Full framing construction safety state dynamic evaluation method, device and system

Abstract

The invention discloses a full framing construction safety state dynamic evaluation method and an equipment product thereof. The method comprises the following steps: constructing a full framing construction safety state evaluation index system; calculating and correcting a risk factor of each safety index; safety index inspection parameters corresponding to the current construction procedure of the full framing are obtained through inspection; calculating a single-index risk evaluation result and an overall risk factor evaluation result corresponding to a single joint support in the current construction process of the full framing by utilizing the risk factor and the inspection parameter of each safety index; judging an early warning level corresponding to each single bracket in the current construction process; and then the safety level of the whole full framing project in the current construction stage is judged, and corresponding safety prevention measures are taken. By establishing a comprehensive safety state evaluation index system and a dynamic evaluation method, each link in the construction process can be monitored more effectively, and potential safety risks can be found in time.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention belongs to the technical field of full-span scaffold construction safety, and in particular relates to a full-span scaffold construction safety status dynamic assessment method, equipment and system thereof. Background Art

[0002] At present, there is no complete set of dynamic safety status assessment methods in the construction process of full-height brackets, lack of safety control of the entire construction process, and no clear monitoring indicators. Only general bracket raw material inspection and construction safety management are carried out. Based on this situation, there are many safety hazards in the construction process of full-height brackets.

[0003] In view of the above-mentioned defects, the designers have actively carried out research and innovation in order to create a dynamic assessment technology for the safety status of full-span scaffolding construction, making it more valuable for industrial use. Summary of the invention

[0004] The purpose of the present invention is to overcome the deficiencies in the prior art and to provide a method, device and system for dynamic assessment of the safety status of a full-span scaffolding construction. By establishing a comprehensive safety status assessment index system and a dynamic assessment method, each link in the construction process can be more effectively monitored and potential safety problems can be discovered in a timely manner.

[0005] To achieve the above object, the present invention is implemented by adopting the following technical solutions:

[0006] In a first aspect, the present invention provides a method for dynamically evaluating the safety status of a full-span support construction, comprising the following steps:

[0007] Construct a safety status evaluation index system formed by multiple safety indicators corresponding to different construction processes in the entire construction of the full-height bracket;

[0008] Calculate and modify the risk factor of each safety indicator using LEC risk assessment method and expert survey method;

[0009] According to the preset inspection method and preset inspection cycle, check and obtain the risk factor inspection results of the safety indicators corresponding to the current construction process;

[0010] Using the risk factor and risk factor inspection results of each safety indicator, calculate the single indicator risk evaluation and overall risk evaluation of the safety indicator corresponding to a single bracket in the current construction process;

[0011] According to the preset single bracket warning level classification rules and the calculated single indicator risk evaluation and overall risk evaluation, judge and determine the warning level corresponding to each single bracket in the current construction process;

[0012] According to the preset classification rules of the safety level of the entire support and the corresponding warning levels of each single support, the safety level of the entire support in the current construction process is judged and determined.

[0013] Furthermore, the safety status assessment index system is divided into a target layer, an object layer and an indicator layer; the target layer corresponds to the safety status assessment index system for full-span scaffolding construction; the object layer corresponds to the six construction processes of the entire construction of the full-span scaffolding, including preparation work, component delivery, frame erection, whole frame pre-stressing, concrete pouring and frame dismantling; the indicator layer corresponds to multiple safety indicators corresponding to different construction processes.

[0014] Furthermore, the safety indicators corresponding to the preparatory work at least include a special construction plan, a scaffolder's professional certificate, a scaffolder's occupational health certificate, bracket manufacturer information, and bracket product certificate;

[0015] The safety indicators corresponding to the entry of components at least include the appearance quality of components, the geometrical dimension quality of components, the mechanical properties test report of components, on-site transportation requirements, and the storage of leased items;

[0016] The safety indicators corresponding to the frame erection at least include technical safety operation briefing, erection sequence, upper and lower operation requirements, safety protection wearing requirements, and weather conditions during operation;

[0017] The safety index corresponding to the whole frame preloading at least includes safety technical explanation, whole frame preloading construction requirements, lifting and hoisting operation requirements, foundation settlement, pole displacement, and pole strain;

[0018] The safety indicators corresponding to the concrete pouring at least include concrete engineering operation requirements, safety protection wearing requirements, foundation settlement, pole displacement, and pole strain;

[0019] The safety indicators corresponding to the frame dismantling include at least dismantling permission, dismantling sequence, dismantling safety protection measures, and weather conditions during the operation.

