High formwork project safety management level comparison method based on grey system theory

Abstract

The invention provides a high formwork project safety management level comparison method based on a grey system theory. The method comprises the following steps: establishing an index system for safety management level evaluation by analyzing safety management influence factors of a construction site, and constructing a hierarchical structure model; constructing a judgment matrix according to a pairwise comparison result of the importance of the evaluation indexes; calculating the weight of each index of safety management level evaluation according to the judgment matrix; collecting data of each evaluation index of a to-be-evaluated project, establishing a grey correlation analysis model, and reflecting the quality of the project safety management level according to the grey correlation closeness of each project so as to quantitatively realize the evaluation and comparison of the construction safety level of the high-formwork project; through quantitative analysis and calculation, the high-formwork project safety management level is compared and judged, the scientificity of high-formwork safety evaluation is improved, and the accuracy of high-formwork safety evaluation is improved.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The embodiments of the present application relate to the field of building safety assessment, and in particular to a method for comparing safety management levels of high-rise formwork projects based on grey system theory. Background Art

[0002] The factors that lead to safety accidents in high-rise formwork projects are complex and diverse, but at this stage, the evaluation of the safety management level of high-rise formwork projects still mainly relies on the qualitative judgment of managers and their personal experience. It is difficult to accurately reflect the safety management status of the project by relying solely on personal subjective experience, and it is impossible to objectively and comprehensively evaluate and compare the safety management level of high-rise formwork projects, which leads to deviations in the safety assessment results of high-rise formwork. Summary of the invention

[0003] The following is a summary of the subject matter described in detail herein. This summary is not intended to limit the scope of the claims.

[0004] The purpose of this application is to solve one of the technical problems existing in the relevant technology to at least a certain extent. The embodiment of this application provides a method for comparing the safety management level of high-scaffolding projects based on grey system theory, so as to improve the scientificity and accuracy of high-scaffolding safety assessment.

[0005] The embodiment of the present application is a method for comparing the safety management level of high-rise formwork projects based on grey system theory, comprising:

[0006] Analyze the factors affecting the safety management of the construction site, establish an indicator system for evaluating the safety management level, and construct a hierarchical model, wherein the hierarchical model includes multiple levels, and each level includes multiple evaluation indicators;

[0007] Construct a judgment matrix based on the results of pairwise comparison of the importance of evaluation indicators;

[0008] Calculate the weight of each indicator of safety management level evaluation according to the judgment matrix;

[0009] The safety management index data of the project to be evaluated is input into the high-support formwork project safety management level pros and cons model for safety evaluation to obtain a safety evaluation result.

[0010] According to certain embodiments of the present application, the hierarchical model includes a target layer and a criterion layer, the target layer is used to describe the safety level of high formwork, and the criterion layer includes a plurality of the evaluation indicators.

[0011] According to certain embodiments of the present application, the step of calculating the weights of various indicators for evaluating the safety management level according to the judgment matrix includes:

[0012] When the judgment matrix is ​​consistent, the influence weight of each factor of the indicator layer on the target layer is determined.

[0013] According to some embodiments of the present application, judging whether the judgment matrix is ​​consistent includes:

[0014] Performing row-element product on the judgment matrix to obtain a row-element product result;

[0015] Raise the power of the product of the row elements to obtain the power result;

[0016] Normalizing the power result to obtain a normalized result;

[0017] Calculating the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix according to the normalization result;

[0018] Calculate the consistency index according to the maximum characteristic root;

[0019] Obtaining a consistency ratio according to a ratio of the consistency index to an average random consistency index;

[0020] Whether the judgment matrix is ​​consistent is judged according to the consistency ratio.

[0021] According to certain embodiments of the present application, the safety management index data of the project to be evaluated is input into the high-support formwork project safety management level pros and cons model for safety evaluation to obtain a safety evaluation result, including:

[0022] According to the current status of safety management of high-rise formwork projects, the index data of the projects to be evaluated are obtained, and an evaluation matrix is ​​established;

[0023] Select the best value and the worst value of each indicator data in the project to be evaluated to form the best reference sequence and the worst reference sequence respectively;

[0024] According to the optimal reference sequence and the worst reference sequence, a grey relational closeness degree of the item to be evaluated is obtained;

[0025] The safety evaluation result of the project safety management level is obtained according to the grey correlation closeness.

