Small and medium-sized reservoir dam safety evaluation method, computer readable storage medium and electronic equipment

Abstract

The invention relates to the technical field of reservoir dam safety risk research, in particular to a small and medium-sized reservoir dam safety evaluation method, a computer readable storage medium and electronic equipment. The small and medium-sized reservoir dam safety evaluation method disclosed by the invention specifically comprises the steps of firstly obtaining dynamic indexes for dam safety evaluation based on an index classification function, then constructing an evaluation system based on the obtained dynamic indexes, then carrying out weight calculation on the dynamic indexes by adopting an improved analytic hierarchy process, and finally, carrying out dam safety evaluation. The dam safety is evaluated by adopting an improved fuzzy analysis method in combination with an evaluation system and the weight of a dynamic index, the dam safety real-time state can be accurately evaluated, the evaluated dam safety state is dynamically updated in real time, real-time information is provided for the safety management of the dam in the later extreme climate and environment, and the safety of the dam is improved. And a manager can make a timely and accurate decision when the dam encounters a risk.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the technical field of reservoir dam safety risk research, and in particular to a safety evaluation method for medium and small-sized reservoir dams, a computer-readable storage medium and an electronic device. Background Art

[0002] Reservoir dams are an important part of water conservancy projects and play an important role in protecting regional security and developing urban economy. Therefore, their safety issues have always attracted much attention. How to judge the real-time safety status of reservoir dams has become a difficult problem that water conservancy managers need to solve urgently. At present, the evaluation of dam safety status is mostly based on the "Guidelines for Reservoir Dam Safety Evaluation", and its evaluation cycle is generally 5-10 years. Especially for small and medium-sized reservoirs, due to backward technology and economy, its evaluation cycle is longer. During this period, the safety status of the dam cannot be known as the changes in climate and environment, making it difficult to provide information for dam safety management, so that managers can make timely and accurate decisions when the dam encounters risks. Therefore, it is necessary to obtain the safety status of the dam through other methods or means. For example, the paper "Safety evaluation of small earth-rock dams based on analytic hierarchy process" published by Liu Zhenyi et al. (Hydropower and New Energy, 2023, 37(08):50-53) successfully calculated the weights of various indicators for the safety evaluation of small earth-rock dams by using analytic hierarchy process; the paper "Safety evaluation of small reservoir earth-rock dams based on analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy theory" published by Zhou Haiyi et al. (Journal of Water Resources and Water Engineering, 2023, 34(04):167-174) obtained the weights of safety evaluation indicators of small reservoir earth-rock dams by analytic hierarchy process, combined with fuzzy theory to obtain the membership value of each indicator in the evaluation system, and finally determined the comprehensive evaluation results of dam safety. Although the above method can obtain the safety status of the dam through calculation, it still has the following defects: (1) The safety evaluation indicators of the existing technology are mostly evaluated based on the indicator system of the "Guidelines for Dam Safety Evaluation". The indicators are diverse and complex, including dynamic indicators that change greatly over time and static indicators that do not change significantly over time. They are not classified and evaluated. When evaluating the safety of small and medium-sized reservoir dams, there are shortcomings such as repeated evaluation and heavy workload. It is impossible to accurately evaluate the real-time status of project safety and it is difficult to meet the requirements of the modern management matrix for the four-all and four-precaution of reservoir dam safety; (2) The existing evaluation methods are mostly based on the hierarchical analysis method, and their comparison matrices are mostly constructed by expert scoring. There are subjective differences in the importance scores of the same indicator among experts, which will lead to the problem of uneven distribution of the calculated indicator weights; (3) When setting the dam safety affiliation threshold, the actual situation is not taken into account. For example, when the dam leaks, the dam safety is considered to be in a dangerous situation. At this time, the indicator weight has a veto power.

