KR102458424B1 - System for evaluating performance of disaster response system using boundary value by using expert evaluation - Google Patents

Abstract

An embodiment includes a data collection unit for collecting disaster data including past disaster data, institutional disaster data collected or processed by an institution, and environmental facility disaster data measured at an environmental facility, the past disaster data, the institutional disaster data and The disaster situation propagation plan and the disaster response plan are generated by generating a disaster situation propagation plan and a disaster response plan according to the disaster type from the environmental facility disaster data, and matching the disaster type, the disaster situation propagation plan, and the disaster response plan A disaster manual is generated by making a manual, and when the disaster type is input, a decision-making corresponding to the disaster type is made, and the disaster situation propagation plan and the disaster response plan are output according to the disaster manual included in the decision-making Disaster response system including a system control unit; and an input control unit for inputting an input value including the disaster type to the disaster response system, an output control unit for receiving an output value including the disaster situation propagation plan and the disaster response plan from the disaster response system, the input value is a disaster response The evaluation input unit for receiving the scenario result generated by applying the scenario, and comparing the disaster situation propagation plan and disaster response plan included in the output value with the disaster situation propagation plan and disaster response plan included in the scenario result to increase the accuracy of decision-making It is possible to provide a system for evaluating the performance of a disaster response system including a performance evaluation device including an evaluation judgment unit to evaluate.

Description

A system that evaluates the performance of a disaster response system using expert evaluation

This embodiment relates to a technique for evaluating the performance of a disaster response system.

There are various environmental facilities such as water and sewage facilities, environmental energy facilities, water purification plants and sewage treatment plants. When disasters such as typhoons, floods, heavy rains, and earthquakes occur, environmental facilities suffer great damage. Due to the damage to the Yangdeok water purification plant in Pohang due to the recent Pohang earthquake, the cost of restoration, including reconstruction and repair work, such as the main building building, filter paper building, and chlorine disinfection building, reached 144 billion won. At the Jangdang Sewage Treatment Plant in Pyeongtaek, approximately KRW 2 billion in property damage occurred due to flooding due to localized heavy rain, and it took three months to restore the automatic systems such as switchboards and mechanical equipment. Due to the impact of Typhoon Bolaven in 2012, control panels, management buildings, drainage basins, fences, walls, roofs, filter papers, flow meters or measurement and control facilities were damaged at various water purification plants in Jeollanam-do, resulting in damage to environmental facilities worth up to 300 million won.

Each waterworks facility has a disaster response manual. The response manual is to minimize damage. However, it is not easy to perform according to the given manual in a real situation. Managers are prone to panic in the process of taking necessary measures, and also lack of expertise in disaster response because the manager's position changes periodically. Furthermore, even if the given manual is performed, the manual itself is not produced to fit the field situation or is not specific, so it is often separated from the actual situation.

In the end, in the event of a disaster, they cannot respond promptly, so the golden time is missed, and the damage caused by it is further increased. This is why a system that can present a very specific and professional response scenario suitable for an actual disaster situation is required.

In addition, a large number of reports are required for each response manual owned by the state, local government, or the relevant environmental facility. While the reporting system has a net function of enabling efficient disaster response by enabling collaboration between upper and lower agencies, it may consume excessive resources to prepare reports, making it difficult to respond quickly to disasters.

Meanwhile, experts are paying attention to big data analysis to build a disaster response system. Through big data, situational awareness, problem solving, and potential danger signs can be identified in advance, and through this, the ability to preemptively respond can be improved.

In November 2012, when Hurricane Sandy struck the eastern United States, a problem with transmission towers made it difficult to supply electricity. It was Facebook and Twitter that came to power in this chaos. The situation calmed down as people who visited gas stations shared the status of oil holdings, contact information, and waiting time at each gas station in real time, and a service that maps this to a map appeared.

Even if a system for disaster response is built according to the flow of big data utilization, the more important thing is the reliability or accuracy of the system. In other words, when an actual disaster occurs, the decision-making for the disaster must be accurate. This is because, through decision-making, we report disaster situations and respond to disasters. Therefore, evaluating the performance of a disaster response system can be as important as building the disaster response system itself.

In this regard, this embodiment intends to provide a technique for evaluating the performance of a manual-based disaster response system built through big data analysis.

Against this background, an object of the present embodiment is to compare the disaster situation propagation plan and disaster response plan included in the output value of the disaster response system with the disaster situation propagation plan and disaster response plan included in the scenario result to determine accuracy or disaster To provide a technique for evaluating the accuracy of costing.