[0020] Furthermore, the method for calculating and correcting the risk factor of each safety indicator includes the following steps:

[0021] If there is no abnormality in the inspection of the safety indicator, the corresponding risk factor is 0; otherwise,

[0022] Determine the possibility of risk factors causing safety accidents, the frequency of risk factors and the classification and score values ​​corresponding to the consequences of accidents;

[0023] Considering the mean after the expert confidence index and multiplying the mean and making appropriate corrections, the risk factor of the safety index is obtained. The specific formula is as follows:

[0024] X=f(x)=L×E×C

[0025] Among them, L represents the possibility of risk factors causing safety accidents, E represents the frequency of occurrence of risk factors, and C represents the severity of the consequences once an accident occurs.

[0026] Furthermore, the risk factor inspection result includes the inspection method, inspection cycle and corresponding risk factor;

[0027] Wherein, the inspection method adopts at least one of document review, manual inspection and sensor monitoring;

[0028] The inspection cycle adopts at least one of one-time inspection, regular inspection and real-time monitoring.

[0029] Furthermore, a method for calculating the single indicator risk evaluation and the overall risk evaluation of the safety indicator corresponding to a single bracket in the current construction process includes the following steps:

[0030] First, determine whether the safety indicator is a quantitative indicator:

[0031] If it is a qualitative indicator, when the safety requirements are met, the corresponding risk factor is 0, otherwise the risk factor value is obtained according to the correction;

[0032] If it is a quantitative indicator, the quantitative indicator values ​​of foundation settlement, pole displacement, pole strain and meteorological level during operation corresponding to a single bracket are monitored individually to determine whether they exceed the first warning value:

[0033] If the first warning value is exceeded, a red warning will be issued directly and the warning level will be determined;

[0034] If the value is within the first warning value range, at least one second warning value is preset within the first warning value range for dividing different risk factor value standards, and different risk factors are assigned according to whether the monitoring indicator value exceeds the second warning value within the first warning value range:

[0035] If the monitoring index value is between the first warning value and the second warning value, the monitoring index value is taken as 50% of the risk factor of the modified safety index; if the monitoring index value is less than the second warning value, the monitoring index value is taken as 0;

[0036] Then, the multi-indicator risk factor coupling calculation is performed on the safety indicators that do not exceed the first warning value. The formula is expressed as:

[0037]

[0038] Among them, X 1i represents the risk factor of the corresponding security index of the file inspection, X 2i represents the risk factor of the safety index corresponding to manual inspection, X3i represents the risk factor of the corresponding safety indicator of online monitoring; β represents the impact coefficient corresponding to the different inspection frequencies of the safety indicator items of manual inspection; k represents the number of times or the number of people who violate the safety indicator items, and n1, n2, and n3 represent the number of indicator items under different inspection methods.

[0039] Further, the preset single bracket warning level classification rule is expressed as follows: single bracket warning is divided into five levels: I, II, III, IV, and V, among which I is safe, II is general risk, III is relatively high risk, IV is major risk, and V is particularly major risk. The alarm colors corresponding to each warning are green, blue, yellow, orange, and red respectively.

[0040] When the risk factor is less than 300, it is a Level I warning;

[0041] When the risk factor is greater than or equal to 300 and less than 500, it is a Level II warning;

[0042] When the risk factor is greater than or equal to 500 and less than 750, it is a Level III warning;

[0043] When the risk factor is greater than or equal to 750 and less than 1150, it is a Level IV warning;

[0044] When the risk factor is greater than or equal to 1150, it is Level V risk.

[0045] Furthermore, the preset classification rule of the safety level of the entire support is expressed as follows: the safety level of the entire support project is divided into three levels: safe, general and dangerous;

[0046] If all the joint bracket warnings in the current full-chamber bracket construction process are at level I and level II, the safety level of the entire bracket is safe;

[0047] If there are connected supports that reach the level III yellow warning and do not exceed 60% of the total number, and the number of connected supports that reach the level IV orange warning does not exceed 30% of the total number, and no supports reach the level V red warning, then the safety level of the entire support is general;

[0048] Otherwise, the safety level of the entire bracket is dangerous.

