Expressway tunnel electromechanical system quality condition evaluation method

Abstract

The invention provides an expressway tunnel electromechanical system quality condition evaluation method, which comprises the following steps: establishing an evaluation system about each equipment group: aiming at each electromechanical equipment, evaluating from three aspects of an operation condition, a maintenance management condition and a fault condition, and respectively corresponding to three categories of an operation category, a maintenance category and a fault category, each category comprises a plurality of single indexes; determining the index weight of the single index according to the importance degree of the single index to the previous class; evaluating each single index to obtain a corresponding score; integrating the corresponding score and the index weight of the single index under each category to obtain an evaluation value of the category; and integrating the evaluation values corresponding to the three categories of each electromechanical device into an integral comprehensive evaluation value through a certain mathematical model or mathematical algorithm, and evaluating the quality condition of the electromechanical device in combination with a scoring standard.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present application relates to the field of highway tunnel safety, and in particular to a method for evaluating the quality status of a highway tunnel electromechanical system. Background Art

[0002] To improve the tunnel's internal environment, enhance service levels, reduce the incidence of accidents and minimize the severity of injuries, thereby ensuring tunnel safety and smooth operation, it is necessary to configure an electromechanical system of appropriate grade based on the tunnel's grade. Ensuring that electromechanical system equipment is in good operating condition is a prerequisite for achieving tunnel safety. Summary of the Invention

[0003] One purpose of the present application is to provide a method for evaluating the quality status of electromechanical systems in highway tunnels by monitoring the quality status of various electromechanical equipment in the tunnel, promptly detecting faults and issuing alarms for rapid processing.

[0004] The present application is achieved through the following technical measures: a method for evaluating the quality status of an electromechanical system in a highway tunnel, wherein the electromechanical system in the highway tunnel includes a monitoring equipment group, a communication equipment group, a power supply and distribution equipment group, a lighting equipment group, a ventilation equipment group, and a fire-fighting equipment group; establishing an evaluation system for each equipment group: each equipment group includes multiple electromechanical equipment, and each electromechanical equipment is evaluated from three aspects: operating status, maintenance and management status, and fault status, corresponding to three categories: operating category, maintenance category, and fault category, respectively, and each category includes multiple single indicators; determining the indicator weight of the single indicator according to the importance of the single indicator to the upper-level category; evaluating each single indicator to obtain its corresponding score; combining the corresponding score and indicator weight of the single indicator under each category to obtain an evaluation value for the category; integrating the evaluation values corresponding to the three categories of each electromechanical equipment into an overall comprehensive evaluation value through a certain mathematical model or mathematical algorithm, and combining it with a scoring standard to evaluate the quality status of the electromechanical equipment; comprehensively evaluating the quality status of all electromechanical equipment in a certain equipment group to further evaluate the quality status of the entire equipment group; comprehensively evaluating the quality status of the electromechanical equipment in all equipment groups to further evaluate the quality status of the entire highway tunnel electromechanical system.

[0005] Furthermore, the single indicators are divided into quantitative indicators and qualitative indicators. For quantitative indicators, they are extrapolated based on the data measured on site and then combined with relevant national standards to obtain their corresponding scores. For qualitative indicators, a scoring reference table is established. Based on on-site observations, an expert group combines their personal professional experience and refers to the scoring reference table of the indicator to score and obtain their corresponding scores.

[0006] Furthermore, the single indicator is divided into a quantitative indicator and a qualitative indicator. The evaluation of the qualitative indicator is converted into a quantitative evaluation according to the membership theory of fuzzy data, and finally the corresponding score of each single indicator is obtained.

[0007] Furthermore, the hierarchical analysis method is used to determine the weight of each single indicator in the corresponding category, and the weight of the evaluation indicator of each category in the equipment group is determined to obtain the indicator weight set U; the judgment matrix R is constructed and consistency verification is performed. When the consistency verification is satisfied, the indicator weight set U is combined with the judgment matrix R to obtain a comprehensive evaluation of the evaluated equipment group. If the consistency verification is not satisfied, the judgment matrix R is adjusted until the consistency verification is satisfied.

