A life assessment method for drainage structures in high-altitude cold regions

Abstract

The present invention discloses a life assessment method for a drainage structure in a high-altitude cold region, which comprises: determining N evaluation indicators based on environmental factors and material factors of the drainage structure; establishing a scoring standard, including: determining M scoring levels and scoring scores for each scoring level, determining the parameter range of each evaluation indicator at each scoring level; calculating and determining the influence factor weights λ1~λ N ; Obtain the actual parameters of the discharge structure to be evaluated corresponding to each evaluation index, and obtain the score A1~A corresponding to the N evaluation indexes of the discharge structure based on the scoring standard N The lifespan score S of the drainage structure is calculated according to the formula #imgabs0#, and the lifespan of the drainage structure is determined based on the lifespan score S. The method of the present invention can effectively and more accurately assess the service life of drainage structures in complex alpine regions, further providing guiding reference information for the selection of concrete.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the technical field of building life assessment, and in particular to a life assessment method for drainage buildings in high-altitude cold regions. Background Art

[0002] Concrete refers to an artificial stone material made by mixing cement as the primary binder with water, sand, gravel, chemical admixtures, and mineral admixtures in appropriate proportions. This process is followed by uniform mixing, compaction, and curing to harden. Concrete has become the most widely used and widely used building material in current construction. In water conservancy projects, the hydraulic structures used to release water are called spillways. These structures come in four types: bank spillways, overflow dams, spillway tunnels, and culverts below the dam.

[0003] At present, most studies on the lifespan of drainage structures in high-altitude cold regions tend to consider the frost resistance of concrete or the impact of environmental factors on the lifespan of drainage structures. The current concrete frost resistance test method in my country is generally based on the American ASTM C666 (A) method. The freezing and thawing of the specimens are carried out in water, and the mass loss rate of concrete is used as an evaluation indicator. In western my country, where the winter is extremely cold, freeze-thaw damage is considered to be the most important factor in the deterioration of hydraulic concrete. At the same time, in some projects in the western high-altitude cold regions, there are high levels of corrosive ions in groundwater and rivers, especially Cl - 、SO4 2- The current domestic and international testing methods for building frost resistance, concrete corrosion resistance, and erosion resistance cannot effectively assess the service life of drainage structures in high-altitude cold regions under the influence of multiple factors. Summary of the Invention

[0004] In view of this, the present invention provides a life assessment method for water discharge structures in high-altitude and cold regions, so as to solve the problem of how to effectively assess the service life of water discharge structures in high-altitude and cold regions.

[0005] To achieve the above objectives, the present invention provides the following technical solutions:

[0006] A life assessment method for a drainage structure in a high-altitude cold region, comprising:

[0007] S1. Determine N evaluation indicators K1~K based on the environmental factors and material factors of the drainage structure N ;

[0008] S2. Establishing a scoring standard, including: determining M scoring levels and the scoring scores for each scoring level, and determining the parameter ranges of each evaluation indicator at each scoring level;

[0009] S3. Calculate and determine N evaluation indicators K1~K N The corresponding impact factor weights λ1~λ N ;

[0010] S4, obtaining the actual parameters of the drainage structure to be evaluated corresponding to each evaluation index, and obtaining the score A1 to A2 corresponding to the N evaluation indexes of the drainage structure based on the scoring standard. N ;

[0011] S5. According to the formula Calculating and obtaining a life score S of the drainage structure, and determining the life span of the drainage structure based on the life score S;

[0012] Wherein, N and M are both positive integers, n=1, 2, ..., N-1, N.

[0013] Specifically, step S3 includes the following sub-steps:

[0014] S31. Prepare a standard specimen with reference to the building material information of the drainage structure to be evaluated, and test and obtain the compressive strength F0 of the standard specimen;

[0015] S32, compared with the standard specimen, according to only changing the nth evaluation index K n The parameters are used as conditions to prepare M groups of test specimens; among them, the nth evaluation index K of the mth group of test specimens n The parameter value of falls within the parameter range of the mth scoring level, m = 1, 2, ..., M-1, M;

[0016] S33, test and obtain the compressive strength F corresponding to the M groups of test specimens 1n ~F Mn ;

[0017] S34, according to the formula Calculate the nth evaluation index K n The average compressive strength of the test specimens under the influence of

[0018] S35, according to the formula Calculate the nth evaluation index K n The loss rate V of the test specimen under the influence of n ;

[0019] S36, repeat the above steps S32 to S35, the value of n ranges from 1 to N, and calculate and obtain N evaluation indicators K1~K N The corresponding loss rate V1~V N ;

[0020] S37, according to the formula Calculate, x = 1, 2, ..., N-1, N, and obtain N evaluation indicators K1~K N The corresponding impact factor weights λ1~λ N .

[0021] More specifically, the standard specimen and the test specimen are cubic specimens with a side length of 100 mm.

[0022] More specifically, in step S32, each group of test specimens includes multiple test specimens; in step S33, the compressive strength F corresponding to the mth group of test specimens is obtained by testing. mn It is the average compressive strength of multiple test specimens in this group.

[0023] Specifically, in step S1, 15 evaluation indicators K1 to K2 are determined based on the environmental factors and material factors of the drainage structure. 15 , followed by concrete carbonization depth, annual freeze-thaw cycles, water flow velocity in the spillway, sand content in the water flow, ice abrasion times, chloride ion concentration in water, sulfate concentration in water, maximum temperature difference, ultraviolet intensity, air pressure, average temperature, concrete surface flatness deviation, concrete steel bar corrosion rate, concrete strength, and concrete surface crack density.

[0024] More specifically, the scoring criteria established in step S2 include: determining a total of four scoring levels: excellent, good, medium and poor, with the excellent level having a scoring score of 100 points, the good level having a scoring score of 75 points, the medium level having a scoring score of 50 points, and the poor level having a scoring score of 25 points.

