## Li Wang* , Chunling Jin** and Chongqi Xu*## |

Target layer | Criterion layer | Weight | Index layer | Weight |
---|---|---|---|---|

Operation safety management of the high-speed railway passenger station (U) | Personnel capability level [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{1}\right)$$ | 0.2519 | Physical and mental condition of staff [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{11}\right)$$ Staff security concept and sense of responsibility [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{12}\right)$$ Level of professional knowledge and skills of staff [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{13}\right)$$ Level of staff emergency response capacity [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{14}\right)$$ Level of staff engagement [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{15}\right)$$ | 0.1691 0.2291 0.2676 0.2015 0.1327 |

Equipment operation level [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{2}\right)$$ | 0.1820 | Completeness of equipment [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{21}\right)$$ Advanced level of equipment [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{22}\right)$$ Daily maintenance and maintenance of equipment [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{23}\right)$$ Equipment management level [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{24}\right)$$ | 0.3345 0.3702 0.1412 0.1541 | |

Environmental security level [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{3}\right)$$ | 0.1496 | On-site production and operation environment [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{31}\right)$$ Level of security inspection in and out of the station [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{32}\right)$$ Security environment inside and outside the station [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{33}\right)$$ Workers’ daily living environment [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{34}\right)$$ | 0.3614 0.3461 0.2042 0.0883 | |

Organizational management level [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{4}\right)$$ | 0.4163 | Construction of safety production system and management system [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{41}\right)$$ Safety management agency effectiveness [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{42}\right)$$ Investment degree of special funds for safety production [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{43}\right)$$ Education and training of production safety and management personnel [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{44}\right)$$ Construction level of station emergency management mechanism [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{45}\right)$$ | 0.3875 0.1682 0.1927 0.2318 0.1198 |

number can be calculated as follows:

[TeX:] $$\mathrm{d}=\left[d^{-}, d^{+}\right]=\left\{x\left(C_{i j}\right) \mid 0<d^{-}<x\left(C_{i j}\right)<d^{+}\right\}, i=1,2, \cdots, m, j=1,2, \cdots, n$$

where d is the interval number. A vector (or matrix) consisting of interval numbers is an interval vector (or matrix) whose operation rules are the same as the rules of mathematical vectors (or matrices). The assumed interval number judgment matrix is expressed as follows:

[TeX:] $$D_{i}=\left(d_{i j}\right)_{n x n}=\left[D^{-}, D^{+}\right], \text {and then } D^{-}=\left(d_{i j}\right)_{n \times n}^{-}, D^{+}=\left(d_{i j}\right)_{n x n}^{+}.$$

1) The normalized eigenvector [TeX:] $$x_{i}-\text { and } x_{i}{ }^{+}$$ corresponding to the maximum eigenvalue of [TeX:] $$D^{-} \text {and } D^{+}$$ can be expressed as follows:

2) Coefficients are calculated using [TeX:] $$D^{-}=\left(d_{i j}\right)_{n \times n}^{-} \text {and } D^{+}=\left(d_{i j}\right)_{n \times n}^{+},$$

where

3) According to Formulas (1) and (2), the weight interval of each evaluation index can be obtained as follows:

4) Based on [TeX:] $$\omega_{i}$$ obtained using Formula (3), the average of weights at both ends of the interval is taken as the weight of each index, which can be calculated as follows:

Hence, the weight vector of each evaluation index is [TeX:] $$W_{i}=\left[W_{1}, W_{2}, \cdots, W_{i n}\right]^{T}.$$

[TeX:] $$A=\left[\begin{array}{cccc} (1,1) & (2,3) & (2,4) & (1 / 4,1 / 2) \\ (1 / 3,1 / 2) & (1,1) & (2,3) & (1 / 4,1 / 3) \\ (1 / 4,1 / 2) & (1 / 3,1 / 2) & (1,1) & (1 / 5,1 / 4) \\ (2,4) & (3,4) & (4,5) & (1,1) \end{array}\right]$$

Thus,

[TeX:] $$A^{-}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc} 1 & 2 & 2 & 1 / 4 \\ 1 / 3 & 1 & 2 & 1 / 4 \\ 1 / 4 & 1 / 3 & 1 & 1 / 5 \\ 2 & 3 & 4 & 1 \end{array}\right], A^{+}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc} 1 & 3 & 4 & 1 / 2 \\ 1 / 2 & 1 & 3 & 1 / 3 \\ 1 / 2 & 1 / 2 & 1 & 1 / 4 \\ 4 & 4 & 5 & 1 \end{array}\right]$$

The normalized eigenvector of the positive component corresponding to its maximum eigenvalue is obtained using Formula (1). Hence,

We can calculate k = 0.917 and m = 1.066 using Formula (2). The weight obtained using Formulas (3) and (4) is [TeX:] $$W=(0.2519,0.1820,0.1496,0.4163)$$

Weight values of other indicators can be obtained similarly (Table 1).

