Construction safety risk assessment of prefabricated subway station based on cloud model

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.06.0860

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to effectively evaluate the construction safety risk of prefabricated subway stations, reduce construction safety accidents and ensure construction safety, a risk evaluation model based on a combination weighting and cloud model was proposed. Firstly, the construction safety risk factors were identified based on national standards and project information and then optimized by the Delphi method, to establish a construction safety risk assessment index system including 6 first-level and 25 second-level indexes. Then, using the entropy weight method and continuous ordered weighted averaging (C-OWA) operator to determine the index weight and the cloud model to determine the risk assessment level. Finally, the above evaluation method was verified based on a prefabricated subway station project. The results show that the evaluation grade of the project is relatively low risk, which is consistent with the actual situation of the construction site. However, the risk level of personnel and construction technology is medium, which should be given priority consideration when taking safety prevention and control measures.

Key words: prefabricated subway station, construction safety, risk assessment, cloud model

LUO Zhenhua, GUO Juntao, HAN Jianqiang. Construction safety risk assessment of prefabricated subway station based on cloud model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(6): 88-95.

Figures/Tables 11

Fig.1

Fig.2

Tab.1

Tab.2

Fig.3

Tab.3

Digital characteristics of second-level index clouds

二级指标	$E x j$	$E n j$	$H e j$
R₁₁	70.832 0	3.865 6	0.502 1
R₁₂	69.545 2	2.764 8	1.638 5
R₁₃	70.872 1	4.237 2	2.752 4
R₂₁	84.367 8	4.852 4	1.683 7
R₂₂	78.569 5	5.533 7	2.545 8
R₂₃	82.274 4	4.468 2	1.287 1
R₃₁	83.189 5	4.623 1	0.926 1
R₃₂	77.870 6	3.763 2	1.511 7
R₃₃	79.623 8	5.034 6	0.493 4
R₃₄	78.485 4	3.782 5	1.357 3
R₃₅	80.358 6	4.368 3	0.497 2
R₄₁	66.592 6	4.056 2	1.249 3
R₄₂	68.269 1	5.670 6	1.104 1
R₄₃	70.257 6	4.645 8	1.362 4
R₄₄	67.468 5	4.260 5	1.137 6
R₄₅	73.638 2	3.357 3	1.093 4
R₄₆	66.377 8	5.236 9	1.742 5
R₄₇	75.896 5	3.567 3	0.890 1
R₅₁	86.150 1	5.332 5	0.783 2
R₅₂	87.065 5	4.949 6	0.347 5
R₅₃	82.438 4	5.463 1	0.564 7
R₆₁	80.764 2	4.538 8	1.674 6
R₆₂	86.235 4	7.221 5	2.062 4
R₆₃	76.124 7	5.364 1	1.316 2
R₆₄	84.224 3	5.902 7	1.067 6

