A small and medium-sized reservoir dam safety evaluation method, a computer readable storage medium and an electronic device

Abstract

The present application 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 an electronic device. The small and medium-sized reservoir dam safety evaluation method specifically comprises the following steps: first, obtaining dynamic indexes for dam safety evaluation based on an index classification function; then, constructing an evaluation system based on the obtained dynamic indexes; next, calculating the weight of the dynamic indexes by using an improved analytic hierarchy process; finally, evaluating the dam safety by using an improved fuzzy analysis method in combination with the evaluation system and the weight of the dynamic indexes, so as to realize accurate evaluation of the real-time state of the dam safety, update the dam safety state in real time after evaluation, provide real-time information for the safety management of the dam under extreme climate and environment in the later period, and enable the manager to make timely and accurate decisions when the dam encounters risks.

Description

TECHNICAL FIELD

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

[0002] Reservoir dams are an important part of water conservancy projects and play an important role in protecting regional safety and developing urban economies. Therefore, their safety has always been a concern, and how to evaluate the real-time safety status of reservoir dams has become a difficult problem for water management personnel to solve. Currently, the evaluation of the safety status of dams is mostly based on the "Guidelines for Safety Evaluation of Reservoir Dams", and the evaluation period is generally 5-10 years. In particular, small and medium-sized reservoirs, due to technical and economic backwardness, have a longer evaluation period. During this period, the dam safety status cannot be known due to 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, other methods or means are needed to obtain the safety status of the dam, such as the paper "Small Earth-Rock Dam Safety Evaluation Based on AHP" (Water Power and New Energy, 2023, 37(08): 50-53) published by Liu Zhenyi et al., which successfully calculates the weight of each index of small earth-rock dam safety evaluation using the AHP method; the paper "Small Reservoir Earth-Rock Dam Safety Evaluation Based on AHP and Fuzzy Theory" (Journal of Water Resources and Water Engineering, 2023, 34(04): 167-174) published by Zhou Haiyi et al., which obtains the weight of the safety evaluation index of small reservoir earth-rock dams through the AHP method, and combines the fuzzy theory to obtain the membership value of each index in the evaluation system, and finally determines the comprehensive evaluation result of the dam safety. Although the above methods can calculate the safety status of the dam, there are still the following defects: (1) The safety evaluation indexes of the existing technology are mostly evaluated according to the index system of "Guidelines for Safety Evaluation of Dams", which has many complex indexes, including dynamic indexes that change greatly over time and static indexes that do not change significantly over time. The classification evaluation of these indexes has the disadvantages of repeated evaluation and heavy workload when evaluating the safety of small and medium-sized reservoir dams, and cannot accurately evaluate the real-time state of the project safety, making it difficult to meet the requirements of modern management matrix for the four full and four prediction of reservoir dam safety; (2) The existing evaluation methods are mostly based on the AHP method, and the comparison matrix is mostly constructed by expert scoring. The importance of the same index scored by experts has subjective differences, which may lead to uneven distribution of index weight; (3) When setting the dam safety membership threshold, the actual situation is not considered, such as when the dam leaks, the dam safety is considered as a dangerous situation, and at this time the index weight has a veto power.

[0003] In summary, there is an urgent need for a new small and medium-sized dam safety evaluation method to solve the problems in the existing technology. SUMMARY

[0004] The application aims to provide a small and medium-sized reservoir dam safety evaluation method, which obtains dynamic indexes for dam safety evaluation based on an index classification function, constructs an evaluation system based on the obtained dynamic indexes, then calculates the weight of the dynamic indexes by using an improved analytic hierarchy process, and finally evaluates the dam safety by using an improved fuzzy analysis method combined with the evaluation system and the weight of the dynamic indexes, so as to realize accurate and efficient evaluation of the dam safety. The specific technical scheme is as follows.

[0005] A small and medium-sized reservoir dam safety evaluation method, comprising the following steps:

[0006] Step one, obtaining dynamic indexes for dam safety evaluation based on an index classification function; the index classification function expression is as follows:

[0007]

[0008] Wherein Y represents the performance change rate of the dynamic index after time t, X(t) is the performance of the dynamic index at time t, and X' is the initial performance of the dynamic index in the calculation time period.