3.2.1.1 Establishing the factor set

Let U be the set of influencing factors, that is, a set of factors that affect the evaluation object.

[TeX:] $$U=\left\{\mathrm{U}_{1}, \mathrm{U}_{2}, \cdots, \mathrm{U}_{i}, \cdots, \mathrm{U}_{m}\right\}, U_{i}=\left\{u_{i}, u_{i 2}, \cdots, u_{i j}, \cdots, u_{i p}\right\},$$

where [TeX:] $$U_{i}$$ represents the No. i subset and [TeX:] $$u_{i j}$$ denotes the No. j influence factor of the No. i subset.

3.2.1.2 Establishing the evaluation set

The evaluation set is composed of different kinds of evaluation results that the evaluator may obtain from the evaluation object and expressed as V,

where [TeX:] $$V_{i}$$ represents the No. i evaluation result and n represents the total number of evaluation results, i = 1,2,…,n.

The set defines the selection range of the evaluation results of a certain factor. The evaluation element can be either a qualitative expression or a quantitative score.

3.2.1.3 Establishing the weight set

The weight of each factor is given according to the importance of each factor in every layer. Let the weight set of factors at each level be

[TeX:] $$W=\left\{W_{1}, W_{2}, \cdots, W_{i}, \cdots, W_{m}\right\}, W_{i}=\left\{w_{i 1}, w_{i 2}, \cdots, w_{i j}, \cdots, w_{i p}\right\}$$

where W represents the fuzzy weight of the criterion layer and Wi represents the fuzzy weight of the No. i factor layer.

3.2.2.1 One-level fuzzy comprehensive assessment model

Any factor is assessed according to the evaluation set V, and the judgment matrix of any factor is obtained as follows:

where [TeX:] $$r_{i j k}$$ is the degree of subordination of the k-level evaluation that corresponds to the No. j factor of the No. i subset and [TeX:] $$r_{i k} \in[0,1].$$ The judgment matrix of the No. i subset is expressed as follows:

where the number of rows of the matrix [TeX:] $$R_{i}$$ is equal to the number of [TeX:] $$u_{i j}$$ subfactors of [TeX:] $$U_{i}$$ and the number of columns of the matrix [TeX:] $$R_{i}$$ is equal to n, which is the number of elements of the evaluation set. The single-factor fuzzy evaluation set, that is, the one-level fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model, is obtained via the fuzzy operation on R and W as follows:

where "" denotes the synthesis method of W and R, that is, the combination of fuzzy operators.

3.2.2.2 Two-level fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model

The one-factor fuzzy evaluation set [TeX:] $$B_{i}$$ is the one-factor evaluation set for the No. i subset [TeX:] $$U_{i}$$ and also constitutes the judgment matrix R of the second-level fuzzy comprehensive evaluation.

[TeX:] $$R=\left[\begin{array}{c} B_{1} \\ B_{2} \\ \vdots \\ B_{m} \end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cccc} r_{i 11} & r_{i 12} & \cdots & r_{n n} \\ r_{i 21} & r_{i 22} & \cdots & r_{i 2 n} \\ \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ r_{y 1} & r_{y 2} & \cdots & r_{y m} \end{array}\right]$$

and then the two-level fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model can be expressed as follows:

where [TeX:] $$b_{i}$$ indicates the degree to which the evaluated subject has a rating level of [TeX:] $$v_{i}.$$

If [TeX:] $$\sum_{i=1}^{n} b_{t} \neq 1,$$ then the matrix is normalized. According to the principle of maximum membership degree, the evaluation grade vi corresponding to the largest bi is selected as the result of the comprehensive evaluation.

The operation safety audit and evaluation of a high-speed railway terminal in northwest China is taken as an example. The evaluation standard consists of the following evaluation grades: {Poor, Very Poor, General, Good, Excellent}.

