System and method for digitally evaluating safety risk of tent structure

Abstract

The invention relates to the technical field of safety risk management, in particular to a digital evaluation system and evaluation method for safety risks of a tent structure. The method comprises the following steps: obtaining a structure parameter set of a to-be-assessed tent structure, and dividing risk assessment units; obtaining structure response data based on a sensor pre-deployed on the tent structure so as to determine an actual stress state and a deformation state of each risk assessment unit; according to the actual stress state and the deformation state of each risk assessment unit, determining a time period when each risk assessment unit generates a structural response change; comparing the structure response change of each risk assessment unit in different time periods, and dividing the state evolution characteristics of each risk assessment unit to assess the safety risk condition of each risk assessment unit in a grading manner, thereby generating a safety risk assessment report of the tent structure. According to the invention, a scientific basis is provided for structure use adjustment, reinforcement maintenance and demolition decision, and intelligence and refinement of safety management of the tent structure are realized.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of safety risk management technology, and in particular to a digital assessment system and method for safety risks of tent structures. Background Technology

[0002] In the early stages of application, safety assessments of tent structures primarily relied on manual experience or static design verification. These methods typically involved a one-time calculation of component cross-sectional dimensions, connection methods, and material strength based on load assumptions made during the design phase. This approach focuses on verifying design compliance but fails to adequately consider the dynamic environmental changes encountered by tents during actual use, such as sudden wind load changes, uneven foundation settlement, and performance degradation caused by repeated component disassembly and reassembly. Consequently, it is difficult to reflect the true safety status of the tent structure throughout its service life.

[0003] With the development of sensing technology and information collection methods, some existing technologies have begun to attempt to collect real-time data on the local operating status of tent structures by deploying monitoring devices for wind speed, displacement, or strain, and to provide early warnings of abnormal conditions by combining these data with threshold judgment methods. However, these methods lack the ability to dynamically describe the evolution of safety risks in tent structures. The assessment results are mostly state judgments at a certain moment, failing to reflect the trend characteristics of risk changes over time, and are also difficult to provide continuous and traceable digital evidence for decisions on the use, adjustment, reinforcement, maintenance, or dismantling of tent structures. Summary of the Invention

[0004] Therefore, it is necessary for the present invention to provide a digital assessment system and method for safety risks of tent structures in order to solve at least one of the above-mentioned technical problems.

[0005] To achieve the above objectives, a method for digitally assessing the structural safety risks of tents includes the following steps: Step S1: Obtain the set of structural parameters of the tent structure to be evaluated, and divide the risk assessment units according to the connection structure and connection boundary of each stress node in the set of structural parameters. Step S2: Obtain structural response data based on sensors pre-deployed on the tent structure, and associate the structural response data with risk assessment units to determine the actual stress state and deformation state of each risk assessment unit; Step S3: Based on the actual stress and deformation states of each risk assessment unit, determine the time period during which the structural response changes occur in each risk assessment unit; Step S4: Compare the structural response changes of each risk assessment unit in different time periods, classify the state evolution characteristics of each risk assessment unit, and conduct a graded assessment of the safety risk of each risk assessment unit to generate a safety risk assessment report for the tent structure.

[0006] This application links the structural parameters of the tent structure with structural response data collected by pre-deployed sensors, enabling dynamic acquisition of the actual stress and deformation states of each risk assessment unit over different time periods. Based on structural response changes, it analyzes risk evolution characteristics, transforming the approach from single-state assessment to continuous, dynamic risk description. This method quantifies the evolution trend of each risk assessment unit, clearly defining the safety risk levels corresponding to continuous, fluctuating, and stable evolution characteristics. This provides a traceable and continuously updated digital assessment of the overall safety status of the tent structure, improving the accuracy and real-time nature of risk identification during the structure's service life. It also provides a scientific basis for decisions regarding structural use adjustments, reinforcement, maintenance, and demolition, avoiding the limitations of traditional reliance on experience or static calculations, and achieving intelligent and refined safety management of tent structures.

[0007] Optionally, this application also provides a digital assessment system for tent structure safety risks, used to execute the digital assessment method for tent structure safety risks as described above, the system comprising: The unit division module is used to obtain the set of structural parameters of the tent structure to be evaluated, and to divide the risk assessment units according to the connection structure and connection boundary of each stress node in the set of structural parameters. The structural change analysis module is used to acquire structural response data based on sensors pre-deployed on the tent structure, and to associate the structural response data with the risk assessment unit in order to determine the actual stress state and deformation state of each risk assessment unit. The observation time period determination module is used to determine the time period during which structural response changes occur in each risk assessment unit based on the actual stress and deformation states of each risk assessment unit. The safety risk assessment module is used to compare the structural response changes of each risk assessment unit over different time periods, classify the state evolution characteristics of each risk assessment unit, and conduct a graded assessment of the safety risk of each risk assessment unit, thereby generating a safety risk assessment report for the tent structure.