[0049] In a second aspect, the present invention provides a dynamic assessment system for the safety status of full-span support construction, comprising:

[0050] The indicator system construction module is used to construct a safety status evaluation indicator system formed by multiple safety indicators corresponding to different construction processes during the whole process of full-span support engineering construction;

[0051] The risk factor calculation module is used to calculate and correct the risk factor of each safety indicator using the LEC risk assessment method and expert investigation method, and to determine the warning value of the real-time monitoring quantitative indicators, so as to assign different risk factor values ​​to the quantitative indicators according to the preset rules;

[0052] The indicator detection input module is used to check and obtain the risk factor inspection results of the safety indicators corresponding to the current construction process by means of file review, manual inspection and sensor monitoring. The risk factor inspection results include the inspection method, inspection cycle and corresponding risk factor;

[0053] The risk calculation and evaluation module is used to calculate the single indicator risk evaluation and overall risk factor evaluation results corresponding to a single bracket in the current construction process by using the risk factor and risk factor inspection results of each safety indicator;

[0054] The warning level assessment module is used to determine the corresponding warning level of each single bracket in the current construction process according to the preset single bracket warning level classification rules and the calculated single indicator risk evaluation and overall risk factor evaluation results;

[0055] The safety level assessment module is used to determine the safety level of the entire full-height scaffolding project in the current construction phase based on the preset safety level classification rules of the entire full-height scaffolding project and the corresponding warning levels of each single joint support, and to match and obtain the preset rectification measures that match the safety level.

[0056] In a third aspect, the present invention provides a computer device comprising at least one processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores computer instructions for executing the method for dynamically assessing the safety status of full-span scaffolding construction as described in any one of the first aspects.

[0057] Compared with the prior art, the beneficial effects achieved by the present invention are as follows: the dynamic assessment method for the safety status of the full-bridge scaffolding construction provided by the present invention constructs a safety status assessment index system formed by multiple safety indicators corresponding to different construction processes, sets risk factor value standards, safety index inspection and evaluation, and the safety level of single-linked scaffolds and overall scaffolds, real-time monitoring and precise risk assessment, which significantly improves the efficiency and accuracy of construction safety management, effectively prevents and reduces the occurrence of safety accidents, thereby ensuring the safety and economy of the construction process. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0058] Figure 1 This is a schematic diagram of the dynamic assessment process of the safety status of the full-chamber support construction.

[0059] Figure 2 Schematic diagram of the safety status assessment index system for full-height scaffolding construction. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0060] The present invention will be further described below in conjunction with the accompanying drawings. The following embodiments are only used to more clearly illustrate the technical solution of the present invention, and cannot be used to limit the protection scope of the present invention.

[0061] Example

[0062] like Figure 1 As shown, an embodiment of the present invention provides a method for dynamically evaluating the safety status of a full-height bracket construction, which is characterized by comprising the following steps:

[0063] Construct a safety status evaluation index system formed by multiple safety indicators corresponding to different construction processes in the entire construction of the full-height bracket;

[0064] Calculate and modify the risk factor of each safety indicator using LEC risk assessment method and expert survey method;

[0065] According to the preset inspection method and preset inspection cycle, check and obtain the risk factor inspection results of the safety indicators corresponding to the current construction process;

[0066] Using the risk factor and risk factor inspection results of each safety indicator, calculate the single indicator risk evaluation and overall risk evaluation of the safety indicator corresponding to a single bracket in the current construction process;

[0067] According to the preset single bracket warning level classification rules and the calculated single indicator risk evaluation and overall risk evaluation, judge and determine the warning level corresponding to each single bracket in the current construction process;

[0068] According to the preset classification rules of the safety level of the entire support and the corresponding warning levels of each single support, the safety level of the entire support in the current construction process is judged and determined.

[0069] In this embodiment, for the full-span scaffolding construction project, a full-span scaffolding construction safety status evaluation index system is first established. Among them, the full-span scaffolding construction safety status evaluation index system is divided into a target layer, an object layer and an index layer. Figure 2 shown.