[0008] The beneficial effects of this application are as follows: (1) Comprehensive and accurate reflection of the operating status of tunnel electromechanical equipment: By establishing an indicator system and evaluation method for the operating status of tunnel electromechanical equipment, the classification of the operating status of the tunnel electromechanical system is refined, providing the necessary basis for evaluating and predicting the operating trend of the electromechanical system, so as to improve the single method of relying on on-site maintenance of electromechanical equipment and handling it only after a failure occurs. (2) The evaluation of the operating status of tunnel electromechanical equipment can not only reflect the status of the tunnel electromechanical equipment at a specific moment in real time, but also reflect the changing trend of the operating status of the electromechanical equipment. By combining the analysis of the changing trend with the on-site detection in a determined manner, the corresponding disposal strategy can be arranged in advance to improve the efficiency of operation and management. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0009] The accompanying drawings are used to provide a further understanding 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 present application and do not constitute a limitation of the present application. In the accompanying drawings:

[0010] Figure 1 This is a diagram of the electromechanical system of a highway tunnel;

[0011] Figure 2 This is the AHP flowchart;

[0012] Figure 3 This is a diagram of the UPS equipment indicator system architecture. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0013] Exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure will be described in more detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Although exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure are shown in the accompanying drawings, it should be understood that the present disclosure can be implemented in various forms and should not be limited by the embodiments set forth herein. Rather, these embodiments are provided to enable a more thorough understanding of the present disclosure and to fully convey the scope of the present disclosure to those skilled in the art.

[0014] The electromechanical system of a highway tunnel includes multiple equipment groups. A method for evaluating the quality status of the electromechanical system of a highway tunnel includes: (1) establishing an evaluation system for each equipment group: each equipment group includes multiple electromechanical equipment, and evaluating each electromechanical equipment from three aspects: operation status, maintenance and management status, and fault status, which correspond to three categories: operation category, maintenance category, and fault category, respectively, and each category includes multiple single indicators; (2) determining the indicator weight of the single indicator according to the importance of the single indicator to the upper level category; evaluating each single indicator to obtain its corresponding score; and combining the corresponding score and indicator weight of the single indicator under each category to obtain the evaluation value of the category; (3) integrating the evaluation values corresponding to the three categories of each electromechanical equipment into an overall comprehensive evaluation value through a certain mathematical model or mathematical algorithm, and combining it with the scoring standard to evaluate the quality status of the electromechanical equipment; (4) comprehensively evaluating the quality status of all electromechanical equipment in a certain equipment group, and then evaluating the quality status of the entire equipment group; (5) comprehensively evaluating the quality status of the electromechanical equipment in all equipment groups, and then evaluating the quality status of the entire highway tunnel electromechanical system.

[0015] First: Establish an evaluation system for each equipment group

[0016] From the perspective of tunnel traffic engineering design, a complete tunnel electromechanical system consists of the following six subsystems: monitoring facilities, communication facilities, power supply and distribution facilities, lighting facilities, ventilation facilities, and fire protection facilities. Figure 1 shown.

[0017] The purpose of monitoring facilities is to manage traffic effectively and avoid secondary accidents based on traffic safety. Monitoring facilities include cameras, information boards, microwave vehicle detectors, and CO / VI detectors.

[0018] Communication facilities mainly include Ethernet switches, emergency telephones and broadcasting.

[0019] The power supply and distribution system is the source of power for the entire electromechanical system. The quality, safety, and reliability of this power supply are directly related to the proper operation of every device in the tunnel electromechanical system. The power supply and distribution facilities used within tunnels include transformers, low-voltage switchgear, UPS (uninterruptible power supplies), power monitoring hosts, and other power supply and distribution and auxiliary facilities.

[0020] Lighting facilities are one of the basic facilities to ensure the safety, comfort and smooth operation of tunnels, including tunnel lights, lighting control boxes and brightness meters.

[0021] Ventilation facilities are basic facilities to ensure the traffic capacity of tunnels, including jet fans and fan control cabinets.

[0022] Firefighting facilities are used to prevent fires and provide emergency rescue after a fire occurs. They mainly include hand alarms, fire alarm controllers, fire detectors, water tank level detectors, and fire extinguishing facilities.