[0026] According to certain embodiments of the present application, obtaining the grey relational closeness of the item to be evaluated according to the optimal reference sequence and the worst reference sequence includes:

[0027] Calculate the first grey correlation coefficient between the evaluation sequence of the item to be evaluated and the optimal reference sequence;

[0028] Calculate the second grey correlation coefficient between the evaluation sequence of the item to be evaluated and the worst reference sequence;

[0029] Calculate the first grey correlation degree of the item to be evaluated according to the first grey correlation coefficient and the weights of the various indicators of the safety management level evaluation;

[0030] Calculate the second grey correlation degree of the item to be evaluated according to the second grey correlation coefficient and the weights of the various indicators of the safety management level evaluation;

[0031] The grey relational closeness of the evaluation sequence of the items to be evaluated is obtained according to the first grey relational degree and the second grey relational degree.

[0032] According to certain embodiments of the present application, the safety evaluation result of the project safety management level obtained according to the grey association closeness includes:

[0033] According to the grey relational closeness, the value of the grey relational closeness reflects the quality of the safety management level;

[0034] The closer the value of the grey relational closeness is to 1, the more consistent the project to be evaluated is with the optimal solution, and the better the comprehensive evaluation is.

[0035] The above scheme has at least the following beneficial effects: by analyzing the factors affecting safety management at the construction site, an indicator system for evaluating the safety management level is established, and a hierarchical model is constructed; a judgment matrix is ​​constructed based on the results of pairwise comparison of the importance of evaluation indicators; the weights of various indicators for evaluating the safety management level are calculated based on the judgment matrix; the indicator data of the project to be evaluated are obtained based on the current status of safety management of the high-scaffolding project, and an evaluation matrix is ​​established; the optimal value and the worst value of each indicator data in the project to be evaluated are selected to form the optimal reference sequence and the worst reference sequence respectively; based on the optimal reference sequence and the worst reference sequence, the grey correlation closeness of the project to be evaluated is obtained; based on the grey correlation closeness, the comparison results of the advantages and disadvantages of the project safety management level are obtained; through quantitative analysis and calculation, the advantages and disadvantages of the safety management level of the high-scaffolding project are compared and judged, the scientific nature of the high-scaffolding safety assessment is improved, and the accuracy of the high-scaffolding safety assessment is improved. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0036] The accompanying drawings are used to provide further understanding of the technical solution of the present application and constitute a part of the specification. Together with the embodiments of the present application, they are used to explain the technical solution of the present application and do not constitute a limitation on the technical solution of the present application.

[0037] Figure 1 is a step diagram of a high-support formwork safety assessment method provided in an embodiment of the present application;

[0038] Figure 2 is a step diagram of step S310 provided in an embodiment of the present application;

[0039] Figure 3 It is a sub-step diagram of the step of judging whether a judgment matrix has consistency provided by an embodiment of the present application;

[0040] Figure 4 It is a sub-step diagram of step S400 provided in an embodiment of the present application;

[0041] Figure 5 It is a sub-step diagram of step S430 provided in an embodiment of the present application. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0042] In order to make the purpose, technical solution and advantages of the present application more clearly understood, the present application is further described in detail below in conjunction with the accompanying drawings and embodiments. It should be understood that the specific embodiments described herein are only used to explain the present application and are not used to limit the present application.

[0043] It should be noted that, although the functional modules are divided in the device schematic diagram and the logical order is shown in the flowchart, in some cases, the steps shown or described may be performed in a different order than the module division in the device or the order in the flowchart. The terms "first", "second", etc. in the specification, claims or the above drawings are used to distinguish similar objects, and are not necessarily used to describe a specific order or sequence.

[0044] The embodiments of the present application are further described below in conjunction with the accompanying drawings.

[0045] An embodiment of the present application provides a high formwork safety assessment method.

[0046] Reference Figure 1 , the high formwork safety assessment method includes the following steps:

[0047] Step S100, analyzing the factors affecting the safety management of the construction site, establishing an indicator system for evaluating the safety management level, and constructing a hierarchical model;

[0048] Step S200, constructing a judgment matrix based on the results of pairwise comparison of the importance of evaluation indicators;

[0049] Step S300, determining the weights of various indicators for evaluating the safety management level of high-rise formwork projects;

[0050] Step S400, collect data on various evaluation indicators of the project to be evaluated, establish a grey correlation analysis model, and use the grey correlation closeness of each project to reflect the quality of the project safety management level, so as to quantitatively evaluate and compare the construction safety level of the high-support formwork project.

