Multi-target highway reconstruction and extension construction period traffic organization scheme quantitative comparison and selection method

Abstract

The invention discloses a multi-target highway reconstruction and extension construction period traffic organization scheme quantitative comparison and selection method. The method comprises the steps of calculating a service level score of a construction period traffic organization scheme; calculating a project cost score of the traffic organization scheme in the construction period; calculating a construction period score of the construction period traffic organization scheme; calculating a traffic conversion score of the traffic organization scheme in the construction period; calculating a traffic safety risk score of the traffic organization scheme in the construction period; calculating the multi-target comparison and selection weight of the traffic organization scheme in the construction period; and calculating a comprehensive score of the traffic organization scheme in the construction period, and making a decision. According to the method, a multi-target quantitative evaluation system is established based on rich highway reconstruction and extension traffic organization design experience, and the method is suitable for evaluation and comparison and selection of traffic organization schemes in the construction period of highway reconstruction and extension projects with traffic passing and traffic keeping at the same time. Comprehensive evaluation is carried out from multiple aspects of service level, construction period, project cost and traffic safety, and the method can be flexibly suitable for traffic organization scheme comparison and selection of different reconstruction and extension projects.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the field of traffic organization during the reconstruction and expansion of expressways, and in particular to a quantitative comparison method for traffic organization schemes during the reconstruction and expansion of expressways, which is used for quantitative comparison of traffic organization schemes during the reconstruction and expansion of expressways. Background Art

[0002] How to ensure smooth traffic and construction safety during the reconstruction and expansion of expressways is an important issue. Since operation and construction are carried out simultaneously, in order to reduce the interference between the driving area and the working area, and to take into account both traffic operation and reconstruction and expansion construction, a comprehensive solution is derived, which takes the traffic flow of the project section and regional road network during the reconstruction and expansion of expressways as the research object, and adopts various facilities, technologies, and management measures to ensure traffic safety, traffic efficiency, and engineering construction, collectively referred to as the traffic organization of expressway reconstruction and expansion.

[0003] Traffic organization design plans are not fixed, but are affected by a series of complex factors such as road and road structure construction plans, construction progress, social activities, natural weather, etc., and need to be dynamically adjusted during implementation. However, the design of traffic organization plans currently adopts traditional drawings and text descriptions, and the implementation effect is difficult to verify, and the impact of the plan is difficult to quantify. In the process of designing, comparing and approving the plan, decision makers mostly rely on experience to judge the pros and cons of the plan, lacking scientific and systematic quantitative evaluation and comparison methods. Because there are many factors that affect the traffic organization of highway reconstruction and expansion, different decision makers have different standards for judging the quality of the plan, resulting in many adverse effects on the formulation and implementation of traffic organization plans, such as long decision-making time for traffic organization plans and slow approval of traffic diversion. Summary of the invention

[0004] In order to solve the problems existing in the prior art, the purpose of the present invention is to provide a multi-objective quantitative comparison method for traffic organization schemes during the construction period of highway reconstruction and expansion. The method establishes a multi-objective quantitative evaluation system based on rich experience in traffic organization design for highway reconstruction and expansion, and is suitable for the evaluation and comparison of traffic organization schemes during the construction period of highway reconstruction and expansion projects that are both open to traffic and maintain traffic. The present invention is oriented to the needs of construction and operation, and comprehensively evaluates from multiple aspects such as service level, construction period, project cost, and traffic safety, and can be flexibly applied to the comparison of traffic organization schemes for different reconstruction and expansion projects.

[0005] In order to achieve the above-mentioned object of the present invention, the present invention provides the following technical solution: a quantitative comparison method for traffic organization schemes during the construction period of a multi-objective highway reconstruction and expansion, comprising the following steps:

[0006] S1. According to the proposed traffic organization plan for the construction period and the division of construction sections, combined with the traffic volume forecast results of the specific project, the actual traffic capacity of each construction section is calculated using the benchmark capacity correction method, and the saturation of each construction section is calculated using the ratio of the actual traffic volume of the project to the actual traffic capacity. The saturation is compared with the quantitative scoring table, and finally the service level score adopted by the comparison scheme is determined;

[0007] S2. According to the proposed traffic organization plan for the construction period, calculate the engineering quantity of temporary works required for traffic organization, including access roads, construction access roads, and temporary supporting facilities, obtain the engineering cost of temporary works, and when comparing multiple plans, calculate the proportion of the engineering cost of each plan in the total engineering cost of all plans as the engineering cost score;

[0008] S3. According to the proposed traffic organization plan for the construction period, obtain the construction period of the control work point, calculate the construction period of the traffic organization plan, and when comparing multiple plans, calculate the proportion of the construction period of each plan in the total construction period of all plans as the construction period score;