[0008] The present application discloses a digital risk assessment system for tent structures. This system can implement any of the digital risk assessment methods for tent structures of the present invention. It serves as a medium for the operation and signal transmission between various modules to complete the digital risk assessment method for tent structures. The modules within the system cooperate with each other, thereby improving the accuracy and real-time performance of risk identification during the service life of the structure. It also provides a scientific basis for decisions on structural use adjustment, reinforcement, maintenance, and demolition, avoiding the limitations of traditional reliance on experience or static calculations, and realizing intelligent and refined safety management of tent structures. Attached Figure Description

[0009] Other features, objects, and advantages of the invention will become more apparent from the following detailed description of non-limiting embodiments with reference to the accompanying drawings: Figure 1 This is a flowchart illustrating the steps of the digital assessment method for safety risks of tent structures according to the present invention. Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram showing the distribution of risk assessment units in an embodiment of the present invention; Figure 3 This is a block diagram of the digital assessment system for safety risks of tent structures according to the present invention; The realization of the objective, functional features and advantages of the present invention will be further explained in conjunction with the embodiments and with reference to the accompanying drawings. Detailed Implementation

[0010] The technical method of the present invention will now be clearly and completely described with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some, not all, of the embodiments of the present invention. All other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art based on the embodiments of the present invention without inventive effort are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0011] Furthermore, the accompanying drawings are merely illustrative of the invention and are not necessarily drawn to scale. The same reference numerals in the drawings denote the same or similar parts, and therefore repeated descriptions of them will be omitted. Some block diagrams shown in the drawings are functional entities and do not necessarily correspond to physically or logically independent entities. These functional entities can be implemented in software, in one or more hardware modules or integrated circuits, or in different network and / or processor methods and / or microcontroller methods.

[0012] It should be understood that although the terms "first," "second," etc., may be used herein to describe various units, these units should not be limited by these terms. These terms are used merely to distinguish one unit from another. For example, without departing from the scope of the exemplary embodiments, a first unit may be referred to as a second unit, and similarly, a second unit may be referred to as a first unit. The term "and / or" as used herein includes any and all combinations of one or more of the associated listed items.

[0013] To achieve the above objectives, please refer to Figures 1 to 3 This invention provides a method for digitally assessing the structural safety risks of tents, the method comprising the following steps: Step S1: Obtain the set of structural parameters of the tent structure to be evaluated, and divide the risk assessment units according to the connection structure and connection boundary of each stress node in the set of structural parameters. In this embodiment, the design drawings and on-site verification parameters of the tent structure are obtained through the construction party or construction management platform. The length, cross-sectional shape, connection node type and constraint method of each load-bearing component are read. The continuous force path is identified based on the connection topology between the components, and each load-bearing component is regarded as a force node. When a stable force transmission closed loop is formed between several force nodes through rigid or semi-rigid nodes, and their connection boundary exhibits consistent constraint conditions under external load, the set of components is determined as the same risk assessment unit.

[0014] Step S2: Obtain structural response data based on sensors pre-deployed on the tent structure, and associate the structural response data with risk assessment units to determine the actual stress state and deformation state of each risk assessment unit; In a further embodiment, strain gauges and displacement sensors installed on each stress node of the tent structure are used to collect axial force changes and node displacements at a sampling frequency of not less than 1 Hz, and the data are collected according to the relationship between the components and the evaluation unit. By performing time synchronization and amplitude normalization processing on the response data of each component in the same evaluation unit, a state set reflecting the overall stress level and relative deformation characteristics of the unit is formed.

[0015] Step S3: Based on the actual stress and deformation states of each risk assessment unit, determine the time period during which the structural response changes occur in each risk assessment unit; In a further embodiment, the actual stress state and deformation state changes of each risk assessment unit can be calculated using a 5-minute sliding window. When the stress state change or deformation state change exceeds a preset threshold (such as 15% of the initial stable value) continuously within the window for more than two windows, the time interval is determined to be the structural response change period, which is used to distinguish between the stable stage and the evolution stage.

[0016] Step S4: Compare the structural response changes of each risk assessment unit in different time periods, classify the state evolution characteristics of each risk assessment unit, and evaluate the safety risk of each risk assessment unit in a graded manner, thereby generating a safety risk assessment report for the tent structure.

[0017] In a further embodiment, based on the proportion of the risk assessment unit of each state evolution characteristic to the tent structure to be assessed, the tent structure to be assessed is determined to be either high-risk or low-risk, and a corresponding safety risk assessment report is generated.

[0018] Optionally, the risk assessment unit division in step S1 includes: Extract the connection structural parameters of each stress node from the structural parameter set, and identify the force transmission path of the tent structure to be evaluated based on the connection structural parameters, thereby determining the connection relationship and force transmission relationship between the stress nodes; In this embodiment, the node number, load-bearing component type, spatial coordinates, connection method, and connection stiffness parameters of each stressed node are read from the structural parameter set. The connection method is at least distinguished as flexible or rigid, and the connection stiffness is represented by the node rotation constraint coefficient. Combining the node's position in the global coordinate system and the component cross-sectional distribution from the structural parameter set, the rigid and flexible stress-bearing parts of each stressed node are identified. The load transfer along the component axis is traced one by one along the force transmission path, and the relative displacement and rotation changes of adjacent node connection positions are analyzed. If both node connection positions are located in rigid stress-bearing parts and the displacement and rotation changes are below a preset threshold (e.g., 0.5mm / 0.2°), they are determined to be a rigid connection node pair. If both connection positions are located in flexible stress-bearing parts and the displacement or rotation exceeds the threshold, they are determined to be a flexible response node pair. If one node is located in a rigid stress-bearing part and the other in a flexible stress-bearing part, and there is relative displacement along the force transmission path, they are determined to be a semi-rigid connection node pair. This completes the identification of node pair connection relationships and force transmission relationships.

[0019] Force nodes that are spatially adjacent and have any connection relationship, and whose force transmission relationship is related, are classified as combined candidate evaluation units; force nodes that are not related to other force nodes in terms of force transmission relationship are classified as independent candidate evaluation units. In a further embodiment, the positions of each component in the spatial coordinate system are compared, and component pairs with a center-to-center distance less than a preset proximity threshold (e.g., 1.5 times the component cross-sectional characteristic size) and a force transmission relationship are selected as the combination objects. For rigidly connected node pairs, the nodes are merged into rigid combination candidate evaluation units along the continuous force path to maintain the rigid force transmission characteristics of the overall structure. For flexible response node pairs, the nodes are merged into flexible combination candidate evaluation units along the continuous force path to reflect the allowable local relative displacement between nodes. For semi-rigidly connected node pairs, the force transmission direction between the rigid force-bearing part on one side and the flexible force-bearing part on the other side is analyzed along the force path, and the corresponding force-bearing nodes are merged into semi-rigid combination candidate evaluation units to reflect the mixed behavior of partial rigid constraint and partial flexible response characteristics. For nodes that do not form a continuous force path with other nodes, they are treated as independent candidate evaluation units to avoid erroneous merging.

