Bridge reliability evaluation method and system based on monitoring and detection fusion analysis

Abstract

The invention relates to the technical field of bridge monitoring, early warning and evaluation, and particularly discloses a bridge reliability evaluation method and system based on monitoring and detection fusion analysis. According to the invention, fusion analysis can be carried out based on bridge real-time monitoring data and bridge regular detection data, and the reliability of the bridge structure is comprehensively evaluated from three aspects of safety, applicability and durability, so that the bridge reliability evaluation result is quantified, the comprehensive state performance of the bridge structure can be comprehensively reflected, and the reliability of the bridge structure is improved. And scientific, reliable and comprehensive technical support can be better provided for daily maintenance, preventive maintenance, repair maintenance, special maintenance, emergency maintenance and the like of a bridge maintenance and management unit.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the technical field of bridge monitoring, early warning and evaluation, and in particular to a bridge reliability evaluation method and system based on fusion analysis of monitoring and detection data. Background Art

[0002] The traditional method for evaluating the performance of bridge structures is mainly the technical condition assessment method based on manual inspection of bridges. This method is a relatively mature and standard assessment method supported by industry specifications, but the above method has the following shortcomings: 1. It relies entirely on manpower implementation, and the assessment time interval is very long (usually 1 to 3 years, or even longer); 2. The assessment results can only reflect the apparent defects and diseases of the structure, and cannot reflect the stress and deformation characteristics inside the structure; 3. Relying solely on manual inspection data, the assessment process is greatly affected by human subjective experience; 4. The assessment results can only reflect the safety risks of the bridge structure that change slowly and for a long time, and it is difficult to reflect sudden and transient safety risks; 5. The relationship between the assessment results and the safety, applicability, and durability of the bridge structure is unclear, and the direction is unclear, which cannot effectively reflect the actual safety status, applicability, and durability status of the bridge structure; 6. The design of monitoring indicators generally relies on manual experience and is not effectively combined with the current performance status of the bridge structure.

[0003] In recent years, with the gradual maturity of modern sensing and data acquisition technologies, bridge structure automated monitoring technology has gradually become an important part of the bridge operation and maintenance technology system. It can reflect risks, sudden disasters and events, as well as the internal stress and deformation state of the bridge structure in real time and continuously for a long time, but its perception form is sparse and discrete, and can only cover some key structures, and cannot achieve full coverage of bridge structure perception. Summary of the invention

[0004] In order to overcome the technical defects of the above-mentioned manual inspection and automatic monitoring of bridges, the present invention provides a bridge reliability assessment method and system based on monitoring and inspection fusion analysis.

[0005] In order to achieve the above-mentioned object of the invention, the present invention provides the following technical solutions: In a first aspect, the present invention provides a bridge reliability assessment method based on monitoring and detection data fusion analysis, the method comprising: Constructing a structural performance index of the bridge based on the structural and environmental characteristics of the target bridge, and allocating monitoring characteristic indicators and detection and evaluation indicators according to the structural performance index; wherein the structural and environmental characteristics include the bridge structure, service status and external environment; Performing real-time automatic monitoring of the target bridge according to the monitoring characteristic indicators, generating corresponding risk event alarm levels based on the exceeding of each monitoring characteristic indicator within the assessment period, and calculating the abnormal scale and score of the corresponding monitoring characteristic indicator; Performing regular manual inspections on the target bridge according to the inspection and evaluation indicators to obtain component disease data of the bridge, and calculating the evaluation scale and score of each inspection and evaluation indicator based on the component disease data; Based on the scores of each monitoring characteristic index and each detection and evaluation index, the network analytic hierarchy process based on time factor correction is used to calculate the comprehensive score of the structural performance index of the target bridge components and the overall structure; The reliability score of the target bridge is calculated based on the comprehensive score of the structural performance indicators, and the reliability score includes safety, applicability, and durability scores, thereby completing the reliability assessment.

[0006] According to a specific implementation, in the above-mentioned evaluation method, the structural performance indicators include constrained rigid body displacement performance, static force performance, static deformation performance, fatigue resistance, instability resistance, foundation anti-destruction performance, surface performance, dynamic performance, structural material corrosion resistance and protective structure working performance.

[0007] According to a specific implementation, in the above-mentioned evaluation method, the method further includes: associating the structural performance index based on the reliability evaluation category of the target bridge, the reliability evaluation category including bridge component safety, bridge component applicability, bridge component durability, bridge overall structural safety, and bridge overall structural applicability; Among them, the safety of the bridge components includes the constrained rigid body displacement performance, static force performance, static deformation performance, fatigue resistance and instability resistance performance; the applicability of the bridge components includes static deformation performance, apparent performance and dynamic performance; the durability of the bridge components includes apparent performance, corrosion resistance of structural materials and working performance of protective structures; the safety of the overall bridge structure includes the constrained rigid body displacement performance, instability resistance and foundation anti-destruction performance; the applicability of the overall bridge structure includes dynamic performance.

[0008] According to a specific implementation, in the above evaluation method, a network analytic hierarchy process based on time factor correction is used to calculate the comprehensive score of the structural performance index of the components and the overall structure of the target bridge, which specifically includes: According to the influence of each monitoring characteristic index and each detection and evaluation index in the structural performance index of the target bridge, an indirect advantage comparison is performed, a first judgment matrix is ​​constructed, and the corresponding first normalized eigenvector is calculated; Assembling the first normalized eigenvectors corresponding to the first judgment matrices into a first normalized characteristic matrix, and constructing a first supermatrix based on the first normalized characteristic matrices corresponding to all structural performance indicators; According to the influence of the structural performance indicators, an indirect advantage comparison is performed to construct the second judgment matrix and calculate the corresponding ranking vector; Assembling the sorting vectors corresponding to each second judgment matrix into a sorting matrix, and constructing a weighting matrix based on the sorting matrices corresponding to all structural performance indicators, and calculating a second supermatrix according to the first supermatrix and the weighting matrix; Performing power iteration on the second supermatrix, and obtaining a third supermatrix when the second supermatrix iteration converges, extracting the first column vector of the third supermatrix as the weight coefficient of each monitoring feature index and detection evaluation index; The weight coefficient is corrected by time factor according to the start and end time of the assessment period to obtain the corrected weight coefficients of each monitoring characteristic index and each detection and assessment index; A weighted calculation is performed based on the corrected weight coefficient and the corresponding monitoring characteristic index score and detection and evaluation index score in each structural performance index to obtain a comprehensive score for each structural performance index of the target bridge.