[0023] Given the complexity of evaluating the operational status of electromechanical equipment, the selection of evaluation indicators involved surveying transportation industry experts, tunnel operator managers, and engineers, as well as consulting relevant national standards. The evaluation criteria for tunnel electromechanical equipment operational status were determined to encompass three key aspects: operational status, maintenance and management, and fault conditions. These indicators correspond to the three categories of operation, maintenance, and fault conditions, respectively, with each category comprising multiple individual indicators. Through summarization and organization, a comprehensive evaluation indicator system for the operational status of electromechanical equipment in highway tunnels was constructed, as shown in Tables 1 to 6. The first layer comprises elements: the operational status of the tunnel electromechanical system. The second layer comprises three aspects: the operational status of the electromechanical equipment, maintenance and management, and fault conditions. The third layer comprises the refined evaluation factors, comprising specific individual indicators.

[0024] Table 1 Evaluation index table of electromechanical equipment under monitoring facilities

[0025]

[0026]

[0027] Table 2 Evaluation index table of electromechanical equipment belonging to communication facilities

[0028]

[0029]

[0030] Table 3 Evaluation index table of electromechanical equipment belonging to power supply and distribution facilities

[0031]

[0032]

[0033] Table 4 Evaluation index table of mechanical and electrical equipment belonging to lighting facilities

[0034]

[0035]

[0036] Table 5 Evaluation index table of mechanical and electrical equipment belonging to ventilation facilities

[0037]

[0038] Table 6 Evaluation index table of mechanical and electrical equipment belonging to fire protection facilities

[0039]

[0040]

[0041] Second: Get the evaluation value of a certain category for the device group

[0042] The evaluation index system for the operational status of tunnel electromechanical equipment incorporates both quantitative and qualitative indicators. When calculating and evaluating individual indicator values, reference should be made to relevant national and industry standards, such as the "Technical Specifications for Highway Tunnel Maintenance," "Technical Requirements for Highway Tunnel Fire Alarm Systems," "Interim Technical Requirements for Highway Network Operation Monitoring and Services," "Highway Engineering Quality Inspection and Assessment Standards," "Highway Tunnel Ventilation and Lighting Design Specifications," and "Highway Tunnel Traffic Engineering Design Specifications." Standards and specifications covering the design, construction, and operation of tunnels and electromechanical systems should be summarized as a reference to facilitate the evaluation process. Quantitative indicators such as voltage, current, and failure rate should be evaluated using quantitative evaluation methods, with calculations based on field-measured data and then processed in accordance with relevant national standards. Qualitative indicators should be evaluated by an expert panel, combining relevant national standards with personal experience. Based on on-site observations and historical operational records, a reasonable scoring range should be assigned to each indicator.

[0043] In one scenario, when measuring and evaluating qualitative indicators, the indicators are scored using a set-valued statistical method, with a panel of experts scoring the indicators based on on-site observations. For a specific indicator, the panel combines their professional experience with a reference table to assign a score using an interval method, meaning each expert uses a score interval to evaluate the indicator. In another scenario, the evaluation of qualitative indicators is converted into a quantitative evaluation based on the membership theory of fuzzy data, ultimately deriving a corresponding score for each individual indicator.

[0044] Furthermore, the weight of the single indicator is determined according to the importance of the single indicator to the upper level category. In this embodiment, the weight coefficient of the indicator is determined by the hierarchical analysis method.

[0045] Analytical Hierarchy Process, such as Figure 2 As shown, the main steps are:

[0046] (1) Determine the indicators for life cycle quality evaluation of key electromechanical equipment;

[0047] (2) Analyze the relationship between evaluation indicators and establish a hierarchical structure (e.g., equipment group layer, indicator category layer, single indicator layer);

[0048] (3) Construct a pairwise judgment matrix (the judgment matrix represents a pairwise comparison of the importance of the elements of this level with respect to the factors of the previous level, for a certain element of the previous level;

[0049] (4) Hierarchical single sorting and consistency test: The relative weight of the compared elements to the criterion is calculated from the judgment matrix, and the hierarchical single sorting vector is obtained and the consistency test of the judgment matrix is performed;

[0050] (5) Hierarchical total ranking and its consistency test - calculate the combined weight of the elements of each level to the target level and obtain the hierarchical total ranking vector.