[0020] The spatial range and force boundary of each candidate assessment unit are identified to confirm the connection boundary of each candidate assessment unit, and candidate assessment units with overlapping connection boundaries are classified into the same risk assessment unit.

[0021] In a further embodiment, the spatial range covered by each unit is calculated, and the position of its force boundary is determined based on the constraint conditions of the end nodes. When the force boundaries of two candidate evaluation units overlap in space, risk assessment units are classified according to the type of candidate evaluation unit. Specifically, when the force boundaries of two rigid combination candidate evaluation units overlap in space, and the force direction of the boundary nodes along the force transmission path is consistent, and the difference in the magnitude of the change in the boundary internal force is less than a preset tolerance (e.g., 10%), it is determined that the two are indistinguishable in structural behavior, and their continuous segments along the force transmission path are merged into the same risk assessment unit to maintain the rigid force transmission characteristics of the overall structure. For flexible combination candidate evaluation units, when the boundary nodes overlap in space, and the allowable relative displacement difference is within a preset tolerance, the risk assessment units are classified as risk assessment units. Within the threshold range (e.g., 0.5 mm), if the force transmission direction is continuous, they are merged into a risk assessment unit. For semi-rigid combined candidate assessment units, the force transmission direction of the rigid force-bearing part on one side and the flexible force-bearing part on the other side is analyzed. When the boundary nodes overlap in space, they are directly merged into a semi-rigid risk assessment unit to reflect the mixed force behavior of part rigid constraint and part flexible response. For any two different candidate assessment units, if the force boundaries overlap in space, and the force transmission direction corresponding to their boundary nodes is consistent and the difference in the magnitude of boundary internal force variation is less than the preset tolerance (e.g., 10%), they are determined to be indistinguishable in structural behavior and are merged into the same risk assessment unit; otherwise, their independence is maintained.

[0022] Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram showing the distribution of risk assessment units in an embodiment of the present invention; as shown below. Figure 2 As shown, small circles at the ends represent flexible response stress nodes, which are key locations for force transmission between components. The blue dashed border is the boundary line of the risk assessment unit, used to clearly define the spatial scope of each independent assessment unit. The same-color connecting lines between rigid connection nodes represent a complete assessment unit. Small squares at the ends represent displacement constraint stress nodes, and black arrows represent the direction of force transmission of external loads. The area enclosed by solid lines represents the spatial scope of a single risk assessment unit, and the diagonal area is the stress-related area within the assessment unit, indicating that the force transmission relationship of the components within this area is highly correlated (with small differences in the amplitude of internal force changes), belonging to the core stress part of the same assessment unit.

[0023] Optionally, determining the connection relationships and force transmission relationships between the force-bearing nodes includes: Based on the analysis of the connection structure parameters, the relative positional relationship of the connection positions of each force-bearing node in the overall force-bearing structure of the tent is determined, and the force transmission path between the force-bearing nodes is determined. If the connection positions of any pair of force-bearing nodes fall on the corresponding force transmission path, then the force transmission relationship of the pair of force-bearing nodes is related. In this embodiment, based on the node number, component number and their spatial position in the overall coordinate system recorded in the structural parameter set, the relative level of each connection position in the overall force system of the tent structure is marked, wherein the relative level includes at least the upper chord, lower chord and vertical support position; then, along the overall force direction, the connection position of adjacent components is traced. When the connection positions of two force nodes are both located in the same continuous force path, and there are no force interruption nodes or free boundaries in the path, it is confirmed that the force node pair forms a continuous force transmission relationship in the overall structure.

[0024] Based on the connection structure parameters, force node pairs whose connection positions are all located in the rigid force-bearing parts of the force-bearing nodes and whose force-bearing nodes do not have relative displacement or rotation changes in the force transmission path are judged as displacement-constrained force node pairs with rigid connection relationships. In a further embodiment, based on the structural parameter set from the tent structure design phase, the stress node number, load-bearing component type, and their spatial position in the global coordinate system are extracted, and all node pairs whose connection points are located in rigid stress parts are identified; the relative displacement and rotation changes between adjacent nodes are analyzed along the force transmission path; if the relative displacement is less than 0.5 mm and the rotation change is less than 0.2°, the node pair is determined to be a displacement-constrained stress node pair, forming a rigid connection relationship; the node pair attributes (number, component, spatial coordinates, and connection type) are recorded in the node pair table.

[0025] Determine the connection position of the two force nodes in a force node pair. Force node pairs whose connection positions are both located in the flexible force-bearing parts of the force nodes and whose force nodes have relative displacement or rotation changes in the force transmission path are determined to be flexible response force node pairs with flexible connection relationship. In a further embodiment, the stress node number, load-bearing component type, and connection position are extracted from the structural parameter set, and node pairs whose connection positions are all located in flexible stress-bearing parts are screened out; the relative displacement and rotation angle changes of the node pairs are analyzed along the force transmission path; if the relative displacement exceeds 0.5mm or the rotation angle change exceeds 0.2°, the node pair is determined to be a flexible response stress-bearing node pair, forming a flexible connection relationship; at the same time, the relative displacement amplitude, rotation angle change, and connection direction of each node pair are recorded.