[0025] More specifically, the parameter ranges of each evaluation indicator at each scoring level are as follows:

[0026] Concrete carbonation depth parameter k1 (mm): excellent grade is k1≤0.4, good grade is 0.4<k1≤4, medium grade is 4<k1<10, poor grade is k1≥10;

[0027] The parameter k2 of the number of freeze-thaw cycles per year (times): excellent grade is k2≤30, good grade is 30<k2≤60, medium grade is 60<k2<120, and poor grade is k2≥120;

[0028] Parameter k3 (m / s) of the water flow velocity in the spillway: excellent level is k3≤10, good level is 10<k3≤30, medium level is 30<k3<50, and poor level is k3≥50;

[0029] Parameter k4 (%) of water flow sand content: excellent grade is k4≤5, good grade is 5<k4≤15, medium grade is 15<k4<30, poor grade is k4≥30;

[0030] The parameter k5 (times) of ice wear times: excellent level is k5≤15, good level is 15<k5≤30, medium level is 30<k5<50, and poor level is k5≥50;

[0031] The parameter k6 (mg / L) of water quality chloride ion concentration: excellent grade is k6≤50, good grade is 50<k6≤150, medium grade is 150<k6<200, poor grade is k6≥200;

[0032] The parameter k7 (mg / L) of water quality sulfate concentration: excellent level is k7≤100, good level is 100<k7≤1000, medium level is 1000<k7<4000, poor level is k7≥4000;

[0033] The parameter k8 (℃) of the maximum temperature difference is: excellent grade is k8≤20, good grade is 20<k8≤30, medium grade is 30<k8<40, poor grade is k8≥40;

[0034] The parameter of ultraviolet intensity k9 (MJ·m -2 ·a -1 ): Excellent grade is k9≤100, good grade is 100<k9≤300, medium grade is 300<k9<500, poor grade is k9≥500;

[0035] Parameter k of air pressure value 10 (kPa): The best grade is k 10 ≥80, good grade is 60≤k 10 <80, medium level is 50<k 10 <60, poor grade is k 10 ≤50;

[0036] The parameter k of the average temperature 11 (℃): Excellent grade is k 11 ≥20, good grade is 10≤k 11 <20, medium level is 0<k 11 <10, the poor grade is k 11 ≤0;

[0037] Parameter k of concrete surface flatness deviation 12 (mm): Excellent grade is k 12 ≤8, good grade is 8<k 12 ≤15, medium level is 15<k 12 <30, poor grade is k 12 ≥30;

[0038] Parameter k of concrete reinforcement corrosion rate 13 (%): Excellent grade is k 13 ≤1, good grade is 1<k13 ≤5, medium level is 5<k 13 <15, the poor grade is k 13 ≥15;

[0039] Parameter k of concrete strength 14 (MPa): Excellent grade is k 14 ≥60, good grade is 40≤k 14 <60, medium level is 30<k 14 <40, poor grade is k 14 ≤30;

[0040] Parameter k of concrete surface crack density 15 (pieces / m 2 ): The excellent grade is k 15 ≤10, good grade is 10<k 15 ≤30, medium level is 30<k 15 <50, poor grade is k 15 ≥50.

[0041] Specifically, in step S5, according to existing specifications, the life span of the drainage structure is determined by calculation based on the life span score S, with a life span score of 100 points corresponding to a life span of 150 years.

[0042] An embodiment of the present invention provides a lifespan assessment method for drainage structures in high-altitude cold regions. The method first determines multiple evaluation indicators and ratings based on the environmental and material factors of drainage structures in high-altitude cold regions. Then, based on laboratory simulation experiments, the weights of the factors influencing the durability of concrete are determined for each evaluation indicator. Finally, on-site testing is performed to determine the actual parameters of the drainage structure and, based on the weights of the influencing factors, calculates the drainage structure lifespan score, thereby determining the drainage structure's lifespan. This method can effectively and more accurately assess the service life of drainage structures in high-altitude cold regions in complex environments, further providing guiding reference information for the selection of concrete. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0043] Figure 1 It is a process flow chart of the life assessment method of the drainage structure in an embodiment of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0044] To make the objectives, technical solutions, and advantages of the present invention more apparent, specific embodiments of the present invention are described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Examples of these preferred embodiments are illustrated in the accompanying drawings. The embodiments of the present invention shown in and described with reference to the accompanying drawings are merely exemplary, and the present invention is not limited to these embodiments.

[0045] It should also be noted that, in order to avoid obscuring the present invention due to unnecessary details, the accompanying drawings only show structures and / or processing steps closely related to the solutions according to the present invention, while other details that are not closely related to the present invention are omitted.

[0046] The embodiment of the present invention provides a method for evaluating the life of a drainage structure in a high-altitude cold region. Figure 1 , the lifespan assessment comprises the following steps:

[0047] Step S1: Determine N evaluation indicators K1 to K2 based on the environmental factors and material factors of the drainage structure. N Wherein, N is a positive integer, preferably a positive integer greater than 10.

[0048] As a preferred solution, in the embodiment of the present invention, 15 evaluation indicators K1 to K2 are determined based on the environmental factors and material factors of the drainage structure. 15 , followed by concrete carbonization depth, annual freeze-thaw cycles, water flow velocity in the spillway, sand content in the water flow, ice abrasion times, chloride ion concentration in water, sulfate concentration in water, maximum temperature difference, ultraviolet intensity, air pressure, average temperature, concrete surface flatness deviation, concrete steel bar corrosion rate, concrete strength, and concrete surface crack density.

[0049] Step S2: Establishing a scoring standard, including: determining M scoring levels and the scoring scores for each scoring level, and determining the parameter ranges of each evaluation indicator at each scoring level, wherein N is a positive integer, preferably a positive integer of 4 to 6.

[0050] As a preferred solution, in an embodiment of the present invention, a total of four scoring levels (i.e., M=4) are determined, namely excellent, good, medium and poor, with the excellent level having a scoring score of 100 points, the good level having a scoring score of 75 points, the medium level having a scoring score of 50 points, and the poor level having a scoring score of 25 points.

[0051] More specifically, in the embodiment of the present invention, the parameter ranges of various evaluation indicators at various scoring levels are shown in Table 1 below.

[0052] Table 1: Parameter ranges of various evaluation indicators at various scoring levels

[0053]

[0054]

[0055] Step S3: Calculate and determine N evaluation indicators K1~K N The corresponding impact factor weights λ1~λ N .

[0056] As a preferred solution, in the embodiment of the present invention, the following sub-steps are used to calculate and determine N evaluation indicators K1~K N The corresponding impact factor weights λ1~λ N . Specifically including:

[0057] Step S31: prepare a standard specimen with reference to the building material information of the drainage structure to be evaluated, and test and obtain the compressive strength F0 of the standard specimen.

[0058] In the embodiment of the present invention, the size of the standard specimen is a cubic specimen with a side length of 100 mm.

[0059] Specifically, in step S31, concrete is poured into a mold and cured for 28 days to obtain a standard cubic specimen with a side length of 100 mm. The compressive strength F0 of the standard specimen is then measured. Multiple standard specimens can be prepared, and the compressive strengths of the multiple specimens can be measured and averaged to determine the compressive strength F0.

[0060] Step S32: Compared with the standard specimen, only the nth evaluation index K is changed. n The parameters are used as conditions to prepare M groups of test specimens; among them, the nth evaluation index K of the mth group of test specimens n The parameter value of falls within the parameter range of the mth scoring level, m=1, 2, ..., M-1, M, n=1, 2, ..., N-1, N.

[0061] Specifically, each group of test specimens includes a plurality of test specimens, preferably 3 to 5 test specimens.