[0070] Specifically, the target layer: that is, the goal of this system is to establish a "full-floor scaffolding construction safety status assessment index system".

[0071] Object layer: Classified according to the various construction processes and inspection methods involved in the full-floor scaffolding construction process. The construction process mainly includes construction preparation, component delivery, frame erection, whole frame pre-stressing, concrete pouring and frame dismantling, and the corresponding inspection methods are divided into document review, manual inspection and sensor monitoring.

[0072] Index layer: that is, effectively control the safety indicators of each construction stage of the full-hall support, such as Figure 2 shown.

[0073] It should be noted that the safety indicators in the indicator layer can be appropriately adjusted for different full-floor scaffolding construction processes. For example, the safety indicators corresponding to the preparation work at least include special construction plans, scaffolding worker's professional certificates, scaffolding worker's occupational health certificates, scaffolding manufacturer information, and scaffolding product certificates; the safety indicators corresponding to the entry of components at least include the appearance quality of components, the geometric dimensions of components, the mechanical properties test report of components, on-site transportation requirements, and rental storage; the safety indicators corresponding to the erection of the frame at least include technical safety operation briefings, erection sequence, upper and lower operation requirements, safety protection wearing requirements, and weather levels during operation; the safety indicators corresponding to the pre-stressing of the whole frame at least include safety technical briefings, pre-stressing construction requirements for the whole frame, lifting and hoisting operation requirements, foundation settlement, pole displacement, and pole strain; the safety indicators corresponding to the concrete pouring at least include concrete engineering operation requirements, safety protection wearing requirements, foundation settlement, pole displacement, and pole strain; the safety indicators corresponding to the dismantling of the frame at least include dismantling permits, dismantling sequences, dismantling safety protection measures, and weather levels during operation.

[0074] In this embodiment, the risk factor of each safety index item is determined according to the LEC risk assessment method and the expert survey results. The risk factor of the safety index consists of three parts: the possibility of the risk factor causing a safety accident, the frequency of the risk factor, and the consequences of the accident, as shown in Tables 1 to 3 below.

[0075] First, the probability of risk factors causing safety accidents, the frequency of risk factors and the mean of the consequences of accidents after considering the expert confidence index are calculated respectively. Then, the means of the three parts are multiplied and appropriately corrected to obtain the risk factor of the safety index. The specific formula is as follows:

[0076] X=f(x)=L×E×C

[0077] Among them, L represents the possibility of risk factors causing safety accidents, E represents the frequency of risk factors, and C represents the severity of the consequences once an accident occurs. The specific results are shown in Table 4.

[0078] Table 1 The possibility of risk factors causing safety accidents (L)

[0079] Fractional value The possibility of risk factors causing safety accidents 10 Completely predictable 6 Quite likely 3 Possibly, but not often 1 Low probability, totally unexpected 0.1 Impossible

[0080] Table 2 Frequency of risk factors (E)

[0081] Fractional value Frequency of risk factor occurrence 10 Multiple times a day 6 Once a day 3 Once a week 2 Monthly 1 Several times a year 0.5 Very rare

[0082] Table 3 Consequences of accidents (C)

[0083] Fractional value Consequences of an accident 100 10 or more people died, or 50 or more people were seriously injured 40 3 to 9 people killed, or 10 to 49 people seriously injured 15 1-2 people died, or less than 10 people were seriously injured 7 Loss of work capacity, amputation, fracture, hearing loss, chronic disease 3 Minor injury, intermittent discomfort 1 No casualties

[0084] Table 4 Safety indicator risk factors

[0085]

[0086]

[0087]

[0088] It should be noted that if there is no abnormality in the safety indicator inspection, the risk factor corresponding to the safety indicator in this inspection result is 0, or the risk factor in Table 4 is taken as a certain percentage according to certain preset rules.

