Informatization construction management method for steel box girder pushing

Abstract

The invention provides an informatization construction management method for steel box girder pushing, and belongs to the technical field of construction informatization, and the method specifically comprises the steps: generating a plurality of alternative pushing schemes based on a demand number and available working equipment, when it is determined that the pushing reliability of the alternative pushing scheme meets the requirement through the pushing distribution position of available pushing equipment in the alternative pushing scheme and the pushing processing reliability, curve deviation data of the four edges of the steel box girder in the pushing force interval are determined through the pushing distribution position; according to the method, the alternative pushing processing schemes are selected, the optimal pushing scheme of the alternative pushing processing schemes is determined in combination with the pushing reliability, pushing processing of the steel box girder is conducted through the optimal pushing scheme, and whether improvement processing needs to be conducted or not is determined based on the analysis result of the pushing curves of the pushing devices on the four sides of the steel box girder, so that the reliability and consistency of pushing processing of the steel box girder are guaranteed.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention belongs to the field of construction information technology, and in particular relates to an information-based construction management method for the jacking of steel box girders. Background Technology

[0002] Steel box girders, also known as steel plate box girders, are a common structural form for long-span bridges. They are generally used on bridges with large spans. Because their shape resembles a box, they are called steel box girders. During construction, they are installed by hoisting or jacking. Jacking allows the steel box girder to be assembled section by section and pushed to the design position, resulting in higher construction efficiency.

[0003] During the jacking process of steel box girder, jacking equipment, such as jacks, is required to provide jacking force. These devices should be placed between the piers. Since the equipment parameters and conditions of different jacking devices vary to some extent, ensuring the stability and synchronization of the jacking devices, and ensuring that the quality and performance of the jacking devices meet the requirements, has become an urgent technical problem to be solved.

[0004] Specifically, this application provides an information-based construction management method for the jacking of steel box girders. Summary of the Invention

[0005] To achieve the objectives of this invention, the following technical solution is adopted: To address the aforementioned technical problems, this invention provides an information-based construction management method for the jacking of steel box girders, specifically comprising: S1 determines the reliability of the jacking process of the jacking equipment and the stable working equipment in the jacking equipment by using curves in different jacking force ranges; S2 determines the curve deviation between the stabilized working device and other stabilized working devices in different jacking force ranges, and determines the usable working devices among the stabilized working devices based on the curve deviation. S3 determines the required number of available working equipment based on the requirements of the steel box girder, and generates multiple alternative jacking schemes based on the required number and available working equipment. When the jacking reliability of the alternative jacking scheme meets the requirements by checking the jacking distribution location and jacking processing reliability of the available jacking equipment in the alternative jacking scheme, proceed to the next step. S4 uses the jacking distribution location to determine the curve deviation data of the four sides of the steel box girder in the jacking force range, and combines the jacking reliability to determine the preferred jacking scheme of the alternative jacking treatment schemes. The preferred jacking scheme is used to jack the steel box girder. Based on the analysis results of the jacking curves of the jacking equipment on the four sides of the steel box girder and the correlation between the available jacking schemes that meet the comprehensive evaluation requirements and the preferred jacking scheme, an improvement processing analysis strategy is determined.

[0006] The beneficial effects of this invention are as follows: 1. In this invention, the available working equipment among the stable working equipment is determined based on the curve deviation, thereby enabling the screening of stable working equipment with large deviations from the perspective of the deviation of the jacking force curve with other stable working equipment. This ensures the reliability of the jacking force of the steel box girder and avoids the technical problem that the consistency and stability of the jacking treatment results of the steel box girder are difficult to meet the requirements due to inconsistent output force.

[0007] 2. In this invention, the analysis results of the jacking curves of the jacking equipment on the four sides of the steel box girder determine whether improvement processing is needed. This enables real-time monitoring of the consistency and stability of the jacking curves on the four sides of the steel box girder. Furthermore, by combining the correlation between the available jacking schemes that meet the comprehensive evaluation requirements and the preferred jacking scheme, the difficulty of switching to other available jacking schemes when there are deviations in consistency and stability is reduced. This avoids the situation where there are many available jacking schemes that meet the switching difficulty requirements due to consistency and stability issues, and ensures the reliability of the jacking process.

[0008] A further technical solution is that the curve of the jacking device in the jacking force range is determined based on the historical jacking data of the jacking device.