Tab.3

Tab.4

Tab.5

Tab.6

Tab.7

References 20

[1]	国务院办公厅. 关于大力发展装配式建筑的指导意见[Z]. 2016-09-30.
[2]	DING Peng, TAO Lianjin, YANG Xiuren, et al. Three-dimensional dynamic response analysis of a single-ring structure in a prefabricated subway station[J]. Sustainable Cities and Society, 2018, 45:DOI:10.1016/j.scs.2018.11.010. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2018.11.010
[3]	TAO Lianjin, SHI Cheng, DING Peng, et al. Shaking table test of the effect of an enclosure structure on the seismic performance of a prefabricated subway station[J]. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2022, 125:DOI:10.1016/j.tust.2022.104533. doi: 10.1016/j.tust.2022.104533
[4]	宋冉, 张继清, 崔涛, 等. 双跨无柱装配式地铁车站结构力学特性分析[J]. 铁道标准设计, 2021, 65(2):123-127, 178.
	SONG Ran, ZHANG Jiqing, CUI Tao, et al. Analysis on mechanical characteristics of double-span column-free fabricated subway station[J]. Railway Standard Design, 2021, 65(2): 123-127,178.
[5]	陈久恒. 预制装配式地铁车站施工技术研究[J]. 铁道建筑技术, 2015(11):62-65,69.
	CHEN Jiuheng. Construction technique of prefabricated subway station[J]. Railway Construction Technology, 2015(11): 62-65,69.
[6]	YANG Xiuren, LIN Fang. Prefabrication technology for underground metro station structure[J]. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2021, 108:DOI:10.1016/j.tust.2020.103717. doi: 10.1016/j.tust.2020.103717
[7]	王乾坤, 亢显卫, 朱科. 地铁深基坑施工风险耦合评价方法[J]. 东北大学学报:自然科学版, 2021, 42(8): 1153-1158.
	WANG Qiankun, KANG Xianwei, ZHU Ke. Coupling evaluation method of the construction risk for subway deep foundation pit[J]. Journal of Northeastern University:Natural Science, 2021, 42(8): 1153-1158.
[8]	SHEN Yuanshun, WANG Peng, LI Meiping, et al. Application of subway foundation pit engineering risk assessment: a case study of Qingdao rock area, China[J]. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 2019, 23(11): 4621-4630. doi: 10.1007/s12205-019-1854-8
[9]	潘海泽, 贺建, 陈梦捷, 等. 基于突变级数法的地铁车站基坑施工风险研究[J]. 地下空间与工程学报, 2017, 13(3): 840-845.
	PAN Haize, HE Jian, CHEN Mengjie, et al. Research about construction risk of foundation pit of subway station based on catastrophe progression method[J]. Chinese Journal of Underground Space and Engineering, 2017, 13(3): 840-845.
[10]	LUO Zhenhua, ZENG Li, PAN Haize, et al. Research on construction safety risk assessment of new subway station close-attached undercrossing the existing operating station[J]. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2019, 2019(1): 1-20.
[11]	王刚, 李俊松, 张兴刚. 地铁区间暗挖隧道下穿既有铁路站场安全风险管理研究[J]. 铁道标准设计, 2014, 58(9): 93-98.
	WANG Gang, LI Junsong, ZHANG Xinggang. Study on safety risk management of metro tunnel with hidden-digging method under-passing existing railway station[J]. Railway Standard Design, 2014, 58(9): 93-98.
[12]	GB 50715—2011, 地铁工程施工安全评价标准[S].
	GB50715-2011, Standard for construction safety assessment of metro engineering[S].
[13]	GB 50652—2011, 城市轨道交通地下工程建设风险管理规范[S].
	GB 50652-2011, Code for risk management of underground works in urban rail transit[S].
[14]	闫文周, 门雪, 杨翻艳. 基于相互作用矩阵的地铁施工风险评价[J]. 武汉大学学报:工学版, 2019, 52(9):796-801.
	YAN Wenzhou, MEN Xue, YANG Fanyan. Risk assessment of metro construction based on interaction matrix[J]. Engineering Journal of Wuhan University, 2019, 52(9): 796-801.
[15]	姜明. 高速公路长大隧道交通标志效用机理研究[D]. 北京: 北京工业大学, 2019.
	JIANG Ming. Research on effective mechanism of traffic signs for long freeway tunnel[D]. Beijing: Beijing University of Technology, 2019.
[16]	申建红, 盖立庭, 万索妮, 等. 基于模糊集与改进证据理论的深基坑施工风险评价[J]. 土木工程与管理学报, 2019, 36(2):28-34,41.
	SHEN Jianhong, GAI Liting, WAN Suoni, et al. Risk assessment of deep excavation construction based on fuzzy set and improved evidence theory[J]. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 2019, 36(2):28-34,41.
[17]	李英攀, 刘名强, 王芳, 等. 装配式建筑项目安全绩效云模型评价方法[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2017, 27(6): 115-120. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.06.020
	LI Yingpan, LIU Mingqiang, WANG Fang, et al. Safety performance assessment of fabricated building project based on cloud model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2017, 27(6): 115-120. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.06.020
[18]	鲍学英, 王起才, 宫文昌. 基于模糊层次分析法的地铁工程施工安全评价[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2013, 9(1):136-139.
	BAO Xueying, WANG Qicai, GONG Wenchang. Study on safety assessments of metro constructions using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2013, 9(1):136-139.
[19]	陈茸, 韩宝安, 韩宝华, 等. 基于CUOWGA算子赋权的建筑施工安全灰色聚类评价[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2020, 27(5): 98-105.
	CHEN Rong, HAN Baoan, HAN Baohua, et al. Grey clustering evaluation of building construction safety based on CUOWGA operator weighting[J]. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 2020, 27(5): 98-105.
[20]	申玲, 唐晔文, 牟月. 基于Cloud-BN的装配式住宅构件吊装安全评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(10):147-153. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.10.023
	SHEN Ling, TANG Yewen, MU Yue. Safety assessment of component hoisting for prefabricated residence based on Cloud-BN model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2019, 29(10):147-153. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.10.023