[0009] S4. According to the division of the working area in the proposed traffic organization plan for the construction period, calculate the number of traffic conversions required during the maintenance period. When comparing multiple plans, calculate the proportion of the number of conversions of each plan in the total number of conversions of all plans as the traffic conversion number score;

[0010] S5. Use risk assessment methods to identify and assess the risks of the proposed traffic organization plan during the construction period. The first-class risk sources are road risks, traffic risks, and facility risks. The second-class risk sources are identified and scored based on the first-class risk sources according to the traffic organization plan during the renovation and expansion construction period, the type and characteristics of the construction area. The score range is 0-100, which is used as the traffic safety risk score of the plan;

[0011] S6. Use the analytic hierarchy process to compare the relative importance of the five indicators of service level, project cost, construction period, number of traffic conversions, and traffic safety risk, and construct a corresponding judgment matrix;

[0012] S7, calculate the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix, and perform consistency check on the judgment matrix. If it fails, adjust the judgment matrix in step S6. If it passes, the consistency meets the requirements. The eigenvector corresponding to the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix is ​​the weight of the five indicators of service level, project cost, construction period, number of traffic conversions, and traffic safety risk, ω={ω1,ω2,ω3,ω4,ω5}, where 0<ω i <1 and

[0013] S8. Perform a linear weighted combination of the scores of the five individual evaluation indicators of each comparison scheme and the weights of the corresponding indicators to obtain the overall score W of the comparison scheme i. By comparing the size of the overall score W of the comparison scheme, judge and select the scheme with relative advantages. The smaller W is, the better the scheme is.

[0014] Furthermore, in step S1, the saturation (v / C value) of the construction section can be calculated using the following formula:

[0015]

[0016] Among them: v is the maximum service traffic volume during the construction period (pcu / d); C is the actual traffic capacity of the work area (pcu / d); AADT is the average daily traffic volume in the forecast year (pcu / d), which is determined according to the traffic volume forecast results of the specific project. D is the directional unevenness coefficient, which is between 0.5 and 0.6; K is the design hourly traffic volume coefficient (%), which is the ratio of the hourly traffic volume at the selected time to the annual average daily traffic volume; C B is the capacity of each lane of the basic section of the expressway under the speed limit (pcu / h), which is taken according to Table A.2.3 of the Code for Traffic Organization Design of Expressway Reconstruction and Expansion (JTG / T 3392-2022); f W is the lane width correction factor, which is taken from Table A.2.4-1 of the Code for Traffic Organization Design of Highway Reconstruction and Expansion (JTG / T 3392-2022); f HV is the correction coefficient for the impact of large vehicles on traffic capacity, which is taken according to Formula A.2.4-1 of the Code for Traffic Organization Design of Highway Reconstruction and Expansion (JTG / T3392-2022); f p is the correction coefficient of the driver's familiarity with the environment, ranging from 0.9 to 1.0; f i is the strength correction coefficient of the working area, which is between 0.88 and 0.98; N is the number of one-way lanes.

[0017] Furthermore, the service level of the construction area is divided according to the calculated v / C according to Table A.0.1-1 to Table A.0.1-3 of the Technical Standard for Highway Engineering (JTGB01-2014). i The score ranges correspond to:

[0018] The service level is at level 3 and above, 0-15;

[0019] The service level is basically at level 3 and above, and the level 4 service level sections are ≤10%, 45-15;

[0020] The proportion of road sections with level 4 service is ≤20%, 45-75;

[0021] The proportion of road sections below Level 4 service level is >20%, 75-100.

[0022] Furthermore, in step S2, the temporary project cost includes the installation, removal and repair costs of temporary access roads, temporary bridges, temporary safety facilities, etc., as well as the sum of other costs such as traffic organization and coordination fees, information fees, and obstacle removal and rescue fees.

[0023] Project cost score B i Calculated according to the following formula:

[0024]

[0025] Among them, b i is the construction cost corresponding to the ith alternative, and m is the number of alternatives.

[0026] Furthermore, in step S3, the construction period is calculated according to the following formula, based on the construction sections of the proposed traffic organization plan and the construction period required for the construction technology and construction methods of each control point project:

[0027] c=MAX(c1,c2,c3,...c n )

[0028] Among them, c is the construction period of the proposed traffic organization plan, and n is the number of construction sections of the proposed traffic organization plan.

[0029] Construction duration score C i Calculated according to the following formula:

[0030]

[0031] Among them, c i is the construction period calculated for the ith alternative, and m is the number of alternatives.