[0009] A further technical solution is that the method for determining the reliability of the jacking process of the jacking device is as follows: The curve is used to determine the slope of the thrust variation at different nodes for different thrust ranges, and the thrust reliability deviation sub-ranges for different thrust ranges are determined based on the slope of the thrust variation. The reliability coefficient of different jacking force ranges is determined by the proportion of the jacking reliability deviation sub-range in the jacking force range; The reliability of the jacking process of the jacking equipment is determined based on the reliability coefficient of different jacking force ranges.

[0010] A further technical solution is that when the reliability of the jacking process of the jacking device meets the requirements, the jacking device is determined to be a stable working device.

[0011] A further technical solution is that the curve deviation includes the thrust deviation at different nodes in different thrust ranges.

[0012] A further technical solution is that the method for determining the improved processing and analysis strategy is as follows: Based on the analysis results of the jacking curves of the jacking equipment on the four sides of the steel box girder, the deviation of the jacking curves of the jacking equipment on the four sides is determined, and the consistency coefficient of the jacking force of the steel box girder is determined by the deviation of the jacking curves. Based on the analysis results, the slope of the jacking force variation of the four-sided jacking equipment is determined, and the reliability coefficient of the jacking force of the steel box girder is calculated based on the slope of the jacking force variation of the four-sided jacking equipment. The reliability of the monitoring data of the steel box girder is determined by the reliability coefficient and consistency coefficient of the jacking force. Based on the reliability of the monitoring data and its correlation with other available jacking schemes that meet the requirements of comprehensive evaluation, an improvement processing analysis strategy is determined.

[0013] Other features and advantages will be set forth in the description which follows, and will be apparent in part from the description, or may be learned by practicing the invention. The objects and other advantages of the invention are realized and obtained through the structures particularly pointed out in the description and the drawings.

[0014] To make the above-mentioned objects, features and advantages of the present invention more apparent and understandable, preferred embodiments are described below in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings. Attached Figure Description

[0015] The above and other features and advantages of the present invention will become more apparent from a detailed description of exemplary embodiments thereof with reference to the accompanying drawings.

[0016] Figure 1 This is a flowchart of an information-based construction management method for the jacking of steel box girders; Figure 2 This is a flowchart illustrating the method for determining the reliability of the jacking process of the jacking equipment; Figure 3 This is a flowchart of a method for determining the available working equipment in a stable working equipment setup. Detailed Implementation

[0017] Exemplary embodiments will now be described more fully with reference to the accompanying drawings. However, these exemplary embodiments can be implemented in many forms and should not be construed as limited to the embodiments set forth herein; rather, they are provided so that the invention will be thorough and complete, and the concept of the exemplary embodiments will be fully conveyed to those skilled in the art. The same reference numerals in the drawings denote the same or similar structures, and therefore their detailed description will be omitted.

[0018] The terms “a,” “one,” “the,” and “the” are used to indicate the existence of one or more elements / components / etc.; the terms “including” and “having” are used to indicate an open-ended meaning of inclusion and that other elements / components / etc. may exist in addition to the listed elements / components / etc.

[0019] To solve the above problems, according to one aspect of the present invention, such as Figure 1 As shown, according to one aspect of the present invention, an information-based construction management method for jacking steel box girders is provided, specifically including: S1 determines the reliability of the jacking process of the jacking equipment and the stable working equipment in the jacking equipment by using curves in different jacking force ranges; S2 determines the curve deviation between the stabilized working device and other stabilized working devices in different jacking force ranges, and determines the usable working devices among the stabilized working devices based on the curve deviation. S3 determines the required number of available working equipment based on the requirements of the steel box girder, and generates multiple alternative jacking schemes based on the required number and available working equipment. When the jacking reliability of the alternative jacking scheme meets the requirements by checking the jacking distribution location and jacking processing reliability of the available jacking equipment in the alternative jacking scheme, proceed to the next step. S4 uses the jacking distribution location to determine the curve deviation data of the four sides of the steel box girder in the jacking force range, and combines the jacking reliability to determine the preferred jacking scheme of the alternative jacking treatment schemes. The preferred jacking scheme is used to jack the steel box girder. Based on the analysis results of the jacking curves of the jacking equipment on the four sides of the steel box girder and the correlation between the available jacking schemes that meet the comprehensive evaluation requirements and the preferred jacking scheme, an improvement processing analysis strategy is determined.

[0020] Furthermore, the curve of the jacking device in the jacking force range is determined based on the historical jacking data of the jacking device.