[0089] In this embodiment, it is first determined whether the safety indicator is a quantitative indicator:

[0090] If it is a qualitative indicator, when the safety requirements are met, the corresponding risk factor is 0, otherwise the risk factor value is obtained according to the correction;

[0091] If it is a quantitative indicator, the quantitative indicator values ​​of foundation settlement, pole displacement, pole strain and meteorological level during operation corresponding to a single bracket are monitored individually to determine whether they exceed the first warning value, such as the foundation settlement of 5mm in Table 5:

[0092] If the first warning value is exceeded, a red warning will be issued directly and the warning level will be determined;

[0093] If it is within the first warning value range, at least one second warning value for dividing different risk factor value standards is preset within the first warning value range, such as the foundation settlement of 3mm in Table 5. Different risk factors are assigned according to whether the monitoring index value exceeds the second warning value within the first warning value range:

[0094] If the monitoring index value is between the first warning value and the second warning value, the monitoring index value is taken as 50% of the risk factor of the modified safety index. If the monitoring index value is less than the second warning value, the monitoring index value is taken as 0. For quantitative indicators monitored in real time, when the monitored safety index item exceeds the threshold, a red warning can be issued directly; when the safety index item is within the threshold range, different risk factor values ​​are specified according to the specific values. The specific values ​​are shown in Table 5.

[0095] Table 5 Real-time monitoring indicators corresponding to risk factor value standards

[0096]

[0097]

[0098] It should be noted that safety indicators can be divided into qualitative indicators and quantitative indicators. The several safety indicators listed in Table 5 above are all quantitative indicators. By monitoring the indicator values ​​during the construction process, it is determined whether the inspection results are abnormal, and then the risk factor value standard is determined. In addition, safety indicators such as special construction plans, scaffolding worker certificates, scaffolding worker occupational health certificates, bracket manufacturer information, bracket product certificates, etc. are all qualitative indicators. During the inspection process, it is mainly determined whether the relevant information or qualifications are complete. If they are not available or incomplete, they are judged as abnormal, and the risk factor values ​​in Table 4 are used.

[0099] In this embodiment, the inspection content for the full-hall support construction is input, and the input content specifically includes inspection indicators, inspection methods and inspection cycles.

[0100] Among them, the inspection indicators can be used as follows Figure 1 The safety indicator system in the system; the inspection methods can be divided into document review, manual inspection and sensor monitoring; the inspection cycle can be divided into one-time inspection, regular inspection and real-time monitoring.

[0101] For example, the inspection methods are divided into three types: document review, manual inspection and sensor monitoring. The specific number of indicator items included in each construction process and inspection method is shown in Table 6.

[0102] Table 6 Statistical table of indicators for each construction process

[0103]

[0104] In this embodiment, the inspection and division of index items are performed according to the full-chamber support construction process, and model calculation is performed on the safety index items after the inspection.

[0105] The model calculation of safety index items includes single index evaluation and multi-indicator comprehensive evaluation. Specifically, single index evaluation is performed for key indicators of real-time monitoring that exceed the warning limit, and multi-indicator risk factor coupling calculation is performed for key indicators of real-time monitoring that do not exceed the warning limit.

[0106] First, determine whether the safety indicator is a quantitative indicator:

[0107] If it is a qualitative indicator, when the safety requirements are met, the corresponding risk factor is 0, otherwise the risk factor value is obtained according to the correction;

[0108] If it is a quantitative indicator, the quantitative indicator values ​​of foundation settlement, pole displacement, pole strain and meteorological level during operation corresponding to a single bracket are monitored individually to determine whether they exceed the first warning value:

[0109] If the first warning value is exceeded, a red warning will be issued directly and the warning level will be determined;

[0110] If the value is within the first warning value range, at least one second warning value is preset within the first warning value range for dividing different risk factor value standards, and different risk factors are assigned according to whether the monitoring indicator value exceeds the second warning value within the first warning value range:

[0111] If the monitoring index value is between the first warning value and the second warning value, the monitoring index value is taken as 50% of the risk factor of the modified safety index; if the monitoring index value is less than the second warning value, the monitoring index value is taken as 0;

[0112] Then, the multi-indicator risk factor coupling calculation is performed on the safety indicators that do not exceed the first warning value. The formula is expressed as:

[0113]

[0114] Among them, X 1i Indicates the risk factor of the corresponding security index item of the file inspection, X 2i Indicates the safety index item corresponding to manual inspection, X 3i represents the safety index item corresponding to online monitoring; β represents the influence coefficient corresponding to different inspection frequencies of the safety index item of manual inspection; k represents the number of violations or the number of people of the safety index item. n1, n2, n3, etc. represent the number of index items under different inspection methods.

