Health diagnosis and safety evaluation method for offshore floating photovoltaic support structure

Abstract

The invention discloses a health diagnosis and safety evaluation method for an offshore floating type photovoltaic support structure. The method comprises the following steps: determining a failure mode of the floating type photovoltaic support structure; establishing a safety evaluation multi-level index system of the floating type photovoltaic support structure; scoring each evaluation index by experts, and performing consistency check on scoring results of each expert; carrying out credibility evaluation and acceptance on expert scoring results passing the consistency check respectively; determining a weight value vector of a second-level index layer corresponding to the reserved scoring result of each expert, and averaging to obtain a comprehensive weight value vector of the whole safety evaluation multi-level hierarchical index system; and according to the field real-time monitoring value vector and the comprehensive weight value vector of each evaluation index of the secondary index layer, calculating a safety evaluation value of the floating type photovoltaic support structure, and determining a final evaluation result of the floating type photovoltaic support structure. The influence of subjective factors in the evaluation process can be reduced, and long-term stable operation of the floating type photovoltaic power generation project is ensured.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the field of floating photovoltaic engineering technology, and more specifically, to a health diagnosis and safety assessment method for an offshore floating photovoltaic support structure. Background Art

[0002] Floating photovoltaic projects are one of the key technical means for my country to achieve the goals of "carbon peak and carbon neutrality" and realize green development. They have been widely used in recent years due to their advantages of not occupying land resources, high power generation efficiency, and protecting water resources. However, the sea environment where floating photovoltaic projects are located is extremely complex, and operation and maintenance are very difficult. Most of the load is shared by the supporting structure. If an accident occurs to the supporting structure during operation, it will cause serious economic losses. Therefore, establishing a reasonable support structure safety assessment and health diagnosis system to ensure the long-term and stable operation of the floating photovoltaic power generation system has become an important issue faced by the production process of floating photovoltaic engineering construction projects.

[0003] From the perspective of the current traditional engineering structure safety evaluation system, the use of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to divide the evaluation system is the top priority of the evaluation process. Whether it is the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method or other methods, subjective factors will have a greater impact on the evaluation results, seriously restricting the objectivity of the evaluation process and the reliability of the evaluation results; and the evaluation results obtained do not pay enough attention to the credibility of their evaluation results, so the necessity of a series of engineering management response measures based on this evaluation result also needs to be studied. Summary of the invention

[0004] The purpose of the present invention is to overcome the deficiencies in the prior art and propose a health diagnosis and safety assessment method for an offshore floating photovoltaic support structure. The method can effectively solve the above-mentioned problems, make the evaluation level indicators more reasonable, reduce the influence of subjective factors in the evaluation process, and ensure the long-term, complete and stable operation of the floating photovoltaic power generation project.

[0005] The objectives of the present invention are achieved through the following technical solutions.

[0006] The health diagnosis and safety assessment method of the offshore floating photovoltaic support structure of the present invention comprises the following steps:

[0007] S1: Determine the failure mode of the floating photovoltaic support structure: motion response failure mode, dynamic response failure mode or force response failure mode;

[0008] S2: establishing a multi-level hierarchical indicator system for safety evaluation of the floating photovoltaic support structure according to the failure mode determined in step S1, comprising at least a primary indicator layer and a secondary indicator layer, wherein the primary indicator layer comprises a primary sub-evaluation indicator system, and the secondary indicator layer comprises three secondary sub-evaluation indicator systems;

[0009] S3: p experts score each evaluation indicator in the multi-level hierarchical indicator system of safety evaluation in step S2 according to the nine-level scaling method, and perform consistency check on the scoring results of each expert. If the consistency check is passed, the scoring result of the expert is valid, otherwise the scoring result of the expert is invalid;

[0010] S4: Conduct credibility evaluation on the expert scoring results that pass the consistency test in step S3, and select and reject the expert scoring results according to the credibility evaluation results;

[0011] S5: Determine the weight value vector of the secondary indicator layer corresponding to each expert scoring result retained in step S4, and take the average value to obtain the comprehensive weight value vector of the entire safety evaluation multi-level hierarchical indicator system;

[0012] S6: Calculate the safety evaluation value of the floating photovoltaic support structure based on the on-site real-time monitoring value vector of each evaluation indicator in the secondary indicator layer and the comprehensive weight value vector of step S5, and determine the final evaluation result of the floating photovoltaic support structure based on the safety evaluation value.

