The safety of metro stations is threatened by various types of accidents caused by both man-made and natural causes. Knowing the accurate safety status of a metro station will help managers taking countermeasures timely, thus the safety of passengers and staff members in the station can be ensured. In order to evaluate the safety status of metro stations effectively, based on the Extension Theory, a metro station safety evaluation system was established. Fire, stampedes, violence and terrorist attacks, equipment failures, floods, and earthquake were taken into consideration in the established evaluation system. The evaluation index system includes 1 first-level index, 5 second-level indexes, 15 third-level indexes, and 55 fourth-level indexes. Then the method to determine the weights of indexes was introduced, also how to determine the score and safety grade of every index, and how to calculate the safety score for the third to first level indexes based on the Extension Theory were introduced in detail. After that, a real metro station was selected to verify the operability of the established safety evaluation system, the results show the established safety evaluation system can be used for the safety evaluation of metro stations, and can help the station safety management personnel knowing the safety status better.
XuXin-yue, Passenger flow control with multi-station coordination in subway networks: Algorithm development and real-world case study, Transport Metrica B7(1) (2019), 446–472. DOI: 10.1080/21680566.2018.1434020.
2.
MayetC., BouscayrolA., DelarueP., ChattotE. and VerhilleJ.N., Electrokinematical simulation for flexible energetic studies of railway systems, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics65 (2018), 3592–3600. DOI:10.1109/tie.2017.2750632
3.
MushtahaE.S., NahléR., TahmazN. and AlKadryM., Designing guidelines for metro stations in developing countries: The case of Dubai, International Review for Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development7(4) (2019), 83–96. DOI: 10.14246/irspsd.7.4_83.
4.
BaonanGu, ZhaoYang and YoufaWang, Statistical analysis of urban rail transit lines in China from 1997 to 2017. Urban Rail Mass Transit.21(188.05) (2018), 92–96. DOI:10.16037/j.1007-869x.2018.05.017 (In Chinese).
5.
XinZhao and GuBaonan, Statistical analysis of urban rail transit lines in 2018 China, Urban Rail Mass Transit.1 (2019), 1–7. DOI: 10.16037/j.1007-869x.2019.01.001 (In Chinese).
6.
SoniA.R. and ChandelM.K., Assessment of emission reduction potential of Mumbai metro rail, Journal of Cleaner Production197 (2018), 1579–1586. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.216.
7.
DiabE. and ShalabyA., Rail transit resilience: understanding the impacts of outdoor tracks and weather conditions on subway system interruptions (2017) (No. 17-06586). DOI: 10.1080/15568318.2019.1600174.
8.
JainV. and OkazawaY., Case Study on Tokyo Metropolitan Region, Japan (2019).
9.
XuH., ZhangY., LiH., SkitmoreM., YangJ. and YuF., Safety risks in rail stations: An interactive approach, Journal of Rail Transport Planning & Management (2019), 100148. DOI:10.1016/j.jrtpm.2019.100148.
10.
HuXuanzi and XieCunxi, Application of grey clustering theory combined with AHP in railway station evaluation, 2006 IEEE International Conference on information Acquisition, 1289–1294, 2006. DOI:10.1109/ICIA.2006.305937.
11.
KePan. and ShiJ.-Y., Application of variable weight theory and relative difference function in safety assessment of urban subway operation, Journal of the China Railway Society3 (2009), 004. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1001-8360.2009.03.004.
12.
Meng, Li. Fuzzy theory and AHP applied to urban rail transit operation opinion, International Conference on Artificial Intelligence & Education IEEE, 2010. DOI:10.1109/ICAIE.2010.5641083.
13.
ZhangG., ChenY., P.L.I, and FibbeS., Study on evaluation indicators system of crowd management for transfer stations based on pedestrian simulation, International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems4(6) (2011), 1375–1382. DOI:10.1080/18756891.2011.9727888.
14.
SariI.U., BehretH. and KahramanC., Risk governance of urban rail systems using fuzzy AHP: The case of Istanbul, Int J Uncertainty Fuzziness Knowledge Based Syst20(Suppl. 1) (2012), 67–79. DOI: 10.1142/S0218488512400053.
15.
BoGao, ZhuL.X. and XiaoX.M., Safety assessment method for equipment of urban rail transit network operation, Applied Mechanics and Materials 513—517 (2014), 3958–3963. DOI:10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.513-517.3958.
16.
QinYong and ZhangZhenyu, et al.Dynamic risk assessment of metro station with interval type-2 fuzzy set and TOPSIS method, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems29(1) (2015), 93–106. DOI: 10.3233/IFS-151573.
17.
ZhangXiaoling, et al.An incident database for improving metro safety: The case of Shanghai, Safety Science84 (2016), 88–96. DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2015.11.023.
18.
ZhangZ., Metro Station Safety Status Prediction Based on GA-SVR. In: Qin Y., Jia L., Feng J., An M., Diao L. (eds) Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Electrical and Information Technologies for Rail Transportation. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol 378. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. (2016) DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-49370-0_7.
19.
WangQ.Q., Subway crowded and stampede neural networks safety assessment basing on shel model. In Man-Machine-Environment System Engineering, Mmese; Long, S., Dhillon, B.S., Eds.; Springer-Verlag Singapore Pte Ltd.: Singapore, 2016; Volume 406, pp. 455–468. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-10-2323-1_52.