[0051] According to the composition of each factor in each level of the established evaluation system, a weight coefficient can be assigned to each single indicator. When conducting a comprehensive evaluation, the weight can have a greater impact on the final evaluation result, and different weights can produce different results.

[0052] The fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method is a comprehensive bid evaluation method based on fuzzy mathematics. This method transforms qualitative evaluation into quantitative evaluation based on the membership theory of fuzzy mathematics. This method uses fuzzy mathematics to make an overall assessment of objects or entities subject to multiple factors. It offers clear results and a strong systematic approach, effectively resolving ambiguous and difficult-to-quantify problems and is suitable for solving a variety of non-deterministic problems.

[0053] Evaluating from only one factor to determine the degree of membership of the evaluation object to the evaluation set V is called single-factor fuzzy evaluation. Then, the degree of membership of the evaluation object to each level subset is determined from a single factor, and the fuzzy relationship matrix is obtained. The formula is:

[0054]

[0055] where r ij Indicates the degree of membership of a certain evaluated indicator to a fuzzy subset, i = 1, 2, ..., n; j = 1, 2, ..., m. The calculation formula of membership is:

[0056] ① Small

[0057]

[0058] ②Central type

[0059]

[0060] ③ Large

[0061]

[0062] Third: Comprehensive evaluation of a certain equipment group

[0063] U = [u1, u2, u3], where u1 is the weight of the operation indicator, u2 is the weight of the maintenance indicator, u3 is the weight of the fault indicator, and U is the indicator weight set;

[0064] u1=[u11,u12,……u1i],u1i is the weight of single operation index i in the operation index;

[0065] u2=[u21,u22,……u2j],u2j is the weight of maintenance-class single indicator j in the operation-class indicator;

[0066] u3=[u31,u32,……u3k],u3k is the weight of the fault-related single indicator k in the operation-related indicators;

[0067] The weight set U and the judgment matrix R are combined to obtain the comprehensive judgment set B of the evaluated equipment group, B = U*R.

[0068] In their respective weight coefficients u i Under the regulation of , n single indicator factors are integrated with m evaluation levels, and then a comprehensive evaluation set B is obtained. i It indicates that the m indicator factors meet the corresponding weight u, and through comprehensive evaluation, the entire parent system is evaluated as a value of level i.

[0069] According to the hierarchical structure of the highway tunnel detection system, the evaluation system can be divided into three layers (equipment group layer, indicator category layer, and single indicator layer), and the fuzzy evaluation method uses a multi-level approach.

[0070] ①First-level evaluation: the formula is:

[0071] B i =U i ·R i =(b i1 , b i2 ,...b in )

[0072] Where i represents the i-th classification indicator of the equipment group layer, and n represents the number of all single indicators under the i-th indicator category of the equipment group layer;

[0073] ② Secondary evaluation, the formula is:

[0074]

[0075] The system evaluation set is based on a five-level evaluation method, namely, the evaluation set V = {very unhealthy v1, not very healthy v2, moderate v3, relatively healthy v4, very healthy v5},

[0076] That is, V = {30, 60, 80, 90, 100}. The final evaluation result is

[0077] G=B·V T

[0078] Finally, the health status of the equipment can be determined based on the evaluation value interval of the G value, as shown in Table 7.

[0079] Table 7 Mechanical and electrical equipment scoring standards and health status rating table

[0080]

[0081] Example analysis:

[0082] Taking UPS as an example, the main function of UPS is to ensure the uninterruptible operation of the load. During the operation of the UPS system, if a power outage occurs, the battery of the host must provide sufficient DC power to the inverter in a short time to ensure that the load can be continuously powered. Therefore, UPS is a key equipment in highway tunnels and its quality needs to be evaluated. This study adopts the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method, considering the three aspects of equipment operation efficiency, maintenance status and fault conditions, and constructs a UPS equipment operation status evaluation index system. Figure 3 shown.