In order to achieve the above object, an embodiment includes a data collection unit that collects disaster data including past disaster data, institutional disaster data collected or processed by an institution, and environmental facility disaster data measured in an environmental facility; By generating a disaster situation propagation plan and disaster response plan according to a disaster type from past disaster data, the institutional disaster data and the environmental facility disaster data, and matching the disaster type, the disaster situation propagation plan, and the disaster response plan, the disaster A disaster manual is created by manualizing the situation propagation plan and the disaster response plan, and when the disaster type is input, a decision-making corresponding to the disaster type is performed, and the disaster situation according to the disaster manual included in the decision-making Disaster response system including a system control unit for outputting the radio wave plan and the disaster response plan; and

An input control unit for inputting an input value including the disaster type to a disaster response system, an output control unit for receiving an output value including the disaster situation propagation plan and the disaster response plan from the disaster response system, the input value is a disaster response scenario The evaluation input unit for receiving the generated scenario result applied to the It provides a system for evaluating the performance of a disaster response system including a performance evaluation device including an evaluation judgment unit.

In the system, the evaluation and determination unit, when the disaster situation propagation plan and the disaster response plan included in the output value include the disaster situation propagation plan and the disaster response plan included in the scenario result, the accuracy of the decision-making is excellent. can be judged.

In the system, the evaluation and determination unit, when the disaster situation propagation plan and the disaster response plan included in the output value take less time than the disaster situation propagation plan and the disaster response plan included in the scenario result, It can be judged that the accuracy is excellent.

In the system, the evaluation input unit receives an evaluation criterion, and the evaluation determination unit evaluates the accuracy of the decision-making by determining whether the disaster situation propagation plan and the disaster response plan included in the output value match the evaluation criteria. have.

In order to achieve the above object, another embodiment provides a data collection unit for collecting disaster data including past disaster data, institutional disaster data collected or processed by an institution, and environmental facility disaster data measured in an environmental facility; Generate a damage amount and recovery cost according to a disaster type or disaster damage scale from the past disaster data, the institutional disaster data, and the environmental facility disaster data, and calculate the disaster type or the disaster damage scale, the damage amount and the recovery cost A system for generating a disaster cost including the damage amount and the recovery cost by matching, and outputting the damage amount and the recovery cost according to the disaster type or the disaster damage scale when the disaster type or the disaster damage scale is input Disaster response system including a control unit; and an input control unit for inputting an input value including the disaster type or the disaster damage scale to the disaster response system, an output control unit for receiving an output value including the damage amount and the recovery cost from the disaster response system, the input value is An evaluation input unit for receiving a scenario result generated by applying to a disaster response scenario, and evaluating the accuracy of disaster cost calculation by comparing the damage amount and recovery cost included in the output value with the damage amount and recovery cost included in the scenario result It provides a system for evaluating the performance of a disaster response system including a performance evaluation device including a determination unit.

In the system, the evaluation determining unit may determine that the accuracy of the disaster cost calculation is excellent if the damage amount or recovery cost included in the output value is within a similar range to the damage amount or recovery cost included in the scenario result.

In the system, the evaluation determining unit may determine that the accuracy of the disaster cost calculation is excellent when the recovery cost included in the output value is less than the recovery cost included in the scenario result.

In the system, the evaluation input unit may receive an evaluation criterion, and the evaluation determination unit may evaluate the accuracy of the disaster cost calculation by determining whether the damage amount and the recovery cost included in the output value match the evaluation criterion.

As described above, according to the present embodiment, it is possible to implement a high-accuracy disaster response system and a disaster response algorithm included therein through performance evaluation.

On the other hand, even if it is an effect not explicitly mentioned herein, it is added that the effects described in the following specification expected by the technical features of the present invention and their potential effects are treated as described in the specification of the present invention.

1 is a configuration diagram of a performance evaluation system according to an embodiment.
2 is a view for explaining the operation of the disaster response system in the performance evaluation system according to an embodiment.
3 is an exemplary diagram of a scenario result according to an embodiment.
4 is a flowchart of a first operation of a performance evaluation device in a performance evaluation system according to an embodiment.
5 is a flowchart of a second operation of a performance evaluation device in a performance evaluation system according to an embodiment.
6 is an exemplary diagram of evaluation criteria according to an embodiment.
7 is a view for explaining the operation of the disaster response system among the performance evaluation system according to another embodiment.
8 is a flowchart of a first operation of a performance evaluation device in a performance evaluation system according to another embodiment.
9 is a flowchart of a second operation of a performance evaluation apparatus in a performance evaluation system according to another embodiment.
It is revealed that the accompanying drawings are exemplified as a reference for understanding the technical idea of the present invention, and the scope of the present invention is not limited thereby.