[0062] Specifically, in step S32, a standard specimen may be prepared by referring to step S31, and then the standard specimen is placed in a multifunctional walk-in environmental chamber and the evaluation index K is changed. n The parameters are used as conditions for the test, and the nth evaluation index K of the standard specimen is n The parameters are changed to the parameter range of the corresponding scoring level to obtain the corresponding test specimens.

[0063] Step S33: Test and obtain the compressive strength F corresponding to the M groups of test specimens 1n ~F Mn .

[0064] Specifically, the compressive strength F corresponding to the mth group of test specimens obtained by the test is mn It is the average compressive strength of multiple test specimens in this group.

[0065] Step S34: According to the formula Calculate the nth evaluation index K n The average compressive strength of the test specimens under the influence of

[0066] Step S35: According to the formula Calculate the nth evaluation index K n The loss rate V of the test specimen under the influence of n .

[0067] Step S36: Repeat the above steps S32 to S35, with the value of n ranging from 1 to N, and calculate N evaluation indicators K1 to K N The corresponding loss rate V1~V N .

[0068] Step S37: According to the formula Calculate, x = 1, 2, ..., N-1, N, and obtain N evaluation indicators K1~K N The corresponding impact factor weights λ1~λ N .

[0069] Step S4: Obtain the actual parameters of the drainage structure to be evaluated corresponding to each evaluation index, and obtain the score A1 to A2 corresponding to the N evaluation indexes of the drainage structure based on the scoring standard. N .

[0070] Step S5: According to the formula The life score S of the drainage structure is obtained by calculation, and the life span of the drainage structure is determined based on the life score S.

[0071] Specifically, in step S5, according to existing specifications, the life span of the drainage structure is determined based on the life span score S, with a life span score of 100 points corresponding to a life span of 150 years.

[0072] Furthermore, the drainage structures are graded according to the lifespan score S of the drainage structures calculated in step S5. In a preferred embodiment, the drainage structures can be graded into superior, good, medium, and poor grades, where: superior grade is assigned when S = 100, good grade is assigned when 75 points ≤ S < 100, medium grade is assigned when 50 points ≤ S < 75, and poor grade is assigned when S < 50.

[0073] Example 1

[0074] According to the lifespan assessment method for drainage structures in high-altitude and cold regions provided above in the present invention, the lifespans of the four drainage structures shown in Table 2 below were assessed.

[0075] Table 2: Actual parameters of four drainage structures in alpine regions corresponding to various evaluation indicators

[0076]

[0077]

[0078] 1. Lifespan Assessment of Discharge Structure I

[0079] (1) Determine 15 evaluation indicators K1~K2 based on the environmental factors and material factors of the drainage structure I. 15 , followed by concrete carbonization depth, annual freeze-thaw cycles, water flow velocity in the spillway, sand content in the water flow, ice abrasion times, chloride ion concentration in water, sulfate concentration in water, maximum temperature difference, ultraviolet intensity, air pressure, average temperature, concrete surface flatness deviation, concrete steel bar corrosion rate, concrete strength, and concrete surface crack density.

[0080] (2) Establish scoring criteria: Determine four scoring levels: excellent, good, fair, and poor. The parameter ranges of each evaluation indicator at each scoring level are shown in Table 1 above.

[0081] (3) Referring to the materials and performance parameters initially designed for the spillway structure I, concrete was cast in a mold. After 28 days of standard curing, a cubic C40 concrete specimen with a side length of 100 mm was obtained, which was then used as a standard specimen. The compressive strength F0 of the standard specimen was then measured. In this embodiment, three standard specimens were prepared, and the compressive strength of each of the three standard specimens was tested. The average value was taken as the compressive strength F0 of the standard specimen, and the result was F0 = 45 MPa.

[0082] (4) Prepare the standard specimen by referring to the above step (3), and then place the standard specimen in a multifunctional walk-in environmental chamber, and change only the nth evaluation index K. n The parameters are used as conditions for the test, and the nth evaluation index K of the standard specimen is n The parameters are changed to the parameter range of the corresponding scoring level to obtain the corresponding test specimen. Specifically:

[0083] The first evaluation index K1 (i.e., carbonation depth of concrete): First, 12 standard specimens were prepared according to step (3), and divided into 4 groups corresponding to the 4 scoring levels of excellent, good, medium and poor, with 3 standard specimens in each group. Then, the 3 standard specimens of the excellent grade group were carbonized in a multifunctional walk-in environmental chamber to a carbonation depth of 0.4 mm, and the other environments were standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the excellent grade group; the 3 standard specimens of the good grade group were carbonized in a multifunctional walk-in environmental chamber to a carbonation depth of 2.2 mm, and the other environments were standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the good grade group; the 3 standard specimens of the medium grade group were carbonized in a multifunctional walk-in environmental chamber to a carbonation depth of 7 mm, and the other environments were standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the medium grade group; the 3 standard specimens of the poor grade group were carbonized in a multifunctional walk-in environmental chamber to a carbonation depth of 12 mm, and the other environments were standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the poor grade group.

[0084] The second evaluation index K2 (i.e., the number of freeze-thaw cycles per year): First, refer to step (3) to prepare and obtain 12 standard specimens, which are divided into 4 groups corresponding to the 4 scoring levels of excellent, good, medium and poor, with 3 standard specimens in each group. Then, the 3 standard specimens of the excellent grade group are subjected to freeze-thaw cycles 30 times in a multifunctional walk-in environmental chamber, and the other environments are standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the excellent grade group; the 3 standard specimens of the good grade group are subjected to freeze-thaw cycles 50 times in a multifunctional walk-in environmental chamber, and the other environments are standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the good grade group; the 3 standard specimens of the medium grade group are subjected to freeze-thaw cycles 90 times in a multifunctional walk-in environmental chamber, and the other environments are standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the medium grade group; the 3 standard specimens of the poor grade group are subjected to freeze-thaw cycles 120 times in a multifunctional walk-in environmental chamber, and the other environments are standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the poor grade group.

[0085] The third evaluation index K3 (i.e., flow velocity of the spillway): First, 12 standard specimens were prepared according to step (3), and divided into 4 groups corresponding to the 4 scoring levels of excellent, good, medium and poor, with 3 standard specimens in each group. Then, the three standard specimens of the excellent grade group were lapped and ground for 72 hours in a multifunctional walk-in environmental chamber at a water flow rate of 10 m / s, and other environments were standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the excellent grade group; the three standard specimens of the good grade group were lapped and ground for 72 hours in a multifunctional walk-in environmental chamber at a water flow rate of 20 m / s, and other environments were standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the good grade group; the three standard specimens of the medium grade group were lapped and ground for 72 hours in a multifunctional walk-in environmental chamber at a water flow rate of 40 m / s, and other environments were standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the medium grade group; the three standard specimens of the poor grade group were lapped and ground for 72 hours in a multifunctional walk-in environmental chamber at a water flow rate of 50 m / s, and other environments were standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the poor grade group.