[0021] It should be noted that, as Figure 2 As shown, the method for determining the reliability of the jacking process of the jacking device is as follows: The curve is used to determine the slope of the thrust variation at different nodes for different thrust ranges, and the thrust reliability deviation sub-ranges for different thrust ranges are determined based on the slope of the thrust variation. The reliability coefficient of different jacking force ranges is determined by the proportion of the jacking reliability deviation sub-range in the jacking force range; The reliability of the jacking process of the jacking equipment is determined based on the reliability coefficient of different jacking force ranges.

[0022] It is understandable that when the reliability of the jacking process of the jacking equipment meets the requirements, the jacking equipment is determined to be a stable working equipment.

[0023] It should be further explained that the method for determining the sub-interval of the jacking reliability deviation in the jacking force range is as follows: The jacking force interval is divided into multiple sub-intervals according to a preset division length. When the average value of the jacking force variation slope of the nodes in the sub-interval is less than the preset variation slope, the sub-interval is determined to be the jacking reliability deviation sub-interval.

[0024] Jacking equipment: a cluster of hydraulic jacks and its control system used to propel steel box girders forward.

[0025] Curve: Refers to the continuous data curve showing the change of jacking force (Y-axis) with jacking nodes (X-axis, which can be time steps or displacement increments) during the jacking process. Each node corresponds to a jacking force sampling value.

[0026] Top thrust range: For ease of analysis, the entire working top thrust range is divided into several continuous force value ranges. For example, the top thrust range of 0-500 tons is divided into 5 ranges: [0-100t), A, [100-200t), B, [200-300t), C, [300-400t), D, [400-500t], D.

[0027] Node: A specific data sampling point on the curve, which includes location (node ​​number) and force value information.

[0028] Thrust variation slope: On a curve, the instantaneous rate of change of thrust at a given node relative to the previous node (unit: tons / node). It reflects the drastic degree of thrust variation.

[0029] Top-push reliability deviation sub-interval: Within a certain top-push force range, the identified local segments where the top-push force changes abnormally gently (slope absolute value is too small) or abnormally drastically (slope absolute value is too large).

[0030] Reliability coefficient: an index used to quantify the overall reliability of a certain top thrust range; the higher the value, the more reliable it is.

[0031] Top-pushing reliability: A comprehensive evaluation of the stability of the entire equipment during the whole or stage-by-stage top-pushing process.

[0032] Assume the interval B contains 300 nodes, from node 301 to node 600. Dividing it by L=20, we get 15 sub-intervals (Sub_B1 ~ Sub_B15).

[0033] For each node i (i >= 2), calculate the thrust change slope K_i: K_i = (F_i - F_(i - 1)) / 1, where F_i is the thrust of node i.

[0034] Calculation and determination: Calculate the AvgK of Sub_B1 (nodes 301 - 320). Assume its value is 0.3 tons / node. Judgment: 0.3 < S_th (0.5) → Sub_B1 is determined as the "sub - interval with deviation in thrust reliability". Similarly, calculate the AvgK of Sub_B2 to Sub_B15 and make determinations.

[0035] Assume the final determination result: Among the 15 sub - intervals in interval B, a total of 3 sub - intervals, namely Sub_B1, Sub_B5, and Sub_B12, are identified as deviation sub - intervals.

[0036] Reliability coefficient R_B = 1 - (3 / 15) = 1 - 0.2 = 0.80. Combining the reliability coefficients of each thrust interval, calculate the comprehensive index of the thrust handling reliability of the entire device (R_total). The weighted average method can be used, and the weights are determined according to the importance of each interval (such as whether it is in the common force area) or the proportion of data volume.

[0037] Simplified implementation: In this example, the arithmetic mean is used. Divide the entire observed force range into 3 thrust intervals for analysis: R_total = 0.8167. Set the threshold for meeting the reliability requirement as 0.80. Judgment: R_total = 0.8167 > 0.80, and the thrust handling reliability of this thrust device meets the requirements.

[0038] It should be noted that, as Figure 3 shown, the method for determining the available working devices in the stable working device is as follows: Use the curve deviation situation to determine the thrust deviation amount of different nodes of the stable working device and other stable working devices in different thrust intervals, and determine the number of deviation nodes in different thrust intervals through the thrust deviation amount of different nodes in different thrust intervals; Determine the deviation thrust interval according to the number of the deviation nodes, and determine the curve deviation coefficient of the stable working device and other stable working devices through the proportion of the number of the deviation thrust intervals; Based on the curve deviation coefficient, determine the deviation working devices in other stable working devices, determine the working curve deviation amount of the stable working device according to the proportion of the number of the deviation working devices, and determine whether the stable working device is an available working device according to the working curve deviation amount.

