Method for evaluating health diagnosis and treatment level of long and large bridge

Abstract

The invention discloses a method for evaluating the health diagnosis and treatment level of a long and large bridge. The method comprises the following steps: constructing an index system comprising three evaluation objects, namely a health sensing level, a health diagnosis level and a health treatment level; setting five evaluation dimensions of comprehensiveness, accuracy, timeliness, economy and safety under each evaluation object; configuring a plurality of quantifiable or qualitative evaluation indexes and specific representations under each evaluation dimension; under each representation, a grading scoring rule is formulated, and key components are refined for underlying scoring assignment; respectively determining weights of evaluation objects, evaluation dimensions and evaluation indexes through an expert scoring method; determining the importance weight of the component in the characterization index by re-normalizing the relative weight of the key component in the related standard; and based on the weight, performing layer-by-layer comprehensive scoring on the health diagnosis and treatment level of the bridge component by adopting a hierarchical weighting calculation method, and finally outputting a health diagnosis and treatment level evaluation result of the whole long and large bridge. Quantitative evaluation of the health diagnosis and treatment level of the long and large bridge is achieved, and the method also has a reference effect on evaluation of the health diagnosis and treatment levels of other bridges.

Description

A method for assessing the health diagnosis and treatment level of long bridges Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of civil engineering assessment technology, specifically to a method for assessing the health status of long bridges. Background Technology

[0002] Bridges are crucial national infrastructure. For long bridges located at critical junctures in transportation networks, safety accidents not only cause incalculable economic losses due to traffic disruptions but also significantly damage public trust. Therefore, the safe management of bridge operations has become a key focus of national security strategy. The multifunctional, high-volume, and high-load demands of modern transportation have dramatically increased the pressure on the healthy operation of long bridges. Insufficient scientific decision-making capabilities and inadequate maintenance technologies and methods have severely hampered the efficiency of transportation networks, making it difficult to support the high-quality development of long bridges. Summary of the Invention

[0003] Objective of this invention: The objective of this invention is to provide a method for assessing the health and treatment level of long bridges. This method integrates sensing systems, diagnostic methods, and treatment strategies, constructs a hierarchical index system, and combines bridge type characteristics for weighted scoring, thereby achieving a quantitative assessment of the health and treatment level of long bridges. This invention helps guide technological advancements, promotes the improvement of health and treatment levels for long bridges, and thus solves the problems existing in the background technology.

[0004] Technical Solution: The present invention provides a comprehensive evaluation method for the health diagnosis and treatment level of long bridges, comprising the following steps: (1) constructing an indicator system including three evaluation objects: health sensing level, health diagnosis level, and health treatment level; (2) setting five evaluation dimensions: comprehensive, accurate, timely, economical, and safe, under each evaluation object; configuring several quantifiable or qualitative evaluation indicators and specific representations under each evaluation dimension; (3) formulating graded scoring rules under each representation indicator, refining them to key components for bottom-level scoring assignment; (4) determining the weights of the evaluation object, evaluation dimension, and evaluation indicator through expert scoring, and determining the component importance weights in the representation indicators through the re-normalization of the weights of key components in relevant standards; (5) based on the weights, using a graded weighted calculation method, performing a layer-by-layer comprehensive scoring of the health diagnosis and treatment level of bridge components, and finally outputting the overall health diagnosis and treatment level evaluation result of the long bridge.

[0005] Furthermore, in step (2), the evaluation dimensions of health sensing level include: comprehensiveness: evaluating the completeness of the sensing range through spatial and temporal coverage capabilities; accuracy: evaluating the accuracy of sensing data through the accuracy of disease perception; timeliness: evaluating the timeliness of sensing through the ability to detect diseases early; economy: evaluating the cost-effectiveness of sensing through the cost-effectiveness balance of fund use and equipment utilization and social impact; and security: evaluating the security assurance capability of the sensing process through information security and autonomous controllability.

[0006] Furthermore, in step (2), the evaluation dimensions of the health diagnosis level include: comprehensiveness: evaluating the completeness of the diagnostic scope through spatial coverage and temporal coverage; accuracy: evaluating the reliability of the diagnostic results through the accuracy of disease diagnosis, performance evaluation and degradation prediction; timeliness: evaluating the timeliness of the diagnosis through the ability to provide early warning; economy: evaluating the cost-effectiveness of the diagnostic process through the ease of implementation, generalization ability and computing power consumption; and security: evaluating the security assurance capability of the diagnostic process through autonomous controllability.