[0003] In summary, a new safety assessment method for small and medium-sized dams is urgently needed to solve the problems existing in the existing technology. Summary of the invention

[0004] The purpose of the present invention is to provide a method for evaluating the safety of small and medium-sized reservoir dams. First, dynamic indicators for dam safety evaluation are obtained based on the indicator classification function, and then an evaluation system is constructed based on the obtained dynamic indicators. Then, an improved hierarchical analysis method is used to calculate the weights of the dynamic indicators. Finally, an improved fuzzy analysis method is used to evaluate the dam safety in combination with the evaluation system and the weights of the dynamic indicators, so as to achieve accurate and efficient evaluation of dam safety. The specific technical scheme is as follows:

[0005] A method for safety assessment of small and medium-sized reservoir dams comprises the following steps:

[0006] Step 1: Obtain dynamic indicators for dam safety evaluation based on the indicator classification function; the indicator classification function expression is as follows:

[0007]

[0008] Where: Y represents the performance change rate of the dynamic indicator after time t, X(t) is the performance of the dynamic indicator at time t, and X′ is the initial performance of the dynamic indicator during the calculation period;

[0009] The dynamic indicators include at least one of water seepage, cracks, corrosion, seepage, displacement, stress, water level and stability;

[0010] Step 2: construct an evaluation system based on the dynamic indicators obtained in step 1. The evaluation system specifically includes: dam safety as the target layer, four modules of on-site inspection, monitoring and analysis, flood control capacity and numerical model analysis as the standard layer, and the corresponding dynamic indicators in each standard layer as the solution layer;

[0011] Step 3: Calculate the weight of dynamic indicators based on the evaluation system obtained in step 2, including:

[0012] Step 3.1, obtain a comparison matrix formed by the combination of each dynamic indicator;

[0013] Step 3.2: Normalize the comparison matrix, and then perform a sum matrix on it to obtain the weight vectors of different dynamic indicators; perform a consistency test on the matrix of the weight result, introduce the consistency index CI and the random consistency index RI; use the consistency ratio CR to describe the consistency of the matrix,

[0014] Step 3.3, adjust the comparison matrix according to the CR value. The adjustment order starts from the first element of the comparison matrix, and the maximum value is reduced first. At the same time, the symmetric elements of the entire comparison matrix also undergo opposite changes to form a new comparison matrix, and return to step 3.2; until the adjusted CR values ​​of all elements are obtained;

[0015] Step 3.4: Compare all CR values ​​and take the weight with the minimum value as the final weight;

[0016] Step 4: Evaluate the dam safety based on the evaluation system of step 2 and the weights of the dynamic indicators obtained in step 3.

[0017] Preferably, in the scheme layer: on-site inspection includes water seepage, cracks and corrosion; monitoring and analysis includes seepage, displacement and stress; flood control capacity includes water level; digital model analysis includes stability, displacement and seepage, or digital model analysis includes stability, displacement and stress.

[0018] Preferably, the calculation formula of the consistency index CI is as follows:

[0019]

[0020] The calculation formula of random consistency index RI is as follows:

[0021]

[0022] Where: max is the maximum eigenvalue of the matrix, n is the matrix order, CI n is the consistency index of the n-th order matrix.

[0023] Preferably, the on-site inspection is divided into three comment intervals: unqualified (0, 60]; relatively qualified (60, 80]; qualified (80, 100];

[0024] The dynamic indicators are quantified as follows:

[0025] Water seepage: No leakage, score 100; leakage, score 0;

[0026] Crack situation: no obvious cracks, score (80, 100]; few cracks, and surface cracks, score (60-80]; few cracks, with through cracks, score (0, 60];

[0027] Rust condition: No obvious rust, score is (80, 100]; There is a small amount of rust, score is (60-80]; There is a large area of ​​rust, score is (0, 60].

[0028] Preferably, the monitoring analysis is divided into three comment intervals: unsafe (0, 60]; relatively safe (60, 80]; safe (80, 100];

[0029] The dynamic indicators are quantified as follows:

[0030] Seepage: If the measured value is less than the historical maximum value, the score is 100; if the measured value is greater than the historical maximum value, the score is 0;

[0031] Displacement: If the measured value is less than the historical maximum value, the score is (80, 100]; if the measured value is within 50% of the historical maximum value, the score is (60-80]; if the measured value is more than 50% greater than the historical maximum value, the score is (0, 60];

[0032] Stress: If the measured value is less than the historical maximum value, the score is (80, 100]; if the measured value is within 50% of the historical maximum value, the score is (60-80]; if the measured value is more than 50% greater than the historical maximum value, the score is (0, 60].