In the description of the present invention, if it is determined that the subject matter of the present invention may be unnecessarily obscured as it is obvious to those skilled in the art with respect to related known functions, the detailed description thereof will be omitted.

The terms used in the present application are only used to describe specific embodiments, and are not intended to limit the present invention. The singular expression includes the plural expression unless the context clearly dictates otherwise. In the present application, terms such as “comprise” or “have” are intended to designate that a feature, number, step, operation, component, part, or combination thereof described in the specification exists, but one or more other features It is to be understood that this does not preclude the possibility of the presence or addition of numbers, steps, operations, components, parts, or combinations thereof.

Hereinafter, an embodiment of a system for evaluating the performance of a disaster response system using expert evaluation according to the present invention will be described in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings, and in the description with reference to the accompanying drawings, the same or corresponding components are given the same reference numerals, and overlapping descriptions thereof will be omitted.

1 is a configuration diagram of a performance evaluation system according to an embodiment, FIG. 2 is a diagram for explaining the operation of a disaster response system among the performance evaluation system according to an embodiment, and FIG. 3 is a scenario result according to an embodiment is an example of

Referring to FIG. 1 , the performance evaluation system 100 may include a disaster response system 110 and a performance evaluation device 120 .

First, the disaster response system 110 may include a data collection unit 111 , a system input unit 112 , a system output unit 113 , and a system control unit 114 .

The data collection unit 111 may collect disaster data. The disaster data may include data on disaster types, disaster intensity, disaster response, and disaster damage.

Here, disaster types can be divided into natural disasters caused by natural phenomena and accidents caused by causes other than natural phenomena, and natural disasters may include typhoons, earthquakes, floods and/or droughts, etc., and accidents include fire, Collapses, explosions, traffic accidents and/or environmental pollution accidents, etc. may be included.

Disaster intensity can be understood as the risk of a disaster and can be about how great the power is. Disaster intensity may include a physical quantity indicating the risk of a disaster, and the physical quantity may include precipitation, snowfall, wind speed, temperature or humidity. Alternatively, the disaster intensity may include a specific indicator, which may correspond to an advisory or warning issued by an agency - for example, the Meteorological Administration.

Disaster response can include actions that can be taken when a disaster occurs. Here, measures can be divided into dissemination of disasters and performance of missions. When a type of disaster - typhoon, heavy rain or accident - occurs, the circumstances of the disaster need to be known to the relevant agencies or individuals, which may correspond to measures for dissemination of the disaster. At the same time, the task-response mission-according to the response stage needs to be performed by the subject performing the mission-response person-, which may correspond to a measure for the execution of the mission.

Data on disaster damage may include material damage or human damage. Here, material damage is damage that can be converted into economic value and can be understood as damage caused by damage to institutions, residences, or environmental facilities. Human damage can be understood as the number of injured or dead.

In addition, disaster data can be divided into historical disaster data, institutional disaster data, and environmental facility disaster data depending on the source.

Past disaster data may include only disaster data prior to the present time.

Institutional disaster data can be understood as disaster data collected or processed by an institution. The above organizations can be understood as public and private organizations established for the purpose of monitoring disasters. For example, the Korea Meteorological Administration may be a public institution that provides disaster data related to natural disasters - typhoons, earthquakes, etc. The data collection unit 111 may use data received from the Korea Meteorological Administration to determine whether a disaster has occurred. Accordingly, the data collection unit 111 may be linked with a database of an organization-eg, an application programming interface (API) of the Korea Meteorological Administration.

Environmental facility disaster data can be understood as disaster data measured at environmental facilities. A sensor may be installed in the environmental facility, and the sensor may measure a physical quantity of the environment surrounding the environmental facility. The sensor may be classified according to a measurement object. According to an embodiment, the sensor may include an acceleration sensor, a displacement sensor, and/or a pressure sensor. The sensor is installed in the facility of the environmental facility, and in that state, it is possible to generate sensing data by measuring a physical quantity around the facility. The disaster response system 110 may make a decision on how to respond to a disaster by analyzing a physical quantity.

The system input unit 112 may receive an input value and transmit it to the system controller 114 . An input value received through the system input unit 112 may be processed by the disaster response algorithm of the system controller 114 , and an output value corresponding to the input value may be output.

When receiving one input value through the system input unit 112 , the system controller 114 may generate one output value by converting the one input value through a disaster response algorithm. The system controller 114 may include a disaster response algorithm that generates a disaster manual according to the disaster type, and the disaster response algorithm may function as a function for converting an input value.