[0013] Furthermore, the failure mode determination process of the floating photovoltaic support structure in step S1 is as follows: if any one of the overall or local displacement and velocity of the floating photovoltaic support structure exceeds a specified value, the floating photovoltaic support structure is determined to be in a motion response failure mode; if any one of the overall or local acceleration of the floating photovoltaic support structure exceeds a specified value, the floating photovoltaic support structure is determined to be in a dynamic response failure mode; if any one of the overall or local stress and strain of the floating photovoltaic support structure exceeds a specified value, the floating photovoltaic support structure is determined to be in a force response failure mode.

[0014] Furthermore, the multi-level hierarchical indicator system for safety evaluation of the floating photovoltaic support structure described in step S2: the first-level sub-evaluation indicator system is composed of motion response indicators, dynamic response indicators, and force response indicators, and the three second-level sub-evaluation indicator systems are respectively composed of a number of motion response monitoring items, a number of dynamic response monitoring items, and a number of force response monitoring items.

[0015] Furthermore, the specific process of performing consistency check on the scoring results of each expert in step S3 is as follows: first, the judgment matrix of the first-level sub-evaluation index system and the judgment matrices of the three second-level sub-evaluation index systems are determined according to the scoring results of the i-th expert, and then the maximum characteristic root λ of each judgment matrix is ​​obtained by the square root method.max and eigenvalue vectors, using C R The discriminant method performs consistency checks on each judgment matrix obtained. If the random consistency ratio C of all judgment matrices is R <0.1, the consistency test is passed and the score of the i-th expert is valid, otherwise the score of the i-th expert is invalid; repeat the above process until all the scoring results of p experts have completed the consistency test.

[0016] Furthermore, in step S4, the specific process of respectively conducting credibility evaluation on the expert scoring results that have passed the consistency test is as follows:

[0017] The fuzziness of the score given by the i-th expert to the j-th evaluation index The calculation formula is as follows:

[0018]

[0019] Where N is the number of expert scoring results that have passed the consistency check, x ij is the score of the i-th expert on the j-th evaluation indicator, represents the upper limit of the score given by the ith expert to the ,th evaluation index, It represents the lower limit of the score given by the i-th expert to the j-th evaluation index;

[0020] The absolute consistency between the score given by the i-th expert on the j-th evaluation indicator and the group score Calculated using the following formula:

[0021]

[0022] Among them, f i j (x ij ) is x ij The membership function, f j (x ij ) is x ij The group membership function of , δ is the adjustment coefficient of consistency;

[0023] The absolute consistency between the group membership function and itself C j Calculated as follows:

[0024]

[0025] Relative consistency Calculated as follows:

[0026]

[0027] Absolute comprehensive evaluation value Calculated as follows:

[0028]

[0029] Relative comprehensive credibility evaluation value Calculated using the following formula:

[0030]

[0031] Finally, the credibility evaluation value of the score given by the i-th expert to the j-th evaluation index is Calculate as follows:

[0032]

[0033] Furthermore, in step S5, the weight value vectors of the secondary indicator layer corresponding to the retained expert scoring results are determined, and the average value is taken to obtain the comprehensive weight value vector of the entire safety evaluation multi-level hierarchical indicator system. The specific process is: the eigenvalue vectors of the judgment matrix of each sub-evaluation indicator system are normalized respectively to obtain the sub-weight value vectors W of each sub-evaluation indicator system 1.i , W 21.i , W 22.i , W 23.i , W 1.i is the sub-weight value vector of the first-level sub-evaluation index system corresponding to the retained i-th expert scoring result, W 1.i =[w 11.i , w 12.i , w 13.i ],w 11.i 、w 12.i 、w 13.i are the sub-weight values ​​of the three evaluation indicators in the first-level sub-evaluation indicator system corresponding to the retained i-th expert scoring result, W 21.i , W 22.i , W 23.i are the sub-weight value vectors of the three secondary sub-evaluation index systems corresponding to the retained i-th expert scoring result; the sub-weight value vector W of the first-level sub-evaluation index system corresponding to the retained i-th expert scoring result 1.i It is the weight value vector of the first-level indicator layer. The weight value vector of the first-level indicator layer is distributed downward to obtain the weight value vector W of the entire second-level indicator layer corresponding to the i-th expert scoring result. 2.i =[w 11.i ·W 21.i ,w 12.i ·W 22.i ,w 13.i ·W 23.i ]; The weight value vector W of all secondary indicator layers corresponding to the retained expert scoring results 2.i Take the average value to obtain the comprehensive weight value vector W2 of the entire safety evaluation multi-level index system.