[0026] A force-bearing node pair is defined as a pair of force-bearing nodes with a semi-rigid connection relationship, where the connection position of one force-bearing node is located in a rigid force-bearing part and the connection position of the other force-bearing node is located in a flexible force-bearing part, and there is relative displacement between the force-bearing nodes in the force transmission path.

[0027] In a further embodiment, the stress node number, load-bearing component type, and node connection position are extracted from the structural parameter set, and node pairs with one side node located in a rigid stress part and the other side node located in a flexible stress part are selected; the relative displacement between nodes is analyzed along the force transmission path, and if there is a relative displacement in the same direction, the node pair is determined to be a mixed stress node pair, forming a semi-rigid connection relationship; the node number, component number, connection position, relative displacement, and connection type are stored in the node pair attribute table.

[0028] It is worth noting that rigid load-bearing parts refer to the areas in the tent structure where load-bearing nodes bear the main axial or bending moment loads. These areas experience minimal displacement and rotation during force transmission and can approximately maintain geometric rigidity. The identification of rigid load-bearing parts is mainly based on the cross-sectional distribution of components, node connection methods, and load transmission paths in the structural design drawings. First, identify the load-bearing nodes such as the main beams, main trusses, and support columns that bear the main axial forces or bending moments. Then, using the load-bearing node numbers in the structural parameters and their spatial positions in the global coordinate system, mark the fixed component areas of these load-bearing nodes in the direction of force, which are the rigid load-bearing parts. Flexible load-bearing parts refer to the areas in the structure where load-bearing nodes bear auxiliary loads or experience significant local deformation. These areas allow for a certain degree of displacement or rotation to absorb local stress concentration or accommodate the relative movement of component connections. The identification of flexible stress-bearing parts focuses on the flexibility characteristics and local deformation capacity of node connections. For example, node areas with flexible pins, sliding plates or rotatable joints at the connection, as well as areas where force calculations or measured displacements indicate that a certain displacement or rotation is allowed. These nodes are marked in the global coordinate system, which are the flexible stress-bearing parts.

[0029] Optionally, the connection boundaries of each candidate evaluation unit are identified, including: Based on the spatial distribution of the force-bearing nodes in each candidate evaluation unit, the spatial range of each candidate evaluation unit is determined. In this embodiment, based on the spatial coordinate information of each stress node recorded in the structural parameter set, the projection range of all stress nodes in the candidate evaluation unit in the three-dimensional coordinate system is statistically analyzed, and the minimum envelope interval in the horizontal and vertical directions is calculated respectively. When the distance between the center coordinate of any stress node and the center coordinate of the adjacent component is less than the preset spatial adjacency threshold (such as 1.2 times the length of the component), it is included in the same spatial aggregation range, thereby forming a spatial range that can completely cover the distribution of stress nodes in the candidate evaluation unit.

[0030] Based on the start and end positions of the force transmission path between each force node in each candidate evaluation unit, the load transfer node that transmits external loads from spatially adjacent candidate evaluation units to the candidate evaluation unit is determined, and this load transfer node is used as the force boundary of the candidate evaluation unit. In a further embodiment, the force transmission path between each force-bearing node within the candidate evaluation unit is analyzed, the starting and ending components of each force transmission path are extracted, and it is determined whether they intersect with adjacent candidate evaluation units in space. When the starting and ending positions of a certain force transmission path are located at the edge of the spatial range of the candidate evaluation unit, and its force direction points into the candidate evaluation unit, and the load component borne by the path exceeds a preset proportion threshold (such as 30% of the axial force of the component), the corresponding connection position is identified as a load-input node that transmits external loads to the candidate evaluation unit, and the force boundary of the candidate evaluation unit is determined accordingly.

[0031] The edge connection positions of the spatial range of candidate evaluation units are selected, and the edge connection positions that fall into the force boundary of adjacent candidate evaluation units in space are taken as the connection boundaries of the candidate evaluation units.

[0032] In a further embodiment, the connection positions located in the edge region within the spatial range of the candidate evaluation unit are screened. The edge region is defined as the area formed by the inward contraction of the outer contour of the spatial range by a preset distance (e.g., 0.5 meters). When any edge connection position falls within the force boundary range of the adjacent candidate evaluation units that have been identified, and the force transmission path corresponding to the connection position has a bidirectional interaction relationship, the edge connection position is determined as the connection boundary of the candidate evaluation unit.

[0033] Optionally, associating the structural response data with the risk assessment unit in step S2 includes: Based on the acquisition locations corresponding to each structural response parameter in the structural response data, determine the spatial distance between the acquisition location and the spatial range of each risk assessment unit. In this embodiment, the coordinates of the acquisition positions corresponding to each structural response parameter are obtained based on the sensor deployment records obtained by the construction party, and uniformly mapped to the structural spatial coordinate system consistent with the risk assessment unit. Then, the minimum Euclidean distance from the acquisition position to the outer contour of the spatial range of each risk assessment unit is calculated. When the minimum distance is less than the preset spatial tolerance parameter (such as 0.2 meters), it is considered that the acquisition position has a spatial correlation with the corresponding risk assessment unit.

[0034] If the acquisition location corresponding to any structural response parameter falls within the spatial range of any risk assessment unit, then the structural response parameter is associated with the risk assessment unit. In a further embodiment, when the coordinates of a certain acquisition location fall completely within the spatial range envelope of a certain risk assessment unit after spatial distance calculation, the structural response parameters corresponding to the acquisition location are directly assigned to the risk assessment unit; wherein, the spatial range envelope is determined by the spatial projection boundary of all force nodes within the risk assessment unit, and the minimum distance from the acquisition location to the spatial range boundary is required to be greater than a preset safety margin (such as 0.1 meters) to avoid ambiguity in the boundary fuzzy area.