[0086] The fourth evaluation index K4 (i.e., water flow sand content): First, refer to step (3) to prepare 12 standard specimens, which are divided into 4 groups corresponding to the 4 scoring levels of excellent, good, medium and poor, with 3 standard specimens in each group. Then, the three standard specimens of the excellent grade group were rubbed for 72 hours in a multifunctional walk-in environmental box with a water flow sand content of 5%, and other environments were standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the excellent grade group; the three standard specimens of the good grade group were rubbed for 72 hours in a multifunctional walk-in environmental box with a water flow sand content of 10%, and other environments were standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the good grade group; the three standard specimens of the medium grade group were rubbed for 72 hours in a multifunctional walk-in environmental box with a water flow sand content of 22.5%, and other environments were standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the medium grade group; the three standard specimens of the poor grade group were rubbed for 72 hours in a multifunctional walk-in environmental box with a water flow sand content of 30%, and other environments were standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the poor grade group.

[0087] The fifth evaluation index K5 (i.e., the number of ice wear): First, refer to step (3) to prepare and obtain 12 standard specimens, which are divided into 4 groups corresponding to the 4 scoring levels of excellent, good, medium and poor, with 3 standard specimens in each group. Then, the 3 standard specimens in the excellent grade group are subjected to ice wear 15 times in a multifunctional walk-in environmental chamber, and the other environments are standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the excellent grade group; the 3 standard specimens in the good grade group are subjected to ice wear 22 times in a multifunctional walk-in environmental chamber, and the other environments are standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the good grade group; the 3 standard specimens in the medium grade group are subjected to ice wear 40 times in a multifunctional walk-in environmental chamber, and the other environments are standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the medium grade group; the 3 standard specimens in the poor grade group are subjected to ice wear 50 times in a multifunctional walk-in environmental chamber, and the other environments are standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the poor grade group.

[0088] The sixth evaluation indicator K6 (i.e., chloride ion concentration of water quality): First, refer to step 3 to prepare 12 standard specimens, which are divided into 4 groups corresponding to the 4 scoring levels of excellent, good, medium and poor, with 3 standard specimens in each group. Then, the three standard specimens of the excellent grade group were immersed in a solution with a chloride ion concentration of 50 mg / L in a multifunctional walk-in environmental chamber for 28 days, and other environments were standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the excellent grade group; the three standard specimens of the good grade group were immersed in a solution with a chloride ion concentration of 100 mg / L in a multifunctional walk-in environmental chamber for 28 days, and other environments were standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the good grade group; the three standard specimens of the medium grade group were immersed in a solution with a chloride ion concentration of 175 mg / L in a multifunctional walk-in environmental chamber for 28 days, and other environments were standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the medium grade group; the three standard specimens of the poor grade group were immersed in a solution with a chloride ion concentration of 200 mg / L in a multifunctional walk-in environmental chamber for 28 days, and other environments were standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the poor grade group.

[0089] The seventh evaluation index K7 (i.e., sulfate concentration in water quality): first, 12 standard test pieces were prepared according to step (3), and divided into 4 groups corresponding to the 4 scoring levels of excellent, good, medium and poor, with 3 standard test pieces in each group. Then the three standard specimens of the excellent grade group were immersed in a solution with a sulfate concentration of 100 mg / L in a multi-functional walk-in environmental chamber for 28 days, and other environments were standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the excellent grade group; the three standard specimens of the good grade group were immersed in a solution with a sulfate concentration of 550 mg / L in a multi-functional walk-in environmental chamber for 28 days, and other environments were standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the good grade group; the three standard specimens of the medium grade group were immersed in a solution with a sulfate concentration of 2500 mg / L in a multi-functional walk-in environmental chamber for 28 days, and other environments were standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the medium grade group; the three standard specimens of the poor grade group were immersed in a solution with a sulfate concentration of 4000 mg / L in a multi-functional walk-in environmental chamber for 28 days, and other environments were standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the poor grade group.

[0090] The eighth evaluation index K8 (i.e., the maximum temperature difference): First, refer to step 3 to prepare and obtain 12 standard specimens, which are divided into 4 groups corresponding to the 4 scoring levels of excellent, good, medium and poor, with 3 standard specimens in each group. Then, the 3 standard specimens of the excellent grade group are placed in a multifunctional walk-in environmental box, cured in an environment of 20°C for 12 hours, and then cured in an environment of 0°C for 12 hours, and the curing cycle is carried out for 28 days. The other environments are standard environments, and the test specimens of the excellent grade group are obtained; the 3 standard specimens of the good grade group are placed in a multifunctional walk-in environmental box, cured in an environment of 25°C for 12 hours, and then cured in an environment of 0°C for 12 hours, and the curing cycle is carried out for 28 days. The other environments are standard environments, and the test specimens of the good grade group are obtained. ; The three standard specimens of the medium-grade group were placed in a multi-functional walk-in environmental box, cured in an environment of 35°C for 12 hours and then in an environment of 0°C for 12 hours, and the curing cycle was repeated for 28 days. The other environments were standard environments, and the test specimens of the medium-grade group were obtained; the three standard specimens of the poor-grade group were placed in a multi-functional walk-in environmental box, cured in an environment of 40°C for 12 hours and then in an environment of 0°C for 12 hours, and the curing cycle was repeated for 28 days. The other environments were standard environments, and the test specimens of the poor-grade group were obtained.

[0091] The ninth evaluation index K9 (i.e., UV intensity): First, refer to step (3) to prepare 12 standard specimens, which are divided into 4 groups corresponding to the 4 rating levels of excellent, good, medium, and poor, with 3 standard specimens in each group. Then, the 3 standard specimens in the excellent group are placed in a multifunctional walk-in environmental chamber under an ultraviolet intensity of 100 MJ·m -2 ·a -1 The three standard specimens of the good grade group were placed in a multifunctional walk-in environmental box under an ultraviolet intensity of 200 MJ·m -2 ·a -1 The three standard specimens of the medium grade group were placed in a multifunctional walk-in environmental box under an ultraviolet intensity of 400 MJ·m -2 ·a -1 The samples of the medium-grade group were cured in an environment with an ultraviolet intensity of 500 MJ·m -2 ·a -1 The specimens were cured for 28 days in the environment of standard environment, and the other environments were standard environment to obtain the test specimens of the poor grade group.