[0034] Furthermore, in step S6, the safety evaluation value of the floating photovoltaic support structure is calculated according to the on-site real-time monitoring value vector and the comprehensive weight value vector of each evaluation index of the secondary index layer, and the final evaluation result of the floating photovoltaic support structure is determined according to the safety evaluation value. The specific process is:

[0035] The safety evaluation value V of the floating photovoltaic support structure is obtained by multiplying the on-site real-time monitoring value vector L of each evaluation index in the secondary index layer and the comprehensive weight value vector W2, that is, The final evaluation result of the floating photovoltaic support structure is determined by the safety evaluation value V: when V≤V1, the evaluation result is that the floating photovoltaic support structure is in a healthy state; when V1<V<V2, the evaluation result is that the floating photovoltaic support structure is in a sub-healthy state; when V2≤V, the evaluation result is that the floating photovoltaic support structure is in an abnormal state; wherein V1 and V2 are thresholds for safety evaluation level division, and V1<V2.

[0036] Compared with the prior art, the technical solution of the present invention has the following beneficial effects:

[0037] The hierarchical division of the multi-level index system for safety evaluation of floating photovoltaic support structures established by the present invention is more standardized, and is systematic, comprehensive, concise, scientific, relatively independent, and flexible and operable. Experts score using the nine-level scaling method, and determine whether the scoring results are valid through consistency testing. In addition, the evaluation of the credibility of the expert scoring results is introduced in the process of calculating the weights of each indicator by the expert scoring method, which greatly reduces the influence of subjective factors in the entire evaluation process. In addition, the method of the present invention has a wide range of adaptability and strong operability. It can effectively perform health diagnosis and safety evaluation on the support structure in floating photovoltaic projects, ensuring the safe and stable operation of the entire photovoltaic power generation system. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0038] Figure 1 This is a flow chart of the health diagnosis and safety assessment method of the offshore floating photovoltaic support structure of the present invention.

[0039] Figure 2 It is a schematic diagram of the multi-level index system for safety evaluation of the floating photovoltaic support structure of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0040] The present invention will be further described below in conjunction with the accompanying drawings.

[0041] The health diagnosis and safety assessment method of the offshore floating photovoltaic support structure of the present invention is as follows: Figure 1 As shown, it mainly includes the following steps:

[0042] S1: Determine the failure mode of the floating photovoltaic support structure: motion response failure mode, dynamic response failure mode or force response failure mode.

[0043] Preferably, the failure mode of the floating photovoltaic support structure is determined as follows: if any one of the overall or local displacement and velocity of the floating photovoltaic support structure exceeds a specified value, the floating photovoltaic support structure is determined to be in a motion response failure mode; if any one of the overall or local acceleration of the floating photovoltaic support structure exceeds a specified value, the floating photovoltaic support structure is determined to be in a dynamic response failure mode; if any one of the overall or local stress and strain of the floating photovoltaic support structure exceeds a specified value, the floating photovoltaic support structure is determined to be in a force response failure mode.