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

[0010] Step two, constructing an evaluation system based on the dynamic indexes obtained in step one, wherein the evaluation system specifically comprises: the dam safety as a target layer, four modules of field inspection, monitoring analysis, flood control capacity and numerical simulation analysis as standard layers, and corresponding dynamic indexes in each standard layer as scheme layers.

[0011] Step three, calculating the weight of the dynamic indexes based on the evaluation system obtained in step two, specifically comprising:

[0012] Step 3.1, obtaining a comparison matrix formed by combining each dynamic index.

[0013] Step 3.2, normalizing the comparison matrix, then summing the matrix to obtain the weight vector of different dynamic indexes; performing consistency test on the weight result matrix, introducing consistency index CI and random consistency index RI; using consistency ratio CR to describe the consistency of the matrix,

[0014] Step 3.3, adjusting the comparison matrix according to the CR value, and the adjustment order is from the first element of the comparison matrix, using the principle of decreasing maximum value first, and at the same time, the symmetric elements of the whole comparison matrix also change in the opposite direction, forming a new comparison matrix, returning to step 3.2; until the CR value of all elements after adjustment is obtained.

[0015] Step 3.4, compare all CR values, take the weight of the minimum value as the minimum weight;

[0016] Step four, based on the evaluation system of step two and the weight of the dynamic index obtained in step three, evaluate the dam safety.

[0017] Preferably, in the scheme layer: the on-site inspection includes water seepage, crack situation and corrosion situation; the monitoring analysis includes seepage, displacement and stress; the flood control capacity includes water level situation; the numerical simulation analysis includes stability, displacement and seepage, or the numerical simulation 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 the random consistency index RI is as follows:

[0021]

[0022] Wherein: λ max is the maximum eigenvalue of the matrix, n is the order of the matrix, CI n is the consistency index of the nth order matrix.

[0023] Preferably, for on-site inspection, three evaluation interval are divided: unqualified (0, 60]; more qualified (60, 80]; qualified (80, 100];

[0024] The dynamic index is quantified as follows:

[0025] Water seepage: no seepage, score 100; seepage, score 0;

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

[0027] Corrosion situation: no obvious corrosion, score (80, 100]; a small part of corrosion, score (60-80]; large area of corrosion, score (0, 60].

[0028] Preferably, for monitoring analysis, three evaluation interval are divided: unsafe (0, 60]; more safe (60, 80]; safe (80, 100];

[0029] The dynamic index is quantified as follows:

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

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

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

[0033] Preferably, for flood control capacity, three comment intervals are divided: 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 score 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 score interval is (60, 80];

[0037] When the water level is greater than the design flood level and less than or equal to the check flood level, the score interval is (0, 60].

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

[0039] For earth and rockfill dams, each dynamic index is quantified as follows:

[0040] Stability coefficient: for concrete dams greater than 4.0, and for earth and rockfill dams greater than 1.5, the score is 100; for concrete dams less than 4.0, and for earth and rockfill dams less than 1.5, the score is 0;

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

[0042] Seepage coefficient: for earth and rockfill dams less than 10 -6 , the score is 100; for earth and rockfill dams greater than 10 -6 , the score is 0;

[0043] For concrete dams, each dynamic index is quantified as follows:

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

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

[0046] Stress: less than 1.2MPa for concrete dam, score is 60-100; greater than 1.2MPa, score is 0.

[0047] Preferably, the 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 present application has the following advantages:

[0049] The present application discloses a kind of small and medium-sized reservoir dam safety evaluation method, computer readable storage medium and electronic equipment, first based on index classification function to dam safety evaluation index is classified, based on the dynamic index obtained to build evaluation system, greatly simplify dam safety evaluation index system, make it more adapt to small and medium-sized reservoir safety management use;Then improved analytic hierarchy process is used to carry out index weight calculation, reduce the subjective difference of expert on index importance score, improve the precision of dam safety real-time state evaluation;Improved fuzzy analysis method is used in combination with the weight of evaluation system and dynamic index to evaluate dam safety, the importance of dam leakage index is considered, more directly reflect the real-time safety state of dam;Dam safety state after the above technical evaluation is updated in real time dynamically, provides real-time information for dam safety management under extreme climate and environment in later period, so that manager makes timely and accurate decision when dam encounters risk.