[0032] Furthermore, in step S4, the number of traffic conversions is related to the number of construction sections of the proposed traffic organization plan and is calculated according to the following formula:

[0033] d i =n+1

[0034] Where n is the number of construction sections for the proposed traffic organization plan.

[0035] Traffic conversion score D i Calculated according to the following formula:

[0036]

[0037] Among them, d i is the number of traffic conversions calculated for the ith alternative, and m is the number of alternatives.

[0038] Furthermore, in step S5, the traffic safety risk score E i Calculated using the following formula:

[0039]

[0040] Among them, e j is the score of the secondary risk source, and n is the total number of secondary risk sources.

[0041] Furthermore, in step S6, the judgment matrix is ​​constructed according to the importance of the pairwise comparison indicators.

[0042] The relative importance of the five indicators A service level, B project cost, C construction period, D traffic conversion times, and E traffic safety risk are quantified using a scale of 1 to 9. The resulting judgment matrix is ​​as follows:

[0043]

[0044] Where aij (i≠j) represents the importance of indicator i relative to indicator j: it represents the relative importance between two elements in 9 levels from "equally important" to "absolutely important". If indicator i is of equal importance to indicator j, then aij is ij =1, and 1 / a ij =1; if indicator i is absolutely important compared with indicator j, then a ij =9, and 1 / a ij =1 / 9. aij is based on the decision maker's expectations of the program objectives and the importance of the two comparison indicators, which can be obtained through expert scoring, questionnaire surveys or group discussions.

[0045] Furthermore, in step S7, the consistency check uses the consistency index CI and the random consistency ratio RI to judge, and is calculated using the following formula: CR = CI / RI. If CR is less than 0.1, it is considered that the matrix has satisfactory consistency.

[0046] Where CI is the consistency index, which is calculated using the following formula: CI = (λmax-n) / (n-1), where λmax is the maximum eigenvalue and n is the order of the judgment matrix. RI is an empirical value. The present invention is a 5-order judgment matrix, and RI is 1.12.

[0047] If the consistency check of the judgment matrix passes, the eigenvector corresponding to the maximum eigenvalue λmax of the judgment matrix is ​​used as the weight.

[0048] Furthermore, in step S8, the overall score W of the comparison scheme i is calculated according to the following formula:

[0049] Wi =ω1A i +ω2B i +ω3C i +ω4D i +ω5E i

[0050] Among them, A i , B i ,C i ,D i ,E i are the scores assigned to the service level, project cost, construction period, number of traffic conversions and traffic safety risk in the i-th alternative; ω1~ω5 are the weights corresponding to the service level, project cost, construction period, number of traffic conversions and traffic safety risk respectively.

[0051] Compared with the prior art, the present invention has at least the following beneficial effects:

[0052] 1. The method provided by the present invention provides users (highway reconstruction and expansion traffic organization design units, construction units, construction units, and competent departments) with a quantitative method for evaluating and comparing highway reconstruction and expansion traffic organization plans, providing a tool for decision-making on highway reconstruction and expansion traffic organization plans.

[0053] 2. The method provided by the present invention is based on multiple objectives such as service level, project scale, traffic safety, etc., and based on the different demands of operators, builders, and public security management departments. By providing a weight selection method, it meets the needs of different projects and users, and realizes quantitative evaluation and scientific decision-making of traffic organization plans. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0054] Figure 1 is a flow chart of the method of the present invention;

[0055] Figure 2 Calculate the service level score for the traffic organization plan during the construction period;

[0056] Figure 3 Provide the engineering cost scoring and calculation process for the traffic organization plan during the construction period;

[0057] Figure 4 Provide a construction period scoring calculation process for the traffic organization plan during the construction period;

[0058] Figure 5 A traffic conversion diagram for the traffic organization plan during the construction period;

[0059] Figure 6 Provide traffic safety risk assessment process for construction period traffic organization plan. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0060] In order to make the purpose, technical solution and advantages of the present invention more clearly understood, the present invention is further described in detail below in conjunction with the accompanying drawings and detailed examples. In order to avoid obscuring the present invention due to unnecessary details, only the structures and processing steps closely related to the technical solution according to the present invention are shown in the accompanying drawings, and other details that are not closely related to the present invention are omitted.