[0007] Furthermore, in step (2), the evaluation dimensions of the health treatment level include: comprehensiveness: evaluating the completeness of the treatment scope through spatial coverage and temporal coverage; precision: evaluating the pertinence of treatment measures through targeted treatment capabilities; timeliness: evaluating the timeliness and effectiveness of treatment through rapid treatment capabilities and performance maintenance capabilities; economy: evaluating the cost-effectiveness of the treatment process through the cost-effectiveness balance of fund use and equipment utilization and social impact; and safety: evaluating the safety assurance capabilities of the treatment process through autonomous controllability.

[0008] Furthermore, in step (3), several quantifiable or qualitative grading and scoring rules are formulated, and specific characterization indicators are refined to each key component of the bridge structure.

[0009] Further, step (4) is as follows: invite experts from universities, research institutes and bridge maintenance units to form an expert group; conduct a questionnaire survey and have the experts score the importance of each level of indicators; based on the scoring results, perform statistical processing to determine the first-level weight of the evaluation object, the second-level weight of the evaluation dimension, and the third-level weight of the evaluation indicator; and determine the fourth-level weight of the component importance in the characterization indicator by normalizing the relative weights of each key component in the relevant standards and specifications.

[0010] Further, step (5) is as follows: score the specific characteristics of each bridge component; calculate the comprehensive score of the component based on the component weight; perform weighted calculation step by step according to the weight of the evaluation index, the weight of the evaluation dimension and the weight of the evaluation object; summarize the scores of all components and finally obtain the comprehensive health diagnosis and treatment level score of the long bridge.

[0011] The present invention discloses a comprehensive evaluation system for the health diagnosis and treatment level of long bridges, used to implement any of the evaluation methods described herein, comprising: an indicator library module for storing evaluation objects, evaluation dimensions, evaluation indicators and their weight data; a data acquisition module for acquiring disease data of bridge components and relevant information on sensing, diagnosis and treatment processes; a weight management module for maintaining and updating weight data at each level; a calculation engine module for automatically scoring according to the hierarchical weighted calculation method; and a result output module for generating a comprehensive evaluation report on the health diagnosis and treatment level of the bridge.

[0012] The present invention provides a computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, which, when executed by a processor, implements any of the methods described herein.

[0013] An electronic device according to the present invention includes a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program, and the processor executes the program to implement any of the methods described herein.

[0014] Beneficial Effects: Compared with existing technologies, this invention has the following significant advantages: This invention establishes an indicator system for the health diagnosis and treatment level of long bridges through "evaluation objects, evaluation dimensions, and evaluation indicators"; it establishes a scientific quantitative evaluation method for the health diagnosis and treatment level of long bridges by combining expert scoring and analytic hierarchy process; and it determines the key areas for improvement in the health diagnosis and treatment level of long bridges through the comprehensive scoring results of each evaluation dimension. The establishment of this system is conducive to fully leveraging its role as a "benchmark" and "guide," promoting the rapid, healthy, and high-quality development of health diagnosis and treatment activities for long bridges. Attached Figure Description

[0015] Figure 1 is a flowchart of the present invention; Figure 2 is a schematic diagram of the present invention; Figure 3 is a weight calculation method of the present invention; Figure 4 is a classification and quantification of reference characterization indicators by level according to the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0016] The technical solution of the present invention will be further described below with reference to the accompanying drawings.

[0017] As shown in Figure 1, this embodiment of the invention provides a method for assessing the health diagnosis and treatment level of long bridges, including the following steps: (1) Constructing an index system that includes three evaluation objects: health sensing level, health diagnosis level, and health treatment level; (2) Under each evaluation object, setting five evaluation dimensions: comprehensiveness, accuracy, timeliness, economy, and safety; Under each evaluation dimension, configuring several quantifiable or qualitative evaluation indicators and specific representations; The evaluation dimensions of health sensing level include: comprehensiveness: evaluating the integrity of the sensing range through spatial coverage and temporal coverage; accuracy: evaluating the accuracy of sensing data through the accuracy of disease perception; timeliness: evaluating the timeliness of sensing through the ability to detect early diseases; economy: evaluating the cost-effectiveness of sensing through the cost-effectiveness balance of fund use and equipment utilization and social impact; safety: evaluating the safety assurance capability of the sensing process through information security and autonomous controllability.

[0018] The evaluation dimensions for health diagnosis level include: comprehensiveness: evaluating the completeness of the diagnostic scope through spatial and temporal coverage; accuracy: evaluating the reliability of diagnostic results through the accuracy of disease diagnosis, performance evaluation, and degradation prediction; timeliness: evaluating the timeliness of diagnosis through early warning capabilities; economy: evaluating the cost-effectiveness of the diagnostic process through ease of implementation, generalization ability, and computing power consumption; and security: evaluating the security assurance capabilities of the diagnostic process through autonomous controllability.