[0035] If the acquisition location corresponding to any structural response parameter falls within the spatial overlap area of ​​more than one risk assessment unit, then the acquisition location is located at the force boundary of any risk assessment unit, and the corresponding force transmission path points into the inside of the risk assessment unit, and the structural response parameter is associated with that risk assessment unit.

[0036] In another embodiment, when the acquisition location falls within the overlapping area of ​​two or more risk assessment units, the determination is further made by combining the force boundary and the force transmission path: if the structural response parameter acquisition point corresponding to the acquisition location is located within the force boundary of one of the risk assessment units, and according to the force transmission path analysis identified within the unit, the force direction points to the core force node inside the risk assessment unit, then the structural response parameter is preferentially associated with the risk assessment unit to reflect the true force attribution relationship.

[0037] Optionally, determining the actual stress state and deformation state of each risk assessment unit in step S2 includes: Structural response parameters associated with the same risk assessment unit are processed for time consistency, and structural response parameters collected within the same time period are selected as parameters to be analyzed. In this embodiment, the associated structural response parameters are aligned according to timestamps, and the original sampling time of each acquisition location is uniformly mapped to the standard time axis within a preset time window. The length of the time window is set to 1 to 5 seconds based on the sensor sampling frequency. When the structural response parameters of different acquisition locations fall into the same time window, it is determined that they meet the time consistency requirement, and all structural response parameters within the time window are used as parameters to be analyzed.

[0038] Collect the parameters to be analyzed at different collection locations within each risk assessment unit, and determine the actual stress state of the risk assessment unit during the collection period based on the response of each stress node to the force change in the collection results. In a further embodiment, the stress nodes and acquisition locations corresponding to the parameters to be analyzed selected within the same risk assessment unit are aggregated, and the stress response is mapped to the stress node level based on the component connection relationship. By statistically analyzing the stress change response of each stress node within the acquisition time period, and combining it with a preset stress change amplitude threshold (such as a relative change rate of 5% to 10%), the concentration and transmission consistency of the stress response between components are analyzed, thereby determining the overall stress state of the risk assessment unit within that time period.

[0039] Based on the response quantities of displacement changes or relative deformations of each stressed node in the collection results, the deformation state of the risk assessment unit during the collection period is determined.

[0040] In a further embodiment, the displacement changes or relative deformation responses of each stressed node in the collected results are organized and uniformly converted into deformation indices relative to the initial reference state. By comparing the deformation response amplitude of each stressed node with the preset deformation response threshold (such as the relative proportion of millimeters or component scale) during the collection period, and combining the spatial distribution relationship of the deformation direction, the overall deformation state of the risk assessment unit during the collection period is comprehensively judged.

[0041] Of particular importance is determining the actual stress state of the risk assessment unit during the data collection period, including: The response quantities of stress changes at each stress node within each risk assessment unit are correlated according to the component connection relationship and spatial location to form a stress response matrix; In this embodiment, the collected stress change response quantities are mapped according to the component number and its connection relationship and spatial coordinate information recorded in the structural parameter set. Non-zero elements are set in the matrix for the direct connection or force transmission relationship between each pair of components. The matrix element values ​​are the normalized results of the stress change amplitude of each component within the time period. The normalization benchmark is 10% of the design bearing capacity of the stress node to reflect the strength and direction characteristics of the stress distribution and transmission path inside the unit.

[0042] Based on the force response matrix analysis, the force coordination and change trend among the force nodes in the risk assessment unit are analyzed. If more than 80% of the force nodes have the same force response direction and the response change amplitude exceeds the preset change amplitude threshold, and the response change amplitude of the force nodes along the force transmission path exceeds the response change threshold, then the risk assessment unit is determined to be in a significant stress state during the data collection period. In a further embodiment, a directional consistency analysis is performed on the force response matrix. The proportion of components with consistent force response direction signs at the force nodes in the matrix is ​​calculated. If the proportion exceeds 80%, and the force change amplitude of components along the identified force transmission path exceeds a preset change amplitude threshold (set to 5% to 15% of the component's design bearing capacity), then the risk assessment unit is determined to be under significant stress during the data collection period.

[0043] If the force response amplitude of the stressed node is lower than the change amplitude threshold and the directional change is scattered, then the risk assessment unit is determined to be in a steady-state loading state.

[0044] In another embodiment, the stress change amplitude corresponding to all matrix elements is statistically analyzed as a whole. If the amplitude is lower than the preset change amplitude threshold (5% of the design bearing capacity) and the stress response direction between the stress nodes does not have an obvious concentration trend in the matrix, that is, the consistency of the direction of adjacent components is less than 50%, then the risk assessment unit is determined to be in a steady-state loading state, indicating that the unit only bears the background load or the conventional use load, and the stress state does not have a significant amplification or concentration change.

[0045] Of particular importance is determining the deformation status of the risk assessment unit during the data collection period, including: Based on the displacement change or relative deformation response of the stressed nodes in the collection results, determine the deformation direction of each stressed node. In this embodiment, the displacement change and relative deformation response of each stress node within the same risk assessment unit are vectorized to extract the three-dimensional spatial displacement vector and the axial deformation angle of the component. By comparing with the initial geometric direction of the component recorded in the structural parameter set, the deformation direction vector of each component is calculated. If the displacement modulus or relative deformation angle exceeds the preset threshold (which can be set to 5~10% of the allowable deformation of the component design), the deformation direction of the component is included in the subsequent spatial consistency analysis.