[0033] Preferably, the flood control capacity is divided into three evaluation intervals: unsafe (0, 60]; relatively safe (60, 80]; safe (80, 100];

[0034] Water level:

[0035] When the water level is less than or equal to the flood control high water level, the scoring interval is (80, 100];

[0036] When the water level is greater than the flood control high water level and less than or equal to the design flood level, the scoring range is (60, 80];

[0037] When the water level is greater than the design flood level and less than or equal to the verification flood level, the scoring range is (0, 60].

[0038] Preferably, the numerical model analysis is divided into three comment intervals: unsafe (0, 60]; relatively safe (60, 80]; safe (80, 100];

[0039] For earth-rock dams, the dynamic indicators are quantified as follows:

[0040] Stability coefficient: if the concrete dam is greater than 4.0 and the earth-rock dam is greater than 1.5, the score is 100; if the concrete dam is less than 4.0 and the earth-rock dam is less than 1.5, the score is 0;

[0041] Displacement: The scoring interval for concrete displacement greater than 15 cm is (0, 60], the scoring interval for displacement less than 15 cm and greater than 5 cm is (60, 80], and the scoring interval for displacement less than 5 cm is (80, 100];

[0042] Seepage coefficient: earth-rock dam is less than 10 -6 , the score is 100; earth-rock dam is greater than 10 -6 , the score is 0;

[0043] For concrete dams, the dynamic indicators are quantified as follows:

[0044] Stability coefficient: if the concrete dam is greater than 4.0 and the earth-rock dam is greater than 1.5, the score is 100; if the concrete dam is less than 4.0 and the earth-rock dam is less than 1.5, the score is 0;

[0045] Displacement: The scoring interval for concrete displacement greater than 15 cm is (0, 60], the scoring interval for displacement less than 15 cm and greater than 5 cm is (60, 80], and the scoring interval for displacement less than 5 cm is (80, 100];

[0046] Stress: For concrete dams with stress less than 1.2MPa, the score is 60-100; for concrete dams with stress greater than 1.2MPa, the score is 0.

[0047] Preferably, dam safety is divided into four intervals: ① extremely high risk (0, 60]; ② high risk (60, 70]; ③ medium risk (70, 80]; ④ low risk (80, 100]).

[0048] Compared with the prior art, the advantages of the present invention are:

[0049] The invention discloses a method for evaluating the safety of small and medium-sized reservoir dams, a computer-readable storage medium and an electronic device. The method first classifies the dam safety evaluation index based on the index classification function, and constructs an evaluation system based on the obtained dynamic index, thereby greatly simplifying the dam safety evaluation index system and making it more suitable for the safety management of small and medium-sized reservoirs. Then, an improved hierarchical analysis method is used to calculate the index weight, thereby reducing the subjective differences in experts' scoring of the importance of the index and improving the accuracy of the real-time status evaluation of the dam safety. An improved fuzzy analysis method is used to evaluate the dam safety in combination with the evaluation system and the weight of the dynamic index, thereby taking into account the importance of the dam leakage index and more intuitively reflecting the real-time safety status of the dam. The dam safety status evaluated by the above-mentioned technology is updated in real time and dynamically, thereby providing real-time information for the safety management of the dam under extreme climate and environment in the later stage, so that managers can make timely and accurate decisions when the dam encounters risks.

[0050] The present invention also discloses a computer-readable storage medium on which a computer program is stored. When the computer program is executed by a processor, the above-mentioned method for safety assessment of small and medium-sized reservoir dams is implemented.

[0051] The present invention also discloses an electronic device, comprising: a processor; and a memory for storing executable instructions of the processor; wherein the processor is configured to execute the above-mentioned small and medium-sized reservoir dam safety assessment method by executing the executable instructions.

[0052] In addition to the above-described objects, features and advantages, the present invention has other objects, features and advantages. The present invention will be further described in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0053] The drawings constituting a part of this application are used to provide a further understanding of the present invention. The exemplary embodiments of the present invention and their descriptions are used to explain the present invention and do not constitute an improper limitation of the present invention. In the drawings:

[0054] Figure 1 It is a schematic flow chart of a method for safety assessment of small and medium-sized reservoir dams according to an embodiment of the present invention;

[0055] Figure 2 Schematic diagram of the overall framework of the evaluation system in the embodiment of the present invention;

[0056] Figure 3 It is a reservoir capacity-water level relationship diagram in this embodiment. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0057] The embodiments of the present invention are described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings, but the present invention can be implemented in many different ways as defined and covered by the claims.

