Resilience assessment of fire safety in subway stations based on WSR-extension cloud theory

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2025.01.1377

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to solve the problems of ambiguity and randomness in the process of fire safety resilience assessment of subway stations, and then effectively improve the level of fire safety resilience of subway stations, the fire safety resilience assessment model for subway stations based on WSR- extension cloud theory was constructed. First, based on WSR methodology, the factors affecting the fire safety resilience of subway stations were analyzed around "physical", "matter", and "human". Combined with the characterization of the resilience absorption, resistance, recovery and adaptive ability, the fire safety resilience assessment index system of subway stations was established in five aspects, namely, equipment factors, environmental factors, organization and management, material and technology, and personnel factors. Second, based on the blind number theory to construct the blind number matrix and calculate the comprehensive score of qualitative indexes, the fire safety resilience level of subway stations is derived by using the theory of extension cloud theory. Finally, a station of the Qingdao subway was used as an example to carry out the example analysis. The results show that the subway station fire safety resilience level of Ⅳ, in the higher resilience level, the credibility factor = 0.003 4 <0.01, indicating that the assessment results have a high degree of credibility. The WSR-extension cloud theory assessment model can provide a theoretical basis for the fire safety resilience assessment of subway stations.

Key words: Wuli-Shili-Renli(WSR) methodology, extension cloud theory, subway stations, fire safety resilience assessment, blind number theory

CLC Number:

X932爆炸安全与防火、防爆

TANG Qinghui, LIU Shuo, ZHANG Jin. Resilience assessment of fire safety in subway stations based on WSR-extension cloud theory[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2025, 35(1): 154-162.

Figures/Tables 6

Fig.1

Fig.2

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

References 18

[1]	杨阳, 孙利民. 基于FPP-Grey的地铁车站火灾安全灰色聚类评价[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2019, 26(2):99-104.
	YANG Yang, SUN Limin. Grey clustering evaluation of fire safety of subway station based on FPP-Grey[J]. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 2019, 26(2): 99-104.
[2]	WU Jiansong, HU Zhuqiang, CHEN Jinyue, et al. Risk assessment of underground subway stations to fire disasters using Bayesian network[J]. Sustainability, 2018, 10(10): DOI:10.3390/su10103810.
[3]	TANG Yuchun, BI Wei, VARGA L, et al. An integrated framework for managing fire resilience of metro station system: Identification, assessment, and optimization[J]. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2022, 77: DOI:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103037.
[4]	黄亚江, 李书全, 项思思. 基于AHP-PSO模糊组合赋权法的地铁火灾安全韧性评估[J]. 灾害学, 2021, 36(3):15-20,40.
	HUANG Yajiang, LI Shuquan, XIANG Sisi. Evaluation of subway fire safety resilience based on AHP-PSO fuzzy combination weighting method[J]. Journal of Catastrophology, 2021, 36(3): 15-20,40.
[5]	付小千, 胡肖, 张骞, 等. 基于熵权物元可拓理论的高层建筑火灾韧性评价[J]. 建筑结构, 2023, 53(13):142-146,141.
	FU Xiaoqian, HU Xiao, ZHANG Qian, et al. Evaluation of fire resilience of high-rise buildings based on matter-element extension theory of entropy weight[J]. Building Structure, 2023, 53(13):142-146,141.
[6]	BAI Minghao, LIU Qiong. Evaluating urban fire risk based on entropy-cloud model method considering urban safety resilience[J]. Fire, 2023: DOI:10.3390/fire6020062.
[7]	GUO Qingjun, AMIN S, HAO Qianwen, et al. Resilience assessment of safety system at subway construction sites applying analytic network process and extension cloud models[J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2020:DOI:10.1016/j.ress.2020.106956.
[8]	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
[9]	黄浪, 吴超, 杨冕, 等. 韧性理论在安全科学领域中的应用[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2017, 27(3):1-6. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.03.001
	HUANG Lang, WU Chao, YANG Mian, et al. Application of resilience theory in field of safety science[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2017, 27(3): 1-6. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.03.001
[10]	汤青慧, 刘硕, 刘文杰. 基于改进变权物元可拓模型的地铁车站火灾安全韧性评价[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2024, 24(4):1346-1355.
	TANG Qinghui, LIU Shuo, LIU Wenjie. Evaluation of fire safety resilience of metro station based on improved matter-element extension model with variable weight[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2024, 24(4):1346-1355.
[11]	田水承, 高玲, 范彬彬, 等. 基于WSR方法论的煤矿突发事件应急管理能力评价[J]. 西安科技大学学报, 2022, 42(4):647-654.
	TIAN Shuicheng, GAO Ling, FAN Binbin, et al. Capability evaluation of coal mine emergency management based on WSR methodology[J]. Journal of Xi'an University of Science and Technology, 2022, 42(4):647-654.
[12]	GB 51298—2018, 地铁设计防火标准[S].
	GB 51298-2018, Standard for fire protection design of metro[S].
[13]	GB/T 40484—2021, 城市轨道交通消防安全管理[S].
	GB/T 40484-2021, Fire safety management for urban rail transit[S].
[14]	GB/T 33668—2017, 地铁安全疏散规范[S].
	GB/T 33668-2017, Code for safety evacuation of metro[S].
[15]	王瑞强, 许永莉, 杜军, 等. 基于盲数与成熟度理论的化工园区火灾爆炸事故应急能力评估[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2021, 28(2): 30-35,43.
	WANG Ruiqiang, XU Yongli, DU Jun, et al. Evaluation of emergency response capability of fire and explosion accidents in chemical industry park based on blind number and maturity theory[J]. Safety and Environment Engineering, 2021, 28(2): 30-35,43.
[16]	方前程, 李中原. 基于盲数理论和物元可拓法的装配式建筑吊装施工风险评估模型研究[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2023, 23(1):8-16.
	FANG Qiancheng, LI Zhongyuan. Research on risk assessment model of prefabricated building hoisting construction based on game theory and extension theory[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2023, 23(1):8-16.
[17]	潘寒川, 刘丹阳, 张煜睿, 等. 基于组合赋权-可拓云的城市轨道交通线路运营安全评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(4):160-166. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.04.2513
	PAN Hanchuan, LIU Danyang, ZHANG Yurui, et al. Urban rail transit line operation safety evaluation based on combined weighting-extension cloud method[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(4) : 160-166. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.04.2513
[18]	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