指标	客观权重	主观权重	组合权重
R₁	0.184 0	0.171 4	0.178 3
R₂	0.119 9	0.133 2	0.125 9
R₃	0.192 4	0.191 9	0.192 2
R₄	0.224 9	0.201 4	0.214 3
R₅	0.147 8	0.145 5	0.146 7
R₆	0.131 0	0.156 7	0.142 6
R₁₁	0.358 1	0.337 5	0.352 3
R₁₂	0.385 5	0.348 0	0.374 9
R₁₃	0.256 3	0.314 6	0.272 8
R₂₁	0.285 7	0.296 6	0.289 6
R₂₂	0.388 9	0.360 2	0.378 8
R₂₃	0.325 3	0.343 3	0.331 7
R₃₁	0.214 2	0.224 7	0.218 8
R₃₂	0.197 5	0.195 2	0.196 5
R₃₃	0.224 1	0.210 9	0.218 4
R₃₄	0.171 3	0.193 4	0.180 9
R₃₅	0.192 9	0.175 7	0.185 5
R₄₁	0.212 3	0.162 1	0.192 2
R₄₂	0.149 2	0.148 6	0.149 0
R₄₃	0.169 7	0.160 5	0.166 0
R₄₄	0.143 7	0.146 8	0.144 9
R₄₅	0.111 4	0.133 5	0.120 3
R₄₆	0.100 2	0.123 0	0.109 3
R₄₇	0.113 6	0.125 4	0.118 3
R₅₁	0.302 1	0.325 5	0.310 7
R₅₂	0.325 5	0.309 5	0.319 6
R₅₃	0.372 4	0.365 0	0.369 7
R₆₁	0.237 8	0.224 5	0.232 7
R₆₂	0.333 1	0.272 6	0.309 9
R₆₃	0.217 2	0.259 8	0.233 6
R₆₄	0.211 9	0.243 0	0.223 9

风险等级	评分区间	数字特征(E_x,E_n,H_e)
低风险	[90,100]	(95,1.67,0.5)
较低风险	[75,90)	(82.5,2.5,0.5)
中风险	[50,75)	(62.5,2.5,0.5)
较高风险	[25,50)	(37.5,4.17,0.5)
高风险	[0,25)	(12.5,4.17,0.5)

一级指标	E_x	E_n	H_e
R₁	70.360 5	3.609 4	1.542 0
R₂	81.477 2	5.003 8	1.878 7
R₃	79.989 7	4.372 8	0.945 1
R₄	69.502 5	4.475 0	1.222 9
R₅	85.070 5	5.262 9	0.563 2
R₆	82.150 4	5.952 6	1.575 2

相似度	低风险	较低风险	中风险	较高风险	高风险
R	0.000 2	0.265 9	0.036 7	0.017 6	0.000 9
R₁	0.000 0	0.070 3	0.171 8	0.043 8	0.001 6
R₂	0.001 7	0.370 7	0.011 9	0.015 7	0.000 3
R₃	0.001 0	0.338 8	0.016 5	0.012 9	0.000 0
R₄	0.000 0	0.058 7	0.204 8	0.043 8	0.000 9
R₅	0.013 0	0.336 5	0.003 7	0.008 9	0.000 3
R₆	0.001 3	0.365 6	0.008 5	0.010 5	0.000 3

指标	文中方法	熵权-云模型	模糊综合评判	灰色聚类分析
R	77.266 4	77.121 8	75.410 4	79.458 7
R₁	70.360 5	70.335 6	71.286 3	72.025 8
R₂	81.477 4	81.527 1	79.080 3	81.121 6
R₃	79.989 7	79.992 4	77.666 9	80.850 4
R₄	69.502 5	69.404 9	69.128 8	71.611 5
R₅	85.070 5	85.197 1	77.657 4	81.882 6
R₆	82.150 4	82.200 3	81.075 0	81.230 9