[0058] Example:

[0059] See also Figure 1 , a safety assessment method for small and medium-sized reservoir dams, comprising the following steps:

[0060] Step 1: Obtain dynamic indicators for dam safety evaluation based on the indicator classification function; the indicator classification function expression is as follows:

[0061]

[0062] Where: Y represents the performance change rate of the dynamic indicator after time t, X(t) is the performance of the dynamic indicator at time t, and X′ is the initial performance of the dynamic indicator during the calculation period;

[0063] In this embodiment: According to the above formula, there are three types of results:

[0064] When Y=0%, it means that the calculated index has no obvious performance change during the calculation period.

[0065] When Y>0%, it means that the performance of the calculated indicator was strong during the calculation period.

[0066] When Y<0%, it indicates that the performance of the calculated index deteriorates during the calculation period.

[0067] Select indicators and classify them into calculation time periods: In the relevant regulations on reservoir dam safety management, there is no clear fixed period for dam safety evaluation. Therefore, the calculation is based on the smallest unit of the dam evaluation cycle, taking the year as the unit, and using the data of a certain year of the dam monitoring history data for calculation.

[0068] According to the dam safety assessment guidelines, there are a total of 60 calculation indicators, as shown in Table 1.

[0069] Table 1 Evaluation index statistics

[0070]

[0071]

[0072]

[0073] The index classification calculation was carried out on 20 representative large and medium-sized reservoirs in Hunan Province. After the results were averaged, they were used as the basis for the analysis of the dam classification calculation results. The results are shown in Table 2.

[0074] Table 2 Evaluation indicators

[0075]

[0076]

[0077]

[0078] According to the calculation results, within the historical random period of one year, the main indicators that have undergone significant changes are water seepage, cracks, corrosion, seepage, displacement, stress, water level and stability. These indicators are defined as dynamic indicators, and the others are static indicators.

[0079] Step 2: Construct an evaluation system based on the dynamic indicators obtained in step 1, specifically:

[0080] The above dynamic indicators are repeated in the seven categories. Therefore, after the indicators are classified, calculated and sorted out, according to the dam safety evaluation indicators and combined with the actual situation, the real-time evaluation indicator system of dam safety is divided into four modules, namely on-site inspection, monitoring and analysis, flood control capacity and numerical model analysis, as follows:

[0081] (1) On-site inspection mainly monitors the dynamic indicators that affect seepage safety, structural safety, and metal structure safety. The dynamic indicators take into account the number of cracks in the dam body, the water seepage in the dam body, and the corrosion of the metal structure. That is, the dynamic indicators of on-site inspection include water seepage, cracks, and corrosion.

[0082] (2) Monitoring and analysis is to analyze the existing monitoring facilities and monitoring data of the dam. The main dynamics are the seepage, displacement and stress of the dam. That is, the dynamic indicators of monitoring and analysis include seepage, displacement and stress.

[0083] (3) Flood control capacity mainly considers the impact of water level changes on the flood control capacity of the dam, that is, the dynamic indicators of flood control capacity include water level conditions.

[0084] (4) Numerical model analysis uses finite element calculation to review and predict the seepage safety and structural safety of the dam. The specific indicators are also the seepage volume, displacement, stress and stability coefficient obtained by numerical simulation calculation. For the scheme layer, the numerical model analysis includes stability, displacement and seepage, or the numerical model analysis includes stability, displacement and stress.

[0085] Therefore, the evaluation system described in this embodiment specifically includes: dam safety as the target layer (marked as A), on-site inspection, monitoring and analysis, flood control capacity and digital model analysis as the standard layer (marked as B), and the dynamic indicators corresponding to each target as the solution layer (marked as C), see Figure 2 , where: In the scheme layer: on-site inspection includes seepage (marked as C11), cracks (marked as C12) and corrosion (marked as C13); monitoring analysis includes seepage (marked as C21), displacement (marked as C22) and stress (marked as C23); flood control capacity includes water level (marked as C31); numerical model analysis includes stability (marked as C41), displacement (marked as C42) and seepage (marked as C43, for earth-rock dams), or numerical model analysis includes stability (marked as C41), displacement (marked as C42) and stress (marked as C44, for concrete dams).