[0061] Example 1

[0062] A quantitative comparison method for traffic organization schemes during the construction period of multi-objective highway reconstruction and expansion. Figure 1 As shown, the following steps are included:

[0063] S1. According to the proposed traffic organization plan for the construction period and the division of construction sections, and based on the traffic volume predicted by the "four-stage" method, the actual traffic capacity of each construction section is calculated using the benchmark capacity correction method in the "Highway Reconstruction and Expansion Traffic Organization Design Code" (JTG / T3392-2022). The saturation of each construction section is calculated using the ratio of the actual traffic volume of the project to the actual capacity. The saturation is compared with the quantitative scoring table, and finally the service level score A adopted by the comparison scheme is determined. i , A i The lower it is, the better the solution is;

[0064] S2. According to the proposed construction period traffic organization plan, calculate the engineering quantity of temporary projects required for traffic organization (including access roads, construction access roads, and temporary supporting facilities), and obtain the engineering cost of temporary projects. When comparing multiple plans, calculate the proportion of the engineering cost of each plan in the total engineering cost of all plans as the engineering cost score B. i , B i The lower it is, the better the solution is;

[0065] S3. According to the proposed traffic organization plan for the construction period, obtain the construction period of the control work point, calculate the construction period of the traffic organization plan, and when comparing multiple plans, calculate the proportion of the construction period of each plan in the total construction period of all plans as the construction period score C. i , C i The lower it is, the better the solution is;

[0066] S4. According to the division of the work area in the proposed traffic organization plan during the construction period, calculate the number of traffic conversions required during the maintenance period. When comparing multiple plans, calculate the proportion of the number of conversions of each plan in the total number of conversions of all plans as the traffic conversion number score D. i , D i The lower it is, the better the solution is;

[0067] S5. Use the risk assessment method to identify and evaluate the risks of the proposed traffic organization plan during the construction period. The first type of risk sources are road risks, traffic risks, and facility risks. The second type of risk sources are identified and scored based on the first type of risk sources according to the traffic organization plan during the renovation and expansion construction period, the type and characteristics of the construction area. The score range is 0-100, which is used as the traffic safety risk score of the plan. i , E i The lower it is, the better the solution is;

[0068] S6. Use the analytic hierarchy process to compare the relative importance of the five indicators of service level, project cost, construction period, number of traffic conversions, and traffic safety risk, and construct a corresponding judgment matrix;

[0069] S7, calculate the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix, and perform consistency check on the judgment matrix. If it fails, adjust the judgment matrix in step S6. If it passes, the consistency meets the requirements. The eigenvector corresponding to the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix is ​​the weight of the five indicators of service level, project cost, construction period, number of traffic conversions, and traffic safety risk, ω={ω1,ω2,ω3,ω4,ω5}, where 0<ω i <1 and

[0070] S8. Perform a linear weighted combination of the scores of the five individual evaluation indicators (A service level, B project cost, C construction period, D number of traffic conversions, and E traffic safety risk) of each comparison scheme i and the weights of the corresponding indicators to obtain the overall score W of the comparison scheme i. By comparing the overall score W of the comparison schemes, judge and select the scheme with relative advantages. The smaller the score, the better the scheme as a whole and the more it meets the needs of the project. On the contrary, the larger the score, the worse the scheme.

[0071] In step S1, the saturation (v / C value) of the construction section can be calculated using the following formula:

[0072]

[0073] Among them: v is the maximum service traffic volume during the construction period (pcu / d); C is the actual traffic capacity of the work area (pcu / d); AADT is the average daily traffic volume in the forecast year (pcu / d), which is determined according to the traffic volume forecast results of the specific project. D is the directional unevenness coefficient, which is between 0.5 and 0.6; K is the design hourly traffic volume coefficient (%), which is the ratio of the hourly traffic volume at the selected time to the annual average daily traffic volume; C B is the capacity of each lane of the basic section of the expressway under the speed limit (pcu / h), which is taken according to Table A.2.3 of the Code for Traffic Organization Design of Expressway Reconstruction and Expansion (JTG / T 3392-2022); f Wis the lane width correction factor, which is taken from Table A.2.4-1 of the Code for Traffic Organization Design of Highway Reconstruction and Expansion (JTG / T 3392-2022); f HV is the correction coefficient for the impact of large vehicles on traffic capacity, which is taken according to Formula A.2.4-1 of the Code for Traffic Organization Design of Highway Reconstruction and Expansion (JTG / T3392-2022); f p is the correction coefficient of the driver's familiarity with the environment, ranging from 0.9 to 1.0; f i is the strength correction coefficient of the working area, which is between 0.88 and 0.98; N is the number of one-way lanes.

[0074] The service level of the construction area is divided according to the calculated v / C and Table A.0.1-1 to Table A.0.1-3 of the "Technical Standards for Highway Engineering" (JTG B01-2014). Determine the service level adopted by the comparison scheme and obtain the service level score according to Table 1, which is recorded as A i , represents the service level score of alternative i.