The system controller 114 may form a disaster response algorithm by itself. The system controller 114 may use a big data analysis algorithm and a learning model to form a disaster response algorithm by itself. For example, the system controller 114 may analyze past disaster data, institutional disaster data, and environmental facility disaster data to generate a disaster type, a disaster situation propagation plan according to the disaster type, and a disaster response plan according to the disaster type. The system controller 114 may create a disaster manual by manualizing the disaster situation propagation plan and the disaster response plan. Therefore, when receiving one disaster type as an input value, the system controller 114 may output a disaster manual corresponding to one disaster type as an output value. The disaster manual may include a disaster situation dissemination plan and disaster response plan corresponding to one type of disaster.

Alternatively, the system controller 114 may use a pre-designed disaster response algorithm. The disaster response algorithm may be designed in advance by the user and embedded in the system controller 114 .

The system output unit 113 may receive the output value generated by the system control unit 114 and output it to the user. The system output unit 113 may change the shape of the output value so that the user can recognize it through the five senses, rather than changing the output value itself.

Referring to FIG. 2 , the overall operation of the disaster response system 110 may be shown. The system input unit 112 may receive disaster data from the data collection unit 111 . Disaster data may include institutional disaster data, environmental facility disaster data, and past disaster data. The institutional disaster data may include meteorological data and earthquake data of the Korea Meteorological Administration, water level data of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and water quality data of the Ministry of Environment. The environmental facility disaster data may include data measured at an environmental facility such as a water purification plant or a sewage treatment plant. Past disaster data may be understood as all data related to disasters prior to the present time in addition to institutional disaster data and environmental facility disaster data, and may include data on types of disasters that have occurred in the past and related damage.

The system controller 114 may analyze disaster data - past disaster data, institutional disaster data, and environmental facility disaster data. The system controller 114 may generate a disaster manual by collecting and processing a disaster situation propagation plan and a disaster response plan included in the disaster data. For example, the system control unit 114 extracts or newly creates a disaster situation propagation plan and disaster response plan according to the disaster type from past disaster data, institutional disaster data, and environmental facility disaster data, and the disaster type, the disaster situation propagation method and By matching the disaster response plan with each other, the disaster situation propagation plan and the disaster response plan can be manualized to generate a disaster manual.

Here, the disaster situation dissemination plan may be about who or where the notification will be sent with what content. Therefore, the disaster situation dissemination plan may include the contents of the notification according to the response stage and the destination of the notification, and may include the procedure and contents of reporting to higher-level organizations. On the other hand, disaster response plans may be about what actions to take in a disaster. Therefore, the disaster response plan may include a response stage, a response task according to the response stage, and a person in charge of the response according to the response stage.

The system controller 114 may computerize which disaster manual-output value- to be generated according to the disaster type-input value-. The system controller 114 may establish a disaster response algorithm through computerization. When a disaster type is input as an input value, the system controller 114 may make a decision to output a disaster manual as an output value.

The system controller 114 may generate a disaster manual-output value- according to a disaster type-input value- through a disaster response algorithm.

Returning to FIG. 1 , the performance evaluation device 120 includes an input control unit 121 , an output control unit 122 , an evaluation determination unit 123 , an evaluation control unit 124 , an evaluation input unit 125 , and an evaluation output unit 126 . ) may be included.

The performance evaluation device 120 may input an input value to the disaster response system 110 and receive an output value corresponding to the input value. In addition, the performance evaluation device 120 may receive a scenario result generated by applying the same input value as the value input to the disaster response system 110 to the disaster response scenario. The performance evaluation device 120 may compare the output value with the scenario result to evaluate the accuracy of decision-making of the disaster response system 110 . The evaluation of the performance evaluation device 120 may be performed on the premise that the disaster response system 110 has a disaster response algorithm.

The input control unit 121 may input an input value to the system input unit 112 of the disaster response system 110 . The performance evaluation device 120 may transmit input data-test input data-for testing the disaster response system 110 to the system input unit 112 through the input control unit 121 .

The output control unit 122 may receive an output value from the system output unit 113 of the disaster response system 110 . The performance evaluation apparatus 120 may receive output data-test output data- output according to the test input data through the output control unit 122 .

The evaluation determination unit 123 may determine the accuracy of decision making by comparing the test output data with the scenario result input from the outside.

Here, the scenario result may be understood as a result of the experts applying the same input value as the input value to the disaster response system 110 to the disaster response scenario. An input value for the disaster response system 110 and a disaster response scenario may include a disaster type, and an output value thereof may include a disaster manual-disaster situation propagation plan and disaster response plan-, respectively. An expert can devise a disaster situation propagation plan and disaster response plan corresponding to a specific disaster type by substituting it into a disaster response scenario, which can be defined as a scenario result. The performance evaluation device 120 receives, through the evaluation input unit 125, the disaster situation propagation plan and the disaster response plan—contained in the scenario result—considered by the expert, and includes the disaster situation propagation plan and the disaster response plan included in the output value. can be compared.