韧性等级	等级名称	等级描述
Ⅰ级	低韧性	地铁车站系统吸收、抵抗、恢复和适应火灾能力低,火灾发生概率高,火灾冲击下地铁车站系统不能正常运行,火灾扰动后难以恢复到正常运行状态,无法将韧性优化到更高层次
Ⅱ级	较低韧性	地铁车站系统吸收、抵抗、恢复和适应火灾能力较低,火灾发生概率较高,火灾冲击下地铁车站系统能维持部分功能运行,火灾扰动后需要大量的时间恢复到正常运行状态,很难将韧性优化到更高层次
Ⅲ级	中等韧性	地铁车站系统具备一定的吸收、抵抗、恢复和适应火灾能力,火灾发生概率一般,火灾冲击下地铁车站系统关键功能正常运行,火灾扰动后需要较长时间恢复到正常运行状态,可在一定程度上将韧性优化到更高层次
Ⅳ级	较高韧性	地铁车站系统吸收、抵抗、恢复和适应火灾能力较高,火灾发生概率较低,火灾冲击下地铁车站系统能够正常运行,受影响较小,火灾扰动后能在较短时间内恢复到正常运行状态,可较好地将韧性优化到更高层次
Ⅴ级	高韧性	地铁车站系统吸收、抵抗、恢复和应对火灾能力高,火灾发生概率低,火灾冲击下地铁车站系统能够正常运行,几乎不受影响,火灾扰动后能够迅速恢复到正常运行状态,可很好地将韧性优化到更高的层次

评估指标	等级
评估指标	Ⅰ级	Ⅱ级	Ⅲ级	Ⅳ级	Ⅴ级
A₁₁ ~ A₁₄	[0, 60)	[60, 70)	[70, 80)	[80, 90)	[90, 100]
A₁₅ / h	[0, 0.5]	(0.5, 1]	(1, 1.5]	(1.5, 2]	(2, 3]
A₁₆ / m	[25, 30]	[20, 25)	[15, 20)	[10, 15)	(0, 10)
A₂₁ /h	[0, 1]	(1, 1.5]	(1.5, 2]	(2, 3]	(3, 5]
A₂₂	[0, 60)	[60, 70)	[70, 80)	[80, 90)	[90, 100]
A₂₃ / min	[8, 10]	[6, 8)	[5, 6)	[4, 5)	(0, 4)
A₃₁、A₃₇	[0, 55)	[55, 65)	[65, 75)	[75, 85)	[85, 100]
A₃₂ ~ A₃₄、A₃₆、A₃₈ ~ A₃₉	[0, 60)	[60, 70)	[70, 80)	[80, 90)	[90, 100]
A₃₅/次	[0, 1]	(1, 2]	(2, 3]	(3, 4]	(4, 5]
A₄₁、A₄₃ ~ A₄₄	[0, 60)	[60, 70)	[70, 80)	[80, 90)	[90, 100]
A₄₂	[0, 55)	[55, 65)	[65, 75)	[75, 85)	[85, 100]
A₅₁ ~ A₅₂	[0, 60)	[60, 70)	[70, 80)	[80, 90)	[90, 100]
A₅₃ ~ A₅₄	[0, 55)	[55, 65)	[65, 75)	[75, 85)	[85, 100]