[0086] Step 3: Based on the evaluation system obtained in step 2, a safety analysis of a concrete dam in Hunan Province is conducted, and the weight calculation of dynamic indicators is performed, including:

[0087] Step 3.1, obtain a comparison matrix formed by the combination of each dynamic indicator;

[0088] In this embodiment, the 9-scaling method is often used in construction, and the comparison matrix of the target layer and the marked layer is:

[0089]

[0090] The meaning of each scale in the comparison matrix is ​​shown in Table 3:

[0091] Table 3 Scale meaning

[0092] Scale meaning 1 <![CDATA[a i Than a j The importance level is 1]]> 2 <![CDATA[a i Than a j The importance level is 2]]> 3 <![CDATA[a i Than a j The importance level is 3]]> 4 <![CDATA[a i Than a j The importance level is 4]]> 5 <![CDATA[a i Than a j The importance level is 5]]> 6 <![CDATA[a i Than a j The importance level is 6]]> 7 <![CDATA[a i Than a j The importance level is 7]]> 8 <![CDATA[a i Than a j The importance level is 8]]> 9 <![CDATA[a i Than a j The importance level is 9]]>

[0093] In this embodiment, preferably, the first comparison matrix value is obtained by expert scoring, and the target layer AB comparison matrix of the standard layer is as follows:

[0094]

[0095] The comparison matrix of B1-C1, B2-C2, B3-C3, and B4-C4 layers is as follows:

[0096]

[0097] Step 3.2, normalize the comparison matrix, and then perform a summation matrix on it to obtain the weight vectors of different dynamic indicators. Note that according to the dam safety evaluation, when the dam leaks, it is unsafe. Therefore, when the C11 indicator leakage is leakage, the weight of C11 is 100%, and C12 and C13 are both 0. In addition, flood control safety mainly depends on the water level, that is, the weight of the flood water level is also 100%;

[0098] The matrix of the weighted result is tested for consistency, and the consistency index CI and random consistency index RI are introduced; the consistency ratio CR is used to describe the consistency of the matrix. When CR≤0.1, it indicates that the matrix meets the requirements, otherwise it does not meet the consistency requirements and a new comparison matrix needs to be constructed.

[0099] The calculation formula of consistency index CI is as follows:

[0100]

[0101] The calculation formula of random consistency index RI is as follows:

[0102]

[0103] Where: max is the maximum eigenvalue of the matrix, n is the matrix order, CI n is the consistency index of the n-th order matrix.

[0104] Step 3.3, adjust the comparison matrix according to the CR value. The adjustment order starts from the first element of the comparison matrix, and adopts the principle of decreasing the maximum value first, that is, start from the highest level 9 in terms of the expert scoring, and the corresponding,, remain unchanged. At the same time, the symmetric elements of the entire comparison matrix also undergo the opposite change, that is, level 1, to form a new comparison matrix, return to step 3.2, perform the second weight calculation, and consistency ratio test, and obtain a CR value; calculate the weights and CR values ​​of the comparison matrix at other levels in turn, a total of 8 other CR values; until the CR values ​​of all elements after adjustment are obtained;

[0105] Step 3.4: Compare all CR values ​​and take the weight with the minimum value as the final weight.

[0106] In this embodiment, the results obtained through weight calculation and consistency test are shown in Table 4:

[0107] Table 4 Index weight calculation and consistency test results

[0108] A B1 B2 B3 B4 CR ω 0.407 0.085 0.451 0.0587 0.079 B1 C11 C12 C13 CR ω 0.778 0.154 0.067 0.048 B2 C21 C22 C23 CR ω 0.738 0.167 0.094 0.007 B3 C31 CR ω 1 0 B4 C41 C42 C44 CR ω 0.808 0.117 0.073 0.049

[0109] Step 4: Evaluate dam safety based on the evaluation system in step 2 and the weights of dynamic indicators obtained in step 3. Details are as follows:

[0110] In the "Guidelines for Dam Safety Evaluation", the comprehensive safety evaluation of reservoir dams is divided into Class I dams, Class II dams, and Class III dams. The evaluation can only represent the status of the dam before that time, and cannot reflect the safety status during the subsequent service period. In this embodiment, dam safety is used as the target layer, and its evaluation level is divided into 4 categories, and the corresponding evaluation meanings are: low risk, medium risk, high risk, and extremely high risk. The percentage system is used to represent each comment interval, specifically: ① Extremely high risk (0, 60]; ② High risk (60, 70]; ③ Medium risk (70, 80]; ④ Low risk (80, 100].