Referring to FIG. 3 , an example of a scenario result for a case where a typhoon occurs in a water purification plant by an expert is shown. When a type of disaster called typhoon occurs at the water purification plant, the expert can use the disaster response scenario to derive the following scenario results. Scenario results may include disaster situation propagation plan and disaster response plan.

For example, if a type of disaster such as a typhoon hits a water purification plant, a heavy rain warning may occur and the primary damage may occur as the pressurized pump is submerged. Scenario results may include checking flooding through on-site inspections after the onset of the typhoon 30 minutes after the onset of the typhoon, installing a reserve pump, requesting power off, and contacting the central operation room and disaster management office. As a result of the scenario, secondary damage may occur due to flooding of the pressurized pump 50 minutes after the typhoon occurs. Scenario results may include draining the pressurized pump building 60 minutes after the typhoon occurs. The scenario results may include reporting to the upper authority after a site visit by the head of the disaster management team 70 minutes after the typhoon occurs, completing the partial drainage of the flooded part, and confirming whether the pump is restarted. Scenario results may include urgently repairing the pump and recording the situation 300 minutes after the typhoon. Scenario results may include inspecting other facilities 600 minutes after the typhoon occurs and checking whether progress has been made. Scenario results may include installing a repaired pump and ending the situation 720 minutes after the typhoon occurs.

Returning to FIG. 1 again, the evaluation determination unit 123 of the performance evaluation device 120 compares the disaster situation propagation plan and disaster response plan included in the output value with the disaster situation propagation plan and disaster response plan included in the scenario result. It is possible to evaluate the accuracy of the decision-making of the disaster response system (110). That is, the evaluation determination unit 123 may evaluate the performance of the disaster response algorithm of the disaster response system 110 . Through the accuracy evaluation of decision making, the evaluation unit 123 may verify whether the disaster response algorithm is designed according to the design plan and verify whether it is implemented according to the purpose and intention of the design.

The evaluation determination unit 123 may determine superiority in decision-making accuracy according to whether the result of comparing the output value of the disaster response system 110 and the scenario result meets a predetermined criterion. For example, when the disaster situation propagation plan and the disaster response plan included in the output value include the disaster situation propagation plan and the disaster response plan included in the scenario result, the evaluation determination unit 123 may determine that the accuracy of decision-making is excellent. can As another example, the evaluation determination unit 123 determines accuracy of decision-making when the disaster situation propagation plan and the disaster response plan included in the output value take less time than the disaster situation propagation plan and the disaster response plan included in the scenario result. can be judged to be excellent. If the required time according to the output value of the disaster response system 110 in FIG. 3 is less than 720 minutes, the evaluation and determination unit 123 may determine that the decision-making accuracy is excellent.

The evaluation control unit 124 may control the input control unit 121 , the output control unit 122 , the evaluation determination unit 123 , the evaluation input unit 125 , and the evaluation output unit 126 . The evaluation control unit 124 may control the flow of data therebetween and transmit a control command.

The evaluation input unit 125 may receive data-test input data-used for the purpose of evaluating the performance of the disaster response system 110 . Since the test input data is data input to the disaster response system 110 , it may have an input value including a disaster type. The test input data received by the evaluation input unit 125 may be transmitted to the system input unit 112 through the input control unit 121 .

The evaluation output unit 126 may output a result of evaluating the performance of the disaster response system 110 . The evaluation output unit 126 outputs a result of comparing the disaster situation propagation plan and disaster response plan included in the output value with the disaster situation propagation plan and disaster response plan included in the scenario result - for example, excellence in decision-making accuracy. can

4 is a flowchart of a first operation of a performance evaluation device in a performance evaluation system according to an embodiment.

Referring to FIG. 4 , a first operation according to an embodiment of the performance evaluation system is illustrated. The first operation may use a scenario result devised by an expert in order to evaluate the performance of the disaster response system.

The disaster response system may perform a simulation for a specific disaster type (step S401). When the performance evaluation device inputs a specific disaster type to the disaster response system as an input value, the disaster response system may output a disaster manual—disaster situation propagation plan and disaster response plan—as output values.

The performance evaluation apparatus may receive a scenario result through the evaluation input unit (step S403). The scenario result may include a disaster situation propagation plan and a disaster response plan generated when the disaster response system applies the same disaster type as the input disaster type to the disaster response scenario. The scenario result can be understood as a disaster situation propagation plan and disaster response plan devised by an expert for the same disaster type as the disaster type input by the disaster response system. Therefore, the subjective judgment of experts may be involved in the scenario results.