一级指标	权重	二级指标	权重	综合权重	专家赋值情况							综合得分
一级指标	权重	二级指标	权重	综合权重	Z₁	Z₂	Z₃	Z₄	Z₅	Z₆	Z₇	综合得分
A₁	0.249	A₁₁	0.139	0.035	82~88	85~95	80~90	85~90	80~95	78~85	85~92	86.09
		A₁₂	0.183	0.047	80~85	85~90	75~85	85~95	86~95	83~90	85~92	86.04
		A₁₃	0.202	0.050	88~95	80~90	85~90	80~90	83~90	85~92	86~90	86.55
		A₁₄	0.183	0.046	85~90	75~85	85~90	80~90	86~93	82~90	88~90	84.85
		A₁₅	0.167	0.042	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
		A₁₆	0.126	0.032	25	25	25	25	25	25	25	25
A₂	0.124	A₂₁	0.312	0.039	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3
		A₂₂	0.283	0.035	85~95	75~85	86~95	80~90	90~95	78~85	88~90	87.53
		A₂₃	0.405	0.050	4.5	4.5	4.5	4.5	4.5	4.5	4.5	4.5
A₃	0.299	A₃₁	0.109	0.032	72~78	75~80	70~82	80~85	75~85	65~70	72~74	65.79
		A₃₂	0.152	0.045	75~85	80~90	80~95	80~86	83~86	77~83	83~85	84.57
		A₃₃	0.237	0.071	85~95	86~96	80~95	80~90	83~90	88~90	85~88	87.14
		A₃₄	0.198	0.059	84~90	70~85	80~95	80~92	80~85	75~80	85~92	83.76
		A₃₅	0.099	0.030	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3
		A₃₆	0.071	0.021	76~88	80~86	80~92	85~90	80~95	76~80	85~90	86.34
		A₃₇	0.047	0.014	70~75	75~84	65~75	80~85	75~80	75~80	80~82	77.61
		A₃₈	0.047	0.014	80~85	70~85	75~85	85~90	85~95	82~85	72~75	82.44
		A₃₉	0.0423	0.013	83~88	75~85	80~95	85~90	80~90	70~80	65~70	74.74
A₄	0.137	A₄₁	0.356	0.049	82~90	80~85	85~90	86~92	85~95	80~84	82~85	86.08
		A₄₂	0.254	0.035	75~80	70~85	75~83	85~88	80~85	60~70	55~65	72.21
		A₄₃	0.195	0.027	85~90	80~90	88~95	78~86	85~90	75~80	70~80	74.95
		A₄₄	0.195	0.027	80~92	75~80	80~85	80~95	82~90	75~80	78~80	72.64
A₅	0.191	A₅₁	0.195	0.037	85~95	80~90	85~90	75~85	70~85	80~87	82~90	84.06
		A₅₂	0.355	0.068	80~90	78~85	80~95	80~85	88~95	82~90	85~92	86.40
		A₅₃	0.177	0.033	75~80	65~75	65~70	80~85	68~78	62~68	65~70	72.54
		A₅₄	0.273	0.052	65~75	70~75	60~65	70~80	70~85	62~66	75~80	70.54

指标	Ⅰ级	Ⅱ级	Ⅲ级	Ⅳ级	Ⅴ级
A₁₁	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.794 5	0.000 0
A₁₂	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.819 2	0.000 0
A₁₃	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.649 2	0.000 0
A₁₄	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.996 4	0.000 0
A₁₅	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.157 2
A₁₆	0.000 0	0.000 0	1.000 0	0.000 0	0.000 0
A₂₁	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.081 7	0.021 8
A₂₂	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.314 8	0.000 0
A₂₃	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.000 0	1.000 0	0.000 1
A₃₁	0.000 2	0.001 0	0.049 6	0.000 0	0.000 0
A₃₂	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.970 9	0.000 0
A₃₃	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.502 5	0.000 0
A₃₄	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.726 0	0.000 0
A₃₅	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.147 1	0.000 0
A₃₆	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.719 2	0.000 0
A₃₇	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.349 3	0.000 0
A₃₈	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.310 1	0.000 0
A₃₉	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.988 3	0.000 0	0.000 0
A₄₁	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.841 9	0.000 0
A₄₂	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.371 5	0.000 1	0.000 0
A₄₃	0.000 1	0.000 0	0.999 6	0.000 0	0.000 0
A₄₄	0.000 1	0.000 0	0.350 5	0.000 0	0.000 0
A₅₁	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.854 4	0.000 0
A₅₂	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.744 9	0.000 0
A₅₃	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.243 2	0.000 1	0.000 0
A₅₄	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.944 1	0.000 0	0.000 0
Q	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.152 1	0.482 0	0.007 4
E_rx	3.766 3
E_rn	0.122 7
θ	0.003 4