[0075] Table 1 Service level evaluation A i standard

[0076]

[0077] In step S2, the temporary construction cost includes the installation, removal and repair costs of temporary access roads, temporary bridges, temporary safety facilities, etc., as well as the sum of other costs such as traffic organization and coordination fees, information fees, and obstacle removal and rescue fees.

[0078] Project cost score B i Calculated according to the following formula:

[0079]

[0080] Among them, b i is the construction cost corresponding to the ith alternative, and m is the number of alternatives.

[0081] In step S3, the construction period is calculated by investigating the construction process and method of each control point project according to each construction section of the proposed traffic organization plan and using the following formula:

[0082] c=MAX(c1,c2,c3,...c n )

[0083] Among them, c is the construction period of the proposed traffic organization plan, and n is the number of construction sections of the proposed traffic organization plan.

[0084] Construction duration score C i Calculated according to the following formula:

[0085]

[0086] Among them, c i is the construction period calculated for the ith alternative, and m is the number of alternatives.

[0087] In step S4, the number of traffic conversions is related to the number of construction sections in the proposed traffic organization plan and is calculated according to the following formula:

[0088] d i =n+1

[0089] Where n is the number of construction sections for the proposed traffic organization plan.

[0090] Traffic conversion score D i Calculated according to the following formula:

[0091]

[0092] Among them, d i is the number of traffic conversions calculated for the ith alternative, and m is the number of alternatives.

[0093] In step S5, the traffic safety risk score E i Calculated using the following formula:

[0094]

[0095] Among them, e j is the score of the secondary risk source, and n is the total number of secondary risk sources. The score of the secondary risk source is determined according to Table 2.

[0096] Table 2 Risk sources e j Score value table

[0097]

[0098]

[0099] In step S6, a judgment matrix is ​​constructed, using a scale of 1 to 9 to quantify the relative importance of the five indicators A service level, B project cost, C construction period, D traffic conversion times, and E traffic safety risk. The judgment matrix is ​​in the following form:

[0100]

[0101] Where aij (i≠j) represents the importance of indicator i relative to indicator j: it represents the relative importance between two elements in 9 levels from "equally important" to "absolutely important". If indicator i is of equal importance to indicator j, then aij is ij=1, and 1 / a ij =1; if indicator i is absolutely important compared with indicator j, then a ij =9, and 1 / a ij =1 / 9. ij According to the decision makers' expectations of the program goals, the importance values ​​between the two comparison indicators can be obtained through expert scoring, questionnaires or group discussions.

[0102] In step S7, the consistency test uses the consistency index CI and the random consistency ratio RI to judge, and is calculated using the following formula: CR = CI / RI. If CR is less than 0.1, it is considered that the matrix has satisfactory consistency.

[0103] Where CI is the consistency index, which is calculated using the following formula: CI = (λmax-n) / (n-1), where λmax is the maximum eigenvalue and n is the order of the judgment matrix. RI is an empirical value. The present invention is a 5-order judgment matrix, and RI is 1.12.

[0104] If the consistency check of the judgment matrix passes, the eigenvector corresponding to the maximum eigenvalue λmax of the judgment matrix is ​​used as the weight.

[0105] In step S8, the overall score W of the comparison scheme i is calculated according to the following formula:

[0106] W i =ω1A i +ω2B i +ω3C i +ω4D i +ω5E i

[0107] Among them, A i , B i ,C i ,D i ,E i are the scores assigned to the service level, project cost, construction period, number of traffic conversions and traffic safety risk in the i-th alternative; ω 1 ~ω 5 These are the weights corresponding to service level, project cost, construction period, number of traffic conversions and traffic safety risk respectively.

[0108] Example 2

[0109] This is a specific application of the method described in Example 1.

[0110] Step S1: Calculation process of service level score of traffic organization plan during construction period, such as Figure 2 As shown, the following steps are taken:

[0111] Step 1: Obtain the annual average daily traffic volume forecast result AADT, directional unevenness coefficient D, design hourly traffic volume coefficient K, and large vehicle correction coefficient f of a highway during construction period HV According to the proposed traffic organization schemes A and B, the lane width correction coefficient f of the two traffic organization schemes is obtained. W , the number of one-way lanes N, the strength correction factor f of the work area i , the correction factor f of the driver's familiarity with the environment p , the traffic capacity of each lane of the basic section of the expressway under the speed limit C B , and construction section division plan.

[0112] Step 2: Calculate the maximum service traffic volume v during the construction period of the expressway. The formula is: v=AADT×D×K. The predicted maximum service traffic volume v during the construction period of the expressway is 1,200 vehicles / hour.