[0019] The evaluation dimensions for health treatment level include: comprehensiveness: evaluating the completeness of the treatment scope through spatial and temporal coverage capabilities; precision: evaluating the pertinence of treatment measures through targeted treatment capabilities; timeliness: evaluating the timeliness and effectiveness of treatment through rapid treatment capabilities and performance maintenance capabilities; economy: evaluating the cost-effectiveness of the treatment process through the cost-effectiveness balance of fund usage and equipment utilization, as well as social impact; and safety: evaluating the safety assurance capabilities of the treatment process through autonomous controllability.

[0020] The principles and weights of the indicators at each level of the bridge health diagnosis and treatment level indicator system: As can be seen from Table 1, the bridge health diagnosis and treatment level indicator system is divided into multiple levels such as evaluation object, evaluation dimension, and evaluation indicator. In the evaluation object's health sensing, health diagnosis, and health treatment sub-items, it is divided into five dimensions: comprehensive, accurate, timely, economical, and safe.

[0021] Table 1. Composition of the Bridge Health Diagnosis and Treatment Level Index System (3) As shown in Figure 4, the weights of the evaluation object, evaluation dimension and evaluation indicator are determined by the expert scoring method. Specifically, through a questionnaire survey, experts score the importance of each level of indicator. Based on the scoring results, statistical processing is performed to determine the first-level weight of the evaluation object, the second-level weight of the evaluation dimension and the third-level weight of the evaluation indicator (as shown in Table 2-4). Through the normalization of the relative weights of each key component in the relevant standards and specifications, the fourth-level weight of the component importance in the characterization indicator is determined (as shown in Table 5).

[0022] Among them, the secondary and tertiary weights in the health perception sub-item level evaluation were determined by expert scoring, as shown in Table 2: The secondary and tertiary weights in the health diagnosis sub-item level evaluation were determined using an expert scoring method, as shown in Table 3. The secondary and tertiary weights in the evaluation of the health treatment sub-item level were determined using an expert scoring method, as shown in Table 4. Based on relevant standards and specifications, four levels of importance weights for bridge structural components were determined, as shown in Table 5: ; Establish reference characterization indicators for all evaluation indicators, as shown in Tables 6-8.

[0023] Table 6 Reference Characteristic Indicators for Sub-items of Health Sensitivity Table 7 Reference Characterization Indicators for Health Diagnosis Items Table 8 Reference Indicators for Health Treatment Items (4) As shown in Figure 3, based on the weights, a hierarchical weighted calculation method is adopted to comprehensively score the health diagnosis and treatment level of bridge components layer by layer, and finally output the overall health diagnosis and treatment level evaluation result of the long bridge. Specifically, the following steps are taken: a score is given for the specific characteristics of each bridge component; the comprehensive score of the component is calculated based on the component weight; the weighted calculation is carried out layer by layer according to the weight of the evaluation index, the weight of the evaluation dimension and the weight of the evaluation object; the scores of all components are summarized to finally obtain the overall health diagnosis and treatment level score of the bridge. Among them, the weighted formula is applied: ;in Let i be the weight of the i-th term. This is the standardized score.

[0024] The specific scoring calculation method is as follows: For each secondary indicator, the health diagnosis and treatment level of each typical disease of the bridge is scored. The average value of the disease score of each component is calculated, multiplied by the component weight, and summed to obtain the diagnosis and treatment level of the bridge under that secondary indicator. At the same time, the secondary indicators under the primary indicators are multiplied by their respective secondary indicator weights, summed, and then multiplied by the weight of their corresponding primary indicators. The scores of the five primary indicators are summed to obtain the score of the bridge's health sensing, diagnosis, and treatment level.

Claims

1. A method for comprehensive evaluation of the health diagnosis and treatment level of long-length bridges, characterized in that, Includes the following steps: (1) Construct an indicator system that includes three evaluation objects: health sensing level, health diagnosis level, and health treatment level; (2) Set five evaluation dimensions: comprehensive, accurate, timely, economical, and safe under each evaluation object; under each evaluation dimension, configure several quantifiable or qualitative evaluation indicators and specific representations; (3) Under each representation indicator, formulate graded scoring rules and refine them to key components for bottom-level scoring assignment; (4) Through expert scoring, determine the weights of evaluation objects, evaluation dimensions, and evaluation indicators respectively, and determine the component importance weights in the representation indicators by re-normalizing the weights of key components in relevant standards; (5) Based on the weights, adopt a graded weighted calculation method to conduct a layer-by-layer comprehensive scoring of the health diagnosis and treatment level of bridge components, and finally output the overall health diagnosis and treatment level evaluation results of long bridges.