The performance evaluation device may compare the simulation result and the scenario result performed by the disaster response system through the evaluation unit (step S405).

The performance evaluation device may evaluate the accuracy of decision-making of the disaster response system by comparing the simulation result and the scenario result (step S407).

5 is a flowchart of a second operation of a performance evaluation apparatus in a performance evaluation system according to an embodiment, and FIG. 6 is an exemplary diagram of evaluation criteria according to an embodiment.

Referring to FIG. 5 , a second operation according to an embodiment of the performance evaluation system is illustrated. The second operation may use the evaluation criteria devised by experts to evaluate the performance of the disaster response system.

The disaster response system may perform a simulation for a specific disaster type (step S501). When the performance evaluation device 120 inputs a specific disaster type to the disaster response system as an input value, the disaster response system may output a disaster manual—disaster situation propagation plan and disaster response plan—as output values.

The performance evaluation device may receive an evaluation criterion through the evaluation input unit (step S503).

The performance evaluation device may apply the results of the simulation performed by the disaster response system to the evaluation criteria through the evaluation unit (step S505).

The performance evaluation device may evaluate the decision-making accuracy of the disaster response system according to the result (step S507). The evaluation unit may evaluate the accuracy of decision-making by determining whether the disaster situation propagation plan and the disaster response plan included in the output value meet the evaluation criteria.

Referring to FIG. 6 , an example of evaluation criteria may appear. The evaluation criteria may include items to be satisfied by the disaster situation propagation plan and the disaster response plan included in the output value in the response stage of situation awareness, action, recovery, and termination. When the disaster situation propagation plan and disaster response plan included in the output value satisfy the item, a score or grade corresponding to the item may be assigned.

For example, in the response stage of situation awareness, if the time for situation awareness is reduced by 10% or more, 8 points or A grade, 7% or more, 6 points or B grade, 5% or more, 4 points or C grade, 3% or more A reduction of 2 points or a grade of D, and a reduction of less than 3%, a grade of 0 or an E grade, respectively, may be awarded. In addition, in the response stage of the action, if the decision-making time through the presentation of the disaster manual is reduced by 10% or more, 10 points or A grade is reduced, 7 points or B grade if 7% or more is reduced, 5 points or C grade if 5% or more is reduced, 3 If it is reduced by more than %, 3 points or D grade may be awarded, and if it is reduced by 3% or less, 1 point or E grade may be awarded. In the response stage of restoration, if the normalization time of the damaged facility is reduced by 10% or more, 10 points or A grade is reduced, 7 points or B grade if 7% or more is reduced, 5 points or C grade if 5% or more is reduced, and 3% or more If 3 points or D grade is reduced by less than 3%, 1 point or E grade may be awarded, respectively. Also, 3 points can be given if the report format is presented uniformly in the response stage of termination, and 0 points if not.

The evaluation unit may indicate the accuracy of decision making based on a score or grade according to the evaluation criteria. For example, the evaluation unit may determine that the decision-making accuracy of the disaster response system is excellent if the summed score or the sum of the weights of the grades is equal to or greater than a threshold value.

7 is a view for explaining the operation of the disaster response system among the performance evaluation system according to another embodiment.

Referring to FIG. 7 , the performance evaluation system according to another embodiment may evaluate the accuracy of the disaster cost calculated by the disaster response system. Disaster costs are the economic value of the damage caused by the disaster (hereinafter referred to as the 'damage amount') and the economic value of the material and human resources necessary to recover from the damage to the original state (hereinafter referred to as the 'recovery cost'). ) can be referred to collectively. The performance evaluation system according to another embodiment includes the same configuration and technical features as those of the performance evaluation system according to the above-described embodiment, and below, the differences will be mainly described.

The data collection unit may collect disaster data. In order to calculate the disaster cost, the data collection unit includes the disaster-damaged facility, the time of the disaster, the type of disaster, the type of damage caused by the disaster, the location of the disaster-damaged facility, the facilities damaged by the disaster, the disaster situation propagation plan, the disaster Data on countermeasures, damage amount, and recovery cost can be received as disaster data.

The data collection unit may additionally collect data on the scale of disaster damage. The scale of disaster damage can be understood as the scale of facilities damaged by the disaster. For example, environmental facilities such as water purification plants or sewage treatment plants may be designed to have different treatment capacities for different regions. Water purification plant or sewage treatment plant can be classified into less than 2,000㎥, less than 2,000㎥ to less than 5,000㎥, less than 5,000㎥ to less than 20,000㎥, 20,000㎥ to less than 100,000㎥, 100,000㎥ to less than 300,000㎥, and more than 300,000㎥ according to the treatment capacity per day. have. The scale of disaster damage may mean the daily treatment capacity of a water purification plant or a sewage treatment plant.