[0113] Step 3: Calculate the actual traffic capacity C of each construction section in the two schemes, the formula is: C = C B ×f W ×f HV ×f p ×f i × N. After correction, the actual traffic capacity of a construction section in Plan A is C 1000 vehicles / hour; after correction, the actual traffic capacity of a construction section in Plan B is C 1500 vehicles / hour.

[0114] Step 4: Calculate the saturation of each construction section of traffic organization scheme A and B respectively. The formula is: The saturation v / C of a construction section in Scheme A is 1.2, and the service level is level 6. The saturation v / C of a construction section in Scheme B is 0.8, and the service level is level 4.

[0115] Step 5: Calculate the proportion of construction sections with each level of service level in Scheme A and Scheme B in the entire scheme, and refer to Table 1 to obtain the service level scores of the two schemes. In Scheme A, the mileage length of construction sections with a service level of level 4 or above accounts for 22%, and the service level score of Scheme A is 78 points; in Scheme B, the mileage length of construction sections with a service level of level 4 accounts for 18%, and the service level score of Scheme B is 70 points.

[0116] Step S2: Calculation process of engineering cost score of traffic organization plan during construction period, such as Figure 3 As shown, the following steps are taken:

[0117] Step 1: According to the proposed traffic organization plans A and B for each construction period, obtain the temporary construction costs of each traffic organization plan, including the installation, removal and repair costs of temporary access roads, temporary bridges, temporary safety facilities, etc., as well as the sum of traffic organization coordination fees, information fees, obstacle removal and rescue fees, etc. i , where i represents the number of the selected scheme. The temporary engineering cost of scheme A is 5 million, and the temporary engineering cost of scheme B is 8 million.

[0118] Step 2: Calculate the proportion of each scheme's engineering cost in the total engineering cost of all schemes as the engineering cost score B i . Project cost score B i Calculated according to the following formula: The engineering cost score of Scheme A in this example is The engineering cost score of Plan B is

[0119] The construction period scoring calculation process of the traffic organization plan during the construction period described in step S3 is as follows: Figure 4 As shown, the following steps are taken:

[0120] Step 1: According to the proposed traffic organization plan for each construction period, investigate the construction technology and construction methods of the control work points in each section, and obtain the construction period of each construction area of ​​each traffic organization plan. The construction period of the four construction sections of the traffic organization plan A in this example is 24 months, 30 months, 35 months and 28 months respectively. The construction period of the five construction sections of the traffic organization plan B is 20 months, 25 months, 31 months, 28 months and 30 months respectively.

[0121] Step 2: Calculate the total construction period c of the traffic organization plan for each construction period i , where c i Calculate using the following formula: i =MAX(c1,c2,c3,...c n ), where i represents the number of the alternative plan, and n is the number of construction areas of the ith plan. The total construction period of the traffic organization plan A in this example is c A =MAX(24, 30, 35, 28) = 35 months; the total construction period of traffic organization plan B is c B =MAX(20, 25, 31, 28, 30) = 31 months.

[0122] Step 3: Calculate the proportion of each plan's construction duration in the total duration of all plans as the construction duration score C i . Among them, C i Calculated according to the following formula: The construction period score of traffic organization plan A in this example Construction period score of traffic organization plan B

[0123] Step S4 The number of traffic conversions in the construction period traffic organization plan is related to the number of project construction sections, such as Figure 5 As shown, the number of traffic conversions d i Calculate according to the following formula: i =n+1, where n is the number of construction sections in the proposed traffic organization plan. In this example, the construction section of traffic organization plan A is divided into 4 sections, and the number of traffic conversions is 5; the construction section of traffic organization plan B is divided into 5 sections, and the number of traffic conversions is 6.

[0124] Calculate the proportion of each plan's conversion times in the total number of all plan conversion times as the traffic conversion score D i , where D i Calculated according to the following formula: Traffic conversion score of traffic organization plan A in this example Traffic conversion score of traffic organization plan B

[0125] Step S5 Traffic safety risk assessment process of traffic organization plan during construction period, such as Figure 6 As shown, the following steps are taken:

[0126] Step 1: According to the proposed traffic organization plan for the construction period, the second-class risks of each alternative plan are identified and scored according to Table 2 according to the three first-class risk sources of road risk, traffic risk, and facility risk, and the risk score e of each second-class risk source is obtained. j , the score range is 0-100, the lower the score, the lower the risk.