[0039] It can also be understood that the value of the working curve deviation is between 0 and 1. When the working curve deviation of the stable working device is greater than the preset deviation threshold, it is determined that the stable working device is not a usable working device.

[0040] Specifically, when the top thrust deviation of the node does not meet the requirements, the node is determined to be a deviation node.

[0041] 1. Project Background In the multi-point synchronous jacking construction of steel box girders, five stable working machines, numbered D1 to D5, have been selected through single-machine reliability assessment. To ensure the synchronization accuracy of the jacking, it is necessary to further select usable working machines with good coordination from these five machines. This embodiment takes the evaluated machine D1 as an example to illustrate the selection process in detail.

[0042] 2. Core Parameter Presets The top thrust range of 0-500 tons is divided into five intervals, labeled A to E. Interval A is 0 to 100 tons, interval B is 100 to 200 tons, interval C is 200 to 300 tons, interval D is 300 to 400 tons, and interval E is 400 to 500 tons.

[0043] The analysis used a jacking process data segment containing 1000 alignment nodes. The deviation tolerance threshold was set at 15 tons, meaning that at the same node, if the absolute value of the difference in jacking force between two devices exceeds 15 tons, that node is determined to be a deviation node for the pair of devices.

[0044] For any given thrust range, if the number of deviation nodes exceeds 30% of the total number of nodes in that range, then that range is determined to be the deviation thrust range between the pair of equipment.

[0045] Finally, the synergy of the equipment is evaluated by calculating the deviation of the working curve, which ranges from 0 to 1. A preset deviation threshold of 0.4 is set. If the deviation of the working curve of a certain piece of equipment is greater than 0.4, its synergy is considered unqualified and it is not considered a usable working piece of equipment.

[0046] II. Evaluation process for equipment D1; Step 1: Perform node-level deviation analysis with comparison equipment; First, compare device D1 with another stable device D2. Iterate through all 1000 nodes and calculate the absolute value of the difference in thrust between D1 and D2 at each node. Assume that the statistics show that the thrust difference at 180 nodes exceeds the 15-ton deviation tolerance threshold; these 180 nodes are marked as deviation nodes between D1 and D2.

[0047] Step 2: Interval-level statistics and deviation interval determination; Next, these 180 deviation nodes are assigned to five thrust intervals, A to E, according to their corresponding average thrust values, and the number of deviation nodes in each interval is counted.

[0048] Assume that there are approximately 50 nodes in interval A, of which 2 are deviation nodes, accounting for 4%, which does not exceed the threshold.

[0049] Interval B has approximately 200 nodes, with 25 nodes showing deviation, accounting for 12.5%, which does not exceed the threshold.

[0050] Interval C has approximately 400 nodes, with 140 nodes showing deviation, accounting for 35%, exceeding the 30% threshold for judgment. Therefore, interval C is determined to be the deviation thrust interval between equipment D1 and D2.

[0051] Interval D has approximately 250 nodes, with 10 deviation nodes, accounting for 4%, which does not exceed the threshold.

[0052] Interval E has approximately 100 nodes, with 3 nodes showing deviation, accounting for 3% of the total, which does not exceed the threshold.

[0053] Step 3: Calculate the curve deviation coefficient; The curve deviation coefficient between devices D1 and D2 is equal to the number of deviation thrust intervals between them divided by the total number of intervals. In this example, only interval C is determined to be a deviation interval, so the curve deviation coefficient is one-fifth, or 0.20.

[0054] Step 4: Conduct a comprehensive comparison and identify the deviations in the working equipment; Repeat the above steps to calculate the curve deviation coefficients for devices D1 and D3, D4, and D5. Assume the following results are obtained: the deviation range between D1 and D3 is B and D, with a curve deviation coefficient of 0.40. There is no deviation range between D1 and D4, with a curve deviation coefficient of 0.00. The deviation range between D1 and D5 is C and E, with a curve deviation coefficient of 0.40.

[0055] Set the device-level deviation threshold to 0.35. Compare the deviation coefficients of each curve with this threshold: The coefficient of D2 is 0.20, which is less than 0.35. Therefore, D2 is not a deviation working device of D1.

[0056] The coefficient of D3 is 0.40, which is greater than 0.35. Therefore, D3 is the deviation working device of D1.

[0057] The coefficient of D4 is 0.00, which is less than 0.35. Therefore, D4 ​​is not a deviation working device of D1.

[0058] The coefficient of D5 is 0.40, which is greater than 0.35. Therefore, D5 is the deviation working device of D1.