[0046] If the displacement change or relative deformation response of 80% of the stress nodes in the risk assessment unit exceeds the preset deformation response threshold, and the deformation direction of the stress nodes has a consistent spatial orientation or a continuous change along the force transmission path, then the risk assessment unit is determined to be in a state of significant deformation during the data collection period. In a further embodiment, within the risk assessment unit, the percentage of stress-bearing nodes exceeding a threshold is counted. If the percentage reaches 80% or more, the continuity of the deformation direction of these components along the force transmission path is further analyzed. That is, if the angle between the deformation directions of adjacent components along the path is not greater than 15°, or the spatial pointing difference along the main axis is less than 10°, then the risk assessment unit is determined to be in a state of significant deformation during the data collection period, reflecting the coordinated deformation trend caused by the overall stress on the unit.

[0047] If the displacement change or relative deformation response of each stress node in the risk assessment unit is lower than the deformation response threshold, and the deformation direction of each stress node does not have a consistent spatial orientation and the included angle between the deformation directions is dispersed, then the risk assessment unit is determined to be in a stable deformation state during the data collection period.

[0048] In a further embodiment, the displacement or relative deformation response of each stress node in the risk assessment unit is statistically analyzed. If all of them are below the preset threshold (within 5% of the design allowable deformation), and the deformation direction of each component is spatially dispersed with the included angle between 30° and 90° and no continuous pointing relationship, then the unit is determined to be in a stable deformation state, indicating that no concentrated or cumulative deformation has occurred during the data collection period, and the unit structure is in a safe and steady state.

[0049] Optionally, the time period for determining the structural response changes in each risk assessment unit in step S3 includes: The time periods in each risk assessment unit that are under significant stress and significant deformation are calculated separately to obtain the time periods of significant changes in stress and deformation. In this embodiment, a time series analysis is performed on the force response matrix of each risk assessment unit within the acquisition period. The time points when the force-bearing nodes are in a significant stress state are statistically analyzed at minute-level sampling intervals. If more than 80% of the force-bearing nodes within a unit have the same force direction and the change amplitude exceeds the response change threshold (which can be set to 5% of the allowable force in the component design), then this time point is recorded as a period of significant change in force state. Continuous time points constitute continuous stress change periods. The displacement change or relative deformation response of each force-bearing node within the risk assessment unit is categorized according to the sampling time, and the number and proportion of components exceeding the preset deformation response threshold (e.g., 5~10 mm or 0.5°~1° angle) are statistically analyzed. If the proportion reaches more than 80% and the deformation direction shows a continuous change along the force transmission path, then this sampling time is recorded as a period of significant change in deformation state. Continuous time points are merged to form continuous deformation change periods.

[0050] The intersection calculation is used to determine the time periods of significant changes in stress state and deformation state. The time periods in which both significant changes in stress state and deformation state occur simultaneously are identified as the time periods in which structural response changes occur.

[0051] In a further embodiment, the intersection of the time period of significant change in stress state and the time period of significant change in deformation state is calculated, and the time period that simultaneously satisfies significant changes in stress and deformation is selected as the time period of structural response change. The intersection determination can be carried out using a Boolean logic matrix method, which takes the logical AND of the corresponding time points of the time series matrices of stress and deformation. The time period with consecutive logical 1s is the time period of structural response change. The minimum duration threshold can be set to 5 minutes to filter out short-term fluctuations.

[0052] Optionally, the state evolution characteristics of each risk assessment unit in step S4 include: Arrange the time periods in which structural response changes occur, and combine the time periods in which structural response changes occur consecutively into an observation time period; In this embodiment, the time periods of structural response changes in the risk assessment unit are arranged in chronological order, and continuous time points are counted in minutes. If the interval between continuous change time periods is less than a preset threshold (such as 5 minutes), they are merged into a single observation time period. The observation time period records its start and end time, average force response amplitude, and average deformation response amplitude.

[0053] By comparing the actual stress state and deformation state between adjacent observation time periods, if the change direction of the stress state and deformation state is consistent and the change amplitude shows a monotonically increasing trend, it is determined that the risk assessment unit has continuous evolution characteristics. In a further embodiment, for adjacent observation time periods of each risk assessment unit, the change sequence of average stress response amplitude and average deformation response amplitude over time is extracted; if the stress and deformation response amplitudes in two or more adjacent time periods are monotonically increasing and the increase exceeds a preset threshold (such as 2% of the component design load or 0.5 mm displacement), then the unit is determined to have continuous evolution characteristics, and the start and end times of the evolution are recorded.

[0054] If the changes in stress state and deformation state switch in opposite directions or the magnitude of change alternates between increasing and decreasing within a preset range, then the risk assessment unit is determined to have fluctuation evolution characteristics. If the magnitude of change gradually decreases and tends to be below the threshold of the magnitude of change, then the risk assessment unit is determined to have stable evolution characteristics.

[0055] In another embodiment, the trend and amplitude of change of the stress and deformation response amplitude in adjacent observation time periods are calculated. If the amplitude alternates between increasing and decreasing or the direction of change switches in opposite directions within a preset range (such as ±5% of the design load or ±1 mm displacement), it is determined to be a fluctuating evolution characteristic. If the amplitude gradually decreases and is below the threshold (such as 1% of the design load or 0.2 mm displacement) in a continuous observation time period, it is determined to be a stable evolution characteristic. The time period and average response amplitude corresponding to each evolution type are recorded.