[0127] In this example, traffic organization plan A has been identified and evaluated for risks, and the scores of each risk are as follows:

[0128]

[0129]

[0130] In this example, traffic organization plan B has been identified and evaluated for risks, and the scores of each risk are as follows:

[0131]

[0132] Step 2: Calculate the traffic safety risk score E of each traffic organization plan during the construction period i , Traffic safety risk score E i Calculated using the following formula: where e j is the score of the secondary risk source, and n is the total number of secondary risk sources. The traffic safety risk score of traffic organization plan A in this example Traffic safety risk score of traffic organization scheme B

[0133] In step S6, the calculation process of the weight of the construction period traffic organization scheme comparison is carried out by the following steps:

[0134] Step 1: Based on the project characteristics of the renovation and expansion project, the decision makers of the scheme selection judge the importance of the five individual evaluation indicators of service level (A), project cost (B), construction period (C), traffic conversion times (D), and traffic safety risk (E) according to the needs of the decision, and compare the importance of the individual indicators two by two to obtain the judgment matrix. The judgment matrix of this example is as follows.

[0135]

[0136] In step S7: the weight calculation process of the judgment matrix adopts the following steps:

[0137] Step 1: Calculate the maximum eigenvalue λmax of the above judgment matrix = 5.126891, calculate the consistency index (CI), CI = (5.126891-5) / (5-1) = 0.03172, and consult the literature to know that the random consistency index (RI) of the 5-order matrix is ​​1.12. CI / RI = 0.028, which is less than 0.1, and the matrix has satisfactory consistency.

[0138] Step 2: Calculate the eigenvector corresponding to the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix and obtain the weight parameter ω={ω1,ω2,ω3,ω4,ω5}, where 0<ω i <1 and The weight parameters of each indicator calculated in this example are as follows.

[0139]

[0140] In step S8, the comprehensive score W of the traffic organization plan during the construction period is calculated according to the following formula: W i =ω1A i +ω2B i +ω3C i +ω4D i +ω5E i , where A i , B i ,C i ,D i ,E i are the scores assigned to the service level, project cost, construction period, number of traffic conversions and traffic safety risk in the i-th alternative.

[0141] The comprehensive score of the traffic organization plan A during the construction period shown in this example is:

[0142]

[0143] The comprehensive score of traffic organization plan B during the construction period is:

[0144]

[0145] After comparison, Plan B is slightly better.

[0146] The above embodiments are only used to illustrate the present invention and are not intended to limit the technical solutions described in the present invention. Although the present invention has been described in detail with reference to the above embodiments, the present invention is not limited to the above specific implementation methods. Therefore, any modification or equivalent replacement of the present invention; and all technical solutions and improvements thereof that do not depart from the spirit and scope of the invention are included in the scope of the claims of the present invention.

Claims

1. A quantitative comparison method for traffic organization schemes during the construction period of a multi-objective highway reconstruction and expansion project, which is characterized in that it includes the following steps: S1. According to the proposed traffic organization plan for the construction period and the division of construction sections, the saturation of each construction section is calculated by using the ratio of the actual traffic volume of the project to the actual traffic capacity. The service level score adopted by the comparison scheme is determined by comparing the saturation with the quantitative scoring table; S2. According to the proposed traffic organization plan for the construction period, calculate the engineering quantity of temporary works required for traffic organization, obtain the engineering cost of temporary works, and when comparing multiple plans, calculate the proportion of the engineering cost of each plan in the total engineering cost of all plans as the engineering cost score; S3. According to the proposed traffic organization plan for the construction period, obtain the construction period of the control work point, calculate the construction period of the traffic organization plan, and when comparing multiple plans, calculate the proportion of the construction period of each plan in the total construction period of all plans as the construction period score; S4. According to the division of the working area in the proposed traffic organization plan for the construction period, calculate the number of traffic conversions required during the maintenance period. When comparing multiple plans, calculate the proportion of the number of conversions of each plan in the total number of conversions of all plans as the traffic conversion number score; S5. Use risk assessment methods to identify and assess the risks of the proposed traffic organization plan during the construction period. The first-class risk sources are road risks, traffic risks, and facility risks. The second-class risk sources are identified and scored based on the first-class risk sources according to the traffic organization plan during the renovation and expansion construction period, the type and characteristics of the construction area. The score range is 0-100, which is used as the traffic safety risk score of the plan; S6. Use the analytic hierarchy process to compare the relative importance of the five indicators of service level, project cost, construction period, number of traffic conversions, and traffic safety risk, and construct a corresponding judgment matrix; S7, calculate the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix, and perform consistency check on the judgment matrix. If it fails, adjust the judgment matrix in step S6. If it passes, the consistency meets the requirements. The eigenvector corresponding to the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix is ​​the weight of the five indicators of service level, project cost, construction period, number of traffic conversions, and traffic safety risk, ω={ω1,ω2,ω3,ω4,ω5}, where 0<ω i <1 and S8. Perform a linear weighted combination of the scores of the five individual evaluation indicators of each comparison scheme and the weights of the corresponding indicators to obtain the overall score of the comparison scheme. By comparing the overall scores of the comparison schemes, judge and select the scheme with relative advantages. The smaller the score, the better the scheme as a whole.