[0059] In summary, from D1's perspective, D3 and D5 are identified as deviation-operating devices.

[0060] Step 5: Calculate the deviation of the working curve; The deviation of the operating curve of device D1 is equal to the number of devices with deviation identified by it divided by the total number of comparison devices (i.e., 4 devices, excluding itself). In this example, D1 identified 2 devices with deviation, so its operating curve deviation is 2 divided by 4, which equals 0.50.

[0061] Step 6: Availability determination; The deviation of the working curve of D1, 0.50, is compared with the preset deviation threshold of 0.4. Since 0.50 is greater than 0.4, it is determined that the coordination of equipment D1 does not meet the requirements and is not a usable working equipment.

[0062] Furthermore, the method for determining the alternative jacking scheme is as follows: Using the required quantity as a constraint, the available working equipment is combined to determine the available working equipment corresponding to the four sides of the steel box girder; The alternative jacking schemes are determined based on the available working equipment corresponding to the four sides of the steel box girder.

[0063] It is also understood that ensuring the reliability of the alternative jacking scheme meets the requirements specifically includes: Based on the jacking distribution location of the available jacking schemes, the available working equipment corresponding to the four sides of the steel box girder is determined, and the single-side reliability coefficient of the steel box girder is calculated based on the jacking processing reliability of the different available working equipment corresponding to the four sides of the steel box girder. The jacking reliability of the alternative jacking scheme is determined by using the unilateral reliability coefficients of different sides, and whether the jacking reliability of the alternative jacking scheme meets the requirements is determined by using a preset reliability threshold.

[0064] Furthermore, if the push reliability of the alternative push scheme is less than the preset reliability threshold, then it is determined that the push reliability of the alternative push scheme does not meet the requirements.

[0065] Project Background: A steel box girder launching project for a cross-river bridge requires simultaneous launching of launching equipment along all four sides of the girder. Following the aforementioned coordination screening, eight usable launching machines have been identified, numbered D1 to D8. The launching reliability of each machine is known: D1 (0.92), D2 (0.88), D3 (0.95), D4 (0.90), D5 (0.87), D6 (0.93), D7 (0.89), and D8 (0.91). This launching task requires two launching machines to be deployed on each side of the steel box girder, for a total requirement of eight machines, consistent with the number of available machines. The objective is to generate alternative launching schemes from all possible machine allocation combinations and evaluate whether the overall launching reliability of each scheme meets the preset requirements.

[0066] II. Generate alternative jacking schemes; The combination generation process is as follows: With the constraint that each edge requires two pieces of equipment, eight available pieces of equipment (D1-D8) are allocated to the four edges of the steel box girder (let's name them edges A, B, C, and D). A complete allocation scheme constitutes a candidate launching scheme. Since the equipment varies, this is a combination allocation problem. To simplify the explanation, two candidate schemes to be evaluated are generated.

[0067] Alternative Option 1: Edge A (front end): Devices D1, D2; Edge B (right side): Devices D3, D4; Edge C (back end): Devices D5, D6; Edge D (left side): Devices D7, D8.

[0068] Alternative Option 2: Edge A (front end): Devices D1, D3; Edge B (right side): Devices D5, D7; Edge C (back end): Devices D2, D6; Edge D (left side): Devices D4, D8.

[0069] III. Evaluate the reliability of the jacking method for alternative solutions; Evaluation principle: The reliability of the scheme is calculated based on the reliability of the equipment on each of its four edges. First, the single-edge reliability coefficient is calculated, usually taken as the average reliability of the two devices on that edge, representing the average reliability level of the equipment on that edge.

[0070] Evaluation of Alternative Option 1: Calculate the one-sided reliability coefficient: Edge A(D1, D2): (0.92 + 0.88) / 2 = 0.900; Edge B(D3, D4): (0.95 + 0.90) / 2 = 0.925; Edge C(D5, D6): (0.87 + 0.93) / 2 = 0.900; Edge D(D7, D8): (0.89 + 0.91) / 2 = 0.900; Overall reliability of the calculation scheme: The minimum value of the four unilateral reliability coefficients is taken as the weakest link reliability of the scheme. This is because failure on any side during the jacking process can lead to overall synchronization failure. The overall reliability of Scheme 1 is 0.900.