[0050] The present application also discloses a kind of computer readable storage medium, which is stored with computer program, the computer program is executed by processor to realize the above-mentioned small and medium-sized reservoir dam safety evaluation method.

[0051] The present application also discloses a kind of electronic equipment, comprising: processor;And memory, for storing the executable instruction of the processor;Wherein, the processor is configured to be executed via the executable instruction to carry out as above-mentioned small and medium-sized reservoir dam safety evaluation method.

[0052] In addition to the purposes, features and advantages described above, the present application has other purposes, features and advantages. The present application will be further described in detail below with reference to the drawings. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

[0053] The accompanying drawings, which form a part of this application, are included to provide a further understanding of the application, illustrate the preferred embodiments of the application and assist in

[0054] Figure 1 is a flowchart of a small and medium-sized reservoir dam safety evaluation method of an embodiment of the application;

[0055] Figure 2 is a general framework diagram of the evaluation system in the embodiment of the application;

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

[0057] The embodiments of the application are described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings, but the application can be implemented in various different ways within the scope defined by the claims.

[0058] Embodiment:

[0059] Referring to Figure 1 A small and medium-sized reservoir dam safety evaluation method includes the following steps:

[0060] Step one, obtaining a dynamic index for dam safety evaluation based on an index classification function; the index classification function expression is as follows:

[0061]

[0062] Wherein: Y represents the performance change rate of the dynamic index after time t, X(t) is the performance of the dynamic index at time t, and X' is the initial performance of the dynamic index in the calculation period.

[0063] In the embodiment: according to the above formula, the result has three categories:

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

[0065] When Y>0%, it means that the performance of the calculated index has been strong in the calculation period.

[0066] When Y<0%, it means that the performance of the calculated index has deteriorated in the calculation period.

[0067] Select the index classification calculation period: in the relevant provisions of the reservoir dam safety management, there is no direct and clear fixed period for dam safety evaluation. Therefore, taking the minimum unit of dam evaluation period for calculation, taking years as the unit, and taking the data of a certain year of dam monitoring history data for calculation.

[0068] According to the dam safety evaluation guide, a total of 60 calculation indexes. As follows Table 1.

[0069] Table 1 Evaluation index statistics

[0070]

[0071]

[0072]

[0073] The results of the mean of the results of the classification calculation of the 20 representative large and medium-sized reservoirs in Hunan Province are used as the basis for analysis of the classification calculation results of the dam. The results are shown in Table 2.

[0074] Table 2 Evaluation index

[0075]

[0076]

[0077]

[0078] According to the calculation results, in the history of 1 year, the main changes are seepage, cracks, corrosion, seepage, displacement, stress, water level and stability. These indexes are defined as dynamic indexes, and the others are static indexes.

[0079] Step two, based on the dynamic indexes obtained in step one, the evaluation system is constructed, which is:

[0080] The above dynamic indexes exist in seven categories. Therefore, after classification and sorting, according to the dam safety evaluation index, combined with the actual situation, the real-time evaluation index system of dam safety is divided into four modules, which are field inspection, monitoring analysis, flood control capacity and numerical simulation analysis, as follows:

[0081] (1) Field inspection is mainly to monitor the dynamic indexes that affect seepage safety, structural safety and metal structure safety. The dynamic indexes consider the number of cracks in the dam body, the seepage condition of the dam body and the corrosion condition of the metal structure, that is, the dynamic indexes of field inspection include seepage condition, crack condition and corrosion condition.

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

[0083] (3) Flood control capacity mainly considers the influence of water level change on the flood control capacity of the dam, that is, the dynamic indexes of flood control capacity include water level condition.

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

[0085] Therefore, the evaluation system in the embodiment specifically includes: the dam safety as a target layer (labeled as A), four modules of field inspection, monitoring analysis, flood control capacity and numerical simulation analysis as standard layers (labeled as B), and dynamic indicators corresponding to each target as a scheme layer (labeled as C), which is shown in detail in Figure 2 In the scheme layer, the field inspection includes seepage condition (labeled as C11), crack condition (labeled as C12) and corrosion condition (labeled as C13); the monitoring analysis includes seepage (labeled as C21), displacement (labeled as C22) and stress (labeled as C23); the flood control capacity includes water level condition (labeled as C31); and the numerical simulation analysis includes stability (labeled as C41), displacement (labeled as C42) and seepage (labeled as C43 for earth and rockfill dams), or the numerical simulation analysis includes stability (labeled as C41), displacement (labeled as C42) and stress (labeled as C44 for concrete dams).