[0044] S2: Establish a multi-level index system for safety evaluation of floating photovoltaic support structures based on the failure mode determined in step S1. Figure 2 As shown, the safety evaluation multi-level hierarchical indicator system includes at least a primary indicator layer and a secondary indicator layer. The primary indicator layer includes a primary sub-evaluation indicator system, which can be composed of a motion response indicator, a dynamic response indicator, and a force response indicator; the secondary indicator layer includes three secondary sub-evaluation indicator systems, and the first secondary sub-evaluation indicator system can be composed of a number of motion response monitoring items (motion response monitoring items C 11 、Movement Response Monitoring Project C 12 ,…,Movement Response Monitoring Project C 1m ), corresponding to the motion response index of the first-level index layer; the second-level sub-evaluation index system can be composed of several dynamic response monitoring items (dynamic response monitoring item C 21 、Dynamic response monitoring project C 22 ,…, Dynamic response monitoring project C 2n ), corresponding to the dynamic response index of the first-level index layer; the third second-level sub-evaluation index system can be composed of several force response monitoring items (force response monitoring item C 31 、Force response monitoring project C 32 ,…, Force response monitoring project C 3q ) is composed of the stress response index of the first-level index layer. If a more detailed evaluation is required, more levels can be divided.

[0045] S3: p experts score each evaluation indicator in the multi-level hierarchical indicator system of safety evaluation in step S2 according to the nine-level scaling method, and perform a consistency check on the scoring results of each expert. If the consistency check is passed, the scoring result of the expert is valid, otherwise the scoring result of the expert is invalid.

[0046] Preferably, the specific process of consistency check for each expert's scoring result is as follows: first, the judgment matrix of the first-level sub-evaluation index system and the judgment matrices of the three second-level sub-evaluation index systems are determined according to the i-th expert's scoring result, and then the maximum characteristic root λ of each judgment matrix is ​​obtained by the square root method. max and eigenvalue vectors, using C R The discriminant method performs consistency checks on each judgment matrix obtained. If the random consistency ratio C of all judgment matrices is R <0.1, the consistency test is passed and the score of the i-th expert is valid, otherwise the score of the i-th expert is invalid; repeat the above process until all the scoring results of p experts have completed the consistency test.

[0047] S4: Conduct credibility assessment on the expert scoring results that pass the consistency check in step S3, and select and reject the expert scoring results according to the credibility assessment results.

[0048] The fuzziness of a single evaluation indicator is estimated using the Hamming distance according to the scoring results of each expert who has passed the consistency test. For example, the fuzziness of the score given by the i-th expert on the j-th evaluation indicator is The calculation formula is as follows:

[0049]

[0050] Where N is the number of expert scoring results that have passed the consistency check, x ij is the score of the i-th expert on the j-th evaluation indicator, represents the upper limit of the score given by the ith expert to the ,th evaluation index, It represents the lower limit of the score given by the i-th expert to the j-th evaluation index.

[0051] The absolute consistency between the score given by the i-th expert on the j-th evaluation indicator and the group score Calculated using the following formula:

[0052]

[0053] Among them, f i j (x ij ) is x ij The membership function, f j (x ij ) is x ij is the group membership function, and δ is the adjustment coefficient of consistency.

[0054] The absolute consistency between the group membership function and itself C j Calculated as follows:

[0055]

[0056] Relative consistency Calculated as follows:

[0057]

[0058] Absolute comprehensive evaluation value Calculated as follows:

[0059]

[0060] Relative comprehensive credibility evaluation value Calculated using the following formula:

[0061]

[0062] Finally, the credibility evaluation value of the score given by the i-th expert to the j-th evaluation index is Calculate as follows:

[0063]

[0064] The expert scoring results are selected according to the credibility evaluation results, and the average credibility evaluation value of all retained expert scoring results is calculated as the credibility of the final expert scoring result.

[0065] S5: Determine the weight value vector of the secondary indicator layer corresponding to the expert scoring results retained in step S4, and take the average value to obtain the comprehensive weight value vector of the entire safety evaluation multi-level hierarchical indicator system.