[0115] According to the calculation results of the risk factors, the warning level of a support unit and the safety level of the entire support project are output respectively.

[0116] In this embodiment, the bracket warning level classification is preset to clarify the risk threshold of a bracket and the level evaluation standard of the entire bracket project.

[0117] The warning for disc-type brackets is divided into five levels: I, II, III, IV, and V. Level I is safe, Level II is general risk, Level III is greater risk, Level IV is major risk, and Level V is particularly major risk. The corresponding alarm colors for the warning are green, blue, yellow, orange, and red, respectively.

[0118] When judging the safety level of a single coupling support: when the risk factor is less than 300, it is a Level I warning; when the risk factor is greater than or equal to 300 and less than 500, it is a Level II warning; when the risk factor is greater than or equal to 500 and less than 750, it is a Level III warning; when the risk factor is greater than or equal to 750 and less than 1150, it is a Level IV warning; when the risk factor is greater than or equal to 1150, it is a Level V risk. The details are shown in Table 7.

[0119] Table 7 Safety level classification of single bracket

[0120]

[0121]

[0122] The safety level of the entire support project is divided into three levels: safe, general and dangerous.

[0123] When all the coupling support warnings in the entire project are at level I and level II, it displays "safe".

[0124] When there are stents reaching the level III yellow warning and not exceeding 60% of the total number, the number of stents with the level IV orange warning does not exceed 30% of the total number, and there are no stents reaching the level V red warning, it displays “General”.

[0125] The remaining situations are displayed as "dangerous".

[0126] The specific classification standards for the safety level of the entire support project are shown in Table 8.

[0127] Table 8 Risk level classification of the entire support project

[0128]

[0129] The embodiment of the present invention provides a dynamic assessment system for the safety status of a full-height support construction, comprising:

[0130] The indicator system construction module is used to construct a safety status evaluation indicator system formed by multiple safety indicators corresponding to different construction processes during the whole process of full-span support engineering construction;

[0131] The risk factor calculation module is used to calculate and correct the risk factor of each safety indicator using the LEC risk assessment method and expert investigation method, and to determine the warning value of the real-time monitoring quantitative indicators, so as to assign different risk factor values ​​to the quantitative indicators according to the preset rules;

[0132] The indicator detection input module is used to check and obtain the risk factor inspection results of the safety indicators corresponding to the current construction process by means of file review, manual inspection and sensor monitoring. The risk factor inspection results include the inspection method, inspection cycle and corresponding risk factor;

[0133] The risk calculation and evaluation module is used to calculate the single indicator risk evaluation and overall risk factor evaluation results corresponding to a single bracket in the current construction process by using the risk factor and risk factor inspection results of each safety indicator;

[0134] The warning level assessment module is used to determine the corresponding warning level of each single bracket in the current construction process according to the preset single bracket warning level classification rules and the calculated single indicator risk evaluation and overall risk factor evaluation results;

[0135] The safety level assessment module is used to determine the safety level of the entire full-height scaffolding project in the current construction phase based on the preset safety level classification rules of the entire full-height scaffolding project and the corresponding warning levels of each single joint support, and to match and obtain the preset rectification measures that match the safety level.

[0136] A computer device is also provided in an embodiment of the present invention, including at least one processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores computer instructions for executing any of the above-mentioned methods for dynamically assessing the safety status of full-bridge support construction.

[0137] A computer program product is also provided, the program product comprising computer instructions for executing any of the above-mentioned methods for dynamically assessing the safety status of full-span scaffolding construction.