20.
LuKai and HanBaoming, Congestion risk evaluation and precaution of passenger flow in metro stations, The Open Civil Engineering Journal10 (2016), 93–104. DOI: 10.2174/1874149501610010093.
21.
HuangW., ShuaiB., YanS., YangW. and AntwiE., Using entropy-topsis method to evaluate urban rail transit system operation performance: The China case, Transport. Res. Part A: Policy and Practice111 (2018), 292–303. DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2018.03.025.
22.
ChengX., QinY., JiaL., ZhangZ., Failure Analysis of Metro Door System Based on Fuzzy TOPSIS. In: Wang W., Bengler K., Jiang X. (eds) Green Intelligent Transportation Systems. GITSS 2016. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol 419. Springer, Singapore. (2018), DOI: 10.1007/978-981-10-3551-7_28.
23.
MeiY. and XieK., An improved TOPSIS method for metro station evacuation strategy selection in interval type-2 fuzzy environment, Cluster Computing 22(Suppl 2) (2019), 2781–2791. DOI: 10.1007/s10586-017-1499-7.
24.
Zhou, Yingying, ShiJ. and WuL., Application of extension theory in emotion management, Procedia Computer Science122 (2017), 502–509. DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.399.
25.
ZhaoSujun, Extension detection mechanism of contradictory information in contradiction problem.Master Thesis of Guangdong University of Technology, 2009. (In Chinese).
26.
GuoZhenghua, Extension theory and its application, Journal of Baoji University of Arts and Sciences (Natural science edition) (2) (2014), 1–5.
27.
CaiW., Extension theory and its application, Chinese Science Bulletin44 (1999), 1538–1548. 10.1007/BF02886090.
28.
WenCai, ChunyanYang and WeichuLin, Methods of Extension Engineering (inChinese), Beijing: Science Press, 1997.
29.
GargH., Generalized Intuitionistic Fuzzy Entropy-Based Approach for Solving Multi-attribute Decision-Making Problems with Unknown Attribute Weights. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, India Section A: Physical Sciences. (2017), DOI: 10.1007/s40010-017-0395-0.
30.
Gupta and Sumit, et al.Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Model for Evaluating Sustainable Manufacturing Practices in Indian Electrical Panel Industries, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences189 (2015), 208–216. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.216.
31.
SultanA., AlarfajK.A. and AlkutbiG.A., Analytic hierarchy process for the success of e-government, Business Strategy Series13(6) (2012), 295–306. DOI: 10.1108/17515631211286146.
32.
SubramanianN. and RamanathanR., A review of applications of analytic hierarchy process in operations management, International Journal of Production Economics138(2) (2012), 215–241. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.03.036.
33.
SaatyL., “The Analytic Hierarchy Process,”McGrawHill, New York.
34.
ShannonC. and WeaverW., A Mathematical Theory of Communication, Urbana, 1949.
35.
Liu, Peide and ZhangX., Research on the supplier selection of a supply chain based on entropy weight and improved ELECTRE-III method, International Journal of Production Research49.3 (2011), 637–646. DOI: 10.1080/00207540903490171.
36.
NagpalR., MehrotraD. and BhatiaP.K., Usability evaluation of website using combined weighted method: Fuzzy AHP and entropy approach, International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management7(4) (2016), 408–417. doi:10.1007/s13198-016-0462-y
37.
ShiL., YangS., LiK. and YuB., Developing an evaluation approach for software trustworthiness using combination weights and TOPSIS, Journal of Software7(3) (2012), 532–543. doi:10.4304/jsw.7.3.532-543.
38.
YeL.Y., Research on the characteristics and emergency capability assessment index system of urban metro violent incidents, Current Urban Studies6 (2018), 138–151. 10.4236/cus.2018.61007
39.
HuangD., LoS., ChenJ., FuZ., ZhengY. and LuoL., et al.Mapping fire risk of passenger-carried fire load in metro system via floor field cellular automaton, Automation in Construction100 (2019), 61–72. DOI:10.1016/j.autcon.2018.12.021.
40.
LyuH.M., ShenS.L., ZhouA.N. and YangJ., Perspectives for flood risk assessment and management for mega-city metro system, Tunneling and Underground Space Technology84 (2019), 31–44. DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2018.10.019
41.
ZhouJ., WuY., MaoX., GuoS. and ZhangM., Congestion evaluation of pedestrians in metro stations based on normal-cloud theory, Appl. Sci.9 (2019), 3624. DOI: 10.3390/app9173624
42.
WangQ., WuJ., LiL., ShaoJ., Analysis of the Risk Assessment of Subway Stampede. In: Long S., Dhillon B. (eds) Man-Machine-Environment System Engineering. MMESE 2018. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol 527. Springer, Singapore. (2019) DOI: 10.1007/978-981-13-2481-9_57
43.
BahmanpourH. and EhsaniM., Underground transportation system risk assessment to mitigate vulnerability against natural disasters through intelligent urban management, Summer3(3) (2018), 179–192. DOI: 10.22034/IJHCUM.2018.03.02.
