Quantitative analysis of accident causes of urban subway waterlogging from perspective of complex socio-technical systems

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.11.2065

Abstract

Abstract:

To effectively prevent and control the risk of subway waterlogging accidents, a quantitative analysis method integrating the AcciMap model, FAHP, and triangular fuzzy DEMATEL-ISM method was proposed to investigate the causes of urban subway waterlogging accidents and their coupling associations. Accident causation factors were selected from the system level through AcciMap model. FAHP was used to integrate expert opinions and determine expert weights. The DEMATEL method was used to calculate the importance of accident causes, ISM method was used to reveal the relationship between factors, and a multi-level ladder stepwise graph was constructed. The model was validated by waterlogging accidents on the Zhengzhou subway. The results showed that the core contributing factors leading to the incident were inadequate awareness and prevention measures of major disasters by the management department, the lack of diligence in supervision and inspection duties by regulatory authorities, and ineffective response and handling by operational departments. These factors can be paid special attention to prevent system failures.

Key words: complex socio-technical systems, urban subway waterlogging accidents, accident causes, quantitative analysis, decision making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL), interpretative structural modeling (ISM)

CLC Number:

X951交通运输安全

XING Jinduo, YANG Wei, ZHANG Jun. Quantitative analysis of accident causes of urban subway waterlogging from perspective of complex socio-technical systems[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(11): 193-201.

Figures/Tables 10

Fig.1

Fig.2

Table 1

Fig.3

Fig.4

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Fig.5

Fig.6

References 23

[1]	侯秀芳, 冯晨, 燕汉民, 等. 2023年中国内地城市轨道交通运营线路概况[J]. 都市快轨交通, 2024, 37(1): 10-16.
	HOU Xiufang, FENG Chen, YAN Hanmin, et al. Overview of urban rail transit operational lines in Chinese mainland in 2023[J]. Urban Rapid Rail Transit, 2024, 37(1): 10-16.
[2]	XING Jinduo, YIN Xiaoliang, ZHANG Jun, et al. Resilience modeling and improvement of metro systems considering statistical behaviors of passenger mobility[J]. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2023,96: DOI: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103975.
[3]	CHEN Junfeng, LE Wu, ZHOU Yiqi, et al. Lessons and improvements: subway waterlogging catastrophe in Zhengzhou, China[J]. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2024,144: DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2023.105541.
[4]	国务院灾害调查组. 河南郑州“7·20”特大暴雨灾害调查报告[R], 2022.
[5]	王军武, 吴寒, 杨庭友. 基于投影寻踪的地铁车站工程暴雨内涝脆弱性评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(9): 1-7. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.09.001
	WANG Junwu, WU Han, YANG Tingyou. Vulnerability assessment of rainfall and waterlogging in subway stations based on projection pursuit model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2019, 29(9): 1-7. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.09.001
[6]	宋英华, 李玉枝, 霍非舟, 等. 城区内涝条件下城市公交-地铁双层交通网络的脆弱性分析[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2021, 28(2): 114-120.
	SONG Yinghua, LI Yuzhi, HUO Feizhou, et al. Vulnerability of two-layer traffic network of bus and subway under waterlogging condition based on complex network theory[J]. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 2021, 28(2): 114-120.
[7]	陈佳, 刘敬严, 邓曦. 基于IOWA-VAC的地铁车站暴雨内涝脆弱性评价[J]. 水电能源科学, 2023, 41(4): 88-91.
	CHEN Jia, LIU Jingyan, DENG Xi. Vulnerability assessment of heavy rainfall and waterlogging in subway stations based on IOWA-VAC[J]. Water Resources and Power, 2023, 41(4): 88-91.
[8]	朱影含. 暴雨内涝下城市轨道交通地下站点韧性评估研究[D]. 重庆: 重庆交通大学, 2021.
	ZHU Yinghan. Research on resilience evaluation of underground stations of urban rail transit under waterlogging[D]. Chongqing: Chongqing Jiaotong University, 2021.
[9]	闫绪娴, 王俊丽, 范玲, 等. 韧性城市视角下地铁洪涝灾害风险分析:基于Bow-Tie-贝叶斯网络模型[J]. 灾害学, 2022, 37(2): 36-43.
	YAN Xuxian, WANG Junli, FAN Ling, et al. Research on subway flood disaster from the perspective of resilient city:based on Bow-Tie-Bayesian network model[J]. Journal of Catastrophology, 2022, 37(2): 36-43.
[10]	FORERO-ORTIZ E, MARTÍNEZ-GOMARIZ E, CAÑAS PORCUNA M. A review of flood impact assessment approaches for underground infrastructures in urban areas: a focus on transport systems[J]. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 2020, 65(11): 1 943-1 955.
[11]	LIN Zhiyu, HU Shengbin, ZHOU Tianzhong, et al. Numerical simulation of flood intrusion process under malfunction of flood retaining facilities in complex subway stations[J]. Buildings, 2022, 12(6): DOI: 10.3390/buildings12060853.
[12]	RASMUSSEN J. Risk management in a dynamic society: a modelling problem[J]. Safety Science, 1997, 27(2): 183-213.
[13]	赵挺生, 冯楚璇, 蒋灵, 等. 基于AcciMap模型的施工升降机安全风险研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(1): 79-84. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.01.011
	ZHAO Tingsheng, FENG Chuxuan, JIANG Ling, et al. Study on safety risk of builder's hoist based on AcciMap model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(1): 79-84. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.01.011
[14]	CHAN Hingkai, SUN Xuting, CHUNG Saiho. When should fuzzy analytic hierarchy process be used instead of analytic hierarchy process?[J]. Decision Support Systems, 2019,125: DOI: 10.1016/j.dss.2019.113114.
[15]	MENG Huixing, AN Xu. Dynamic risk analysis of emergency operations in deepwater blowout accidents[J]. Ocean Engineering, 2021,240: DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.109928.
[16]	GUO Xiaoxue, JI Jie, KHAN F, et al. Fuzzy Bayesian network based on an improved similarity aggregation method for risk assessment of storage tank accident[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2021, 149: 817-830.
[17]	CALABRESE A, COSTA R, LEVIALDI N. A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process method to support materiality assessment in sustainability reporting[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2016, 121: 248-264.
[18]	HSU W K, HUANG S S, TSENG W. Evaluating the risk of operational safety for dangerous goods in airfreights:a revised risk matrix based on fuzzy AHP[J]. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2016, 48: 235-247.
[19]	SHI Lei, SHUAI Jian, XU Kui. Fuzzy fault tree assessment based on improved AHP for fire and explosion accidents for steel oil storage tanks[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2014, 278: 529-538. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.06.034 pmid: 25010458
[20]	DU Yuanwei, SHEN Xinlu. Group hierarchical DEMATEL method for reaching consensus[J]. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 2023,175: DOI: 10.1016/j.cie.2022.108842.
[21]	李广利, 严一知, 刘文琦, 等. 基于DEMATEL-ISM的矿工不安全情绪形成因子研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(7): 30-37. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.07.005
	LI Guangli, YAN Yizhi, LIU Wenqi, et al. Research on formation factors of miners' unsafe emotions based on DEMATEL-ISM[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(7): 30-37. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.07.005
[22]	于耀程, 帅斌, 黄文成. 基于STAMP-ISM的地铁事故分析方法研究[J]. 交通运输工程与信息学报, 2021, 19(2): 46-52.
	YU Yaocheng, SHUAI Bin, HUANG Wencheng. Analytical approach to metro accidents based on STAMP-ISM[J]. Journal of Transportation Engineering and Information, 2021, 19(2): 46-52.
[23]	ZHANG Zixin, WANG Liang, WANG Yingming, et al. A novel alpha-level sets based fuzzy DEMATEL method considering experts' hesitant information[J]. Expert Systems with Applications, 2023,213: DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118925.

