营区突发事件应急保障方案仿真推演评估方法

doi:10.12305/j.issn.1001-506X.2022.11.18

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

针对当前营区应对复杂突发事件情景下的应急指挥管理能力薄弱、应急方案效能难以量化评估决策的问题, 提出了基于兵棋的营区突发事件应急保障方案的仿真推演评估方法。结合营区应急作战特点和兵棋要素技术, 建立基于“情景-应对”应急模式的营区突发事件机理形式化描述, 采用案例推理方法将当前突发事件情景与历史案例库进行相似度对比分析, 构建一套适合突发事件快速响应生成应急方案的方法。以H营区油料库及核燃料库遭敌特偷袭引发的突发事件为想定背景, 采用兵棋方法开展对营区应急保障行动方案的仿真推演与效能评估, 验证了突发事件应急方案快速评估方法的可行性, 可为营区非常规突发事件应急决策提供重要的支持。

关键词: 兵棋推演, 营区突发事件, 应急保障, 方案评估

Abstract:

Aiming at the problems of weak emergency command and management capabilities in current camps in response to complex emergencies and difficulty in quantifying and evaluating the effectiveness of emergency plans, a wargaming-based simulation deduction evaluation method for emergency support plans for camps is proposed. Combining the characteristics of emergency operations in the camp and the technology of war chess elements, a formal description of the emergency mechanism in the camp based on the "scenario-response" emergency mode is established, and the case-based reasoning method is used to compare the similarity between the current emergency scenario and the historical case library to construct a set of methods suitable for rapid response to emergencies to generate emergency plans. Taking the sudden incidents caused by the enemy's surprise attack on the oil depots and nuclear fuel depots in the H camp as the background, the wargame method is used to carry out the simulation deduction and effectiveness evaluation of the emergency protection plan in the camp, which verifies the feasibility of the rapid evaluation method of the emergency plan. It can provide important support for emergency decision-making of unconventional emergencies in the camp.

Key words: war gaming, camp emergency, emergency support, program evaluation

中图分类号:

TP18

张寒, 黄炎焱, 耿泽, 张振. 营区突发事件应急保障方案仿真推演评估方法[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2022, 44(11): 3433-3442.

Han ZHANG, Yanyan HUANG, Ze GENG, Zhen ZHANG. Evaluation method of emergency response support scheme in military camp simulation and wargaming[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2022, 44(11): 3433-3442.