[0111] In this embodiment, the on-site inspection evaluation level is divided into three categories, and the corresponding evaluation meanings are: unqualified, relatively qualified, and qualified. The percentage system is used to represent the evaluation intervals: unqualified (0, 60]; relatively qualified (60, 80]; qualified (80, 100];

[0112] The dynamic indicators are quantified as follows:

[0113] Water seepage: If there is no leakage, the score is 100, and the calculation weight remains unchanged; if there is leakage, the score is 0, and the calculation weight becomes 1;

[0114] Crack situation: no obvious cracks, score (80, 100]; few cracks, and surface cracks, score (60-80]; few cracks, with through cracks, score (0, 60];

[0115] Rust condition: No obvious rust, score is (80, 100]; There is a small amount of rust, score is (60-80]; There is a large area of ​​rust, score is (0, 60].

[0116] In this embodiment, the monitoring and analysis evaluation levels are divided into three categories, and the corresponding evaluation meanings are: unqualified, relatively qualified, and qualified. The percentage system is used to represent the evaluation intervals: unsafe (0, 60]; relatively safe (60, 80]; safe (80, 100];

[0117] The dynamic indicators are quantified as follows:

[0118] Seepage: If the measured value is less than the historical maximum value, the score is 100, and its calculation weight remains unchanged; if the measured value is greater than the historical maximum value, the score is 0, and its calculation weight becomes 1;

[0119] Displacement: If the measured value is less than the historical maximum value, the score is (80, 100]; if the measured value is within 50% of the historical maximum value, the score is (60-80]; if the measured value is more than 50% greater than the historical maximum value, the score is (0, 60];

[0120] Stress: If the measured value is less than the historical maximum value, the score is (80, 100]; if the measured value is within 50% of the historical maximum value, the score is (60-80]; if the measured value is more than 50% greater than the historical maximum value, the score is (0, 60].

[0121] In this embodiment, the flood control capacity evaluation level is divided into three categories, and the corresponding evaluation meanings are: unqualified, relatively qualified, and qualified. The flood control capacity considers the change of the current water level caused by different inflows, and compares it with the dam crest elevation to evaluate the flood control capacity of the dam. Figure 3 Reservoir capacity-water level relationship diagram.

[0122] The percentage system is used to express the range of each comment: unsafe (0, 60]; relatively safe (60, 80]; safe (80, 100];

[0123] The dynamic indicators are quantified as follows:

[0124] When the water level is less than or equal to the flood control high water level, the scoring interval is (80, 100];

[0125] When the water level is greater than the flood control high water level and less than or equal to the design flood level, the scoring range is (60, 80];

[0126] When the water level is greater than the design flood level and less than or equal to the verification flood level, the scoring range is (0, 60].

[0127] In this embodiment, the numerical model analysis evaluation level is divided into three categories, and the corresponding evaluation meanings are: unqualified, relatively qualified, and qualified. The percentage system is used to represent each comment interval: unsafe (0, 60]; relatively safe (60, 80]; safe (80, 100];

[0128] The dynamic indicators are quantified as follows:

[0129] Stability coefficient: if the concrete dam is greater than 4.0 and the earth-rock dam is greater than 1.5, the score is 100; if the concrete dam is less than 4.0 and the earth-rock dam is less than 1.5, the score is 0;

[0130] Displacement: The scoring interval for concrete displacement greater than 15 cm is (0, 60], the scoring interval for displacement less than 15 cm and greater than 5 cm is (60, 80], and the scoring interval for displacement less than 5 cm is (80, 100];

[0131] Seepage coefficient: earth-rock dam is less than 10 -6 , the score is 100; earth-rock dam is greater than 10 -6 , with a score of 0.