[0071] Evaluation of Alternative Option Two: Calculate the one-sided reliability coefficient: Side A (D1, D3): (0.92 + 0.95) / 2 = 0.935; Edge B (D5, D7): (0.87 + 0.89) / 2 = 0.880; Edge C(D2, D6): (0.88 + 0.93) / 2 = 0.905; Edge D(D4, D8): (0.90 + 0.91) / 2 = 0.905; Overall reliability of the calculation scheme: Similarly, the minimum value is taken. The overall reliability of Scheme 2 is 0.880.

[0072] IV. Reliability Assessment and Solution Decision Judgment process: A preset reliability threshold of 0.89 is set. The overall reliability of each scheme is compared with this threshold. The overall reliability of Scheme 1 is 0.900, which is greater than 0.89, and meets the requirement. The overall reliability of Scheme 2 is 0.880, which is less than 0.89, and does not meet the requirement.

[0073] Engineering Decision: Based on the evaluation results, Option 1 was identified as a reliable alternative jacking scheme and can be submitted to the construction command center for subsequent detailed work planning. Option 2 was eliminated due to insufficient reliability. The system can continue to generate and evaluate other allocation combinations until all feasible schemes that meet the reliability requirements are found.

[0074] In another embodiment, the method for determining the preferred jacking scheme among the alternative jacking processing schemes is as follows: Based on the jacking distribution location, determine the corresponding available working equipment for the four sides of the steel box girder, and use the curves of the available working equipment corresponding to different sides in different jacking force ranges to determine the jacking force curves of different sides in different jacking force ranges. The deviation between different sides in different jacking force intervals is determined by using the jacking force curves of different jacking force intervals, and the number of deviation sides in different jacking force intervals is determined based on the deviation from the jacking force curves of other sides. The output deviation range is determined based on the number of deviation edges in different jacking force ranges. The comprehensive evaluation value of the alternative jacking scheme is determined using the number of output deviation ranges and the jacking reliability. The comprehensive evaluation value is used to determine whether the alternative jacking scheme is the preferred jacking scheme.

[0075] It is understood that the deviation edge is the edge of the steel box girder whose average deviation from the jacking force curve of other edges is not within the preset curve deviation range.

[0076] Project Background: In the previous embodiment, we identified an alternative jacking scheme 1, with equipment allocation as follows: side A (D1, D2), side B (D3, D4), side C (D5, D6), and side D (D7, D8). This scheme has an overall jacking reliability of 0.900, meeting the basic requirements. Now, we need to conduct a more in-depth comprehensive evaluation of this scheme from a more refined perspective of synchronous output coordination to determine whether it can become the final preferred jacking scheme.

[0077] Evaluation Dimensions: In addition to the known overall reliability, this embodiment introduces output curve coordination as a new evaluation dimension. That is, it checks whether the output curves of the four side devices are sufficiently consistent at different stages (different jacking force ranges) throughout the entire jacking process. Assume that we continue to use five jacking force ranges: A [0-100t), B [100-200t), C [200-300t), D [300-400t), E [400-500t].

[0078] Core parameters: Preset curve deviation range: [d_low, d_high], for example, set to [5 tons, 20 tons]. This range defines the ideal range of average output deviation between the two sides within a certain jacking force range. A deviation of less than 5 tons may indicate sensor or calculation errors, while a deviation of more than 20 tons indicates significant output inconsistency. Comprehensive evaluation metric: A comprehensive indicator that combines jacking reliability and output coordination.

[0079] II. Evaluate the compatibility of the output curve; Step 1: Obtain and determine the output curve; For Alternative Option 1, we already know which two devices comprise each edge. Assume we can obtain or calculate the combined thrust curve for each edge across the five thrust intervals (AE). This curve represents the change in the resultant force of the two devices on that edge over time or displacement. Simplifying, we obtain four vectors representing the average output force characteristics of the four edges across the five intervals.

[0080] Step 2: Calculate the deviation of the output curve between different sides; We need to calculate the deviation of the output curves between any two sides within the same top thrust range. This deviation can be quantified as the average of the absolute values ​​of the differences in output values ​​between the two sides at all corresponding nodes within that range.

[0081] Taking the interval C [200-300t] as an example, assume that the average deviation of the pairwise comparisons between the four sides is calculated as follows: Deviation between side A and side B: 18 tons; Deviation between side A and side C: 25 tons; Deviation between side A and side D: 12 tons; Deviation between side B and side C: 22 tons; Deviation between side B and side D: 15 tons; Deviation between side C and side D: 28 tons; Step 3: Determine the deviation edge; Next, for each edge, calculate the average of its deviation from the other three edges.