The system controller may analyze disaster data - past disaster data, institutional disaster data, and environmental facility disaster data. The system controller may generate a disaster cost by collecting and processing the disaster type, disaster damage scale, damage amount, and recovery cost included in the disaster data. For example, the system controller extracts or newly generates the damage amount and recovery cost according to the disaster type and/or disaster damage scale from the past disaster data, the institutional disaster data, and the environmental facility disaster data, and the disaster type or the disaster damage scale and , by matching the disaster situation propagation plan and the disaster response plan with each other, it is possible to generate a disaster cost including a damage amount and a recovery cost.

The system controller may computerize what damage amount and recovery cost-output value- to be generated according to the disaster type and/or the disaster damage scale-input value-. The system controller can establish a disaster response algorithm through computerization. When a disaster type and/or disaster damage scale is input as an input value, the system controller may output a disaster cost including a damage amount and a recovery cost as an output value. The system controller may calculate the damage amount and recovery cost-output value- according to the disaster type and/or disaster damage scale-input value- through the disaster response algorithm.

8 is a flowchart of a first operation of a performance evaluation device in a performance evaluation system according to another embodiment.

Referring to FIG. 8 , a first operation according to another embodiment of the performance evaluation system is illustrated. The first operation may use a scenario result devised by an expert in order to evaluate the performance of the disaster response system.

The disaster response system may perform a simulation for a specific disaster type and/or disaster damage scale (step S801). When the performance evaluation device 120 inputs a specific disaster type and/or disaster damage scale as input values to the disaster response system, the disaster response system may output disaster cost-damage amount and recovery cost- as output values.

The performance evaluation apparatus may receive a scenario result through the evaluation input unit (step S803). The scenario result may include the amount of damage and recovery cost generated when the disaster response system applies the same disaster type and/or disaster damage scale as the input disaster type and/or disaster damage scale to the disaster response scenario. The scenario result can be understood as the damage amount and recovery cost that the expert devised for the disaster type and/or disaster damage scale that is the same as the disaster type and/or disaster damage scale input by the disaster response system. Therefore, the subjective judgment of experts may be involved in the scenario results.

The performance evaluation device may compare the simulation result and the scenario result performed by the disaster response system through the evaluation unit (step S805). For example, if the damage amount or recovery cost included in the output value is within a similar range to the damage amount or recovery cost included in the scenario result, the evaluation unit may determine that the accuracy of the disaster cost calculation is excellent. Alternatively, if the recovery cost included in the output value is less than the recovery cost included in the scenario result, the evaluation unit may determine that the accuracy of the disaster cost calculation is excellent.

The performance evaluation device may evaluate the accuracy of the disaster cost calculation of the disaster response system by comparing the simulation result and the scenario result (step S807).

9 is a flowchart of a second operation of a performance evaluation apparatus in a performance evaluation system according to another embodiment.

Referring to FIG. 9 , a second operation according to another embodiment of the performance evaluation system is illustrated. The second operation may use the evaluation criteria devised by experts to evaluate the performance of the disaster response system.

The disaster response system may perform a simulation for a specific disaster type and/or disaster damage scale (step S901). When the performance evaluation device 120 inputs a specific disaster type and/or disaster damage scale as input values to the disaster response system, the disaster response system may output disaster cost-damage amount and recovery cost- as output values.

The performance evaluation apparatus may receive an evaluation criterion through the evaluation input unit (step S903).

The performance evaluation device may apply the result of the simulation performed by the disaster response system to the evaluation criteria through the evaluation unit (step S905).

The performance evaluation apparatus may evaluate the accuracy of the disaster cost calculation of the disaster response system according to the result (step S907). The evaluation unit may evaluate the accuracy of the disaster cost calculation by determining whether the damage amount and recovery cost included in the output value meet the evaluation criteria. For example, when the damage amount and recovery cost included in the output value fall between the minimum cost and the maximum cost determined in the evaluation criteria, the evaluation unit may determine that the accuracy of the disaster cost calculation is excellent. Alternatively, the evaluation unit may indicate the accuracy of the disaster cost calculation based on the summed score or grade. The evaluation and judgment unit may determine that the accuracy of the disaster cost calculation of the disaster response system is excellent when the sum of the points or the weights of the grades is equal to or greater than a threshold value.

The protection scope of the present invention is not limited to the description and expression of the embodiments explicitly described above. In addition, it is added once again that the protection scope of the present invention cannot be limited due to obvious changes or substitutions in the technical field to which the present invention pertains.