一级指标	二级指标	说明
政府	灾害风险意识不强S₁ 应急行为不当,存在失职渎职S₂	城市主要负责人缺乏风险意识; 城市主要负责人对防汛工作缺少分析研判、动员部署等行动
监管机构与协会	职责履行不认真,监督审查不到位S₃	城市应急管理部门未及时向社会发布通知; 城市城乡建设、交通运输部门未有效督促有关单位对城市内涝积水点进行整治;城市管理部门未明确地铁集团运营防汛工作职责
相关企业管理	设计、建设及验收环节存在问题S₄ 防灾减灾气象保障水平不足S₅	相关企业在五龙口停车场及附近围墙在设计、施工、检验存在违规行为; 气象部门存在气象监测预报能力不足、预警响应联动机制不健全等突出问题
技术和运营管理	集团层面未编制防汛专项应急预案S₆ 运营应对处置不当S₇ 运营线路淹水倒灌隐患排查不到位S₈	地铁集团未及时发布线网停运指令,线路淹水隐患排查不到位; 运行控制中心主任调度员行车调度失误; 应急信息报送不规范不及时
事故进程与人员活动	停车场挡水围墙被冲毁S₉ 涝水灌入地铁隧道S₁₀ 指令列车放行、退行S₁₁ 列车迫停、乘客被困、疏散中断S₁₂	设备与环境	暴雨S₁₃ 地铁口附近挡水、排涝设施存在问题S₁₄ 列车所在位置标高较低S₁₅ 地铁口处地处低洼S₁₆ 地铁车站区间排水设备排洪能力不足S₁₇

专家得分	专家1	专家2	专家3
工作绩效	8	8	6
工作年限	5	5	3
教育水平	10	10	8
专业	8	8	8
声誉	10	10	8

权重	专家1	专家2	专家3
工作绩效	0.195 1	0.195 1	0.181 8
工作年限	0.122 0	0.122 0	0.090 9
教育水平	0.243 9	0.243 9	0.242 4
专业	0.195 1	0.195 1	0.242 4
声誉	0.243 9	0.243 9	0.242 4

专家	工作绩效	工作年限	教育水平	专业	声誉	综合权重
1	0.402 8	0.415 9	0.398 6	0.333 3	0.398 6	0.388 8
2	0.402 8	0.415 9	0.398 6	0.333 3	0.398 6	0.388 8
3	0.194 4	0.168 2	0.202 8	0.333 3	0.202 8	0.229 7