[0009] According to a specific implementation, in the above evaluation method, the method further includes: The corresponding monitoring characteristic index design scheme is optimized according to the result of the comprehensive score of the structural performance index. After the monitoring characteristic index is optimized, the comprehensive score of each structural performance index of the target bridge is recalculated.

[0010] According to a specific implementation, in the above assessment method, based on the corresponding risk event alarm level generated by the monitoring characteristic index exceeding the limit within the assessment period, the abnormal scale and score of the corresponding monitoring characteristic index item are calculated, which specifically includes: When each monitoring characteristic indicator reaches the preset threshold range within the assessment period, a risk event alarm is triggered and the corresponding risk event alarm level is generated; According to the risk alarm level generated by each monitoring characteristic indicator within the assessment period, the abnormal scale of the monitoring characteristic indicator item is calculated, and then the score of each monitoring characteristic indicator is calculated according to the abnormal scale.

[0011] According to a specific implementation, in the above evaluation method, the evaluation scale and score of each detection and evaluation index are calculated based on the component disease data, specifically including: The evaluation scale of each detection and evaluation index is calculated based on the measured disease data of the bridge component, and then the score of each detection and evaluation index item is calculated according to the evaluation scale.

[0012] In a second aspect, the present invention provides a bridge reliability assessment system based on monitoring and detection fusion analysis, the system comprising: An indicator association module is used to construct a structural performance indicator of the bridge based on the bridge structure, service status and external environment of the target bridge, and to allocate monitoring characteristic indicators and detection and evaluation indicators according to the structural performance indicators; A monitoring indicator module is used to automatically monitor the target bridge in real time according to the monitoring characteristic indicators, generate corresponding risk event alarm levels based on the exceeding of each monitoring characteristic indicator within the assessment period, and calculate the abnormal scale and score of the corresponding monitoring characteristic indicator; A detection index module, used to perform regular manual inspection on the target bridge according to the detection and evaluation index, obtain component disease data of the bridge, and calculate the evaluation scale and score of each detection and evaluation index based on the component disease data; The index scoring module is used to calculate the comprehensive score of the structural performance index of the components and the overall structure of the target bridge based on the scores of each monitoring characteristic index and each detection and evaluation index, using the network analytic hierarchy process based on time factor correction; The reliability assessment module is used to calculate the reliability score of the target bridge according to the comprehensive score of the structural performance indicators, wherein the reliability score includes safety, applicability and durability scores, and complete the reliability assessment.

[0013] Compared with the prior art, the present invention has the following beneficial effects: The present invention can perform fusion analysis based on real-time bridge monitoring data and regular bridge inspection data, which can not only reflect the apparent defects of the bridge structure such as apparent defects and diseases, but also reflect the stress and deformation characteristics inside the bridge structure. The results of the bridge structure reliability performance assessment can reflect the overall state performance of the structure, and can simultaneously reflect the safety risks of slow and long-term changes in the structure as well as sudden and transient safety risks, which can better provide scientific, reliable and comprehensive technical support for the daily maintenance, preventive maintenance, repair maintenance, special maintenance and emergency maintenance of bridge maintenance units. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0014] Figure 1 A flow chart of a bridge reliability assessment method based on fusion analysis of monitoring and detection data provided by an embodiment of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0015] The present invention is further described in detail below in conjunction with specific embodiments. However, this should not be understood as the scope of the above subject matter of the present invention being limited to the following embodiments, and all technologies realized based on the content of the present invention belong to the scope of the present invention.

[0016] Unless otherwise specified, the expressions “first”, “second”, “third”, etc. in the description of the specific embodiments of the present invention are merely used to distinguish the description of the same or similar components and should not be understood as emphasizing or implying the relative importance of specific components.

[0017] "Bridge Structure Reliability Performance Evaluation" aims to evaluate the reliability performance of bridge structures (including safety, applicability and durability). First, the time factor-corrected improved hierarchical analysis method is used to calculate the comprehensive scores of various structural performance indicators related to the reliability of bridge structures. Then, based on the comprehensive score results of various structural performance indicators, the reliability of the bridge structure is evaluated overall (specifically including the safety of bridge components, applicability of bridge components, durability of bridge components, overall safety of bridge structure, and overall applicability of bridge structure).

[0018] The "monitoring indicator design based on the performance status of the bridge structure" proposed in the present invention is to design (optimize) monitoring indicators based on the current performance status of the bridge structure. The monitoring indicator set obtained in this way can fully reflect the performance status of the bridge structure, and its pertinence and effectiveness are also stronger.

[0019] The method of the present invention overcomes the problems existing in traditional structural assessment methods, such as single data source, great degree of human subjective influence, unclear assessment target, difficult to quantify assessment results, unclear directionality, etc.; it also provides a more effective and targeted approach for the design (optimization) of bridge structure monitoring indicators; the assessment results calculated by the present invention can also provide more scientific, reliable and clear technical support for bridge maintenance management decision-making and the formulation of operation management plans.

[0020] refer to Figure 1 , which shows a flow chart of a bridge reliability assessment method based on monitoring and detection data fusion analysis provided by an embodiment of the present invention, the method comprising: S1. Constructing structural performance indicators of the bridge based on the structural and environmental characteristics of the target bridge, and allocating monitoring characteristic indicators and detection and evaluation indicators according to the structural performance indicators.