[0082] Side A: (18+25+12) / 3 = 18.3 tons; Side B: (18+22+15) / 3 = 18.3 tons; Side C: (25+22+28) / 3 = 25.0 tons; Side D: (12+15+28) / 3 = 18.3 tons; Based on the preset curve deviation range [5, 20 tons], determine whether the average deviation of each edge is within this range: Edge A: 18.3 ∈ [5, 20] → Not a deviation edge. Edge B: 18.3 ∈ [5, 20] → Not a deviation edge. Edge C: 25.0 ∉ [5, 20] → Belongs to the deviation edge. Edge D: 18.3 ∈ [5, 20] → Not a deviation edge.

[0083] Therefore, within interval C, edge C is identified as the deviation edge. This means that in the force range of 200-300 tons, the force output pattern of edge C differs significantly from the other three edges (either too drastic or too gradual).

[0084] Step 4: Determine the output deviation range; Repeat steps two and three to analyze all five thrust intervals (AE). Assume we obtain the following results: Interval A: No edge is determined as a deviation edge. Interval B: No edge is determined as a deviation edge. Interval C: Edge C is determined as a deviation edge (as above). Interval D: Edges A and C are determined as deviation edges. Interval E: No edge is determined as a deviation edge.

[0085] The output deviation interval refers to the thrust interval where at least one edge is determined to be a deviation edge. Based on the above results, intervals C and D satisfy this condition. Therefore, the number of output deviation intervals is 2.

[0086] III. Calculate the comprehensive evaluation quantity and determine the optimal solution; Step 1: Define and calculate the comprehensive evaluation quantity; The comprehensive evaluation factor (denoted as S) aims to balance the reliability of the scheme (the higher the better) and the output coordination (the smaller the deviation range, the better). A simple calculation method is: S = α * R - β * N Where: R is the top-pushing reliability of the scheme (0.900 in this example). N is the number of output deviation intervals (2 in this example). α and β are weighting coefficients used to adjust the relative importance of the two dimensions. For example, let α = 1.0, β = 0.05.

[0087] Substituting the values: S = 1.0 * 0.900 - 0.05 * 2 = 0.900 - 0.10 = 0.790; Step 2: Make a judgment based on the comprehensive evaluation results; Based on the calculated comprehensive evaluation value S = 0.790, available schemes with a comprehensive evaluation value greater than 0.7 are considered as available schemes that meet the comprehensive evaluation value requirements, and the scheme with the highest comprehensive evaluation value is determined as the preferred scheme.

[0088] Judgment Logic: Although the scheme exhibits some output inconsistency in intervals C and D (particularly pronounced at edge C), its overall reliability (0.900) is high, and the number of inconsistent force zones (2) is within a controllable range. The comprehensive evaluation shows that its overall performance remains excellent, therefore it can be considered as a preferred alternative.

[0089] IV. Project Significance and Summary The evaluation method in this embodiment has been elevated from pursuing "unilateral reliability" to a higher level of pursuing "multilateral coordination".

[0090] Potential Problem Identification: The analysis clearly indicates that in ranges C (200-300 tons) and D (300-400 tons), particularly on side C (composed of equipment D5 and D6), the output behavior is asynchronous with other sides. This provides precise guidance for equipment commissioning and parameter pre-calibration before construction. Engineers can focus on checking the hydraulic response and control parameters of equipment D5 and D6 under moderate to high loads.

[0091] Solution Decision Support: If another alternative has a slightly lower overall reliability (e.g., 0.880) but excellent output coordination (within the deviation range), its comprehensive evaluation value S = 0.880 - 0 = 0.880 will be higher than the current alternative. This indicates that this method can make quantitative comparisons and scientific choices between "highly reliable but slightly out of sync" and "very reliable and highly synchronized" alternatives, rather than simply looking at the reliability indicator.

[0092] Final conclusion: Through comprehensive evaluation, Alternative jacking scheme 1, while meeting basic reliability requirements, had its output coordination risk quantified and deemed acceptable. Therefore, it was selected as the preferred jacking scheme and can be included in the final construction execution plan. This method ensures that the final selected scheme is reliable not only at the individual equipment level but also robust at the group coordination level, providing "double insurance" for the smooth and precise jacking of the steel box girder.