[0092] The 10th evaluation indicator K 10(i.e., air pressure value): first, refer to step (3) to prepare and obtain 12 standard specimens, which are divided into 4 groups corresponding to the 4 scoring levels of excellent, good, medium and poor, with 3 standard specimens in each group. Then, the 3 standard specimens of the excellent grade group are cured for 28 days in a multifunctional walk-in environmental box in an environment with an air pressure value of 80kPa, and other environments are standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the excellent grade group; the 3 standard specimens of the good grade group are cured for 28 days in a multifunctional walk-in environmental box in an environment with an air pressure value of 70kPa, and other environments are standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the good grade group; the 3 standard specimens of the medium grade group are cured for 28 days in a multifunctional walk-in environmental box in an environment with an air pressure value of 55kPa, and other environments are standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the medium grade group; the 3 standard specimens of the poor grade group are cured for 28 days in a multifunctional walk-in environmental box in an environment with an air pressure value of 50kPa, and other environments are standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the poor grade group.

[0093] The 11th evaluation indicator K 11 (i.e., average temperature): First, refer to step (3) to prepare and obtain 12 standard specimens, which are divided into 4 groups corresponding to the 4 scoring levels of excellent, good, medium and poor, with 3 standard specimens in each group. Then, the 3 standard specimens of the excellent grade group are cured for 28 days in a multifunctional walk-in environmental box in an environment with an average temperature of 20°C, and other environments are standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the excellent grade group; the 3 standard specimens of the good grade group are cured for 28 days in a multifunctional walk-in environmental box in an environment with an average temperature of 15°C, and other environments are standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the good grade group; the 3 standard specimens of the medium grade group are cured for 28 days in a multifunctional walk-in environmental box in an environment with an average temperature of 5°C, and other environments are standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the medium grade group; the 3 standard specimens of the poor grade group are cured for 28 days in a multifunctional walk-in environmental box in an environment with an average temperature of 0°C, and other environments are standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the poor grade group.

[0094] The 12th evaluation indicator K 12(i.e., deviation of concrete surface flatness): First, 12 standard specimens were prepared according to step (3), and divided into 4 groups corresponding to the 4 rating levels of excellent, good, medium and poor, with 3 standard specimens in each group. Then, the 3 standard specimens of the excellent grade group were worn in a multifunctional walk-in environmental chamber until the deviation of the concrete surface flatness was 8 mm, and the other environments were standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the excellent grade group; the 3 standard specimens of the good grade group were worn in a multifunctional walk-in environmental chamber until the deviation of the concrete surface flatness was 11.5 mm, and the other environments were standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the good grade group; the 3 standard specimens of the medium grade group were worn in a multifunctional walk-in environmental chamber until the deviation of the concrete surface flatness was 22.5 mm, and the other environments were standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the medium grade group; the 3 standard specimens of the poor grade group were worn in a multifunctional walk-in environmental chamber until the deviation of the concrete surface flatness was 30 mm, and the other environments were standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the poor grade group.

[0095] The 13th evaluation indicator K 13 (i.e., concrete steel bar corrosion rate): first, refer to step (3) to prepare and obtain 12 standard specimens, which are divided into 4 groups corresponding to the 4 scoring levels of excellent, good, medium and poor, with 3 standard specimens in each group. Then, the 3 standard specimens of the excellent grade group are rusted in a multifunctional walk-in environmental box until the concrete steel bar corrosion rate is 1%, and the other environments are standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the excellent grade group; the 3 standard specimens of the good grade group are rusted in a multifunctional walk-in environmental box until the concrete steel bar corrosion rate is 3%, and the other environments are standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the good grade group; the 3 standard specimens of the medium grade group are rusted in a multifunctional walk-in environmental box until the concrete steel bar corrosion rate is 10%, and the other environments are standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the medium grade group; the 3 standard specimens of the poor grade group are rusted in a multifunctional walk-in environmental box until the concrete steel bar corrosion rate is 15%, and the other environments are standard environments, to obtain the test specimens of the poor grade group.

[0096] The 14th evaluation indicator K 14(i.e., concrete strength): concrete material with a concrete strength of 60 MPa was cast in a mold, and after 28 days of standard curing, cubic concrete specimens with a side length of 100 mm were obtained, and the test specimens of the excellent grade group were obtained, and the number was 3; concrete material with a concrete strength of 50 MPa was cast in a mold, and after 28 days of standard curing, cubic concrete specimens with a side length of 100 mm were obtained, and the test specimens of the good grade group were obtained, and the number was 3; concrete material with a concrete strength of 35 MPa was cast in a mold, and after 28 days of standard curing, cubic concrete specimens with a side length of 100 mm were obtained, and the test specimens of the medium grade group were obtained, and the number was 3; concrete material with a concrete strength of 30 MPa was cast in a mold, and after 28 days of standard curing, cubic concrete specimens with a side length of 100 mm were obtained, and the test specimens of the poor grade group were obtained, and the number was 3.

[0097] The 15th evaluation indicator K 15 (i.e., concrete surface crack density): Concrete material is poured into a mold and prefabricated cracks are used to form a crack density of 10 / m 2 After forming, standard curing for 28 days was carried out to obtain cubic concrete specimens with a side length of 100 mm. Three specimens of the excellent grade group were obtained. The concrete material was cast in a mold and the prefabricated crack method was used to form a crack density of 25 / m 2 After forming, standard curing for 28 days was carried out to obtain cubic concrete specimens with a side length of 100 mm, and 3 test specimens of the good grade group were obtained; the concrete material was cast in the mold and the prefabricated crack method was used to form a crack density of 40 / m 2 After forming, standard curing for 28 days was carried out to obtain cubic concrete specimens with a side length of 100 mm. The test specimens of the medium-grade group were obtained, with a number of 3. The concrete material was cast in a mold and the crack density was 50 / m2 by prefabricated crack treatment. 2 After forming, standard curing for 28 days was carried out to obtain cubic concrete specimens with a side length of 100 mm, and 3 test specimens of the poor grade group were obtained.

[0098] (5) According to the 15 evaluation indicators obtained in step (4) above, the test specimens of the four grades of excellent, good, medium and poor are tested and the compressive strength F corresponding to the four groups of test specimens is obtained respectively. 1n ~F 4n , where the three test specimens corresponding to each grade group are tested and the average value is taken; then according to the formula Calculate the nth evaluation index K n The average compressive strength of the test specimens under the influence of

[0099] For example, for the test specimens of the four grades of excellent, good, medium and poor corresponding to the first evaluation index K1, the compressive strength F of the four groups of test specimens is obtained respectively. 11 ~F 41 , and then according to the formula Calculate the average compressive strength of the test specimen under the influence of the first evaluation index K1 For the test specimens of the four grades of excellent, good, medium and poor corresponding to the second evaluation index K2, the compressive strength F of the four groups of test specimens is obtained respectively. 12 ~F 42 , and then according to the formula Calculate the average compressive strength of the test specimen under the influence of the second evaluation index K2 In the same way as above, test and calculate in sequence

[0100] In this embodiment, the test calculation obtains:

[0101]

[0102]

[0103]

[0104] (6) Based on the parameter F0 obtained in step (3) and the parameter obtained in step (4) First, according to the formula Calculate and obtain the various evaluation indicators K1~K 15 The loss rate of the test specimen under the influence of V1~V 15 Then according to the formula Calculate, x = 1, 2, ..., 14, 15, and thus calculate and obtain each evaluation index K1~K 15 The corresponding impact factor weights λ1~λ 15 .