[0021] Specifically, in the embodiment of the present invention, the structural and environmental characteristics include the bridge structure, service status and external environment. The objects evaluated in the embodiment of the present invention are generally divided into bridge components and the overall bridge structure. According to the engineering meaning of structural safety, applicability and durability, combined with the characteristics of the structure and service status of the bridge structure and the external environment, the structural performance indicators of the bridge components and the overall bridge are divided into the following categories: Constraining rigid body displacement performance (R1) to prevent the overall structure or components (including connectors) from losing balance as a rigid body, such as falling beams; related to structural safety; Static load (strength) performance (R2), to prevent components (including connectors) from exceeding material strength and being damaged; related to structural safety; Static deformation (stiffness) performance (R3), which prevents components (including connectors) from excessive deformation and becoming unsuitable for continued load bearing or normal use; related to structural safety and structural applicability; Fatigue resistance (R4), preventing components (including connectors) from fatigue failure; related to structural safety; Anti-instability performance (R5) prevents the overall structure or components (including connectors) from reaching the critical load and causing compression instability; related to structural safety; The foundation anti-destruction performance (R6) prevents the overall structure from being destroyed due to the loss of bearing capacity of the foundation; it is related to the structural safety; Appearance performance (R7), components (including connectors) have apparent damage (e.g. cracks in components that are not allowed to crack, crack widths in components that are allowed to crack exceed the limit; honeycombing, peeling, voids, etc.); related to structural applicability and durability; Dynamic performance (R8): the vibration amplitude or energy of the overall structure or components (including connectors) is too large, or the main dynamic characteristic parameters (such as frequency, damping, vibration mode coefficient, etc.) change significantly; related to structural applicability; Structural material corrosion resistance (R9), the performance of structural components (including connectors) in resisting external environment and hazards, such as corrosion resistance of steel structural components, rust resistance of steel bars, weathering resistance of concrete components, etc.; related to structural durability; Working performance of protective structures (R10), which refers to the working performance of structures that protect components (including connectors), such as protective covers of slings; related to structural durability.

[0022] The embodiment of the present invention associates the structural performance index based on the reliability assessment category of the target bridge, wherein the reliability assessment category includes bridge component safety, bridge component applicability, bridge component durability, bridge overall structural safety, and bridge overall structural applicability.

[0023] Specifically, the safety of the bridge components includes the constrained rigid body displacement performance, static stress performance, static deformation performance, fatigue resistance and instability resistance performance; the applicability of the bridge components includes static deformation performance, apparent performance and dynamic performance; the durability of the bridge components includes apparent performance, corrosion resistance of structural materials and working performance of protective structures; the safety of the overall bridge structure includes the constrained rigid body displacement performance, instability resistance and foundation anti-destruction performance; the applicability of the overall bridge structure includes dynamic performance; the durability of the overall bridge structure has not been allocated yet.

[0024] The above structural performance indicators are used as the evaluation criteria, and the evaluation and calculation are performed according to the structural performance sub-indicators (certain detection and evaluation indicators or monitoring characteristic indicators) of the corresponding bridge components or the entire structure. The structural performance sub-indicators are certain detection and evaluation indicators or monitoring characteristic indicators, specifically: Superstructure components - main beam (stiffening beam) performance sub-indicators: Inspection and evaluation indicators: peeling, exposed reinforcement; mid-span deflection; component deformation; concrete cracks; honeycomb and rough surface; peeling, corner loss; voids and holes; concrete cover thickness; steel bar corrosion; concrete carbonization; Monitoring characteristic indicators: dynamic and quasi-static vertical displacement of main beam; dynamic and quasi-static lateral displacement of main beam; dynamic and quasi-static longitudinal displacement of main beam; static deflection of main beam; longitudinal displacement of beam end; rotation angle of beam end; static strain of key cross-section of main beam; vibration acceleration of main beam; cracks of main beam; corrosion of main beam; fatigue of structural details of main beam.

[0025] Performance indicators: as shown in Table 1.

[0026] Table 1 Relationship table of structural performance indexes of main beam (stiffening beam) of upper structure components

[0027] Superstructure components - cable tower (bridge tower) performance sub-indicators: Inspection and evaluation indicators: tilt deformation; honeycomb, rough surface; peeling, missing reinforcement; steel bar corrosion; concrete cracks; settlement; foundation scour; Monitoring characteristic indicators: tower top deviation; pier (tower) inclination; static strain of key sections of cable tower; cable tower cracks; cable tower corrosion; cable tower settlement; Performance indicators: as shown in Table 2.

[0028] Table 2 Relationship table of structural performance indexes of upper structural components, towers (bridge towers)

[0029] Superstructure components - bearing performance sub-indicators: Inspection and evaluation indicators: aging, deterioration and cracking of plate bearings; defects in plate bearings; displacement, emptying or shearing of plate bearings; damage to pot bearing components; wear of polytetrafluoroethylene slide plates, displacement and rotation of pot bearings; defects in steel bearing components or functions; displacement and rotation of steel bearings; wear and cracks in steel bearing components; concrete defects; uneven sliding surfaces of movable bearings, rust and seizure; cracks, cuts or offsets in bearings; loose threads or nuts or shearing of anchor screws; rust on upper and lower seat plates; torsion of vertical and horizontal lines; Monitoring characteristic indicators: bearing reaction force; bearing displacement; bearing cracks; bearing corrosion; Performance indicators: as shown in Table 3.

[0030] Table 3 Relationship table of structural performance indicators of upper structural components and support structures

[0031] Superstructure components - main cable performance sub-indicators: Inspection and evaluation indicators: damage to main cable protection; main cable line shape; damage to handrail ropes and railing ropes; corrosion of main cables or damage to strands; coating deterioration; Monitoring characteristic indicators: main cable deviation; main cable corrosion; main cable wire breakage; main cable wire fatigue; Performance indicators: as shown in Table 4.