[0086] Step three, based on the evaluation system obtained in step two, a safety analysis is performed on a concrete dam in Hunan Province, and the weight calculation of the dynamic indicators is performed, which specifically includes:

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

[0088] In the embodiment, the 9-scale method is commonly used for construction, and the comparison matrix of the target layer to the standard layer is as follows:

[0089]

[0090] The meanings of each scale in the comparison matrix are shown in Table 3:

[0091] Table 3 Scale meaning

[0092] Scale Meaning 1 [a i Ratio a j Importance level 1 2 [a i Ratio a j Importance level 2 3 [a i Ratio a j Importance level 3 4 [a i Ratio a j Importance level 4 5 [a i Ratio a j Importance 5 6 [a i Ratio a j Importance 6 7 [a i Ratio a j Importance 7 8 [a i Ratio a j Importance 8th level 9 [a i a j 9

[0093] In the embodiment, the first comparison matrix is obtained by expert scoring, and the comparison matrix of the target layer to the standard layer A-B 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 sum the matrix to obtain the weight vector of different dynamic indicators. Note that according to the dam safety evaluation, when the dam leaks, it is unsafe, so when the C11 index leaks, the C11 weight is 100%, C12 and C13 are both 0, and the flood control safety is mainly determined by the water level, that is, the weight of the flood water level is also 100%;

[0098] The matrix of the weight result is subjected to consistency test, and 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 needs to be rebuilt.

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

[0100]

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

[0102]

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

[0104] Step 3.3, adjust the comparison matrix according to the CR value, the adjustment order is the first element of the comparison matrix, and the maximum value is decreased first, that is, the highest level 9 is adjusted in the degree of expert scoring, and the corresponding,, and remain unchanged, at the same time, the symmetric elements of the whole comparison matrix also change in the opposite direction, that is, level 1, forming a new comparison matrix, returning to step 3.2 for the second weight calculation and consistency ratio test to obtain a CR value; the weight and CR value of the comparison matrix are calculated in other degrees, and a total of 8 other CR values are obtained; until all the CR values of the adjusted elements are obtained.

[0105] Step 3.4, compare all CR values, and take the weight of the minimum value as the final weight.

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

[0107] Table 4 Weight calculation and consistency test results of indicators

[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 four, based on the evaluation system of step two and the weight of the dynamic indicators obtained in step three, the dam safety is evaluated, the details are as follows:

[0110] In the "Guidelines for Dam Safety Evaluation", the comprehensive evaluation of reservoir dam safety is divided into Class I dam, Class II dam and Class III dam. The evaluation can only represent the state of the dam before this time, and cannot reflect the safety state in the subsequent service period. In this embodiment, the dam safety is taken as the target layer, and the evaluation grades are divided into four categories, and the corresponding evaluation meanings are respectively: low risk, medium risk, high risk and extremely high risk. The percentage system is used to represent each evaluation interval, which is: 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 evaluation grades of on-site inspection are divided into three categories, and the corresponding evaluation meanings are respectively: unqualified, relatively qualified and qualified. The percentage system is used to represent each evaluation interval: unqualified (0, 60]; relatively qualified (60, 80]; qualified (80, 100];

[0112] Each dynamic indicator is quantified as follows:

[0113] Seepage condition: no seepage, score 100, and the calculation weight remains unchanged; seepage, score 0, and the calculation weight becomes 1;

[0114] Crack condition: no obvious surface crack, score (80, 100]; less crack, and surface crack, score (60-80]; less crack, and through crack, score (0, 60];

[0115] Corrosion condition: no obvious corrosion, score (80, 100]; a small part of corrosion, score (60-80]; large area of corrosion, score (0, 60].