[0105] In this embodiment, the calculation results in:

[0106] λ1=0.035, λ2=0.09, λ3=0.16, λ4=0.13, λ5=0.068, λ6=0.053, λ7=0.07, λ8=0.063, λ9=0.03, λ 10 =0.028,λ 11 =0.05,λ 12 =0.034,λ 13 =0.049,λ 14 =0.08,λ 15 =0.06.

[0107] (7) According to the actual parameters of the discharge structure I to be evaluated corresponding to each evaluation index, the evaluation indexes K1~K 15 Corresponding scoring scores A1~A 15 .

[0108] Specifically: Combining the data in Table 1 and Table 2, in the discharge structure I: the parameters of the evaluation index K1 are excellent, and the corresponding score is A1=100 points; the parameters of the evaluation index K2 are excellent, and the corresponding score is A2=100 points; the parameters of the evaluation index K3 are excellent, and the corresponding score is A3=100 points; the parameters of the evaluation index K4 are excellent, and the corresponding score is A4=100 points; the parameters of the evaluation index K5 are excellent, and the corresponding score is A5=100 points; the parameters of the evaluation index K6 are excellent, and the corresponding score is A6=100 points; the parameters of the evaluation index K7 are excellent, and the corresponding score is A7=100 points; the parameters of the evaluation index K8 are excellent, and the corresponding score is A8=100 points; the parameters of the evaluation index K9 are excellent, and the corresponding score is A9=100 points; the parameters of the evaluation index K10 are excellent, and the corresponding score is A10=100 points; the parameters of the evaluation index K11 are excellent, and the corresponding score is A11=100 points; the parameters of the evaluation index K12 are excellent, and the corresponding score is A12=100 points; the parameters of the evaluation index K13 are excellent, and the corresponding score is A13=100 points. 10 The parameter is excellent, and the corresponding score is A 10 =100 points; evaluation index K 11 The parameter is excellent, and the corresponding score is A 11 =100 points; evaluation index K 12 The parameter is excellent, and the corresponding score is A 12 =100 points; evaluation index K 13 The parameter is excellent, and the corresponding score is A 13 =100 points; evaluation index K 14 The parameter is excellent, and the corresponding score is A 14 =100 points; evaluation index K 15 The parameter is excellent, and the corresponding score is A 15 =100 points.

[0109] (8) Based on step (6), we get the parameters λ1~λ 15 And the parameters A1~A obtained in step (7) 15 , according to the formula The life score S of the discharge structure I is obtained by calculation, and the life span of the discharge structure I is determined based on the life score S.

[0110] In this embodiment, the life score S of the discharge structure I is:

[0111] S = 0.035 × 100 + 0.09 × 100 + 0.16 × 100 + 0.13 × 100 + 0.068 × 100 + 0.053 × 100 + 0.07 × 100 + 0.063 × 100 + 0.03 × 100 + 0.028 × 100 + 0.05 × 100 + 0.034 × 100 + 0.049 × 100 + 0.08 × 100 + 0.06 × 100 = 100 points. According to existing standards, with a lifespan score of 100 points corresponding to a lifespan of 150 years, spillway structure I is classified as a superior product, with an estimated service life of more than 150 years.

[0112] 2. Life Assessment of Discharge Structure II

[0113] In this embodiment, the materials and environments of the discharge structure II and the discharge structure I are similar, so the evaluation indicators K1~K 15 The corresponding impact factor weights λ1~λ 15 Directly use the data calculated when evaluating the above-mentioned spillway structure I.

[0114] In this embodiment, the evaluation indicators K1 to K2 of the discharge structure II to be evaluated are obtained based on the scoring criteria according to the actual parameters of the discharge structure II corresponding to the evaluation indicators. 15 Corresponding scoring scores A1~A 15 .

[0115] Specifically: Combining the data in Table 1 and Table 2, in the discharge structure II: the parameters of the evaluation index K1 are excellent, and the corresponding score is A1=100 points; the parameters of the evaluation index K2 are excellent, and the corresponding score is A2=100 points; the parameters of the evaluation index K3 are good, and the corresponding score is A3=75 points; the parameters of the evaluation index K4 are good, and the corresponding score is A4=75 points; the parameters of the evaluation index K5 are good, and the corresponding score is A5=75 points; the parameters of the evaluation index K6 are excellent, and the corresponding score is A6=100 points; the parameters of the evaluation index K7 are excellent, and the corresponding score is A7=100 points; the parameters of the evaluation index K8 are good, and the corresponding score is A8=75 points; the parameters of the evaluation index K9 are excellent, and the corresponding score is A9=100 points; the parameters of the evaluation index K10 are good, and the corresponding score is A10=75 points; the parameters of the evaluation index K11 are good, and the corresponding score is A11=100 points; the parameters of the evaluation index K12 are good, and the corresponding score is A12=100 points; the parameters of the evaluation index K13 are excellent, and the corresponding score is A13=100 points; the parameters of the evaluation index K14 are good, and the corresponding score is A14=100 points. 10 The parameter is excellent, and the corresponding score is A 10 =100 points; evaluation index K 11 The parameter is excellent, and the corresponding score is A 11 =100 points; evaluation index K 12 The parameter is excellent, and the corresponding score is A 12 =100 points; evaluation index K 13The parameter is excellent, and the corresponding score is A 13 =100 points; evaluation index K 14 The parameter is excellent, and the corresponding score is A 14 =100 points; evaluation index K 15 The parameter is excellent, and the corresponding score is A 15 =100 points.

[0116] Based on parameters λ1~λ 15 And parameters A1~A 15 , according to the formula The life score S of the discharge structure II is obtained by calculation, and the life span of the discharge structure II is determined based on the life score S.

[0117] In this embodiment, the life score of the discharge structure II is:

[0118] S = 0.035 × 100 + 0.09 × 100 + 0.16 × 75 + 0.13 × 75 + 0.068 × 75 + 0.053 × 100 + 0.07 × 100 + 0.063 × 75 + 0.03 × 100 + 0.028 × 100 + 0.05 × 100 + 0.034 × 100 + 0.049 × 100 + 0.08 × 100 + 0.06 × 100 = 89.475 points. According to existing standards, with a lifespan score of 100 points corresponding to a lifespan of 150 years, spillway structure II is classified as good quality, with an estimated service life of 134 years.