[0032] Table 4 Relationship table of main cable structure performance indexes of upper structure components

[0033] Superstructure components - cable clamp performance sub-indicators: Inspection and evaluation indicators: misalignment, slippage; paint peeling; cable clamp sealing filler damage; cracks and rust; Monitoring characteristic indicators: cable clamp bolt status; cable clamp slippage; Performance indicators: as shown in Table 5.

[0034] Table 5 Performance index relationship table of cable clamp structure of upper structure components

[0035] Superstructure components - sling performance sub-indicators: Inspection and evaluation indicators: water seepage; rust and corrosion; anchor head damage; rubber aging and deterioration; paint peeling and peeling; protective cover damage; sling protective layer damage; wire breakage; Monitoring characteristic indicators: cable force; deviation rate compared with the cable force of the completed bridge; cable vibration acceleration; cable corrosion; cable wire breakage; cable wire fatigue; Performance indicators: as shown in Table 6.

[0036] Table 6 Relationship table of performance indexes of upper structure component sling structure

[0037] Substructure components - anchor performance sub-indicators: Inspection and evaluation indicators: Anchor pit leakage; Damage to the roof and side walls; Uniform settlement of anchors; Apparent diseases; Horizontal displacement; Monitoring characteristic indicators: anchor displacement; anchor corrosion; Performance indicators: as shown in Table 7.

[0038] Table 7 Relationship table of performance indexes of anchor structure of lower structure components

[0039] Substructure components - tower foundation performance sub-indicators: Inspection and evaluation indicators: scouring, hollowing out; peeling, exposed reinforcement; erosion; riverbed paving damage; settlement; slippage and tilt; cracks; Monitoring characteristic indicators: foundation scour depth; Performance indicators: as shown in Table 8.

[0040] Table 8 Performance index relationship table of lower structure components and tower foundation structure

[0041] Overall structural performance indicators of bridges: Testing and evaluation indicators: None; Monitoring characteristic indicators: main frequency changes of the bridge excluding environmental influences; vortex vibration of the main beam; tower top displacement; horizontal bidirectional vibration acceleration of the tower top; anchor displacement; Performance indicators: as shown in Table 9.

[0042] Table 9 Relationship table of bridge overall structure performance indexes

[0043] S2. Real-time automatic monitoring of the target bridge is performed according to the monitoring characteristic indicators, and corresponding risk event alarm levels are generated based on the exceeding of the limits of each monitoring characteristic indicator within the assessment period, and the abnormal scale and score of the corresponding monitoring characteristic indicator are calculated.

[0044] Based on the performance status of the bridge structure, monitoring indicators are designed for the bridge to obtain a monitoring characteristic indicator set that can better reflect the performance status of the bridge structure. The performance status of the bridge structure may be affected by many factors, including construction quality, service environment, maintenance strategy, maintenance funds, etc. Engineering and technical personnel can obtain the bridge structure monitoring indicators that need to be supplemented and optimized based on the structural performance indicators of concern and the relationship between the above structural performance indicators and the monitoring characteristic indicators (step S1), forming a monitoring indicator set that can fully reflect the characteristics of the performance status of the bridge structure.

[0045] Then, monitoring characteristic indicators related to the bridge structure state are obtained through data processing or data analysis. When the real-time data of one or more monitoring characteristic indicators reaches or exceeds a preset threshold interval, a risk event alarm is automatically triggered. In this embodiment, the value range of the risk event alarm level is 1, 2, and 3.

[0046] The highest alarm level that each monitoring characteristic indicator can reach The details are as follows: Monitoring characteristic indicators of superstructure-main beam (stiffening beam): =2; static strain of key cross section of main beam; crack of main beam; fatigue of structural details of main beam; corrosion of main beam; =3: dynamic and quasi-static vertical displacement of main beam; dynamic and quasi-static lateral displacement of main beam; dynamic and quasi-static longitudinal displacement of main beam; static deflection of main beam; longitudinal displacement of beam end; beam end rotation angle; vibration acceleration of main beam.

[0047] Superstructure - cable tower (bridge tower) monitoring characteristic indicators: =2: static strain of key section of tower; crack of tower; =3: Tower top deviation; pier (tower) inclination; cable tower corrosion; cable tower settlement.

[0048] Superstructure-support monitoring characteristic indicators: =2: bearing cracks; bearing corrosion; =3: support reaction; support displacement.

[0049] Superstructure-main cable monitoring characteristic indicators: =2: Main cable corrosion; Main cable wire fatigue; =3: The main cable is offset; the main cable is broken.

[0050] Superstructure-cable clamp monitoring characteristic indicators: =3: Clamp bolt status; clamp slips.

[0051] Superstructure-sling monitoring characteristic indicators: =2: sling vibration acceleration; sling corrosion; sling wire fatigue; =3: cable force; deviation rate compared with the cable force of the completed bridge; broken wire of the cable.

[0052] Substructure-anchor monitoring characteristic indicators: =2: Anchor corrosion; =3: Anchor displacement.

[0053] Substructure - Tower foundation monitoring characteristic indicators: =3: Foundation scour.

[0054] Overall monitoring characteristic indicators of bridge structure: =3: Main frequency changes of the bridge after eliminating environmental influences; vortex vibration of the main beam.

[0055] The data of various monitoring characteristic indicators are obtained in real time. When one or more monitoring characteristic indicator data exceed the preset level threshold, a risk event alarm of the corresponding level is generated. The embodiment of the present invention sets an over-limit alarm threshold for the monitoring characteristic indicators of the bridge structure according to the finite element analysis theoretical value, specification limit, load test value, historical data statistical value, change law analysis value and other methods. The alarm threshold level is divided into 1, 2, and 3 levels. If the measurement point data of a certain monitoring characteristic reaches or exceeds the set threshold or threshold interval, a risk event alarm of level 1, 2, or 3 corresponding to the alarm threshold level is generated.