[0138] The above is only a preferred embodiment of the present invention. It should be pointed out that for ordinary technicians in this technical field, several improvements and modifications can be made without departing from the technical principles of the present invention. These improvements and modifications should also be regarded as the scope of protection of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for dynamically evaluating the safety status of full-frame support construction, characterized in that: The following steps are involved: Construct a safety status evaluation index system formed by multiple safety indicators corresponding to different construction processes during the whole process of full-span support engineering construction; Use LEC risk assessment method and expert survey method to calculate and correct the risk factor of each safety indicator; According to the preset inspection method and inspection cycle, the risk factor inspection results of the safety indicators corresponding to the current construction process are obtained by using document review, manual inspection and sensor monitoring methods; Using the risk factor and risk factor inspection results of each safety indicator, calculate the single indicator risk evaluation and overall risk factor evaluation results corresponding to a single bracket in the current construction process; According to the preset single bracket warning level classification rules, the calculated single indicator risk evaluation and overall risk factor evaluation results, the corresponding warning level of each single bracket in the current construction process is determined; According to the preset safety level classification rules of the entire full-height scaffolding project and the corresponding warning levels of each single supporting frame, the safety level of the entire full-height scaffolding project in the current construction phase is determined, and the preset rectification measures plan that matches the safety level is matched and obtained.

2. The method for dynamic assessment of safety status of full-frame support construction according to claim 1 is characterized in that: The safety status assessment index system is divided into a target layer, an object layer and an indicator layer; the target layer corresponds to the safety status assessment index system for full-span scaffolding construction; the object layer corresponds to the six major construction processes in the entire process of full-span scaffolding construction, namely, preparation work, component delivery, frame erection, whole frame pre-stressing, concrete pouring and frame dismantling; the indicator layer corresponds to multiple safety indicators corresponding to each construction process.

3. The method for dynamic evaluation of safety status of full-frame support construction according to claim 2 is characterized in that: The safety indicators corresponding to the preparation work shall at least include special construction plan, scaffolding worker's employment certificate, scaffolding worker's occupational health certificate, bracket manufacturer's information, bracket product certificate; The safety indicators corresponding to the entry of components at least include the appearance quality of components, the geometrical dimension quality of components, the mechanical properties test report of components, on-site transportation requirements, and the storage of leased items; The safety indicators corresponding to the frame erection at least include technical safety operation briefing, erection sequence, upper and lower operation requirements, safety protection wearing requirements, and weather conditions during operation; The safety index corresponding to the whole frame preloading at least includes safety technical explanation, whole frame preloading construction requirements, lifting and hoisting operation requirements, foundation settlement, pole displacement, and pole strain; The safety indicators corresponding to the concrete pouring at least include concrete engineering operation requirements, safety protection wearing requirements, foundation settlement, pole displacement, and pole strain; The safety indicators corresponding to the frame dismantling include at least dismantling permission, dismantling sequence, dismantling safety protection measures, and weather conditions during the operation.

4. The method for dynamically evaluating the safety status of full-frame support construction according to claim 1 is characterized in that: Use the LEC risk assessment method and expert survey method to determine the possibility of each safety indicator causing a safety accident when it does not meet the safety requirements, the frequency of risk factors, and the classification and score values ​​corresponding to the consequences of the accident; Considering the mean after the expert confidence index and multiplying the mean and making appropriate corrections, the risk factor of the safety index is obtained. The specific formula is as follows: X=f(x)=L×E×C Among them, L represents the possibility of risk factors causing safety accidents, E represents the frequency of occurrence of risk factors, and C represents the severity of the consequences once an accident occurs.

5. The method for dynamic evaluation of safety status of full-frame support construction according to claim 4 is characterized in that: The risk factor inspection result includes the inspection method, inspection cycle and corresponding risk factor; Wherein, the inspection method adopts at least one of document review, manual inspection and sensor monitoring; The inspection cycle adopts at least one of one-time inspection, regular inspection and real-time monitoring.