图/表 16

图1

图2

图3

表1

图4

表2

图5

表3

图6

表4

图7

图8

图9

图10

图11

表5

参考文献 30

1	LUO K W, ZHONG W. Device control and manage system in military barracks[C]//Proc. of the 29th Chinese Control and Decision Conference, 2017: 1837-1841.
2	王杨, 郭凌, 李睿. 营区安防信息系统设计[J]. 重庆理工大学学报(自然科学), 2019, 33 (11): 106- 110.
	WANG Y , GUO L , LI R . Design of security information system for island camp[J]. Journal of Chongqing University of Technology (Natural Science), 2019, 33 (11): 106- 110.
3	黄炎焱, 刘明. 应急管理中的建模仿真及决策分析技术[M]. 北京: 国防工业出版社, 2015.
	HUANG Y Y , LIU M . Modeling simulation and decision analysis technology in emergency management[M]. Beijing: National Defense Industry Press, 2015.
4	HUANG Y Y . Modeling and simulation method of the emergency response systems based on OODA[J]. Knowledge-Based Systems, 2015, 89, 527- 540. doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2015.08.020
5	LIU X D , WANG Z W , ZHANG S T , et al. Analysis of influencing factors in emergency management based on an integrated methodology[J]. Adaptive Behavior, 2019, 27 (5): 331- 345. doi: 10.1177/1059712319858623
6	MASHI S A , OGHENEJABOR O D , INKANI A I . Disaster risks and management policies and practices in nigeria: a critical appraisal of the national emergency management agency act[J]. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2019, 33, 253- 265. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.10.011
7	WANG X , SUGUMARAN V , ZHANG H , et al. A capability assessment model for emergency management organizations[J]. Information Systems Frontiers, 2018, 20 (4): 653- 667. doi: 10.1007/s10796-017-9786-7
8	刘奕, 许伟, 乔晗, 等. 突发事件应急管理方法研究进展专辑序言[J]. 管理评论, 2016, 28 (8): 3- 5.
	LIU Y , XU W , QIAO H , et al. Preface to the special issue on the research progress of emergency management methods[J]. Management Review, 2016, 28 (8): 3- 5.
9	ZHU Y , CHEN T , DING N , et al. Analyzing floor-stair merging flow based on experiments and simulation[J]. Chinese Physics B, 2020, 29 (1): 010401. doi: 10.1088/1674-1056/ab5788
10	邱晓刚, 孟荣清, 陈彬, 等. 社会性突发事件平行应急管理方法研究[J]. 系统仿真学报, 2014, 26 (10): 2239- 2246. doi: 10.16182/j.cnki.joss.2014.10.067
	QIU X G , MENG R Q , CHEN B , et al. Study of parallel emergency management for social emergencies[J]. Journal of System Simulation, 2014, 26 (10): 2239- 2246. doi: 10.16182/j.cnki.joss.2014.10.067
11	BLAIR D , CHAPA J O , CUOMO S , et al. Humans and hardware: an exploration of blended tactical workflows using John Boyd's OODA loop[M]. Routledge: The Conduct of War in the 21st Century, 2021: 93- 115.
12	MCINTOSH S E . The wingman-philosopher of MiG alley: john boyd and the OODA loop[J]. Air Power History, 2011, 58 (4): 24- 33.
13	ZHANG Y , ZHANG M , YANG J Y . Modeling method for weapon system of systems based on OODA loop[J]. Journal of System Simulation, 2013, 25 (S1): 6- 11.
14	ZHANG H , LI W J , MIAO P P , et al. Risk grade assessment of sudden water pollution based on analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2020, 27 (1): 469- 481. doi: 10.1007/s11356-019-06517-9
15	CAYLOR J P, HAMMELL R J, RAGLIN A J. Preliminary evaluation of multi-criteria decision-making methodology for emergency management[C]//Proc. of the International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomic, 2021: 11-18.
16	TANG K H D , DAWAL S Z M , OLUGU E U . Integrating fuzzy expert system and scoring system for safety performance evaluation of offshore oil and gas platforms in Malaysia[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2018, 56, 32- 45.
17	DENG X Y , DENG Y . D-AHP method with different credibility of information[J]. Soft Computing, 2019, 23 (2): 683- 691.
18	CAI W , DOU L M , ZHANG M , et al. A fuzzy comprehensive evaluation methodology for rock burst forecasting using microseismic monitoring[J]. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2018, 80, 232- 245.
19	BOSQUILIA R W D , NEALE C M U , DUARTE S N , et al. Evaluation of evapotranspiration variations according to soil type using multivariate statistical analysis[J]. Geoderma, 2019, 355, 113906.
20	MA X , KARIMPOUR A , WU Y J . Statistical evaluation of data requirement for ramp metering performance assessment[J]. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 2020, 141, 248- 261.
21	BANG S H , LEE S L . A study on the linkage method between emergency simulation model and other models[J]. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association, 2020, 20 (11): 301- 313.
22	CHEN P , ZHANG J Q , SUN Y Y . Research on emergency rescue of urban flood disaster based on wargame simulation[J]. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 2018, 46 (10): 1677- 1687.
23	李琛, 黄炎焱, 张永亮, 等. Actor-Critic框架下的多智能体决策方法及其在兵棋上的应用[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2021, 43 (3): 755- 762.
	LI C , HUANG Y Y , ZHANG Y L , et al. Multi-agent decision-making method based on Actor-Critic framework and its application in wargames[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2021, 43 (3): 755- 762.
24	程恺, 陈刚, 余晓晗, 等. 知识牵引与数据驱动的兵棋AI设计及关键技术[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2021, 43 (10): 2911- 2917.
	CHENG K , CHEN G , YU X H , et al. Knowledge traction and data-driven wargame AI design and key technologies[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2021, 43 (10): 2911- 2917.
25	HODICKY J , PROCHÁZKA D , BAXA F , et al. Computer assisted wargame for military capability-based planning[J]. Entropy, 2020, 22 (8): 861.
26	FAN J S, REN H, TIAN C X. An analysis of wargame rules simulation based on stochastic lanchester models[C]//Proc. of the 6th International Conference on Network, Communication and Computing, 2017: 135-139.
27	ZHANG Y , WENG W G , HUANG Z L . A scenario-based model for earthquake emergency management effectiveness evaluation[J]. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2018, 128, 197- 207.
28	ZHANG Z X , WANG L , WANG Y M . An emergency decision making method based on prospect theory for different emergency situations[J]. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2018, 9 (3): 407- 420.
29	TANG F , ZHANG X , YOU X , et al. Design method of tactical level hexagonal wargame map[J]. Journal of System Simulation, 2019, 31 (5): 869.
30	马文笑, 王德鲁. 基于案例推理的突发环境事件应急决策模型[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2017, 13 (12): 85- 90.
	MA W X , WANG D L . An emergency decision-making model of emergency environmental accidents based on case-based reasoning[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2017, 13 (12): 85- 90.