[0083] 1. Single indicator measurement and evaluation criteria

[0084] When calculating and evaluating the specific value of a single indicator, reference should be made to the national and industry standards, such as GB7260-2008 "Uninterruptible Power Supply Equipment", and other standards and specifications for the operation, design, etc. of tunnels and equipment should be summarized as a reference for evaluation to facilitate the evaluation work.

[0085] This study will analyze each individual indicator in the evaluation index system and further adjust and improve the evaluation content and scoring criteria for each specific evaluation indicator to serve as a reference for the evaluation. The scoring criteria can be found in Table 7.

[0086] (1) Output voltage

[0087] According to relevant regulations, the continuous fluctuation range of the output voltage shall not exceed ±2% of the rated voltage value during steady-state operation unless otherwise specified. The evaluation criteria for the output voltage obtained based on actual conditions are shown in Table 8.

[0088] Table 8 Output voltage evaluation standards

[0089] Rating level Measured output voltage (V) Rating range 1 [217.8,222.2] [90,100] 2 [213.4,217.8)or(222.2,226.6] [80,90) 3 [209,213.4)or(226.6,231] [60,80) 4 [198,209)or(231,242] [30,60) 5 <198or>242 [0,30)

[0090] (2) Output current

[0091] Within the specified load power factor range, the fluctuation range of the rated output current of the uninterruptible power supply does not exceed ±5%. The evaluation criteria for the output current are shown in Table 9.

[0092] Table 9 Output current evaluation standards

[0093] Rating level Measured output current value (A) Rating range 1 [10.89,11.11] [90,100] 2 [10.67,10.89)or(11.11,11.33] [80,90) 3 [10.45,10.67)or(11.33,11.55] [60,80) 4 [9.9,10.45)or(11.55,12.1] [30,60) 5 <9.9or>12.1 [0,30)

[0094] (3) Output frequency

[0095] Unless otherwise specified in technical documents, the output frequency and deviation of the UPS equipment in steady-state operation should be within 1% of the specified value. The evaluation criteria for the output frequency are shown in Table 10.

[0096] Table 10 Output frequency evaluation standards

[0097] Rating level Measured output frequency (Hz) Rating range 1 [49.8,50.2] [90,100] 2 [49.5,49.8)or(50.2,50.5] [80,90) 3 [49.2,49.5)or(50.5,50.8] [60,80) 4 [49,49.2)or(50.8,51] [30,60) 5 <49or>51 [0,30)

[0098] (4) Battery capacity and charge and discharge time

[0099] Different battery capacities require different charging and discharging times. The longer the device is used, the shorter its discharge time and the lower its availability. Therefore, based on the time it takes for a fully charged UPS to discharge, we develop battery charging and discharging evaluation criteria, as shown in Table 11.

[0100] Table 11 Evaluation standards for battery capacity and charge and discharge time

[0101] Rating level Measured value of battery capacity and charge and discharge time (h) Rating range 1 [2.5，3) [90,100] 2 [2,2.5) [80,90) 3 [1.5,2) [60,80) 4 [1,1.5) [30,60) 5 <1 [0,30)

[0102] (5) Operating temperature

[0103] According to relevant regulations, the daily average temperature of the equipment during operation shall not exceed 30°C, and the annual average temperature shall not exceed 25°C. The evaluation standards for operating temperature are shown in Table 12.

[0104] Table 12 Operating temperature evaluation standards

[0105] Rating level Measured operating temperature (℃) Rating range 1 ≤26 [90,100] 2 (26,30] [80,90) 3 (30,35] [60,80) 4 (35,40] [30,60) 5 (40,50] [0,60)

[0106] (6) Failure rate

[0107] The failure rate refers to the cumulative time the equipment stops running when a failure occurs divided by the total running time. Based on the failure conditions of UPS equipment in the electronic database, the evaluation criteria for the failure rate are shown in Table 13.

[0108] Table 13 Failure rate evaluation criteria

[0109]

[0110]

[0111] (7) Average maintenance time

[0112] The average maintenance time refers to the cumulative single maintenance time divided by the number of maintenance times. Based on the maintenance time records of UPS equipment in electronic data, the evaluation criteria for the average maintenance time are shown in Table 14.