[0119] 3. Life Assessment of Discharge Structure III

[0120] In this embodiment, the materials and environments of the discharge structure III and the discharge structure I are similar, so the evaluation indicators K1~K 15 The corresponding impact factor weights λ1~λ 15 Directly use the data calculated when evaluating the above-mentioned spillway structure I.

[0121] In this embodiment, the evaluation indicators K1 to K2 of the discharge structure III are obtained based on the scoring criteria according to the actual parameters of the discharge structure III corresponding to the evaluation indicators. 15 Corresponding scoring scores A1~A 15 .

[0122] Specifically: Combining the data in Table 1 and Table 2, in the discharge structure III: the parameter of the evaluation index K1 is good, and the corresponding score is A1=75 points; the parameter of the evaluation index K2 is medium, and the corresponding score is A2=50 points; the parameter of the evaluation index K3 is good, and the corresponding score is A3=75 points; the parameter of the evaluation index K4 is good, and the corresponding score is A4=75 points; the parameter of the evaluation index K5 is medium, and the corresponding score is A5=50 points; the parameter of the evaluation index K6 is good, and the corresponding score is A6=75 points; the parameter of the evaluation index K7 is excellent, and the corresponding score is A7=100 points; the parameter of the evaluation index K8 is medium, and the corresponding score is A8=50 points; the parameter of the evaluation index K9 is medium, and the corresponding score is A9=50 points; the parameter of the evaluation index K10 is good, and the corresponding score is A10=100 points; the parameter of the evaluation index K11 is medium, and the corresponding score is A11=100 points; the parameter of the evaluation index K12 is medium, and the corresponding score is A12=100 points; the parameter of the evaluation index K13 is medium, and the corresponding score is A13=100 points; the parameter of the evaluation index K14 is medium, and the corresponding score is A14=100 points; the parameter of the evaluation index K15 is medium, and the corresponding score is A15=100 points. 10 The parameter is good, and the corresponding score is A 10 =75 points; evaluation index K 11 The parameter is good, and the corresponding score is A 11 =75 points; evaluation index K 12 The parameter is good, and the corresponding score is A 12 =75 points; evaluation index K 13 The parameter is good, and the corresponding score is A 13 =75 points; evaluation index K 14 The parameter is good, and the corresponding score is A 14 =75 points; evaluation index K 15 The parameter is good, and the corresponding score is A 15 =75 points.

[0123] Based on parameters λ1~λ 15 And parameters A1~A 15 , according to the formula The life score S of the discharge structure III is obtained by calculation, and the life span of the discharge structure III is determined based on the life score S.

[0124] In this example, the lifespan score of the discharge structure III is:

[0125] S = 0.035 × 75 + 0.09 × 50 + 0.16 × 75 + 0.13 × 75 + 0.068 × 50 + 0.053 × 75 + 0.07 × 100 + 0.063 × 50 + 0.03 × 50 + 0.028 × 75 + 0.05 × 75 + 0.034 × 75 + 0.049 × 75 + 0.08 × 75 + 0.06 × 75 = 70.475 points. According to existing standards, with a lifespan of 150 years corresponding to a lifespan score of 100 points, spillway structure III is classified as medium quality, with an estimated service life of 105 years.

[0126] IV. Life Assessment of Drainage Structure IV

[0127] In this embodiment, the materials and environments of the drainage structure IV and the drainage structure I are similar, so the evaluation indicators K1~K 15 The corresponding impact factor weights λ1~λ 15 Directly use the data calculated when evaluating the above-mentioned spillway structure I.

[0128] In this embodiment, the evaluation indicators K1 to K2 of the discharge structure IV to be evaluated are obtained based on the scoring criteria according to the actual parameters of the discharge structure IV corresponding to the evaluation indicators. 15 Corresponding scoring scores A1~A 15 .

[0129] Specifically: Combining the data in Table 1 and Table 2, in the discharge structure IV: the parameter of the evaluation index K1 is medium, and the corresponding score is A1=50 points; the parameter of the evaluation index K2 is medium, and the corresponding score is A2=50 points; the parameter of the evaluation index K3 is poor, and the corresponding score is A3=25 points; the parameter of the evaluation index K4 is medium, and the corresponding score is A4=50 points; the parameter of the evaluation index K5 is poor, and the corresponding score is A5=25 points; the parameter of the evaluation index K6 is medium, and the corresponding score is A6=50 points; the parameter of the evaluation index K7 is good, and the corresponding score is A7=75 points; the parameter of the evaluation index K8 is poor, and the corresponding score is A8=25 points; the parameter of the evaluation index K9 is poor, and the corresponding score is A9=25 points; the parameter of the evaluation index K10 is good, and the corresponding score is A10=75 points; the parameter of the evaluation index K11 is poor, and the corresponding score is A11=25 points; the parameter of the evaluation index K12 is poor, and the corresponding score is A12=25 points; the parameter of the evaluation index K13 is poor, and the corresponding score is A13=25 points; the parameter of the evaluation index K14 is poor, and the corresponding score is A14=25 points. 10 The parameter is medium level, and the corresponding score is A 10 =50 points; evaluation index K 11 The parameter is medium level, and the corresponding score is A 11 =50 points; evaluation index K 12 The parameter is medium level, and the corresponding score is A 12 =50 points; evaluation index K 13 The parameter is medium level, and the corresponding score is A 13 =50 points; evaluation index K 14 The parameter is good, and the corresponding score is A 14 =75 points; evaluation index K 15 The parameter is good, and the corresponding score is A 15 =75 points.

[0130] Based on parameters λ1~λ 15 And parameters A1~A 15 , according to the formula The life score S of the discharge structure IV is obtained by calculation, and the life span of the discharge structure IV is determined based on the life score S.

[0131] In this embodiment, the lifespan score of the discharge structure IV is:

[0132] S = 0.035 × 50 + 0.09 × 50 + 0.16 × 25 + 0.13 × 50 + 0.068 × 25 + 0.053 × 50 + 0.07 × 75 + 0.063 × 25 + 0.03 × 25 + 0.028 × 50 + 0.05 × 50 + 0.034 × 50 + 0.049 × 50 + 0.08 × 75 + 0.06 × 75 = 47.225 points. According to existing standards, with a lifespan score of 100 points corresponding to a lifespan of 150 years, spillway structure IV is classified as poor quality, with an estimated service life of 70 years.

[0133] In summary, the embodiments of the present invention provide a lifespan assessment method for drainage structures in high-altitude and cold regions. The method first determines multiple evaluation indicators and rating levels based on the environmental and material factors of drainage structures in high-altitude and cold regions. Then, based on laboratory simulation experiments, the weights of the factors influencing the durability of concrete based on the evaluation indicators of each dimension are determined. Next, the actual parameters of the drainage structure are determined through on-site testing, and the drainage structure lifespan score is calculated based on the weights of the influencing factors, thereby determining the drainage structure's lifespan. The present invention can effectively and more accurately assess the service life of drainage structures in high-altitude and cold regions in complex environments, further providing guiding reference information for the selection of concrete.