要素类型	要素名称
确定数值型	风速等级、无人机数量、无人机距离、无人机高度、导弹数量、导弹距离、雷达探测器波长、频率、脉冲宽度
布尔型	内部因子、间谍、建筑物类型、存储设施类型、物理状态、燃爆性、毒性、腐蚀性、放射性、无源干扰、环境感知
模糊型	降雨/雪、能见度、被困人员数量、伤亡人员数量、挥发性、燃烧面积、火势大小、泄露量、泄露速率、电磁信号识别、辐射源定位

一级评估指标	二级评估指标	三级评估指标	指标权重
营区突发事件应急方案处置能力A	应急响应能力B₁	应急单位到达任务位置C₁₁	D₁₁
	紧急救援能力B₂	搜救被困人员C₂₁	D₂₁
	紧急救援能力B₂	救治伤亡人员C₂₂	D₂₂
	应急处置能力B₃	扑灭火源C₃₁	D₃₁
		阻止泄露C₃₂	D₃₂
		防空作战C₃₃	D₃₃

应急方案编号	应急方案任务集
	ID	名称	位置	能力
	ID	名称	位置	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
HS₃	T₁	现场调查	(15, 27)	10	0	0	5	0	0	4	0
	T₂	阻止泄露	(15, 27)	20	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	T₃	现场调查	(14, 27)	10	0	0	5	0	0	4	0
	T₄	灭火消防	(14, 27)	20	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	T₅	防空侦察	(02, 22)	0	0	0	0	0	0	10	0
	T₆	防空作战	(08, 21)	0	10	0	0	0	0	10	0
	T₇	防空作战	(18, 26)	0	10	0	0	0	0	10	0
	T₈	人员搜救	Nah	0	0	0	0	20	0	0	0
	T₉	现场救治	(16, 27)	0	0	0	0	0	20	0	0
	T₁₀	伤员转移	(11, 29)	0	0	0	0	0	20	0	0

应急方案编号	应急方案任务集
	ID	名称	位置	能力
	ID	名称	位置	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
HS5	T1	现场调查	(15, 27)	10	0	0	0	0	0	4	0
	T2	现场保障	(15, 27)	10	0	0	0	0	0	0	10
	T3	阻止泄露	(15, 27)	20	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	T4	现场调查	(14, 27)	10	0	0	0	0	0	4	0
	T5	现场保障	(14, 27)	10	0	0	0	0	0	0	10
	T6	灭火消防	(14, 27)	40	0	0	10	0	0	0	0
	T7	防空侦察	(02, 22)	0	0	0	0	0	0	10	0
	T8	防空侦察	(13, 43)	0	0	0	0	0	0	10	0
	T9	防空作战	(08, 21)	0	10	0	0	0	0	4	0
	T10	防空作战	(02, 25)	0	10	0	0	0	0	4	0
	T11	防空作战	(18, 26)	0	10	0	0	0	0	4	0
	T12	防空作战	(22, 33)	0	10	0	0	0	0	4	0
	T13	现场调查	Nah	0	0	0	0	0	0	4	0
	T14	人员搜救	Nah	0	0	0	0	20	0	0	0
	T15	现场救治	(16, 27)	0	0	0	0	0	20	0	0
	T16	伤员转移	(11, 29)	0	0	0	0	0	20	0	0

应急方案编号	应急方案三级指标	开始回合数	结束回合数	持续回合数
HS₃	全部应急单位到达任务位置	0	4	4
	搜救被困人员	0	0	0
	救治伤亡人员	2	6	3
	扑灭火源	4	13	9
	阻止泄露	4	11	7
	防空作战	2	5	3
HS₅	全部应急单位到达任务位置	0	6	6
	搜救被困人员	0	0	0
	救治伤亡人员	2	5	3
	扑灭火源	6	13	7
	阻止泄露	5	10	5
	防空作战	3	5	2