[0132] With reference to the "Guidelines for Dam Safety Assessment", on-site inspection results, real-time monitoring results, and numerical simulation calculation results, the standard layer indicators for real-time safety assessment of the dam were quantified, and the specific situation is shown in Table 5:

[0133] Table 5 Standard layer index scores

[0134]

[0135] According to the fuzzy theory, the comments of each standard layer are qualified, safe, safe, and safe. Similarly, the comprehensive score of the real-time safety status of the dam can be obtained by calculating the weights and scores of the target layer indicators, as shown in Table 6. It can be seen that the comprehensive score of the real-time safety of the dam is 90.19. According to the comment criteria, the dam is at low risk.

[0136] Table 6 Scores of target layer indicators

[0137]

[0138] The present invention also discloses a computer-readable storage medium on which a computer program is stored. When the computer program is executed by a processor, the above-mentioned method for safety assessment of small and medium-sized reservoir dams is implemented.

[0139] The present invention also discloses an electronic device, comprising: a processor; and a memory for storing executable instructions of the processor; wherein the processor is configured to execute the above-mentioned small and medium-sized reservoir dam safety assessment method by executing the executable instructions.

[0140] By applying the technical solution of this embodiment, real-time evaluation indicators of dam safety (i.e., dynamic indicators) are extracted through an indicator classification model. Combined with the improved hierarchical analysis method and fuzzy scoring method (especially seepage conditions, seepage, seepage coefficient, etc.), accurate evaluation of the real-time status of dam safety can be achieved, and the evaluated dam safety status can be updated in real time and dynamically, providing real-time information for the safety management of dams in extreme climates and environments in the later stage, so that managers can make timely and accurate decisions when the dam encounters risks.

[0141] The above description is only a preferred embodiment of the present invention and is not intended to limit the present invention. For those skilled in the art, the present invention may have various modifications and variations. Any modification, equivalent replacement, improvement, etc. made within the spirit and principle of the present invention shall be included in the protection scope of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for safety assessment of small and medium-sized reservoir dams, characterized in that: The following steps are involved: Step 1: Obtain dynamic indicators for dam safety evaluation based on the indicator classification function; the indicator classification function expression is as follows: Where: Y represents the performance change rate of the dynamic indicator after time t, X(t) is the performance of the dynamic indicator at time t, and X′ is the initial performance of the dynamic indicator during the calculation period; The dynamic indicators include at least one of water seepage, cracks, corrosion, seepage, displacement, stress, water level and stability; Step 2: construct an evaluation system based on the dynamic indicators obtained in step 1. The evaluation system specifically includes: dam safety as the target layer, four modules of on-site inspection, monitoring and analysis, flood control capacity and numerical model analysis as the standard layer, and the corresponding dynamic indicators in each standard layer as the solution layer; Step 3: Calculate the weight of dynamic indicators based on the evaluation system obtained in step 2, including: Step 3.1, obtain a comparison matrix formed by the combination of each dynamic indicator; Step 3.2: Normalize the comparison matrix, and then perform a sum matrix on it to obtain the weight vectors of different dynamic indicators; perform a consistency test on the matrix of the weight result, introduce the consistency index CI and the random consistency index RI; use the consistency ratio CR to describe the consistency of the matrix, Step 3.3, adjust the comparison matrix according to the CR value. The adjustment order starts from the first element of the comparison matrix, and the maximum value is reduced first. At the same time, the symmetric elements of the entire comparison matrix also undergo opposite changes to form a new comparison matrix, and return to step 3.2; until the adjusted CR values ​​of all elements are obtained; Step 3.4: Compare all CR values ​​and take the weight with the minimum value as the final weight; Step 4: Evaluate the dam safety based on the evaluation system of step 2 and the weights of the dynamic indicators obtained in step 3.

2. The method for safety assessment of small and medium-sized reservoir dams according to claim 1 is characterized in that: In the scheme layer: on-site inspection includes water seepage, cracks and corrosion; monitoring and analysis includes seepage, displacement and stress; flood control capacity includes water level; digital model analysis includes stability, displacement and seepage, or digital model analysis includes stability, displacement and stress.

3. The method for safety assessment of small and medium-sized reservoir dams according to claim 2 is characterized in that: The calculation formula of consistency index CI is as follows: The calculation formula of random consistency index RI is as follows: Where: max is the maximum eigenvalue of the matrix, n is the matrix order, CI n is the consistency index of the n-th order matrix.