[0056] Based on the risk event alarm data generated during the assessment period, the abnormal scale and score of each monitoring characteristic indicator of the bridge are calculated.

[0057] Specifically, calculate the abnormal scale of each monitoring characteristic index of the bridge during the assessment period : , in, Indicates Class Structural Components The abnormal scale of the monitoring characteristic indicators, Indicates The monitoring characteristic indicator belongs to The risk event alarm level of each measuring point, .

[0058] According to the abnormal scale of each monitoring characteristic indicator , calculate the scores of each monitoring characteristic indicator : , in, It represents the deduction value of the nth monitoring characteristic indicator, as shown in Table 10.

[0059] Table 10 Deduction points for monitoring characteristic indicators Example Table

[0060] Check the table above to get; Indicates the highest scale that the nth monitoring characteristic indicator can reach.

[0061] S3. Perform regular manual inspections on the target bridge according to the inspection and evaluation indicators to obtain component disease data of the bridge, and calculate the evaluation scale and score of each inspection and evaluation indicator based on the component disease data.

[0062] In this embodiment, according to the "Highway Bridge Technical Condition Assessment Standard" (JTG / T H21-2011), manual inspection is carried out in accordance with various inspection and assessment indicators to obtain the bridge component disease data and the assessment scale of various inspection and assessment indicators. .

[0063] Bridge inspection and evaluation indicators and their highest achievable scales The details are as follows: Superstructure - main beam (stiffening beam) inspection and evaluation indicators: =4: peeling, exposed steel bars; rust; =5: mid-span deflection; component deformation; cracks; concrete cover thickness.

[0064] Superstructure - Tower (bridge tower) inspection and evaluation indicators: =3: honeycomb, pockmarked surface; =4: spalling, missing reinforcement, steel bar corrosion, concrete cracks; =5: Tilt deformation; settlement; foundation scour.

[0065] Superstructure-support inspection and evaluation indicators: =4: Plate bearing defects; wear of PTFE slide plate; displacement and rotation of pot bearing beyond the limit; defect of steel bearing assembly or function; displacement and rotation of steel bearing beyond the limit; wear and crack of steel bearing components; concrete defect; uneven sliding surface of movable bearing, rust and seizure; crack, cut or offset of bearing; rust on upper and lower seat plates; torsion of vertical and horizontal lines; =5: The plate bearing is aged, deteriorated or cracked; the plate bearing is dislocated, emptied or sheared beyond the limit; the pot bearing assembly is damaged; the threads or nuts are loose or the anchor screw is sheared.

[0066] Superstructure - saddle inspection and evaluation indicators: =4: Relative displacement between the upper seat plate and the lower seat plate; condition of the saddle screw and anchor bolt; rust.

[0067] Superstructure - main cable inspection and evaluation indicators: =4: Main cable protection is damaged; handrail rope and railing rope are damaged; coating film is deteriorated; =5: Main cable line shape; main cable corrosion or strand damage.

[0068] Superstructure - Cable clamp detection and evaluation indicators: =4: misalignment, slippage; peeling of the topcoat; damage to the cable clamp sealing filler; cracks and rust.

[0069] Superstructure - sling inspection and evaluation indicators: =4: Water seepage; rust and corrosion; anchor head damage; rubber aging and deterioration; paint peeling and peeling; protective cover damage; protective layer damage of slings; =5: The steel wire is broken.

[0070] Superstructure - Anchor bolt detection and evaluation indicators: =4: peeling; rust; cracks.

[0071] Substructure - Anchorage Detection and Evaluation Indicators: =4: Anchor pit leakage; roof and side wall damage; apparent disease; =5: Uniform settlement of anchor; horizontal displacement.

[0072] Substructure - foundation inspection and evaluation indicators: =4: erosion; damage to riverbed paving; =5: scouring, hollowing out; peeling, exposed reinforcement; settlement; slippage and tilting; cracks.

[0073] Substructure-Riverbed Detection and Evaluation Indicators: =4: blockage; erosion; riverbed change.

[0074] Substructure - Adjustment structure inspection and evaluation indicators: =4: Damage; erosion, deformation.

[0075] Bridge deck system - bridge deck pavement inspection and evaluation indicators: =4: deformation (asphalt concrete); oil spill (asphalt concrete); damage (asphalt concrete); cracks (asphalt concrete); polishing, peeling, and exposure (cement concrete); misalignment (cement concrete); potholes (cement concrete); spalling (cement concrete); arching (cement concrete); damage to joint materials (cement concrete); cracks (cement concrete).

[0076] Bridge deck system - expansion joint device inspection and evaluation indicators: =4: unevenness; defects in the anchoring area; damage assessment; failure assessment.

[0077] Bridge deck system - sidewalk inspection and evaluation indicators: =4: damaged; missing.

[0078] Bridge deck system - railing and guardrail inspection and evaluation indicators: =4: damaged, missing, broken.

[0079] Bridge deck system - drainage system inspection and evaluation indicators: =3: Defects in drain pipes and drinking troughs; =4: Poor drainage.

[0080] Bridge deck system - lighting and sign detection and evaluation indicators: =3: The logo is missing or missing; =4: Dirty or damaged; lighting facilities are missing.

[0081] Furthermore, according to the evaluation scale of each test evaluation index DK m , calculate the scores of each test evaluation index: , in, It represents the deduction value of the mth detection and evaluation index item, as shown in Table 11.

[0082] Table 11 Deduction points for test and evaluation indicators Example Table

[0083] Check the table above to get; It indicates the highest scale that can be achieved by the mth detection and evaluation indicator.

[0084] S4. Based on the scores of each monitoring characteristic index and the scores of each detection and evaluation index, the network hierarchy analysis method based on time factor correction is used to calculate the comprehensive score of the structural performance index of the components and the overall structure of the target bridge.