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

[0117] Each dynamic indicator is quantified as follows:

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

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

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

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

[0122] Adopt percentage system to express each comment interval: unsafe (0, 60]; relatively safe (60, 80]; safe (80, 100];

[0123] Each dynamic index is quantified as follows:

[0124] When the water level is less than or equal to the flood control high water level, the score 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 score interval is (60, 80];

[0126] When the water level is greater than the design flood level and less than or equal to the check flood level, the score interval is (0, 60].

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

[0128] Each dynamic index is quantified as follows:

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

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

[0131] Seepage coefficient: less than 10 -6 for earth-rock dam, score 100; greater than 10 -6 for earth-rock dam, score 0.

[0132] Referring to the Dam Safety Evaluation Guidelines, the on-site inspection results, the real-time monitoring results, and the numerical simulation calculation results, the standard layer index of the Huaisang Dam safety real-time evaluation standard is quantified, and the specific conditions are shown in Table 5.

[0133] Table 5 Standard layer index score

[0134]

[0135] According to the fuzzy theory, the evaluation of each standard layer is qualified, safe, safe, and safe. Similarly, the target layer index weight and score are calculated to obtain the comprehensive score of the dam safety real-time state, and the specific conditions are shown in Table 6. It can be seen that the dam real-time safety comprehensive score is 90.19, and according to the evaluation criterion, the dam is low risk.

[0136] Table 6 Target layer index score

[0137]

[0138] The application further discloses a computer readable storage medium, which has a computer program stored thereon, and the computer program is executed by a processor to realize the small and medium-sized reservoir dam safety evaluation method.

[0139] The application further discloses an electronic device, which comprises a processor and a memory for storing executable instructions of the processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute the small and medium-sized reservoir dam safety evaluation method by executing the executable instructions.

[0140] By using the technical scheme of the embodiment, the dam safety real-time evaluation index (i.e., the dynamic index) is extracted through the index classification model, and the improved analytic hierarchy process and the fuzzy scoring method (especially the water seepage condition, the seepage, and the seepage coefficient) are combined, so that the real-time state of the dam safety can be accurately evaluated, the dam safety state after the evaluation can be updated in real time, real-time information for the safety management of the dam under extreme climate and environment in the later period is provided, and the manager cannot make timely and accurate decisions when the dam encounters risks.

[0141] The above only describes the preferred embodiments of the application and is not used to limit the application. For those skilled in the art, the application can have various changes and modifications. Any modification, equivalent replacement, improvement, etc. made within the spirit and principle of the application shall be included in the protection scope of the application.

Claims

1. A method for safety evaluation of small and medium-sized reservoir dams, characterized in that, The method comprises the following steps: Step one, obtaining dynamic indexes for dam safety evaluation based on an index classification function; the index classification function is expressed as follows: Wherein: Y represents the performance change rate of the dynamic index after time t, X(t) is the performance of the dynamic index at time t, and X' is the initial performance of the dynamic index in the calculation time period; The dynamic indexes include at least one of seepage, crack, corrosion, seepage flow, displacement, stress, water level and stability; Step two, constructing an evaluation system based on the dynamic indexes obtained in step one, wherein the evaluation system specifically comprises: the dam safety as a target layer, four modules of field inspection, monitoring analysis, flood control capacity and numerical simulation analysis as standard layers, and corresponding dynamic indexes in each standard layer as scheme layers; Step three, calculating the weight of the dynamic indexes based on the evaluation system obtained in step two, specifically comprising: Step 3.1, obtaining a comparison matrix formed by combinations of the dynamic indexes; Step 3.2, the comparison matrix is normalized, and then summed to obtain the weight vector of different dynamic indicators; the matrix of the weight result is subjected to consistency test, and consistency index CI and random consistency index RI are introduced; the consistency ratio CR is used to describe the consistency of the matrix, Step 3.3, adjusting the comparison matrix according to the size of the CR value, and the adjustment order is from the first element of the comparison matrix, and the maximum value is decreased first, and meanwhile, the symmetric elements of the whole comparison matrix also change in the opposite direction to form a new comparison matrix, and returning to step 3.2; until the CR values of all elements after adjustment are obtained; Step 3.4, comparing all CR values, and taking the weight when the minimum value is obtained as the final weight; Step four, evaluating the dam safety based on the evaluation system in step two and the weight of the dynamic indexes obtained in step three.