[0051] For step S100, the safety management influencing factors of the construction site of the high-support formwork project are obtained, and various factors are analyzed and summarized. A hierarchical model is constructed according to the safety influencing factors; the hierarchical model includes multiple levels, and each level includes multiple safety influencing factors. The hierarchical model includes a target layer and a criterion layer. The target layer is used to describe the safety level of the high-support formwork, and the criterion layer includes multiple safety influencing factors.

[0052] Exemplarily, the safety management level of high-rise formwork is taken as the target layer, the organizational management, design management, construction management and material management are taken as the criterion layer, and the sub-factors of the criterion layer are taken as the indicator layer.

[0053] The indicator layer should include the following factors:

[0054] Organization and management: safety management system, safety supervision and inspection, safety technology disclosure, safety education and training;

[0055] Design management: safety verification, applicable specifications, scheme review, and drawing management;

[0056] Construction management: frame structure, foundation bearing capacity, inspection and acceptance, construction monitoring;

[0057] Material management: steel pipe quality, fastener quality, formwork quality, and component quality.

[0058] For step S200, the importance of the factor elements in the same level relative to the factor elements in the previous level is compared in pairs to establish a judgment matrix.

[0059] For example, based on the hierarchical model, the importance of the safety influencing factors in the same level relative to the safety influencing factors in the previous level is evaluated according to expert opinions.

[0060] The comparison results of the importance of each safety influencing factor are expressed in a scale method of 1 to 9. The meaning of the scale of the importance of each safety influencing factor is shown in Table 1.

[0061] Table 1 Meaning of the scale of importance between safety influencing factors

[0062] Scale meaning 1 Both are equally important 3 The former is slightly more important than the latter 5 The former is obviously more important than the latter 7 The former is more important than the latter 9 The former is extremely more important than the latter 2、4、6、8 The importance lies between the two adjacent levels mentioned above reciprocal The results are reciprocal

[0063] The judgment matrix is ​​constructed according to the scale and is expressed as: The value of each element of the judgment matrix is ​​a scale.

[0064] The elements of the judgment matrix satisfy the following relationship: a ij >0;a ij =1 / a ji ; a ii =1.

[0065] Reference Figure 2 For step S300, the weights of various indicators for evaluating the safety management level of high-rise formwork projects are determined according to the judgment matrix, including the following steps:

[0066] Step S310, when the judgment matrix is ​​consistent, determine the influence weight of each factor of the indicator layer on the target layer.

[0067] Reference Figure 3 , judging whether the judgment matrix is ​​consistent, including the following steps:

[0068] Step S321, performing row product of the judgment matrix to obtain a row product result;

[0069] Step S322, raising the power of the row element product result to obtain a power result;

[0070] Step S323, normalizing the power result to obtain a normalized result;

[0071] Step S324, calculating the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix according to the normalization result;

[0072] Step S325, calculating the consistency index according to the maximum characteristic root;

[0073] Step S326, obtaining a consistency ratio according to the ratio of the consistency index to the average random consistency index;

[0074] Step S327: judging whether the matrix is ​​consistent according to the consistency ratio.

[0075] For step S321, the row product of the judgment matrix is ​​performed to obtain the row product result, which can be expressed as follows: i=1,2,3,···,n;b ij is the row element value of the judgment matrix, M i is the product of row elements. i is the row of the judgment matrix, j is the column of the judgment matrix, and n is the order of the judgment matrix.

[0076] In step S322, the row element product result is exponentiated to obtain a power result, which can be expressed as follows: W i The power result.

[0077] For step S323, the power result is normalized to obtain a normalized result, which can be expressed as: W' i is the normalized result, and is also the weight value of the ith safety influencing factor being compared. The eigenvector of the judgment matrix W' = [W 1 ',W 2 ',W 3',···,W n '] T is the desired eigenvector.

[0078] Step S324, calculate the maximum characteristic root of the judgment matrix according to the normalization result; the maximum characteristic root is expressed as: λmax is the maximum characteristic root, A is the judgment matrix, (AW) i is the i-th element of the vector AW.

[0079] Step S325, perform consistency check using the hierarchical analysis method based on the maximum characteristic root to calculate the consistency index. The consistency index is expressed as:

[0080] Step S326, obtain the consistency ratio according to the ratio of the consistency index to the average random consistency index. The consistency ratio is expressed as:

[0081] RI is the average random consistency index. The values ​​of RI are shown in Table 2.