2. The method for quantitative comparison of traffic organization schemes during the construction period of a multi-objective highway reconstruction and expansion according to claim 1 is characterized in that: In step S1, the construction section saturation v / C is calculated using the following formula: Where: v is the maximum service traffic volume during the construction period, pcu / d; C is the actual traffic capacity of the operation area, pcu / d; AADT is the average daily traffic volume in the forecast year, pcu / d, which is determined based on the traffic volume forecast results of the specific project; D is the directional unevenness coefficient, which is between 0.5 and 0.6; K is the design hourly traffic volume coefficient, %, which is the ratio of the hourly traffic volume at the selected time to the annual average daily traffic volume; C B is the capacity of each lane of the basic section of the expressway at the speed limit, pcu / h; f W is the lane width correction factor; f HV is the correction factor for the impact of large vehicles on traffic capacity; f p is the correction coefficient of the driver's familiarity with the environment, ranging from 0.9 to 1.0; f i is the strength correction coefficient of the working area, which is between 0.88 and 0.98; N is the number of one-way lanes.

3. The method for quantitative comparison of traffic organization schemes during the construction period of a multi-objective highway reconstruction and expansion according to claim 2 is characterized in that: In step S1, the evaluation criteria for determining the service level of the selected scheme are the same as A i The score ranges correspond to: The service level is at level 3 and above, 0-15; The service level is basically at level 3 and above, and the level 4 service level sections are ≤10%, 45-15; The proportion of road sections with level 4 service is ≤20%, 45-75; The proportion of road sections below Level 4 service level is >20%, 75-100.

4. The method for quantitative comparison of traffic organization schemes during the construction period of a multi-objective highway reconstruction and expansion according to claim 1 is characterized in that, in step S2, the temporary engineering cost includes the installation, removal and repair costs of temporary access roads, temporary bridges and temporary safety facilities, as well as the sum of traffic organization coordination fees, information fees and obstacle removal and rescue fees. i Calculated according to the following formula: in, b i is the construction cost corresponding to the ith alternative, and m is the number of alternatives.

5. The method for quantitative comparison of traffic organization schemes for the reconstruction and expansion of a multi-objective highway during construction period according to claim 1 is characterized in that, in step S3, the construction period is calculated according to the following formula based on the construction period required for the construction technology and construction method of each control point engineering according to each construction section of the proposed traffic organization scheme: c=MAX(c1,c2,c3,...c n ) in, c is the construction period of the proposed traffic organization plan; n is the number of construction sections of the proposed traffic organization plan.

6. The method for quantitative comparison of traffic organization schemes for multi-objective highway reconstruction and expansion construction period according to claim 5 is characterized in that the construction period score C i Calculated according to the following formula: in, c i is the construction period calculated for the ith alternative, and m is the number of alternatives.

7. The method for quantitative comparison of traffic organization schemes during the construction period of a multi-objective highway reconstruction and expansion according to claim 1 is characterized in that, in step S4, the number of traffic conversions is related to the number of construction sections of the proposed traffic organization scheme and is calculated according to the following formula: d i =n+1 in, n is the number of construction sections for the proposed traffic organization plan.

8. The method for quantitative comparison of traffic organization schemes for multi-objective highway reconstruction and expansion construction period according to claim 7 is characterized in that the traffic conversion frequency score D i Calculated according to the following formula: in, d i is the number of traffic conversions calculated for the ith alternative, and m is the number of alternatives.

9. The method for quantitative comparison of traffic organization schemes for multi-objective highway reconstruction and expansion construction period according to claim 1 is characterized in that, in step S5, the traffic safety risk score E i Calculated using the following formula: in, e j is the score of the secondary risk source, and n is the total number of secondary risk sources.

10. The method for quantitative comparison of traffic organization schemes during the construction period of a multi-objective highway reconstruction and expansion according to claim 1 is characterized in that, in step S8, the overall score W of the comparison scheme i is calculated according to the following formula: W i =ω1A i +ω2B i +ω3C i +ω4D i +ω5E i in, A i , B i ,C i ,D i ,E i are the scores assigned to the service level, project cost, construction period, number of traffic conversions and traffic safety risk in the i-th alternative; ω 1 ~ω 5 These are the weights corresponding to service level, project cost, construction period, number of traffic conversions and traffic safety risk respectively.

Images