2. The method according to claim 1, wherein In the scheme layer: the field inspection includes seepage condition, crack condition and corrosion condition; the monitoring analysis includes seepage flow, displacement and stress; the flood control capacity includes water level condition; and the numerical simulation analysis includes stability, displacement and seepage flow, or the numerical simulation analysis includes stability, displacement and stress.

3. The method according to claim 2, wherein The calculation formula of the consistency index CI is as follows: The calculation formula of the random consistency index RI is as follows: where: λ max is the largest eigenvalue of the matrix, n is the order of the matrix, CI n is the n-th order matrix consistency index.

4. The method according to any one of claims 2-3, wherein, For field inspection, three evaluation interval are divided: unqualified (0, 60]; relatively qualified (60, 80]; and qualified (80, 100]; The dynamic indexes are quantified as follows: Seepage condition: no seepage, score 100; seepage, score 0; Crack condition: no obvious surface crack, score (80, 100]; less crack, and surface crack, score (60, 80]; and less crack, with through crack, score (0, 60]; Corrosion condition: no obvious corrosion, score (80, 100]; a small amount of corrosion, score (60, 80]; and large area of corrosion, score (0, 60].

5. The method according to any one of claims 2-3, wherein, For monitoring analysis, three evaluation intervals are divided: unsafe (0, 60]; relatively safe (60, 80]; and safe (80, 100]; The dynamic indexes are quantified as follows: Seepage flow: the measured value is less than the historical maximum value, score 100; the measured value is greater than the historical maximum value, score 0; Displacement: the measured value is less than the historical maximum value, score (80, 100]; the measured value is greater than the historical maximum value within 50%, score (60-80]; and the measured value is greater than the historical maximum value by more than 50%, score (0, 60]. Stress: the measured value is less than the historical maximum value, the score is (80, 100]; the measured value is greater than the historical maximum value within 50%, the score is (60-80]; the measured value is greater than the historical maximum value by more than 50%, the score is (0, 60].

6. The method according to any one of claims 2-3, wherein The flood control capacity is divided into three evaluation intervals: unsafe (0, 60]; safer (60, 80]; safe (80, 100]; Water level: When the water level is less than or equal to the flood control high water level, the score 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 score interval is (60, 80]; When the water level is greater than the design flood level and less than or equal to the check flood level, the score interval is (0, 60].

7. The method according to any one of claims 2-3, wherein The numerical model analysis is divided into three evaluation intervals: unsafe (0, 60]; safer (60, 80]; safe (80, 100]; For earth and rockfill dams, each dynamic indicator is quantified as follows: Stability coefficient: greater than 4.0 for concrete dams and greater than 1.5 for earth and rockfill dams, score 100; less than 4.0 for concrete dams and less than 1.5 for earth and rockfill dams, score 0; Displacement: greater than 15 cm for concrete displacement, score interval (0, 60]; less than 15 cm and greater than 5 cm, score interval (60, 80]; less than 5 cm, score interval (80, 100]; Permeability coefficient: less than 10 for earth-rock dams -6 , score 100; more than 10 for earth-rock dams -6 , score 0; For concrete dams, each dynamic indicator is quantified as follows: Stability coefficient: greater than 4.0 for concrete dams and greater than 1.5 for earth and rockfill dams, score 100; less than 4.0 for concrete dams and less than 1.5 for earth and rockfill dams, score 0; Displacement: greater than 15 cm for concrete displacement, score interval (0, 60]; less than 15 cm and greater than 5 cm, score interval (60, 80]; less than 5 cm, score interval (80, 100]; Stress: less than 1.2 MPa for concrete dams, score 60-100; greater than 1.2 MPa for concrete dams, score 0.

8. The method according to claim 1, wherein 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].

9. A computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program, characterized in that, The computer program is executed by a processor to implement the small and medium-sized reservoir dam safety evaluation method of any one of claims 1-8.

10. An electronic device, comprising: It includes: a processor; and a memory for storing executable instructions of the processor; wherein the processor is configured to execute the executable instructions to perform the small and medium-sized reservoir dam safety evaluation method of any one of claims 1-8.

Images