[0082] Table 2 Value table of average random consistency index

[0083] Degree 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Consistency ratio 0.52 0.89 1.12 1.26 1.36 1.41 1.46

[0084] Step S327: judging whether the matrix is ​​consistent according to the consistency ratio.

[0085] When the value of the consistency ratio is less than 0.1, the judgment matrix is ​​consistent.

[0086] The first weight of the security influencing factor on the target layer is determined according to the second weight of the security influencing factor on the target layer and the third weight of the security influencing factor on the criterion layer.

[0087] In the multi-layer structure analysis model, each layer has different influence weights on the target layer. The influence weight of the i-th element of the indicator layer on the target layer is expressed as: In the formula, a j is the second weight of the security influencing factor on the target layer; c ij is the third weight of the security influencing factor on the criterion layer; m is the number of factors included in the criterion layer.

[0088] After calculating the total hierarchical ranking, a consistency check is also required, and the consistency ratio is expressed as: In the formula, CI j , RI j are the consistency index and consistency ratio of the jth factor of the quasi-measurement layer to the judgment matrix. When the CR value is less than 0.1, the consistency test passes.

[0089] When it is determined that the judgment matrix is ​​consistent, step S400 is executed; otherwise, a new judgment matrix is ​​re-established according to the expert opinions, and the above steps are repeated.

[0090] Reference Figure 4 For step S400, the safety management index data of the project to be evaluated is input into the high-support formwork project safety management level merits and demerits model for safety evaluation to obtain the safety evaluation result, including the following steps:

[0091] Step S410, establishing an evaluation matrix based on the safety management indicator data of the project to be evaluated;

[0092] Step S420, selecting the best value and the worst value of each safety influencing factor from the evaluation matrix to form an optimal reference sequence and a worst reference sequence respectively;

[0093] Step S430, obtaining the grey relational closeness of the evaluation sequence of the item to be evaluated according to the best reference sequence and the worst reference sequence;

[0094] Step S440, obtaining the comparison result of the safety management level according to the grey association closeness.

[0095] For step S410, based on the indicator system for evaluating the safety management level of high-rise formwork projects, the safety management indicator data of the project to be evaluated is obtained and an evaluation matrix is ​​established.

[0096] In order to eliminate the influence of different evaluation index dimensions, the evaluation matrix is ​​standardized.

[0097] After standardization, the evaluation matrix of the i-th solution of the r-th safety influencing factor is: Y k = {Y 1 (r),Y 2 (r),···,Y k (r)}(k=1,2,···,i).

[0098] For step S420, the optimal evaluation matrix and the worst evaluation matrix of each safety influencing factor are selected from the evaluation matrix. The optimal value and the worst value of each safety influencing factor in the high-support formwork project to be evaluated are selected to form the optimal evaluation matrix and the worst evaluation matrix respectively.

[0099] The optimal evaluation matrix is ​​expressed as:

[0100] The worst evaluation matrix is ​​expressed as:

[0101] Among them, in the evaluation scheme, the weight of each evaluation indicator is the first weight of the security impact factor on the target layer, denoted as: W = {W r}(r=1,2,···,n).

[0102] Reference Figure 5 For step S430, the grey relational closeness of the evaluation sequence of the item to be evaluated is obtained according to the best reference sequence and the worst reference sequence, including the following steps:

[0103] Step S431, calculating the first grey correlation coefficient between the evaluation sequence of the item to be evaluated and the optimal reference sequence;

[0104] Step S432, calculating the second grey correlation coefficient between the evaluation sequence of the item to be evaluated and the worst reference sequence;

[0105] Step S433, calculating the first grey correlation degree of the item to be evaluated according to the first grey correlation coefficient and the weights of various indicators of safety management level evaluation;

[0106] Step S434, calculating the second grey correlation degree of the item to be evaluated according to the second grey correlation coefficient and the weights of various indicators of safety management level evaluation;

[0107] Step S435, obtaining the grey relational closeness of the evaluation sequence of the item to be evaluated according to the first grey relational degree and the second grey relational degree.

[0108] For the rth safety influencing factor, the first grey correlation coefficient between the evaluation sequence and the optimal reference sequence is expressed as:

[0109] The second grey correlation coefficient between the evaluation sequence and the worst reference sequence is expressed as:

[0110] The first grey correlation degree between the evaluation sequence and the optimal reference sequence is expressed as:

[0111] The second grey correlation degree between the evaluation sequence and the optimal reference sequence is expressed as:

[0112] The grey relational closeness of the evaluation sequence is expressed as:

[0113] The safety assessment result is obtained according to the grey relational closeness, including the following steps:

[0114] According to the grey relational closeness, the value of the grey relational closeness reflects the quality of the safety management level;

[0115] The closer the value of the grey relational closeness is to 1, the more consistent the project to be evaluated is with the optimal solution, and the better the comprehensive evaluation is.

