0.833,0.05)
B₇	(40.00,13.333,0.05)	(82.50,0.833,0.05)	(87.50,0.833,0.05)	(92.50,0.833,0.05)	(97.50,0.833,0.05)
B₈	(40.00,13.333,0.05)	(82.50,0.833,0.05)	(87.50,0.833,0.05)	(92.50,0.833,0.05)	(97.50,0.833,0.05)
B₉	(40.00,13.333,0.05)	(82.50,0.833,0.05)	(87.50,0.833,0.05)	(92.50,0.833,0.05)	(97.50,0.833,0.05)
B₁₀	(1.50,0.033,0.05)	(1.35,0.017,0.05)	(1.25,0.017,0.05)	(1.15,0.017,0.05)	(1.05,0.017,0.05)
B₁₁	(10.00,0.667,0.05)	(6.50,0.500,0.05)	(4.00,0.333,0.05)	(2.00,0.333,0.05)	(0.50,0.167,0.05)
B₁₂	(30.00,10.000,0.05)	(65.00,1.167,0.05)	(75.00,1.167,0.05)	(85.00,1.167,0.05)	(95.00,1.167,0.05)
B₁₃	(0.40,1.133,0.05)	(1.20,1.133,0.05)	(2.00,1.133,0.05)	(2.80,1.133,0.05)	(3.60,1.133,0.05)
B₁₄	(10.00,3.333,0.05)	(30.00,3.333,0.05)	(50.00,3.333,0.05)	(70.00,3.333,0.05)	(90.00,3.333,0.05)
B₁₅	(0.40,1.133,0.05)	(1.20,1.133,0.05)	(2.00,1.133,0.05)	(2.80,1.133,0.05)	(3.60,1.133,0.05)
B₁₆	(0.40,1.133,0.05)	(1.20,1.133,0.05)	(2.00,1.133,0.05)	(2.80,1.133,0.05)	(3.60,1.133,0.05)
B₁₇	(0.40,1.133,0.05)	(1.20,1.133,0.05)	(2.00,1.133,0.05)	(2.80,1.133,0.05)	(3.60,1.133,0.05)

评价指标	Ⅰ级	Ⅲ级	Ⅳ级	Ⅴ级	置信度 θ
A₁	0	0.002 1	0.427 8	0	1
A₂	0.000 2	0.074 9	0.091 4	0.109 5	0.998
A₃	0	0.002 8	0.139 2	0.007 5	1
A₄	0	0.035 1	0.279 3	0.000 1	1
综合评价	0.000 1	0.035 1	0.218 0	0.041 2	1

[1]	ZHOU Enyi, TAN Lu, HU Jinrong. Fire safety assessment of urban buildings [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(3): 179-185.
[2]	ZHOU Haiyi, BAO Quangui, YE Mao, ZHU Shengwen, LIN Yingdian. Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of urban bridge reliability based on combination weighting method [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(S1): 156-161.
[3]	SHI Hongkai, QI Yun, ZHANG Guoen, JIANG Xiaoyu, HE Xiang, SUN Yuanhang. Risk assessment of coal and gas outburst based on combination weighting and grey clustering [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(S1): 52-57.
[4]	ZHANG Rendong, ZHANG Lijing, TAO Gang. Research on inherent safety of chemical process based on fuzzy reasoning-combination weighting [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(8): 149-155.
[5]	HE Mingwei, QIAN Jia, LIU Jie, YIN Yong, ZHAN Shuguang. Vulnerability assessment of an urban rail transit network considering turn-back operation of trains [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(8): 84-92.
[6]	ZHOU Huijuan, WENG Dongyang, LI Bei, WU Wenxiang, ZHANG Zhe. Passenger flow distribution method under urban rail transit operation interruption [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(6): 144-151.
[7]	YANG Xiaoxia, JIANG Hailong, LI Yongxing, PAN Fuquan, YANG Jinshun. Prediction of evacuation time and safety evaluation for passengers ascending stairs in subway stations [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(5): 168-173.
[8]	LIU Guangqian, GU Xiaobo. Storage safety evaluation of hazardous materials based on improved FAHP-Entropy method [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(3): 147-152.
[9]	HUO Feizhou, FAN Dandan, LIU Chang, MA Yaping, LYU Zihan, LI Mengling. Study on evacuation model considering companion behavior and emotion contagion [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(11): 126-132.
[10]	LIU Xin, LI Shuyu, WANG Haining. Research on emergency supplies classification and reserve strategy for chemical industry parks based on Kraljic matrix [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(11): 221-230.
[11]	ZHANG Yaning, SI Hu. Spatial-temporal dynamic evaluation model of urban comprehensive resilience: taking infectious diseases as an example [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(10): 39-45.
[12]	BIAN Binbin, HUANG Yuqing, LIU Zhijian, TIAN Xianmin, ZHANG Kai. Construction of safety evaluation index system based on double prevention mechanism [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(S1): 45-50.
[13]	YANG Jingfeng, ZHU Dapeng, ZHAO Ruilin. Evaluation of station importance and cascading failure resistance analysis of urban rail transit network [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(8): 161-167.
[14]	WU Haitao, HOU Chenglong, LI Shuangxi, TAN Huiwen. Optimization of skip-stop strategy for urban rail transit considering passenger flow aggregation risk [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(6): 157-162.
[15]	ZHANG Miao. Risk assessment of metro operation based on G1-EW combination weighting cloud model [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(6): 163-170.