[0113] Table 14 Average maintenance time evaluation criteria

[0114] Rating level Average maintenance time measured value (days) Rating range 1 [0，2) [90,100] 2 [2,5) [80,90) 3 [5,10) [60,80) 4 [10,20) [30,60) 5 >20 [0,30)

[0115] 2. Determine weights using the analytic hierarchy process

[0116] This study created an expert scoring table for UPS equipment. Experts, based on their personal experience, scored the importance of the next-level indicators to the previous-level indicators to determine the indicator weights. Finally, the average of all experts' scores for a certain indicator was taken as the weight of the indicator. The weights of each indicator are as follows.

[0117] A=[B1,B2,B3]=[0.669,0.225,0.106]

[0118] B1=[C 11 ,C 12 ,C 13 ,C 14 ,C 15 ]=[0.192,0.180,0.184,0.315,0.129]

[0119] B2=[C 21 ]=[1]

[0120] B3=[C 31 ]=[1]

[0121] 3. Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method to determine the quality score

[0122] From the electronic database, we can see that the various test data values of the UPS equipment are shown in Table 15.

[0123] Table 15 UPS equipment index inspection measured values

[0124]

[0125]

[0126] a) Calculate the quality score of the UPS equipment on February 16, 2022

[0127] According to the measured data of the UPS equipment on the day, the membership function can be used to calculate the membership of each indicator at a certain time in each level of the indicator, and the fuzzy matrix is obtained as follows:

[0128]

[0129] R2=[C 21 ]=[0.3 0.7 0 0 0]

[0130] R3=[C 31 ]=[0.25 0.75 0 0 0]

[0131] The first-level fuzzy result is

[0132]

[0133] U2=B2·R2=[1][0.3 0.7 0 0 0]=[0.3,0.7,0,0,0]

[0134] U3=B3·R3=[1][0.25 0.75 0 0 0]=[0.25,0.75,0,0,0]

[0135] The secondary fuzzy result is

[0136]

[0137] The quality score of the UPS equipment on 2022 / 2 / 16 is

[0138]

[0139] Therefore, the quality score of the UPS equipment on February 16, 2022 was 95.77 points, and the evaluation level was 1. The equipment was in a very healthy condition and only required regular inspections and maintenance.

[0140] b) Calculate the quality score of the UPS equipment on July 1, 2022

[0141] According to the measured data of the UPS equipment on that day, the fuzzy matrix is obtained as follows:

[0142]

[0143] R2=[C 21 ]=[0.30.7000]

[0144] R3=[C 31 ]=[0.250.75000]

[0145] The first-level fuzzy result is

[0146]

[0147] U2=B2·R2=[1]

[10000] =[0.30.7000]

[0148] U3=B3·R3=[1][0.50.5000]=[0.250.75000]

[0149] The secondary fuzzy result is

[0150]

[0151] The quality score of the UPS equipment on 2022 / 2 / 16 is

[0152]

[0153] Therefore, the quality score of the UPS equipment on July 1, 2022 was 90.29 points, and the evaluation level was 1. The equipment was in a very healthy condition and only required regular inspections and maintenance.

[0154] 4. Model Validation

[0155] Assume that on February 16, 2022, the UPS device is in a faulty state. Only the temperature, failure rate, and mean maintenance time can be measured. The output voltage, output current, output frequency, and battery charge and discharge indicators cannot be measured. Based on the measured data of the UPS device on that day, the fuzzy matrix is obtained as follows:

[0156]

[0157] R2=[C 21 ]=[0.30.7000]

[0158] R3=[C 31 ]=[0.250.75000]

[0159] The first-level fuzzy result is

[0160]

[0161] U2=B2·R2=[1][0.30.7000]=[0.3,0.7,0,0,0]

[0162] U3=B3·R3=[1][0.250.75000]=[0.25,0.75,0,0,0]

[0163] The secondary fuzzy result is

[0164]

[0165] The quality score of the UPS equipment on 2022 / 2 / 16 is

[0166]

[0167] Therefore, the quality score of the UPS equipment on February 16, 2022 was 56.82 points, and the evaluation level was 4. The equipment was in a less healthy state and needed to be repaired as soon as possible to ensure the functions of various systems of the equipment.