[0134] The above is only a specific implementation method of the present application. It should be pointed out that for ordinary technicians in this technical field, several improvements and modifications can be made without departing from the principles of the present application. These improvements and modifications should also be regarded as the scope of protection of the present application.

Claims

1. A life assessment method for drainage structures in high-altitude cold regions, characterized in that: include: S1. Determine N evaluation indicators K1~K based on the environmental factors and material factors of the drainage structure N ; S2. Establishing a scoring standard, including: determining M scoring levels and the scoring scores for each scoring level, and determining the parameter ranges of each evaluation indicator at each scoring level; S3. Calculate and determine N evaluation indicators K1~K N The corresponding impact factor weights λ1~λ N ; S4, obtaining the actual parameters of the drainage structure to be evaluated corresponding to each evaluation index, and obtaining the score A1 to A2 corresponding to the N evaluation indexes of the drainage structure based on the scoring standard. N ; S5. According to the formula Calculating and obtaining a life score S of the drainage structure, and determining the life span of the drainage structure based on the life score S; Wherein, N and M are both positive integers, n=1, 2, ..., N-1, N; Wherein, the step S3 includes the following sub-steps: S31. Prepare a standard specimen with reference to the building material information of the drainage structure to be evaluated, and test and obtain the compressive strength F0 of the standard specimen; S32, compared with the standard specimen, according to only changing the nth evaluation index K n The parameters are used as conditions to prepare M groups of test specimens; among them, the nth evaluation index K of the mth group of test specimens n The parameter value of falls within the parameter range of the mth scoring level, m = 1, 2, ..., M-1, M; S33, test and obtain the compressive strength F corresponding to the M groups of test specimens 1n ~F Mn ; S34, according to the formula Calculate the nth evaluation index K n The average compressive strength of the test specimens under the influence of S35, according to the formula Calculate the nth evaluation index K n The loss rate V of the test specimen under the influence of n ; S36, repeat the above steps S32 to S35, the value of n ranges from 1 to N, and calculate and obtain N evaluation indicators K1~K N The corresponding loss rate V1~V N ; S37, according to the formula Calculate, x = 1, 2, ..., N-1, N, and obtain N evaluation indicators K1~K N The corresponding impact factor weights λ1~λ N ; Wherein, in step S1, 15 evaluation indicators K1 to K2 are determined based on the environmental factors and material factors of the drainage structure. 15 , followed by concrete carbonization depth, annual freeze-thaw cycles, water flow velocity in the spillway, sand content in the water flow, ice abrasion times, chloride ion concentration in water, sulfate concentration in water, maximum temperature difference, ultraviolet intensity, air pressure, average temperature, concrete surface flatness deviation, concrete steel bar corrosion rate, concrete strength, and concrete surface crack density.

2. The lifespan assessment method according to claim 1, wherein: The size of the standard specimen and the test specimen is a cubic specimen with a side length of 100 mm.

3. The lifespan assessment method according to claim 1, wherein: In step S32, each group of test specimens includes multiple test specimens; in step S33, the compressive strength F corresponding to the mth group of test specimens obtained by testing is mn It is the average compressive strength of multiple test specimens in this group.

4. The lifespan assessment method according to any one of claims 1 to 3, characterized in that: The scoring criteria established in step S2 include: determining a total of four scoring levels: excellent, good, medium and poor, with the excellent level having a scoring score of 100 points, the good level having a scoring score of 75 points, the medium level having a scoring score of 50 points, and the poor level having a scoring score of 25 points.

5. The lifespan assessment method according to claim 4, characterized in that: The parameter ranges of each evaluation indicator at each scoring level are as follows: Concrete carbonation depth parameter k1 (mm): excellent grade is k1≤0.4, good grade is 0.4<k1≤4, medium grade is 4<k1<10, poor grade is k1≥10; The parameter k2 of the number of freeze-thaw cycles per year (times): excellent grade is k2≤30, good grade is 30<k2≤60, medium grade is 60<k2<120, and poor grade is k2≥120; Parameter k3 (m / s) of the water flow velocity in the spillway: excellent level is k3≤10, good level is 10<k3≤30, medium level is 30<k3<50, and poor level is k3≥50; Parameter k4 (%) of water flow sand content: excellent grade is k4≤5, good grade is 5<k4≤15, medium grade is 15<k4<30, poor grade is k4≥30; The parameter k5 (times) of ice wear times: excellent level is k5≤15, good level is 15<k5≤30, medium level is 30<k5<50, and poor level is k5≥50; The parameter k6 (mg / L) of water quality chloride ion concentration: excellent grade is k6≤50, good grade is 50<k6≤150, medium grade is 150<k6<200, poor grade is k6≥200; The parameter k7 (mg / L) of water quality sulfate concentration: excellent level is k7≤100, good level is 100<k7≤1000, medium level is 1000<k7<4000, poor level is k7≥4000; The parameter k8 (℃) of the maximum temperature difference is: excellent grade is k8≤20, good grade is 20<k8≤30, medium grade is 30<k8<40, poor grade is k8≥40; The parameter of ultraviolet intensity k9 (MJ·m -2 ·a -1 ): Excellent grade is k9≤100, good grade is 100<k9≤300, medium grade is 300<k9<500, poor grade is k9≥500; Parameter k of air pressure value 10 (kPa): The best grade is k 10 ≥80, good grade is 60≤k 10 <80, medium level is 50<k 10 <60, poor grade is k 10 ≤50; The parameter k of the average temperature 11 (℃): Excellent grade is k 11 ≥20, good grade is 10≤k 11 <20, medium level is 0<k 11 <10, the poor grade is k 11 ≤0; Parameter k of concrete surface flatness deviation 12 (mm): Excellent grade is k 12 ≤8, good grade is 8<k 12 ≤15, medium level is 15<k 12 <30, poor grade is k 12 ≥30; Parameter k of concrete reinforcement corrosion rate 13 (%): Excellent grade is k 13 ≤1, good grade is 1<k 13 ≤5, medium level is 5<k 13 <15, the poor grade is k 13 ≥15; Parameter k of concrete strength 14 (MPa): Excellent grade is k 14 ≥60, good grade is 40≤k 14 <60, medium level is 30<k 14 <40, poor grade is k 14 ≤30; Parameter k of concrete surface crack density 15 (pieces / m 2 ): The excellent grade is k 15 ≤10, good grade is 10<k 15 ≤30, medium level is 30<k 15 <50, poor grade is k 15 ≥50.

6. The lifespan assessment method according to claim 4, characterized in that: In step S5, according to existing specifications, the life span of the drainage structure is determined by calculation based on the life span score S, with a life span score of 100 points corresponding to a life span of 150 years.

Images