The expert group composed of safety evaluation experts and operation managers of the high-speed railway terminal combined various evaluation indicators to score the operational security situation of the high-speed railway terminal and take the proportion of the number of relevant experts who approve of a certain indicator evaluation level to all the participants as the index evaluation value [8] (Table 2).

According to the formula:

[TeX:] $$B_{i}=R_{i} \circ W_{i}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc} r_{i 11} & r_{i 12} & \cdots & r_{i 1 n} \\ r_{i 21} & r_{i 22} & \cdots & r_{i 2 n} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\ r_{i m 1} & r_{t m 1} & \cdots & r_{i m n} \end{array}\right] \circ\left(w_{i 1}, w_{i 2}, \cdots, w_{t m}\right)=\left(b_{i}, b_{i 2}, \cdots, b_{i n}\right),$$

we can obtain:

[TeX:] $$B_{1}=R_{1} \circ W_{1}= \left[\begin{array}{ccccc} 0 & 0.1 & 0.2 & 0.4 & 0.3 \\ 0 & 0.1 & 0.4 & 0.4 & 0.1 \\ 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.3 & 0.4 & 0.1 \\ 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.2 & 0.4 & 0.2 \\ 0 & 0.1 & 0.2 & 0.4 & 0.3 \end{array}\right] \circ(0.1691,0.2291,0.2676,0.2015,0.1327) \\ =(0.0469,0.1000,0.2726,0.4000,0.1805).$$

For the same reason,

[TeX:] $$\begin{aligned} B_{2} &=(0.1193,0.1308,0.4268,0.1578,0.1653), \\ B_{3} &=(0.0723,0.2069,0.4000,0.2073,0.1135), \\ B_{4} &=(0.0739,0.1837,0.3919,0.3000,0.1205). \end{aligned}$$

Table 2.

Index | Index evaluation set | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Poor | Very poor | General | Good | Excellent | |||

Operational security management of the high-speed railway terminal (U) | Personnel capability level [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{1}\right)$$ | Physical and mental condition of staff [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{11}\right)$$ Staff security concept and sense of responsibility [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{12}\right)$$ Level of professional knowledge and skills of staff [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{13}\right)$$ Level of staff emergency response capacity [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{14}\right)$$ Level of staff engagement [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{15}\right)$$ | 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 | 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 | 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 | 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 | 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 |

Equipment operation level [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{2}\right)$$ | Completeness of equipment [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{21}\right)$$ Advanced level of equipment [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{22}\right)$$ Daily maintenance and maintenance of equipment [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{23}\right)$$ Equipment management level [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{24}\right)$$ | 0.2 0.1 0 0.1 | 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 | 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.3 | 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 | 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 | |

Environmental security level [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{3}\right)$$ | On-site production and operation environment [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{31}\right)$$ Level of security inspection in and out of the station [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{32}\right)$$ Security environment inside and outside the station [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{33}\right)$$ Workers’ daily living environment [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{34}\right)$$ | 0.2 0 0 0 | 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 | 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 | 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 | 0 0.1 0.3 0.2 | |

Organizational management level [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{4}\right)$$ | Construction of safety production system and management system [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{41}\right)$$ Safety management agency effectiveness [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{42}\right)$$ Investment degree of special funds for safety production [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{43}\right)$$ Education and training of production safety and management personnel [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{44}\right)$$ Construction level of station emergency management mechanism [TeX:] $$\left(\mathrm{U}_{45}\right)$$ | 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.1 | 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 | 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 | 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 | 0.1 0.3 0.1 0 0.1 |

The comprehensive evaluation system of the high-speed railway terminal operation security management is divided into two layers, and the second-level fuzzy comprehensive evaluation is only the synthesis according to all the factors [TeX:] $$U_{i}(i=1,2,3,4)$$ of the first level. The single-factor evaluation matrix of the second-level fuzzy comprehensive evaluation should be the first-level fuzzy comprehensive evaluation matrix:

[TeX:] $$R=\left[\begin{array}{lllll} 0.0469 & 0.1000 & 0.2726 & 0.4000 & 0.1805 \\ 0.1193 & 0.1308 & 0.4268 & 0.1578 & 0.1653 \\ 0.0723 & 0.2069 & 0.4000 & 0.2073 & 0.1135 \\ 0.0739 & 0.1837 & 0.3919 & 0.3000 & 0.1205 \end{array}\right],\text { and } W=(0.2519,0.1820,0.1496,0.4163) . \text { Then } \\ \begin{array}{l} B=W \circ R=(0.0751,0.1564,0.3693,0.2854,0.1427) . \text { After normalization, } \\ B^{\prime}=(0.0730,0.1520,0.3589,0.2774,0.1387). \end{array}$$

According to the maximum membership degree principle, the operational security management of the high-speed railway terminal is evaluated as “General” safety status.