4. The method for safety assessment of small and medium-sized reservoir dams according to any one of claims 2 to 3, characterized in that: The on-site inspection is divided into three evaluation ranges: unqualified (0, 60]; relatively qualified (60, 80]; qualified (80, 100]; The dynamic indicators are quantified as follows: Water seepage: If there is no leakage, the score is 100; if there is leakage, the score is 0; Crack situation: no obvious cracks, score (80, 100]; few cracks, and surface cracks, score (60, 80]; few cracks, with through cracks, score (0, 60]; Rust condition: No obvious rust, score is (80, 100]; There is a small amount of rust, score is (60, 80]; There is a large area of ​​rust, score is (0, 60].

5. The method for safety assessment of small and medium-sized reservoir dams according to any one of claims 2 to 3, characterized in that: The monitoring analysis is divided into three comment intervals: unsafe (0, 60]; relatively safe (60, 80]; safe (80, 100]; The dynamic indicators are quantified as follows: Seepage: If the measured value is less than the historical maximum value, the score is 100; if the measured value is greater than the historical maximum value, the score is 0; Displacement: If the measured value is less than the historical maximum value, the score is (80, 100]; if the measured value is within 50% of the historical maximum value, the score is (60-80]; if the measured value is more than 50% greater than the historical maximum value, the score is (0, 60]; Stress: If the measured value is less than the historical maximum value, the score is (80, 100]; if the measured value is within 50% of the historical maximum value, the score is (60-80]; if the measured value is more than 50% greater than the historical maximum value, the score is (0, 60].

6. The method for safety assessment of small and medium-sized reservoir dams according to any one of claims 2 to 3, characterized in that: The flood control capacity is divided into three evaluation intervals: unsafe (0, 60]; relatively safe (60, 80]; safe (80, 100]; Water level: When the water level is less than or equal to the flood control high water level, the scoring interval is (80, 100]; When the water level is greater than the flood control high water level and less than or equal to the design flood level, the scoring range is (60, 80]; When the water level is greater than the design flood level and less than or equal to the verification flood level, the scoring range is (0, 60].

7. The method for safety assessment of small and medium-sized reservoir dams according to any one of claims 2 to 3, characterized in that: The numerical model analysis is divided into three comment intervals: unsafe (0, 60]; relatively safe (60, 80]; safe (80, 100]; For earth-rock dams, the dynamic indicators are quantified as follows: Stability coefficient: if the concrete dam is greater than 4.0 and the earth-rock dam is greater than 1.5, the score is 100; if the concrete dam is less than 4.0 and the earth-rock dam is less than 1.5, the score is 0; Displacement: The scoring interval for concrete displacement greater than 15 cm is (0, 60], the scoring interval for displacement less than 15 cm and greater than 5 cm is (60, 80], and the scoring interval for displacement less than 5 cm is (80, 100]; Seepage coefficient: earth-rock dam is less than 10 -6 , the score is 100; earth-rock dam is greater than 10 -6 , the score is 0; For concrete dams, the dynamic indicators are quantified as follows: Stability coefficient: if the concrete dam is greater than 4.0 and the earth-rock dam is greater than 1.5, the score is 100; if the concrete dam is less than 4.0 and the earth-rock dam is less than 1.5, the score is 0; Displacement: The scoring interval for concrete displacement greater than 15 cm is (0, 60], the scoring interval for displacement less than 15 cm and greater than 5 cm is (60, 80], and the scoring interval for displacement less than 5 cm is (80, 100]; Stress: For concrete dams with stress less than 1.2MPa, the score is 60-100; for concrete dams with stress greater than 1.2MPa, the score is 0.

8. The method for safety assessment of small and medium-sized reservoir dams according to claim 1 is characterized in that: Dam safety is divided into four ranges: ① extremely high risk (0, 60]; ② high risk (60, 70]; ③ medium risk (70, 80]; ④ low risk (80, 100]).

9. A computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, characterized in that: When the computer program is executed by a processor, the method for safety assessment of small and medium-sized reservoir dams as described in any one of claims 1 to 8 is implemented.

10. An electronic device, characterized in that: include: processor; and a memory for storing executable instructions for the processor; Wherein, the processor is configured to execute the small and medium-sized reservoir dam safety assessment method as described in any one of claims 1-8 by executing the executable instructions.

Images