[0085] Specifically, according to the sub-indicator set (corresponding to the various detection and evaluation indicators and monitoring characteristic indicators) contained in the structural performance indicator to be evaluated, the relationship between the indicators in the sub-indicator set is determined. Among them, the control layer is the evaluation score of the structural performance indicator, and the criterion layer is the sub-indicator set contained in the structural performance indicator.

[0086] Assume that there is a structural safety index in the control layer , Applicability Index , Durability Index , under the control layer, the network layer has structural performance indicators , ..., ,in It includes various structural performance sub-indicators (i.e. detection and evaluation indicators or monitoring characteristic indicators) , ..., , where z=n+m.

[0087] Control layer indicators ( =1, 2, 3) as the criteria, Neutron Index As a secondary criterion, the indicator The sub-indicators in The influence of the two factors is compared indirectly by comparing their advantages, that is, constructing a judgment matrix, as shown in Table 12.

[0088] Table 12 Judgment Matrix ( ) Example table

[0089] In the judgment matrix, Indicates for , Relative to The specific value of the influence is determined according to Table 13.

[0090] Table 13 Reference table of the first judgment matrix coefficients (relative importance quantification values)

[0091] The normalized eigenvector of the first judgment matrix is ​​calculated by the eigenroot method, as shown in Table 14.

[0092] Table 14 The first judgment matrix ( ) Example table of normalized feature vectors

[0093] According to the control layer indicators Under the criterion, the mutual influence relationship between each structural performance sub-indicator is constructed, and the corresponding judgment matrix of the structural performance sub-indicators with mutual influence relationship is constructed, and its normalized eigenvector is calculated. Finally, each normalized eigenvector is assembled into the first normalized eigenmatrix : , The column vector in is the structural performance index Each sub-indicator The relative influence ranking vector of each sub-indicator. The neutron index is not affected by each sub-index, then Set the matrix to zero.

[0094] Control layer indicators Under the guidelines, Constructing the first supermatrix : , Control layer indicators Under the criteria, each structural performance index , ..., right To compare the influence, the second judgment matrix is ​​constructed, as shown in Table 15.

[0095] Table 15 Example of the second judgment matrix

[0096] in, Indicates for , Relative to The size of the influence.

[0097] The ranking vector of the structural performance index is calculated by the characteristic root method, as shown in Table 16.

[0098] Table 16 Sorting vector example table

[0099] Among them, the sorting vector corresponding to the irrelevant structural performance index is a zero vector. The sorting vectors of each structural performance index are assembled to obtain a weighted matrix B : , According to the first super matrix and weight matrix , calculate the second supermatrix : , Through the second super matrix Perform power iteration to calculate the third supermatrix : , When the number of iterations When it is large enough, the matrix is ​​considered to converge, and the matrix at this time is the third supermatrix , The values ​​of any row in the same column are the same, and the sum of each column (including the first column) is 1. The first column vector is used as the initial weight coefficient vector of the structural performance sub-indicator: , Indicates The weight coefficient of each structural performance sub-indicator (determined according to the order of the elements in the sorting vector), express Column 1.

[0100] Introduce the time correction factor of the structural performance sub-indicator assessment (the assessment cycle) and calculate the assessment timeliness of the z-th sub-indicator (the assessment scale of the detection assessment indicator or the abnormal scale of the monitoring characteristic indicator): , , , In the formula, represents the effectiveness vector of the z-th sub-indicator assessment, represents the effectiveness coefficient (normalized) of the z-th sub-indicator assessment, It represents the effectiveness coefficient of the evaluation of the z-th sub-indicator; It indicates the time interval between the evaluation time of the zth sub-indicator and the starting point of the evaluation cycle (unit: month); Indicates the assessment period (unit: month).

[0101] Use the timeliness vector to correct and obtain the weight coefficient vector of the structural performance sub-index: , Scoring based on various test evaluation indicators and scores of various monitoring characteristic indicators , calculate the comprehensive score of each structural performance index: , In the formula, represents the i-th structural performance index, Score the monitoring characteristic indicators corresponding to the structural performance indicators to be evaluated, Score the inspection and assessment indicators corresponding to the performance indicators of the structure to be evaluated.

[0102] S5. Calculate the reliability score of the target bridge based on the comprehensive score of the structural performance indicators to complete the reliability assessment.

[0103] Based on the comprehensive scores of various structural performance indicators, the safety, applicability and durability scores of bridge structures (components and overall bridge structures) are calculated: , , , , , In the formula, represents the safety score of the qth component; represents the suitability score of the qth component; represents the durability score of the qth component; Representation and The relevant j-th structural performance index comprehensive score; Representation and The relevant j-th structural performance index comprehensive score; Representation and The relevant j-th structural performance index comprehensive score; Indicates the safety score of the overall bridge structure; represents the serviceability score of the overall bridge structure; Q represents the total number of components of the target bridge.

[0104] According to a specific implementation, the above evaluation method further includes: S6. Optimize the corresponding monitoring characteristic index design scheme according to the result of the comprehensive scoring of the structural performance index.

[0105] Specifically, when the comprehensive score of a certain structural performance indicator is low or does not meet the structural health and safety operation requirements, it means that the monitoring indicators associated with the structural performance indicator should be supplemented or densely arranged according to the correlation between the structural performance indicator and the monitoring characteristic indicator, so that the layout plan of the monitoring indicator is more targeted at the bridge structure performance of the project. After the monitoring characteristic indicator is optimized, the comprehensive score of each structural performance indicator of the target bridge is recalculated.