[0056] Optionally, the hierarchical assessment of the safety risk status of each risk assessment unit in step S4 includes: Calculate the proportion of risk assessment units with various state evolution characteristics in the tent structure to be assessed. If the corresponding proportion of continuous evolution characteristics is higher than the risk warning threshold, the tent structure to be assessed is judged as high-risk and a corresponding safety risk assessment report is generated. In this embodiment, the number of all risk assessment units within the tent structure to be assessed and their corresponding state evolution characteristic categories are counted, and the proportion of risk assessment units with continuous evolution characteristics to the total number of units is calculated. If this proportion is higher than a preset risk warning threshold (e.g., 30%), the tent structure as a whole is determined to be at a high risk level. At the same time, a safety risk assessment report is generated, including a list of high-risk units, their corresponding spatial locations, and a summary of structural response changes, to support subsequent safety intervention or reinforcement measures.

[0057] If the proportion of structures exhibiting stable evolutionary characteristics is greater than the sum of the proportions exhibiting continuous evolutionary characteristics and the proportions exhibiting fluctuating evolutionary characteristics, then the tent structure to be evaluated will be classified as low-risk, and a corresponding safety risk assessment report will be generated.

[0058] In another embodiment, the proportion of stable evolution characteristic units in each risk assessment unit is statistically analyzed and compared with the proportion of continuous evolution characteristic units and the proportion of fluctuating evolution characteristic units. If the proportion of stable evolution characteristics is greater than the sum of the proportions of continuous and fluctuating evolution characteristics, the tent structure as a whole is determined to be of low risk level. A safety risk assessment report is generated, including the distribution of low-risk units, the average stress and deformation response amplitude of each unit, and the time period, in order to confirm the overall safety status of the structure.

[0059] In another embodiment, the proportion of risk assessment units with fluctuating evolution characteristics is calculated. If the proportion is between the high-risk threshold and the low-risk determination condition, the tent structure is determined to be of medium risk level. The operation parameters include the proportion threshold setting (e.g., 30% for high risk and more than 50% for low risk) and the time window selection (e.g., the observation data of the most recent 24 hours). A safety risk assessment report is generated, which lists in detail the risk level units and their state evolution characteristics.

[0060] Optionally, this application also provides a digital assessment system for tent structure safety risks, used to execute the digital assessment method for tent structure safety risks as described above, the system comprising: The unit division module 101 is used to obtain the set of structural parameters of the tent structure to be evaluated, and to divide the risk assessment unit according to the connection structure and connection boundary of each stress node in the set of structural parameters. The structural change analysis module 102 is used to acquire structural response data based on sensors pre-deployed on the tent structure, and associate the structural response data with the risk assessment unit to determine the actual stress state and deformation state of each risk assessment unit. The observation time period determination module 103 is used to determine the time period during which the structural response changes of each risk assessment unit occur based on the actual stress and deformation states of each risk assessment unit. The safety risk assessment module 104 is used to compare the structural response changes of each risk assessment unit in different time periods, classify the state evolution characteristics of each risk assessment unit, and conduct hierarchical assessment of the safety risk of each risk assessment unit, thereby generating a safety risk assessment report for the tent structure.

[0061] Therefore, the embodiments should be considered as exemplary and non-limiting in all respects, and the scope of the invention is defined by the appended claims rather than the foregoing description. Thus, it is intended that all variations falling within the meaning and scope of the equivalents of the application be incorporated into the invention.

[0062] The above description is merely a specific embodiment of the present invention, enabling those skilled in the art to understand or implement the invention. Various modifications to these embodiments will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art, and the general principles defined herein may be implemented in other embodiments without departing from the spirit or scope of the invention. Therefore, the present invention is not to be limited to the embodiments shown herein, but is to be accorded the widest scope consistent with the principles and novel features of the invention herein.

Claims

1. A method for digitally assessing the structural safety risks of tents, characterized in that, Includes the following steps: Step S1: Obtain the set of structural parameters of the tent structure to be evaluated, and divide the risk assessment units according to the connection structure and connection boundary of each stress node in the set of structural parameters; Step S2: Obtain structural response data based on sensors pre-deployed on the tent structure, and associate the structural response data with risk assessment units to determine the actual stress state and deformation state of each risk assessment unit; Step S3: Based on the actual stress and deformation states of each risk assessment unit, determine the time period during which the structural response changes occur in each risk assessment unit; Step S4: Compare the structural response changes of each risk assessment unit in different time periods, classify the state evolution characteristics of each risk assessment unit, and evaluate the safety risk of each risk assessment unit in a graded manner, thereby generating a safety risk assessment report for the tent structure.

2. The method for digital assessment of structural safety risks of tents according to claim 1, characterized in that, Step S1 involves dividing the risk assessment units, including: Extract the connection structural parameters of each stress node from the structural parameter set, and identify the force transmission path of the tent structure to be evaluated based on the connection structural parameters, thereby determining the connection relationship and force transmission relationship between the stress nodes; Force nodes that are spatially adjacent and have any connection relationship, and whose force transmission relationship is related, are classified as combined candidate evaluation units; force nodes that are not related to other force nodes in terms of force transmission relationship are classified as independent candidate evaluation units. The spatial range and force boundary of each candidate assessment unit are identified to confirm the connection boundary of each candidate assessment unit, and candidate assessment units with overlapping connection boundaries are classified into the same risk assessment unit.

3. The method for digital assessment of structural safety risks of tents according to claim 2, characterized in that, Determining the connection relationships and force transmission relationships between force-bearing nodes includes: Based on the analysis of the connection structure parameters, the relative positional relationship of the connection positions of each force-bearing node in the overall force-bearing structure of the tent is determined, and the force transmission path between the force-bearing nodes is determined. If the connection positions of any pair of force-bearing nodes fall on the corresponding force transmission path, then the force transmission relationship of the pair of force-bearing nodes is related. Based on the connection structure parameters, force node pairs whose connection positions are all located in the rigid force-bearing parts of the force-bearing nodes and whose force-bearing nodes do not have relative displacement or rotation changes in the force transmission path are judged as displacement-constrained force node pairs with rigid connection relationships. Determine the connection position of the two force nodes in a force node pair. Force node pairs whose connection positions are both located in the flexible force-bearing parts of the force nodes and whose force nodes have relative displacement or rotation changes in the force transmission path are determined to be flexible response force node pairs with flexible connection relationship. A force-bearing node pair is defined as a pair of force-bearing nodes with a semi-rigid connection relationship, where the connection position of one force-bearing node is located in a rigid force-bearing part and the connection position of the other force-bearing node is located in a flexible force-bearing part, and there is relative displacement between the force-bearing nodes in the force transmission path.