The high-speed railway passenger station is a new type of urban comprehensive transportation hub that evolved from the railway passenger station. Compared with the ordinary railway passenger station, the high-speed railway passenger station adopts a large number of new technologies and equipment, which has new characteristics in transportation organization, passenger service, and station management, such as complex building structure, numerous internal equipment, compact layout, wide traffic radiation, large passenger flow, and more hidden trouble points [4]. The safe operation of the passenger station is the first condition to ensure its development and construction. Analyzing and evaluating the risk of the high-speed railway passenger station scientifically and effectively are necessary.

A comprehensive evaluation index system for the operational security management of the high-speed railway terminal consisting of 4 criteria and 18 specific indicators is constructed. The high-speed railway terminal can refer to the indicator system for evaluating its security management level, and railway management departments can also use the index system for auditing the operational security of the high-speed railway terminal.

IEM is introduced to determine the weight of each indicator because of the excessive number of indicators available in the system. The operational security of the high-speed railway terminal is comprehensively evaluated on the basis of the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model and com¬bined with the expert scoring method. The combination of qualitative analysis and quantitative research effectively avoids the shortcomings of individual experts’ subjective judgment errors that can lead to large deviations in the evaluation results, thereby improving the scientificity and accuracy of the evaluation results.

Risk factors, such as terrorist attacks, severe weather, and building fires, were excluded from the process of selecting evaluation indicators because of space limitations. Four levels of indicators, namely, personnel capacity, station equipment, station environment, and organizational manage¬ment, were primarily investigated in this study. Risk factors in the operational security management of the high-speed railway terminal should be comprehensively considered in the follow-up study while applying computer programming to improve the calculation efficiency, convenience, and practicability of the evaluation method.

He received his B.S. degree at the School of Civil Engineering in Lanzhou Jiaotong University in 2004 and M.S. degree at the School of Traffic and Transportation in Lanzhou Jiaotong University in 2011. At present, he is a lecturer at the School of Traffic and Transportation of Lanzhou Jiaotong University in Lanzhou, China.

- 1 Y. Zhuang, "A study on safety risk assessment and control optimization of high speed railway passenger terminal based on fuzzy petri network,"
*Beijing Jiaotong UniversityBeijing, China*, 2018.custom:[[[-]]] - 2 D. Elms, "Rail safety,"
*Reliability Engineering & System Safety*, vol. 74, no. 3, pp. 291-297, 2001.doi:[[[10.1016/S0951-8320(01)00085-0]]] - 3 L. Small, "Rail safety,"
*The Arup Journal*, vol. 2004, no. 1, pp. 10-11, 2004.doi:[[[10.1016/S0951-8320(01)00085-0]]] - 4 L. Zhen, "Analysis of passenger safety risk in large-scale high-speed railway,"
*Southwest Jiaotong University Chengdu, China*, 2014.custom:[[[-]]] - 5 Y. Zhang, "Research on passenger safety early warning management system of railway passenger station,"
*Beijing Jiaotong UniversityBeijing, China*, 2016.custom:[[[-]]] - 6 Y. Wang, G. Hao, "Comprehensive evaluation of airport operation safety based on IEM and vague sets theory,"
*Bulletin of Science and Technology*, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 210-214, 2016.custom:[[[-]]] - 7 D. Du, Q. Pang,
*and Y*, Contemporary Comprehensive Evaluation Methods and Case Selection3rd ed. BeijingChina: Tsinghua University Press, Wu, 2018.custom:[[[-]]] - 8 L. Wang, L. Y un, Z. Xu, "Multi-Hierarchical Gray Correlation Analysis Applied in the Selection of Green Building Design Scheme,"
*Industrial Safety and Environmental Protection*, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 93-96, 2016.custom:[[[-]]]