[0106] Based on the above technical solution, the present invention can perform fusion analysis based on real-time monitoring data of bridges and regular inspection data of bridges, which can not only reflect the apparent defects such as apparent defects and diseases of bridge structures, but also reflect the stress and deformation characteristics inside the bridge structure. The reliability performance assessment results of bridge structures can reflect the all-round state performance of the structure, and can simultaneously reflect the safety risks of slow and long-term changes in the structure as well as sudden and transient safety risks, which can better provide scientific, reliable and comprehensive technical support for the daily maintenance, preventive maintenance, repair maintenance, special maintenance and emergency maintenance of bridge maintenance units. The monitoring index design (optimization) is based on the current performance status of the bridge structure, and the monitoring index set obtained thereby can fully reflect the performance status of the bridge structure, and its pertinence and effectiveness are also stronger.

[0107] The evaluation method of the present invention draws on the advantages of both manual detection and automated monitoring, and has the following characteristics: 1. The evaluation data is integrated and analyzed based on monitoring and detection data. The original data for evaluation is comprehensive and the evaluation cycle can be adjusted arbitrarily according to business needs; 2. The evaluation results can not only reflect the apparent defects and diseases of the structure, but also reflect the stress and deformation characteristics inside the structure; 3. The assessment results reflect not only the safety risks of slow and long-term changes in bridge structures, but also the safety risks of sudden and transient changes; 4. The final output of the assessment includes bridge safety, applicability, and durability scores, which reflect all aspects of the reliability of the bridge structure. The assessment results are quantitative and comprehensive; 5. The bridge safety, applicability and durability scoring results characterize the service status of the bridge structure from the three aspects of bridge structure reliability. The project has clear direction and significance, and can better provide scientific, reliable and comprehensive technical support for the daily maintenance, preventive maintenance, repair maintenance, special maintenance and emergency maintenance of bridge maintenance units; 6. Since the engineering orientation and significance of structural performance indicators are clear, the monitoring indicator design (optimization) can be carried out based on the bridge structural performance that the bridge maintenance unit is concerned about or the actual structural performance degradation of the bridge, and according to the relationship between the structural performance indicators and the monitoring indicators and the detection and evaluation indicators. The results of the monitoring indicator design fully reflect the performance status of the bridge structure, which is more effective and targeted.

[0108] The present invention is based on bridge monitoring and detection results data, with the goal of quantitatively evaluating the reliability of bridge structures (including safety, applicability and durability). Firstly, based on the monitoring and detection evaluation index data, the improved hierarchical analysis method with time factor correction is used to comprehensively score the reliability performance of each structure related to the reliability of the bridge structure. Then, according to the comprehensive scoring results of the reliability performance of each structure, the reliability of the bridge structure is generally evaluated (including safety, applicability and durability evaluation).

[0109] On the other hand, an embodiment of the present invention further provides a bridge reliability assessment system based on monitoring and detection fusion analysis, the system comprising: An indicator association module is used to construct a structural performance indicator of the bridge based on the bridge structure, service status and external environment of the target bridge, and to allocate monitoring characteristic indicators and detection and evaluation indicators according to the structural performance indicators; A monitoring indicator module is used to automatically monitor the target bridge in real time according to the monitoring characteristic indicators, generate corresponding risk event alarm levels based on the exceeding of each monitoring characteristic indicator within the assessment period, and calculate the abnormal scale and score of the corresponding monitoring characteristic indicator; A detection index module, used to perform regular manual inspection on the target bridge according to the detection and evaluation index, obtain component disease data of the bridge, and calculate the evaluation scale and score of each detection and evaluation index based on the component disease data; The index scoring module is used to calculate the comprehensive score of the structural performance index of the components and the overall structure of the target bridge based on the scores of each monitoring characteristic index and each detection and evaluation index, using the network analytic hierarchy process based on time factor correction; The reliability assessment module is used to calculate the reliability score of the target bridge according to the comprehensive score of the structural performance indicators, wherein the reliability score includes safety, applicability and durability scores, and complete the reliability assessment.

[0110] It should be understood that the system disclosed in the present invention can be implemented in other ways. For example, the division of the modules is only a logical function division, and there may be other division methods in actual implementation, such as multiple units or components can be combined or integrated into another system, or some features can be ignored or not executed. Another point is that the communication connection between modules can be through some interfaces, indirect coupling or communication connection of servers or units, which can be electrical or other forms.

[0111] In addition, each functional module in each embodiment of the present invention may be integrated into one processing unit, each module may exist physically separately, or two or more modules may be integrated into one processing unit. The above-mentioned integrated unit may be implemented in the form of hardware or in the form of software functional unit.

[0112] If the integrated unit is implemented in the form of a software functional unit and sold or used as an independent product, it can be stored in a computer-readable storage medium. Based on this understanding, the technical solution of the present invention, in essence, or the part that contributes to the prior art, or all or part of the technical solution can be embodied in the form of a software product, and the computer software product is stored in a storage medium, including a number of instructions for a computer device (which can be a personal computer, a server or a network device, etc.) to perform all or part of the steps of the method described in each embodiment of the present invention. The aforementioned storage medium includes: U disk, read-only memory (ROM, Read-Only Memory), random access memory (RAM, Random Access Memory), mobile hard disk, magnetic disk or optical disk and other media that can store program codes.

[0113] The above description is only a preferred embodiment of the present invention and is not intended to limit the present invention. Any modifications, equivalent substitutions and improvements made within the spirit and principles of the present invention should be included in the protection scope of the present invention.

Claims

1. A bridge reliability assessment method based on monitoring and detection fusion analysis, characterized in that: The method comprises: Constructing a structural performance index of the bridge based on the structural and environmental characteristics of the target bridge, and allocating monitoring characteristic indicators and detection and evaluation indicators according to the structural performance index; wherein the structural and environmental characteristics include the bridge structure, service status and external environment; Performing real-time automatic monitoring of the target bridge according to the monitoring characteristic indicators, generating corresponding risk event alarm levels based on the exceeding of the limits of each monitoring characteristic indicator within the assessment period, and calculating the abnormal scale and score of the corresponding monitoring characteristic indicator; Performing regular manual inspections on the target bridge according to the inspection and evaluation indicators to obtain component disease data of the bridge, and calculating the evaluation scale and score of each inspection and evaluation indicator based on the component disease data; Based on the scores of each monitoring characteristic index and each detection and evaluation index, the network analytic hierarchy process based on time factor correction is used to calculate the comprehensive score of the structural performance index of the target bridge components and the overall structure; The reliability score of the target bridge is calculated based on the comprehensive score of the structural performance indicators, and the reliability score includes safety, applicability, and durability scores, thereby completing the reliability assessment.