[0066] The eigenvalue vectors of the judgment matrix of each sub-evaluation index system are normalized to obtain the sub-weight value vector W of each sub-evaluation index system. 1.i , W 21.i , W 22.i , W 23.i , W 1.i is the sub-weight value vector of the first-level sub-evaluation index system corresponding to the retained i-th expert scoring result, W 1.i =[w 11.i , w 12.i , w 13.i ],w 11.i 、w 12.i 、w 13.i are the sub-weight values ​​of the three evaluation indicators (i.e., motion response indicator, dynamic response indicator, and force response indicator) in the first-level sub-evaluation indicator system corresponding to the i-th expert scoring result retained, W 21.i , W 22.i , W 23.iare the sub-weight value vectors of the three secondary sub-evaluation index systems corresponding to the retained i-th expert scoring result. At this time, the sub-weight value vector W of the primary sub-evaluation index system corresponding to the retained i-th expert scoring result 1.i It is the weight value vector of the first-level indicator layer. The weight value vector of the first-level indicator layer is distributed downward to obtain the weight value vector W of the entire second-level indicator layer corresponding to the i-th expert scoring result. 2.i =[w 11.i ·W 21.i , w 12.i ·W 22.i , w 13.i ·W 23.i ]. The weight value vector W of all secondary indicator layers corresponding to the above-retained expert scoring results 2.i Take the average value to obtain the comprehensive weight value vector W2 of the entire safety evaluation multi-level index system.

[0067] S6: Calculate the safety evaluation value of the floating photovoltaic support structure based on the on-site real-time monitoring value vector of each evaluation indicator in the secondary indicator layer and the comprehensive weight value vector of step S5, and determine the final evaluation result of the floating photovoltaic support structure based on the safety evaluation value.

[0068] The safety evaluation value V of the floating photovoltaic support structure is obtained by multiplying the on-site real-time monitoring value vector L of each evaluation index in the secondary index layer and the comprehensive weight value vector W2, that is, The final evaluation result of the floating photovoltaic support structure is determined by the safety evaluation value V, which is divided into three levels: healthy, sub-healthy and abnormal.

[0069] ① When V≤V1, the evaluation result is that the floating photovoltaic support structure is in a healthy state;

[0070] ② When V1<V<V2, the evaluation result is that the floating photovoltaic support structure is in a sub-healthy state;

[0071] ③When V2≤V, the evaluation result is that the floating photovoltaic support structure is in an abnormal state.

[0072] In the above, V1 and V2 are thresholds for safety evaluation level division, and V1<V2, which can be determined by the product of the threshold vectors L1 and L2 of each secondary evaluation index and the comprehensive weight value vector W2 of the secondary index.

[0073]

[0074] Among them, L1 and L2 are the threshold vectors for the level classification (healthy, sub-healthy, abnormal) of each secondary evaluation indicator.

[0075] Example

[0076] A health diagnosis and safety evaluation method for offshore floating photovoltaic support structures is proposed. By analyzing the failure mode of floating photovoltaic support structures, a multi-level indicator system for safety evaluation of floating photovoltaic support structures is established. Experts are invited to score each evaluation indicator in the multi-level indicator system for safety evaluation. A judgment matrix is ​​constructed for each expert's scoring result and a consistency test is performed. The credibility of the expert scoring results that pass the consistency test is evaluated. The corresponding weight value vector of the secondary indicator layer is determined based on the expert scoring results retained by the credibility evaluation, and the average value is taken to obtain the comprehensive weight value vector of the entire multi-level indicator system for safety evaluation. The on-site real-time monitoring value vector L of each evaluation indicator in the secondary indicator layer is multiplied by the comprehensive weight value vector W2 to obtain the safety evaluation value of the floating photovoltaic support structure, and the final evaluation level of the floating photovoltaic support structure is determined according to the safety evaluation value.

[0077] In this embodiment, the floating photovoltaic support structure is a hexagonal floating structure, and a multi-level index system for safety evaluation is established. The first-level index layer is (motion response index, dynamic response index, force response index), and the second-level index layer is {(displacement monitoring point C 11 , displacement monitoring point C 12 , speed monitoring point C 13 , speed monitoring point C 14 )、(acceleration monitoring point C 21 , acceleration monitoring point C 22 )、(Stress monitoring point C 31 , Force monitoring point C 32 , Force monitoring point C 33 , Force monitoring point C 34 , Force monitoring point C 35 , Force monitoring point C 36 )}. Five experts were selected to score, and one of them was taken as an example. The weight vector of the first-level indicator system was [0.33, 0.33, 0.34], and the weight vector of the second-level indicator system was [(0.132, 0.099, 0.066, 0.033), (0.198, 0.132), (0.0162, 0.0324, 0.0486, 0.0647, 0.0810, 0.0971)]. The random consistency ratios of one first-level indicator and three second-level indicators were 0.0039, 0.0145, 0.0021, and 0.0306, respectively, all less than 0.1, and passed the consistency test. The credibility evaluation results of the five experts' scores were 0.864, 0.912, 0.832, 0.795, and 0.902. All the expert scoring results were retained, and the final credibility evaluation result was 0.861. The classification thresholds of the final evaluation values ​​are 0.688 and 0.853 respectively. The comprehensive safety evaluation value in the embodiment is 0.553, and the evaluation result is healthy.

