Two-Level Assessment Method for Electrical Fire Risk of High-Rise Buildings based on Interval TOPSIS Method

doi:10.23940/ijpe.22.03.p3.167175

Abstract

Abstract: The electrical fire risk of high-rise buildings remains high, which has threatened people's lives and property safety for a long time. Therefore, accurately evaluating the electrical fire risk and identifying the risk factors is vital for formulating proper electrical fire prevention measures. This paper proposes a two-level assessment method of electrical fire risk of high-rise buildings based on interval TOPSIS method. Firstly, the electrical fire data and expert evaluation opinions are queried, and the improved Delphi method is used to obtain the two-level index framework of electrical fire risk assessment. Then, the interval analytic hierarchy process is used to determine the weight coefficient of electrical fire risk index of high-rise buildings. Finally, the risk index factors are sorted in combination with interval TOPSIS method. After verification, it is found that the sequence of electrical fire risk factors of high-rise buildings is the chain reaction of inflammables and explosives (accounting for 27.9%), the fire caused by electrical lines (accounting for 22.07%), and the fire caused by electrical equipment (accounting for 20.89%), where the overload risk factor accounts for the largest proportion in the sub-indicators.

Key words: electrical fire, interval, risk assessment, two-level framework for assessment, IAHP, TOPSIS

Lei Su, Fan Yang, Yu Shen, and Zhichun Yang. Two-Level Assessment Method for Electrical Fire Risk of High-Rise Buildings based on Interval TOPSIS Method [J]. Int J Performability Eng, 2022, 18(3): 167-175.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks

References

1. Ren X., Li C., Ma X., Chen F., Wang H., Sharma A., Gaba G.S., andMasud M.Design of Multi-information Fusion Based Intelligent Electrical Fire Detection System for Green Buildings. Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 3405, 2021.
2. Si, G. Analysis on China's Electrical Fire Situation and Feature from2008 to 2012. Fire Science and Technology, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 569-572, 2014.
3. Jun Y.Electrical Fire Risk Assessment Method Based on Multi-data Fusion. Fire Science and Technology, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 566-569, 2019.
4. Yan X.Discussion on Uncertainty of ASET of Mega Shopping Mall. Fire Science and Technology, vol. 36, no. 12, pp. 1742-1744, 2017.
5. Wang J.Risk Assessment of Coal Mine Electrical Fire based on Fuzzy Grey Clustering Method. Coal Mine Machinery, vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 174-176, 2017.
6. Ma X.Study on Electric Fire Risk Assessment based on Hierarchical Entropy and Radar Graph. Journal of the Armed Police Academy, vol.33, no. 6, pp. 18-22+26, 2017.
7. Wang J.Risk Assessment Model for Coal Mine Electrical Fire based on PHA-LEC and Application. Coal Mine Machinery, vol. 38, no. 12, pp. 138-140, 2017.
8. Mo Z.Research on Fire Protection Design of Electrical Circuit in Super High Rise Building. Electric Power System Equipment, vol. 9, pp. 73-74, 2020.
9. Chang B.Big Store Fire Hazard Answer and Electrical Fire Risk Analysis. China Public Security.Academy Edition, vol. 2, pp. 88-91, 2010.
10. Liu, Z, Pang C., Wei J., andHe J.Index Calculation of Load Density based on IAHP and TOPSIS Methods. Automation of Electric Power Systems, vol.36, no. 13, pp. 56-59. 2012.
11. Gu, X, Tong, Z, Guo, H., Chai S., andLu Y.Target Threat Assessment for Air Combat based on TOPSIS Combining by IAHP and Entropy Weight. Huoli yu Zhihui Kongzhi, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 69-72, 2012.
12. S, Tan, H, Peng, L, Yang.The Reason and Solution of Electrical Fire Hazard Solutions. Fire Science and Technology, vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 1081-1084, 2014.
13. Peng C.Analysis of Electrical Fire Protection Design in High Rise Buildings. Intelligent City, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 105-106, 2021
14. Zhao H., Xiao X., Li Z., andWang Y. Estimation of Maximum Interval Hybrid Entropy of Sensitive Equipment Failure Rate Due to Voltage Sag, 2011.
15. Meacham B.Understanding Risk: Quantification, Perceptions, and Characterization. Journal of Fire Protection Engineering, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 199-227, 2004.
16. Gong J., Hu N.L., Cui X., andWang X.Rockburst Tendency Prediction based on AHP-TOPSIS Evaluation Model. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 1442-1448, 2014.
17. Ling Y., Yan Y., Li Z.et al.Establishment of Evaluation Index System for Sanitary Integrity in Public Place based on Delphi and FAHP. Soft Science of Health, vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 24-28, 2021.