2. The bridge reliability assessment method based on monitoring and detection fusion analysis according to claim 1 is characterized in that: The structural performance indicators include constrained rigid body displacement performance, static force performance, static deformation performance, fatigue resistance, instability resistance, foundation anti-destruction performance, surface performance, dynamic performance, structural material corrosion resistance and protective structure working performance.

3. A bridge reliability assessment method based on monitoring and detection fusion analysis according to claim 2, characterized in that: The method further includes: associating the structural performance index based on the reliability assessment category of the target bridge, the reliability assessment category including bridge component safety, bridge component applicability, bridge component durability, bridge overall structural safety, and bridge overall structural applicability; Among them, the safety of the bridge components includes the constrained rigid body displacement performance, static force performance, static deformation performance, fatigue resistance and instability resistance performance; the applicability of the bridge components includes static deformation performance, apparent performance and dynamic performance; the durability of the bridge components includes apparent performance, corrosion resistance of structural materials and working performance of protective structures; the safety of the overall bridge structure includes the constrained rigid body displacement performance, instability resistance and foundation anti-destruction performance; the applicability of the overall bridge structure includes dynamic performance.

4. A bridge reliability assessment method based on monitoring and detection fusion analysis according to claim 3, characterized in that: The network analytic hierarchy process based on time factor correction is used to calculate the comprehensive scores of the structural performance indicators of the target bridge components and the entire structure, including: According to the influence of each monitoring characteristic index and each detection and evaluation index in the structural performance index of the target bridge, an indirect advantage comparison is performed, a first judgment matrix is ​​constructed, and the corresponding first normalized eigenvector is calculated; Assembling the first normalized eigenvectors corresponding to the first judgment matrices into a first normalized characteristic matrix, and constructing a first supermatrix based on the first normalized characteristic matrices corresponding to all structural performance indicators; According to the influence of the structural performance indicators, an indirect advantage comparison is performed to construct the second judgment matrix and calculate the corresponding ranking vector; Assembling the sorting vectors corresponding to each second judgment matrix into a sorting matrix, and constructing a weighting matrix based on the sorting matrices corresponding to all structural performance indicators, and calculating a second supermatrix according to the first supermatrix and the weighting matrix; Performing power iteration on the second supermatrix, and obtaining a third supermatrix when the second supermatrix iteration converges, extracting the first column vector of the third supermatrix as the weight coefficient of each monitoring feature index and detection evaluation index; The weight coefficient is corrected by time factor according to the start and end time of the assessment period to obtain the corrected weight coefficients of each monitoring characteristic index and each detection and assessment index; A weighted calculation is performed based on the corrected weight coefficient and the corresponding monitoring characteristic index score and detection and evaluation index score in each structural performance index to obtain a comprehensive score for each structural performance index of the target bridge.

5. A bridge reliability assessment method based on monitoring and detection fusion analysis according to claim 4, characterized in that: The method further comprises: The corresponding monitoring characteristic index design scheme is optimized according to the result of the comprehensive score of the structural performance index. After the monitoring characteristic index is optimized, the comprehensive score of each structural performance index of the target bridge is recalculated.

6. The bridge reliability assessment method based on monitoring and detection fusion analysis according to claim 1 is characterized in that: Based on the corresponding risk event alarm level generated by the monitoring characteristic index exceeding the limit within the assessment period, the abnormal scale and score of the corresponding monitoring characteristic index item are calculated, including: When each monitoring characteristic indicator reaches the preset threshold range within the assessment period, a risk event alarm is triggered and the corresponding risk event alarm level is generated; According to the risk alarm level generated by each monitoring characteristic indicator within the assessment period, the abnormal scale of the monitoring characteristic indicator item is calculated, and then the score of each monitoring characteristic indicator is calculated according to the abnormal scale.

7. The bridge reliability assessment method based on monitoring and detection fusion analysis according to claim 1 is characterized in that: The evaluation scale and score of each detection and evaluation index are calculated based on the component disease data, including: The evaluation scale of each detection and evaluation index is calculated based on the measured disease data of the bridge component, and then the score of each detection and evaluation index item is calculated according to the evaluation scale.

8. A bridge reliability assessment system based on monitoring and detection fusion analysis, characterized in that: The system comprises: An indicator association module is used to construct a structural performance indicator of the bridge based on the bridge structure, service status and external environment of the target bridge, and to allocate monitoring characteristic indicators and detection and evaluation indicators according to the structural performance indicators; A monitoring indicator module is used to automatically monitor the target bridge in real time according to the monitoring characteristic indicators, generate corresponding risk event alarm levels based on the exceeding of each monitoring characteristic indicator within the assessment period, and calculate the abnormal scale and score of the corresponding monitoring characteristic indicator; A detection index module, used to perform regular manual inspection on the target bridge according to the detection and evaluation index, obtain component disease data of the bridge, and calculate the evaluation scale and score of each detection and evaluation index based on the component disease data; The index scoring module is used to calculate the comprehensive score of the structural performance index of the components and the overall structure of the target bridge based on the scores of each monitoring characteristic index and each detection and evaluation index, using the network analytic hierarchy process based on time factor correction; The reliability assessment module is used to calculate the reliability score of the target bridge according to the comprehensive score of the structural performance indicators, wherein the reliability score includes safety, applicability and durability scores, and complete the reliability assessment.

Images