2. The method for comprehensive evaluation of the health diagnosis and treatment level of long-length bridges according to claim 1, characterized in that, In step (2), the evaluation dimensions of health sensing level include: comprehensiveness: evaluating the completeness of the sensing range through spatial and temporal coverage capabilities; accuracy: evaluating the accuracy of sensing data through the accuracy of disease perception; timeliness: evaluating the timeliness of sensing through the ability to detect diseases in the early stages; economy: evaluating the cost-effectiveness of sensing through the cost-effectiveness balance of fund use and equipment utilization and social impact; and security: evaluating the security assurance capability of the sensing process through information security and autonomous controllability.

3. The method for comprehensive evaluation of the health diagnosis and treatment level of long-length bridges according to claim 1, characterized in that, In step (2), the evaluation dimensions of the health diagnosis level include: comprehensiveness: evaluating the completeness of the diagnostic scope through spatial and temporal coverage capabilities; accuracy: evaluating the reliability of the diagnostic results through the accuracy of disease diagnosis, performance evaluation, and degradation prediction; timeliness: evaluating the timeliness of the diagnosis through early warning capabilities; economy: evaluating the cost-effectiveness of the diagnostic process through ease of implementation, generalization ability, and computing power consumption; and security: evaluating the security assurance capability of the diagnostic process through autonomous controllability.

4. The method for comprehensive evaluation of the health diagnosis and treatment level of long bridges according to claim 1, characterized in that, In step (2), the evaluation dimensions of health treatment level include: comprehensiveness: evaluating the completeness of the treatment scope through spatial coverage and temporal coverage; precision: evaluating the pertinence of treatment measures through targeted treatment capabilities; timeliness: evaluating the timeliness and effectiveness of treatment through rapid treatment capabilities and performance maintenance capabilities; economy: evaluating the cost-effectiveness of the treatment process through the cost-effectiveness balance of fund use and equipment utilization and social impact; and safety: evaluating the safety assurance capabilities of the treatment process through autonomous controllability.

5. The method for comprehensive evaluation of the health diagnosis and treatment level of long-length bridges according to claim 1, characterized in that, In step (3), several quantifiable or qualitative grading and scoring rules are formulated, and specific characterization indicators are refined to each key component of the bridge structure.

6. The method for comprehensive evaluation of the health diagnosis and treatment level of long-length bridges according to claim 1, characterized in that, Step (4) is as follows: Invite experts from universities, research institutes and bridge maintenance units to form an expert group; conduct a questionnaire survey and have the experts score the importance of each level of indicators; based on the scoring results, perform statistical processing to determine the first-level weight of the evaluation object, the second-level weight of the evaluation dimension, and the third-level weight of the evaluation indicator; and determine the fourth-level weight of the component importance in the characterization indicator by normalizing the relative weights of each key component in the relevant standards and specifications.

7. The method for comprehensive evaluation of the health diagnosis and treatment level of long-length bridges according to claim 1, characterized in that, Step (5) is as follows: Score the specific characteristics of each bridge component; calculate the comprehensive score of the component based on the component weight; perform weighted calculation step by step according to the weight of the evaluation index, the weight of the evaluation dimension and the weight of the evaluation object; summarize the scores of all components and finally obtain the comprehensive health diagnosis and treatment level score of the long bridge.

8. A comprehensive evaluation system for the health diagnosis and treatment level of long-length bridges, characterized in that, The evaluation method for implementing any one of claims 1-7 comprises: an indicator library module for storing evaluation objects, evaluation dimensions, evaluation indicators and their weight data; a data acquisition module for acquiring defect data of bridge components and related information on sensing, diagnosis and treatment processes; a weight management module for maintaining and updating weight data at each level; a calculation engine module for automatically scoring according to the hierarchical weighted calculation method; and a result output module for generating a comprehensive evaluation report on the health diagnosis and treatment level of the bridge.

9. A computer-readable storage medium, characterized in that, It stores a computer program that, when executed by a processor, implements the method as described in any one of claims 1-7.

10. An electronic device comprising a memory and a processor, characterized in that, The memory stores a computer program, and the processor executes the program to implement the method as described in any one of claims 1-7.

Images