[0078] Although the functions and working processes of the present invention have been described above in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, the present invention is not limited to the above-mentioned specific functions and working processes. The above-mentioned specific implementation methods are merely illustrative rather than restrictive. Under the guidance of the present invention, ordinary technicians in this field can also make many forms without departing from the scope of protection of the purpose of the present invention and the claims, which are all within the protection of the present invention.

Claims

1. A health diagnosis and safety assessment method for an offshore floating photovoltaic support structure, characterized in that: The following steps are involved: S1: Determine the failure mode of the floating photovoltaic support structure: motion response failure mode, dynamic response failure mode or force response failure mode; S2: establishing a multi-level hierarchical indicator system for safety evaluation of the floating photovoltaic support structure according to the failure mode determined in step S1, comprising at least a primary indicator layer and a secondary indicator layer, wherein the primary indicator layer comprises a primary sub-evaluation indicator system, and the secondary indicator layer comprises three secondary sub-evaluation indicator systems; S3: p experts score each evaluation indicator in the multi-level hierarchical indicator system of safety evaluation in step S2 according to the nine-level scaling method, and perform consistency check on the scoring results of each expert. If the consistency check is passed, the scoring result of the expert is valid, otherwise the scoring result of the expert is invalid; S4: Conduct credibility evaluation on the expert scoring results that pass the consistency test in step S3, and select and reject the expert scoring results according to the credibility evaluation results; S5: Determine the weight value vector of the secondary indicator layer corresponding to each expert scoring result retained in step S4, and take the average value to obtain the comprehensive weight value vector of the entire safety evaluation multi-level hierarchical indicator system; S6: Calculate the safety evaluation value of the floating photovoltaic support structure based on the on-site real-time monitoring value vector of each evaluation indicator in the secondary indicator layer and the comprehensive weight value vector of step S5, and determine the final evaluation result of the floating photovoltaic support structure based on the safety evaluation value.

2. The health diagnosis and safety assessment method for an offshore floating photovoltaic support structure according to claim 1, characterized in that: The process of determining the failure mode of the floating photovoltaic support structure in step S1: if any one of the overall or local displacement and velocity of the floating photovoltaic support structure exceeds the specified value, the floating photovoltaic support structure is determined to be in a motion response failure mode; if the overall or local acceleration of the floating photovoltaic support structure exceeds the specified value, the floating photovoltaic support structure is determined to be in a dynamic response failure mode; if any one of the overall or local stress and strain of the floating photovoltaic support structure exceeds the specified value, the floating photovoltaic support structure is determined to be in a force response failure mode.

3. The health diagnosis and safety assessment method for an offshore floating photovoltaic support structure according to claim 1, characterized in that: The multi-level hierarchical indicator system for safety evaluation of the floating photovoltaic support structure described in step S2: the first-level sub-evaluation indicator system is composed of motion response indicators, dynamic response indicators, and force response indicators, and the three second-level sub-evaluation indicator systems are respectively composed of a number of motion response monitoring items, a number of dynamic response monitoring items, and a number of force response monitoring items.

4. The health diagnosis and safety assessment method for an offshore floating photovoltaic support structure according to claim 1, characterized in that: The specific process of consistency check of each expert's scoring result in step S3 is as follows: first, the judgment matrix of the first-level sub-evaluation index system and the judgment matrices of the three second-level sub-evaluation index systems are determined according to the scoring results of the i-th expert, and then the maximum characteristic root λ of each judgment matrix is ​​obtained by the square root method. max and eigenvalue vectors, using C R The discriminant method performs consistency checks on each judgment matrix obtained. If the random consistency ratio C of all judgment matrices is R <0.1, the consistency test is passed and the score of the i-th expert is valid, otherwise the score of the i-th expert is invalid. Repeat the above process until all the scoring results of p experts have completed the consistency test.