6. The method for dynamically evaluating the safety status of full-frame support construction according to claim 4 is characterized in that: The method for calculating the single-index risk assessment of a single bracket and the overall risk assessment in the current construction process includes the following steps: First, determine whether the safety indicator is a quantitative indicator: If it is a qualitative indicator, when the safety requirements are met, the corresponding risk factor is 0, otherwise the risk factor value is obtained according to the correction; If it is a quantitative indicator, the quantitative indicator values ​​of foundation settlement, pole displacement, pole strain and meteorological level during operation corresponding to a single bracket are monitored individually to determine whether they exceed the first warning value: If the first warning value is exceeded, a red warning will be issued directly and the warning level will be determined; If the value is within the first warning value range, at least one second warning value is preset within the first warning value range for dividing different risk factor value standards, and different risk factors are assigned according to whether the monitoring indicator value exceeds the second warning value within the first warning value range: If the monitoring index value is between the first warning value and the second warning value, the monitoring index value is taken as 50% of the risk factor of the modified safety index; if the monitoring index value is less than the second warning value, the monitoring index value is taken as 0; Then, the multi-indicator risk factor coupling calculation is performed on the safety indicators that do not exceed the first warning value. The formula is expressed as: Among them, X 1i represents the risk factor of the corresponding security index of the file inspection, X 2i represents the risk factor of the safety index corresponding to manual inspection, X 3i Indicates the risk factor of the corresponding safety indicator of online monitoring; β represents the impact coefficient corresponding to different inspection frequencies of safety index items of manual inspection; k represents the number of times or number of people who violate the safety index items, and n1, n2, and n3 represent the number of index items under different inspection methods.

7. The method for dynamically evaluating the safety status of full-frame support construction according to claim 6 is characterized in that: The preset single bracket warning level classification rule is expressed as follows: single bracket warning is divided into five levels: I, II, III, IV, and V, among which I is safe, II is general risk, III is relatively high risk, IV is major risk, and V is particularly major risk. The alarm colors corresponding to each warning are green, blue, yellow, orange, and red respectively. When the risk factor is less than 300, it is a Level I warning; When the risk factor is greater than or equal to 300 and less than 500, it is a Level II warning; When the risk factor is greater than or equal to 500 and less than 750, it is a Level III warning; When the risk factor is greater than or equal to 750 and less than 1150, it is a Level IV warning; When the risk factor is greater than or equal to 1150, it is Level V risk.

8. The method for dynamically evaluating the safety status of full-frame support construction according to claim 7 is characterized in that: The preset safety level classification rule of the entire support project is expressed as follows: the safety level of the entire support project is divided into three levels: safe, general and dangerous; If all the joint bracket warnings in the current full-chamber bracket construction process are at level I and level II, the safety level of the entire bracket is safe, the current full-chamber bracket project risk level is acceptable, the bracket is in a safe state as a whole, and construction can continue; If there are joint supports that reach the level III yellow warning and do not exceed 60% of the total number, and the level IV orange warning joint supports do not exceed 30% of the total number, and no supports reach the level V red warning, then the safety level of the entire support is general; the current full-hall support risk level is conditionally acceptable and construction can continue, and measures to reduce risks must be implemented; Otherwise, the safety level of the entire support is dangerous. The current risk level of the full-hall support is unacceptable and is in a dangerous state. Work must be stopped immediately for rectification and construction must continue only after appropriate measures have been taken to reduce the risk level.

9. A dynamic assessment system for the safety status of full-height support construction, characterized in that: include: The indicator system construction module is used to construct a safety status evaluation indicator system formed by multiple safety indicators corresponding to different construction processes during the whole process of full-span support engineering construction; The risk factor calculation module is used to calculate and correct the risk factor of each safety indicator using the LEC risk assessment method and expert investigation method, and to determine the warning value of the real-time monitoring quantitative indicators, so as to assign different risk factor values ​​to the quantitative indicators according to the preset rules; The indicator detection input module is used to check and obtain the risk factor inspection results of the safety indicators corresponding to the current construction process by means of file review, manual inspection and sensor monitoring. The risk factor inspection results include the inspection method, inspection cycle and corresponding risk factor; The risk calculation and evaluation module is used to calculate the single indicator risk evaluation and overall risk factor evaluation results corresponding to a single bracket in the current construction process by using the risk factor and risk factor inspection results of each safety indicator; The warning level assessment module is used to determine the corresponding warning level of each single bracket in the current construction process according to the preset single bracket warning level classification rules and the calculated single indicator risk evaluation and overall risk factor evaluation results; The safety level assessment module is used to determine the safety level of the entire full-height scaffolding project in the current construction phase based on the preset safety level classification rules of the entire full-height scaffolding project and the corresponding warning levels of each single joint support, and to match and obtain the preset rectification measures that match the safety level.

10. A computer device, characterized in that: It comprises at least one processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores computer instructions for executing the method for dynamically evaluating the safety status of full-span support construction as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 8.

Images