4. The method for digital assessment of structural safety risks of tents according to claim 2, characterized in that, The connection boundaries of each candidate evaluation unit were identified as including: Based on the spatial distribution of the force-bearing nodes in each candidate evaluation unit, the spatial range of each candidate evaluation unit is determined. Based on the start and end positions of the force transmission path between each force node in each candidate evaluation unit, the load transfer node that transmits external loads from spatially adjacent candidate evaluation units to the candidate evaluation unit is determined, and this load transfer node is used as the force boundary of the candidate evaluation unit. The edge connection positions of the spatial range of candidate evaluation units are selected, and the edge connection positions that fall into the force boundary of adjacent candidate evaluation units in space are taken as the connection boundaries of the candidate evaluation units.

5. The method for digital assessment of structural safety risks of tents according to claim 1, characterized in that, Step S2, which associates the structural response data with the risk assessment unit, includes: Based on the acquisition locations corresponding to each structural response parameter in the structural response data, determine the spatial distance between the acquisition location and the spatial range of each risk assessment unit. If the acquisition location corresponding to any structural response parameter falls within the spatial range of any risk assessment unit, then the structural response parameter is associated with the risk assessment unit. If the acquisition location corresponding to any structural response parameter falls within the spatial overlap area of ​​more than one risk assessment unit, then the acquisition location is located at the force boundary of any risk assessment unit, and the corresponding force transmission path points into the inside of the risk assessment unit, and the structural response parameter is associated with that risk assessment unit.

6. The method for digital assessment of structural safety risks of tents according to claim 1, characterized in that, Step S2, which determines the actual stress and deformation states of each risk assessment unit, includes: Structural response parameters associated with the same risk assessment unit are processed for time consistency, and structural response parameters collected within the same time period are selected as parameters to be analyzed. Collect the parameters to be analyzed at different collection locations within each risk assessment unit, and determine the actual stress state of the risk assessment unit during the collection period based on the response of each stress node to the force change in the collection results. Based on the response quantities of displacement changes or relative deformations of each stressed node in the collection results, the deformation state of the risk assessment unit during the collection period is determined.

7. The method for digital assessment of structural safety risks of tents according to claim 1, characterized in that, Step S3 determines the time periods during which structural response changes occur in each risk assessment unit, including: The time periods in each risk assessment unit that are under significant stress and significant deformation are calculated separately to obtain the time periods of significant changes in stress and deformation. The intersection calculation is used to determine the time periods of significant changes in stress state and deformation state. The time periods in which both significant changes in stress state and deformation state occur simultaneously are identified as the time periods in which structural response changes occur.

8. The method for digital assessment of structural safety risks of tents according to claim 1, characterized in that, The state evolution characteristics of each risk assessment unit in step S4 include: Arrange the time periods in which structural response changes occur, and combine the time periods in which structural response changes occur consecutively into an observation time period; By comparing the actual stress state and deformation state between adjacent observation time periods, if the change direction of the stress state and deformation state is consistent and the change amplitude shows a monotonically increasing trend, it is determined that the risk assessment unit has continuous evolution characteristics. If the changes in stress state and deformation state switch in opposite directions or the magnitude of change alternates between increasing and decreasing within a preset range, then the risk assessment unit is determined to have fluctuation evolution characteristics. If the magnitude of change gradually decreases and tends to be below the threshold of the magnitude of change, then the risk assessment unit is determined to have stable evolution characteristics.

9. The method for digital assessment of structural safety risks of tents according to claim 1, characterized in that, Step S4 involves a tiered assessment of the safety risks of each risk assessment unit, including: Calculate the proportion of risk assessment units with various state evolution characteristics in the tent structure to be assessed. If the corresponding proportion of continuous evolution characteristics is higher than the risk warning threshold, the tent structure to be assessed is judged as high-risk and a corresponding safety risk assessment report is generated. If the proportion of structures exhibiting stable evolutionary characteristics is greater than the sum of the proportions exhibiting continuous evolutionary characteristics and the proportions exhibiting fluctuating evolutionary characteristics, then the tent structure to be evaluated will be classified as low-risk, and a corresponding safety risk assessment report will be generated.

10. A digital assessment system for the structural safety risks of tents, characterized in that, For performing the digital assessment method for tent structure safety risks as described in claim 1, the digital assessment system for tent structure safety risks includes: The unit division module is used to obtain the set of structural parameters of the tent structure to be evaluated, and to divide the risk assessment units according to the connection structure and connection boundary of each stress node in the set of structural parameters. The structural change analysis module is used to acquire structural response data based on sensors pre-deployed on the tent structure, and to associate the structural response data with the risk assessment unit in order to determine the actual stress state and deformation state of each risk assessment unit. The observation time period determination module is used to determine the time period during which structural response changes occur in each risk assessment unit based on the actual stress and deformation states of each risk assessment unit. The safety risk assessment module is used to compare the structural response changes of each risk assessment unit over different time periods, classify the state evolution characteristics of each risk assessment unit, and conduct a graded assessment of the safety risk of each risk assessment unit, thereby generating a safety risk assessment report for the tent structure.

Images