[0116] The above is a specific description of the preferred implementation of the present application, but the present application is not limited to the embodiments. Technical personnel familiar with the field can make various equivalent modifications or substitutions without violating the spirit of the present application. These equivalent modifications or substitutions are all included in the scope defined by the claims of the present application.

Claims

1. A method for comparing the safety management level of high-rise formwork projects based on grey system theory, characterized in that: include: Analyze the factors affecting the safety management of the construction site, establish an indicator system for evaluating the safety management level, and construct a hierarchical model, wherein the hierarchical model includes multiple levels, and each level includes multiple evaluation indicators; Construct a judgment matrix based on the results of pairwise comparison of the importance of evaluation indicators; Calculate the weight of each indicator of safety management level evaluation according to the judgment matrix; The safety management index data of the project to be evaluated is input into the high-support formwork project safety management level pros and cons model for safety evaluation to obtain the safety evaluation results.

2. According to claim 1, a high-support formwork project safety management level comparison method based on grey system theory is characterized in that: The hierarchical model includes a target layer and a criterion layer, wherein the target layer is used to describe the safety level of high formwork, and the criterion layer includes a plurality of evaluation indicators.

3. According to claim 2, a method for comparing safety management levels of high-rise formwork projects based on grey system theory is characterized in that: The weights of various safety management level evaluation indicators are calculated according to the judgment matrix, including: When the judgment matrix is ​​consistent, the influence weight of each factor of the indicator layer on the target layer is determined.

4. According to claim 3, a method for comparing safety management levels of high-rise formwork projects based on grey system theory is characterized in that: Determining whether the judgment matrix is ​​consistent includes: Performing row-element product on the judgment matrix to obtain a row-element product result; Raise the power of the product of the row elements to obtain the power result; Normalizing the power result to obtain a normalized result; Calculating the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix according to the normalization result; Calculate the consistency index according to the maximum characteristic root; Obtaining a consistency ratio according to a ratio of the consistency index to an average random consistency index; Whether the judgment matrix is ​​consistent is judged according to the consistency ratio.

5. According to claim 1, a method for comparing safety management levels of high-rise formwork projects based on grey system theory is characterized in that: Input the safety management index data of the project to be evaluated into the high-rise formwork project safety management level pros and cons model for safety evaluation, and obtain the safety evaluation results, including: According to the current status of safety management of high-rise formwork projects, the index data of the projects to be evaluated are obtained, and an evaluation matrix is ​​established; Select the best value and the worst value of each indicator data in the project to be evaluated to form the best reference sequence and the worst reference sequence respectively; According to the optimal reference sequence and the worst reference sequence, a grey relational closeness degree of the item to be evaluated is obtained; The safety evaluation result of the project safety management level is obtained according to the grey correlation closeness.

6. A method for comparing safety management levels of high-rise formwork projects based on grey system theory according to claim 5, characterized in that: According to the optimal reference sequence and the worst reference sequence, the grey relational closeness of the item to be evaluated is obtained, including: Calculate the first grey correlation coefficient between the evaluation sequence of the item to be evaluated and the optimal reference sequence; Calculate the second grey correlation coefficient between the evaluation sequence of the item to be evaluated and the worst reference sequence; Calculate the first grey correlation degree of the item to be evaluated according to the first grey correlation coefficient and the weights of the various indicators of the safety management level evaluation; Calculate the second grey correlation degree of the item to be evaluated according to the second grey correlation coefficient and the weights of the various indicators of the safety management level evaluation; The grey relational closeness of the evaluation sequence of the items to be evaluated is obtained according to the first grey relational degree and the second grey relational degree.

7. The method for comparing safety management levels of high-rise formwork projects based on grey system theory according to claim 5 is characterized in that: The safety evaluation result of the project safety management level obtained according to the grey correlation closeness includes: According to the grey relational closeness, the value of the grey relational closeness reflects the quality of the safety management level; The closer the value of the grey relational closeness is to 1, the more consistent the project to be evaluated is with the optimal solution, and the better the comprehensive evaluation is.

Images