[1]	Kshitij Kumar Sinha, Manoj Mathur, and Arun Sharma. Suitability Index Prediction for Residential Apartments Through Machine Learning [J]. Int J Performability Eng, 2023, 19(7): 434-442.
[2]	Abderraouf Bouafia, Mohammed Bougofa, Mohamed Salah Medjram, and Ahmed Mebarki. Quantitative Risk Assessment Approach to a Dynamic Safety Evaluation: Skikda’s Coastal City Liquefied Gas Plant [J]. Int J Performability Eng, 2023, 19(1): 10-19.
[3]	Lei Su, Fan Yang, Yu Shen, and Zhichun Yang. Novel Hybrid Decision Model for Electrical Fire Risk Evaluation of High-Rise Buildings based on Asymmetric Proximity [J]. Int J Performability Eng, 2022, 18(4): 263-274.
[4]	P. S. Chakraborty, S. Nallusamy, D. Sobya, G. Majumdar, and Bijan Sarkar. Analysis of Multiple Constraints and Strategic Investment Decision with Proposed Algorithm [J]. Int J Performability Eng, 2022, 18(12): 863-873.
[5]	Xiaoxin Ding, Kai Liu, and Shujun Shi. Risk Assessment of Strategic Cost Management based on Grey Model for Prefabricated Buildings [J]. Int J Performability Eng, 2020, 16(9): 1478-1487.
[6]	Mohammed Bougofa, Abderraouf Bouafia, and Ahmed Bellaouar. An Integrated Quantitative Bayesian Network in Risk Management for Complex Systems [J]. Int J Performability Eng, 2020, 16(3): 354-366.
[7]	Yongmin Lin, and Lin Chen. Emergency Management for Large Scale Construction Projects based on Interval Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Information [J]. Int J Performability Eng, 2020, 16(12): 1975-1984.
[8]	J. Madhumitha and G. Vijayalakshmi. Bayesian Estimation of Linear/Circular Consecutive k-out-of-n: F System Reliability [J]. Int J Performability Eng, 2020, 16(10): 1509-1516.
[9]	Shinji Inoue and Shigeru Yamada. Interval Estimation for Software Reliability Assessment based on MCMC Method [J]. Int J Performability Eng, 2019, 15(5): 1273-1278.
[10]	Yogita Kansal, P. K. Kapur, and Nitin Sachdeva. Determining Best Patch Management Software using Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets with TOPSIS [J]. Int J Performability Eng, 2019, 15(5): 1297-1305.
[11]	A.F. Awwad, M. H. Gobran, R. M. Kamal, and Mohammed A. Boraey. A 3D Risk Assessment Model based on GIS Layers Technique [J]. Int J Performability Eng, 2019, 15(10): 2563-2569.
[12]	Shaohua Wang, Shixin Zhang, Yong Li, Hongxiang Liu, and Zhengjun Peng. Selective Maintenance Decision-Making of Complex Systems Considering Imperfect Maintenance [J]. Int J Performability Eng, 2018, 14(12): 2960-2970.
[13]	Xiao Zhao, Jianhua Yang, and Xin Shi. Multi-Criteria Decision Model for Imperfect Maintenance using Multi-Attribute Utility Theory [J]. Int J Performability Eng, 2018, 14(12): 3014-3024.
[14]	Yu Su, Yushuai Liu, Li Sun, Zhexi Yao, and Jinbo Wang. Risk Evaluation of Embedded Linux in Aerospace based on Cloud Model [J]. Int J Performability Eng, 2018, 14(12): 3220-3227.