[0168] Assuming that on July 1, 2022, the UPS device is also in a fault state, then based on the measured data of the UPS device on that day, the fuzzy matrix is obtained as follows:

[0169]

[0170] R2=[C 21 ]=[0.30.7000]

[0171] R3=[C 31 ]=[0.250.75000]

[0172] The first-level fuzzy result is

[0173]

[0174] U2=B2·R2=[1]

[10000] =[0.3,0.7,0,0,0]

[0175] U3=B3·R3=[1][0.50.5000]=[0.25,0.75,0,0,0]

[0176] The secondary fuzzy result is

[0177]

[0178] The quality score of the UPS equipment on 2022 / 2 / 16 is

[0179]

[0180] Therefore, the quality score of the UPS equipment on July 1, 2022 was also 56.82 points, with an evaluation level of 4. The equipment is in an unhealthy state and needs to be repaired as soon as possible to ensure the functions of various systems of the equipment.

[0181] As can be seen, assuming the equipment is in a faulty state and certain indicator values are unavailable, the model established in this study evaluates the equipment and the result is that the equipment is in a faulty state, consistent with the assumption. Repair is required as soon as possible to ensure the functionality of all systems. However, at this point, the equipment has not yet reached Level 5, requiring scrapping. This proves that the established evaluation model is accurate and effective.

[0182] Obviously, those skilled in the art may make various changes and modifications to this application without departing from the spirit and scope of this application. Thus, if these modifications and variations of this application fall within the scope of the claims of this application and their equivalents, this application is intended to include these modifications and variations.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating the quality of electromechanical systems in highway tunnels, characterized in that: The electromechanical system of the highway tunnel includes a monitoring equipment group, a communication equipment group, a power supply and distribution equipment group, a lighting equipment group, a ventilation equipment group and a fire fighting equipment group; Establish an evaluation system for each equipment group: Each equipment group includes multiple electromechanical equipment. Each electromechanical equipment is evaluated from three aspects: operating status, maintenance and management status, and fault status. These three categories correspond to operation, maintenance, and fault, and each category includes multiple single indicators. The weight of a single indicator is determined according to its importance to the category at the next higher level; Evaluate each single indicator to obtain its corresponding score; The corresponding scores and indicator weights of each single indicator under each category are combined to obtain the evaluation value of the category; The evaluation values corresponding to the three categories of each electromechanical equipment are integrated into an overall comprehensive evaluation value through a certain mathematical model or mathematical algorithm, and combined with the scoring criteria to evaluate the quality status of the electromechanical equipment; The quality status of all electromechanical equipment in a certain equipment group is comprehensively evaluated, and the quality status of the entire equipment group is evaluated; the quality status of the electromechanical equipment in all equipment groups is comprehensively evaluated, and the quality status of the entire highway tunnel electromechanical system is evaluated.

2. The highway tunnel electromechanical system quality evaluation method according to claim 1 is characterized in that: The single indicators are divided into quantitative indicators and qualitative indicators. For quantitative indicators, the corresponding scores are calculated based on the data measured on site and then combined with the relevant national standards. For qualitative indicators, a scoring reference table is established. Based on on-site observations, an expert group combines their personal professional experience and refers to the scoring reference table for the indicator to score and obtain the corresponding score.

3. The highway tunnel electromechanical system quality evaluation method according to claim 1 is characterized in that: The single indicators are divided into quantitative indicators and qualitative indicators. According to the membership theory of fuzzy data, the evaluation of qualitative indicators is converted into quantitative evaluation, and finally the corresponding score of each single indicator is obtained.

4. The highway tunnel electromechanical system quality evaluation method according to claim 1 is characterized in that: The analytic hierarchy process is used to determine the weight of each single indicator in the corresponding category, and the weight of each category of evaluation indicators in the equipment group is determined to obtain the indicator weight set U; Construct the judgment matrix R and perform consistency verification. When the consistency verification is satisfied, the indicator weight set U is combined with the judgment matrix R to obtain a comprehensive evaluation of the evaluated equipment group. If the consistency verification is not satisfied, adjust the judgment matrix R until the consistency verification is satisfied.

Images