5. The health diagnosis and safety assessment method for an offshore floating photovoltaic support structure according to claim 1, characterized in that: The specific process of performing credibility evaluation on the expert scoring results that pass the consistency test in step S4 is as follows: The fuzziness of the score given by the i-th expert to the j-th evaluation index The calculation formula is as follows: Where N is the number of expert scoring results that have passed the consistency check, x ij is the score of the i-th expert on the j-th evaluation indicator, represents the upper limit of the score given by the i-th expert to the j-th evaluation index, It represents the lower limit of the score given by the i-th expert to the j-th evaluation index; The absolute consistency between the score given by the i-th expert on the j-th evaluation indicator and the group score Calculated using the following formula: in, For x ij The membership function, f j 9x ij ) is x ij The group membership function of , δ is the adjustment coefficient of consistency; The absolute consistency between the group membership function and itself C j Calculated as follows: Relative consistency Calculated as follows: Absolute comprehensive evaluation value Calculated as follows: Relative comprehensive credibility evaluation value Calculated using the following formula: Finally, the credibility evaluation value of the score given by the i-th expert to the j-th evaluation index is Calculate as follows:

6. The health diagnosis and safety assessment method for an offshore floating photovoltaic support structure according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step S5, the weight value vector of the secondary indicator layer corresponding to the retained expert scoring results is determined, and the average value is taken to obtain the comprehensive weight value vector of the entire safety evaluation multi-level hierarchical indicator system. The specific process is: the eigenvalue vectors of the judgment matrix of each sub-evaluation indicator system are normalized respectively to obtain the sub-weight value vector W of each sub-evaluation indicator system 1.i , W 21.i , W 22.i , W 23.i , W 1.i is the sub-weight value vector of the first-level sub-evaluation index system corresponding to the retained i-th expert scoring result, W 1.i =[w 11.i ,w 12.i ,w 13.i ],w 11.i 、w 12.i 、w 13.i are the sub-weight values ​​of the three evaluation indicators in the first-level sub-evaluation indicator system corresponding to the retained i-th expert scoring result, W 21.i , W 22.i , W 23.i are the sub-weight value vectors of the three secondary sub-evaluation index systems corresponding to the retained i-th expert scoring result; the sub-weight value vector W of the first-level sub-evaluation index system corresponding to the retained i-th expert scoring result 1.i It is the weight value vector of the first-level indicator layer. The weight value vector of the first-level indicator layer is distributed downward to obtain the weight value vector W of the entire second-level indicator layer corresponding to the i-th expert scoring result. 2.i =[w 11.i ·W 21.i ,w 12.i ·W 22.i ,w 13.i ·W 23.i ]; The weight value vector W of all secondary indicator layers corresponding to the retained expert scoring results 2.i Take the average value to obtain the comprehensive weight value vector W2 of the entire safety evaluation multi-level index system.

7. The health diagnosis and safety assessment method for an offshore floating photovoltaic support structure according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step S6, the safety evaluation value of the floating photovoltaic support structure is calculated according to the on-site real-time monitoring value vector and the comprehensive weight value vector of each evaluation index of the secondary index layer, and the final evaluation result of the floating photovoltaic support structure is determined according to the safety evaluation value. The specific process is as follows: The safety evaluation value V of the floating photovoltaic support structure is obtained by multiplying the on-site real-time monitoring value vector L of each evaluation index in the secondary index layer and the comprehensive weight value vector W2, that is, The final evaluation result of the floating photovoltaic support structure is determined by the safety evaluation value V: when V≤V1, the evaluation result is that the floating photovoltaic support structure is in a healthy state; when V1<V<V2, the evaluation result is that the floating photovoltaic support structure is in a sub-healthy state; when V2≤V, the evaluation result is that the floating photovoltaic support structure is in an abnormal state; Among them, V1 and V2 are thresholds for safety evaluation level division, V1<V2.

Images