Claims (8)

Past disaster data, institutional disaster data collected or processed by the institution - the institutional disaster data includes weather data, earthquake data, water level data and water quality data - and environmental facility disaster data measured in environmental facilities - the environmental facility disaster data includes a data collection unit for collecting disaster data including - including measurement data of water purification plants and measurement data of sewage treatment plants; and disaster situations according to disaster types from the past disaster data, the institutional disaster data, and the environmental facility disaster data Create a propagation plan and disaster response plan, and create a disaster manual by manualizing the disaster situation propagation plan and the disaster response plan by matching the disaster type, the disaster situation propagation plan, and the disaster response plan, and the disaster type Upon receiving an input, a decision-making corresponding to the disaster type is made, and the disaster situation propagation plan and the disaster response plan are output according to the disaster manual included in the decision-making, but the disaster situation propagation by receiving the disaster type Decision making is performed using a disaster response algorithm that outputs the disaster manual including a plan and the disaster response plan, and the disaster response algorithm is generated by itself through a big data analysis algorithm and a learning model, or by a user in advance Disaster response system including a designed and embedded system control unit; and
and a performance evaluation device for evaluating the accuracy of decision-making of the disaster response system by comparing the simulation result of the disaster response system with the scenario result received from the outside;
The performance evaluation device includes an input control unit for inputting a test input value—the test input value includes one disaster type—to the disaster response system, a test output value as a simulation result of the disaster response system—the test output value is the one disaster An output control unit for receiving a disaster situation propagation plan and a disaster response plan corresponding to the type from the disaster response system, an evaluation input unit for receiving the scenario result corresponding to the test input value, included in the test output value and an evaluation and judgment unit for evaluating the accuracy of decision-making by comparing the disaster situation propagation plan and disaster response plan with the disaster situation propagation plan and disaster response plan included in the scenario result;
The scenario result is determined directly for the disaster type included in the test input value according to a subjective judgment by an expert, or the disaster type included in the test input value is assigned to a specific disaster response scenario according to a subjective judgment by the expert. derived by applying
The data collection unit, including disaster damage facilities, disaster occurrence time, disaster type, disaster damage type, disaster damage facility location, disaster damage facility, disaster situation propagation plan, disaster response plan, disaster damage scale, damage amount and recovery cost The disaster data is additionally collected,
The system controller further generates the damage amount and the recovery cost according to the disaster type and the disaster damage scale from the disaster data, and receives the one disaster type and one disaster damage scale, and the one disaster type and the one A system that evaluates the performance of a disaster response system that outputs the daily damage amount and daily recovery cost corresponding to the disaster damage scale. According to claim 1,
The evaluation and determination unit, when the disaster situation propagation plan and the disaster response plan included in the output value include the disaster situation propagation plan and the disaster response plan included in the scenario result, the disaster response that determines that the accuracy of the decision-making is excellent A system that evaluates the performance of a system. According to claim 1,
The evaluation and determination unit, when the disaster situation propagation plan and the disaster response plan included in the output value take less time than the disaster situation propagation plan and the disaster response plan included in the scenario result, the accuracy of the decision-making is excellent A system that evaluates the performance of a disaster response system that judges. According to claim 1,
The evaluation input unit receives an evaluation criterion,
The evaluation determination unit evaluates the accuracy of the decision-making by determining whether the disaster situation propagation plan and the disaster response plan included in the output value match the evaluation criteria,
The evaluation criteria are divided into response steps of situation awareness, action, recovery and termination, and in the situation awareness response step, if the disaster situation propagation plan and the disaster response plan included in the output value reduce the time for situation awareness by more than 10%, 8 points or A grade reduction by 7% or more, 6 points or B grade reduction by 5% or more, 4 points or C grade reduction by 3% or more, 2 points or D grade reduction by 3% or less, 0 point or E grade if less than 3% reduction, respectively Including the first evaluation criteria to be given, if the disaster situation propagation plan and disaster response plan included in the output value in the action response step reduce the decision-making time by 10% or more, 10 points or A grade, 7 points if it reduces by 7% or more or B grade, 5 points or C grade if it is reduced by 5% or more, 3 points or D grade if it is reduced by 3% or more, 1 point or E grade if it is reduced by 3% or more; In the response stage, if the normalization time of the damaged facility is reduced by 10% or more, 10 points or A grade is reduced, 7 points or B grade is reduced by 7% or more, 5 points or C grade is reduced by 5% or more A system that evaluates the performance of a disaster response system including a third evaluation criterion that gives 1 point or E grade if the D grade is reduced by less than 3%, respectively.
delete delete delete delete

Images