[0093] A further technical solution is that the method for determining the improved processing and analysis strategy is as follows: Based on the analysis results of the jacking curves of the jacking equipment on the four sides of the steel box girder, the deviation of the jacking curves of the jacking equipment on the four sides is determined, and the consistency coefficient of the jacking force of the steel box girder is determined by the deviation of the jacking curves. Based on the analysis results, the slope of the jacking force variation of the four-sided jacking equipment is determined, and the reliability coefficient of the jacking force of the steel box girder is calculated based on the slope of the jacking force variation of the four-sided jacking equipment. The reliability of the monitoring data of the steel box girder is determined by the reliability coefficient and consistency coefficient of the jacking force. Based on the reliability of the monitoring data and its correlation with other available jacking schemes that meet the requirements of comprehensive evaluation, an improvement processing analysis strategy is determined.

[0094] It is understandable that, based on the reliability of the monitoring data and its correlation with other available push-pull schemes that meet the requirements of comprehensive evaluation, the determination of improved processing and analysis strategies is carried out, specifically including: Other available jacking schemes that meet the comprehensive evaluation requirements are used as alternative jacking schemes. Based on the association between the alternative jacking schemes and the jacking equipment of the preferred jacking scheme on different sides, the equipment similarity coefficients on different sides are determined (based on the proportion of the same jacking equipment on the side to the number of jacking schemes of the preferred jacking scheme on that side). It is then determined whether there are alternative jacking schemes whose equipment similarity coefficients on different sides all meet the requirements (e.g., alternative jacking schemes whose similarity coefficients are all not less than 0.5). If so, proceed to the next step; otherwise, it is determined that the jacking scheme needs to be improved only when the reliability of the monitoring data does not meet the requirements. The push scheme that meets the requirements for the similarity coefficient of the devices on different sides is taken as the similar push scheme. It is determined whether the number of the similar push scheme is greater than the preset threshold for the number of similar push schemes (e.g., no more than 2). If not, proceed to the next step. If yes, when the reliability of the monitoring data is less than the preset reliability threshold, the push scheme is improved. Based on the similar jacking schemes of different similar jacking schemes (i.e., similar jacking schemes of the similar jacking scheme itself, i.e., alternative jacking schemes whose device similarity coefficients with the similar jacking scheme in different sides are not less than 0.5), determine whether there are similar jacking schemes whose number of similar jacking schemes is greater than the preset threshold for the number of similar jacking schemes. If so, when the reliability of the monitoring data is less than the preset reliability threshold, the jacking scheme is improved. If not, proceed to the next step. If multiple similar jacking schemes exist, they are considered as available replacement schemes. It is determined whether the number of deviations between the available replacement scheme and the preferred jacking scheme is greater than a preset deviation threshold (e.g., greater than 3). If so, the jacking scheme is improved when the reliability of the monitoring data is less than a preset reliability threshold. If not, the jacking scheme is improved when the reliability of the monitoring data is less than a second preset reliability threshold.

[0095] It should be noted that the preset reliability threshold is less than the second preset reliability threshold, and both are greater than the threshold corresponding to the failure of the monitoring data reliability to meet the requirements.

[0096] Project Background: A large steel box girder is undergoing incremental launching construction, and launching equipment has been deployed on the four sides (A, B, C, D) of the girder according to the "optimal launching scheme." To ensure construction safety and accuracy, it is necessary to conduct a reliability assessment of the real-time collected launching monitoring data. This embodiment aims to evaluate the reliability of the current monitoring data by analyzing the output curves of the launching equipment on the four sides, and based on this, decide whether to initiate improvement processes (such as equipment calibration, control parameter adjustment, or suspension of inspection).

[0097] Analysis objective: Based on real-time or recently collected data on the jacking process, evaluate two core indicators: the consistency of the jacking force and the reliability of the jacking force, and comprehensively judge the credibility of the monitoring data.

[0098] Core concepts: The jacking curve refers to the curve showing how the resultant force on a single side (composed of multiple devices) changes over time (or displacement).

[0099] The slope of the jacking force variation: the instantaneous rate of change of the jacking curve at a certain node, reflecting the drastic degree of force change.

[0100] Consistency coefficient: an indicator that quantifies the degree of synchronization and consistency among the four push curves.

[0101] Reliability coefficient: An indicator that quantifies the smoothness and controllability of the four-sided jacking process.

[0102] Reliability of monitoring data: An overall evaluation of the quality of current monitoring data based on the two coefficients above.

[0103] II. Evaluate the consistency coefficient of the push-out force; Step 1: Calculate the deviation of the four-sided jacking curve; Suppose we are analyzing a pushing process with N=500 nodes. Obtain the pushing force values ​​at each node i for the four edges (A, B, C, D): F_Ai, F_Bi, F_Ci, F_Di.

[0104] For each node i, calculate the standard deviation (σ_i) of the output values ​​of the four edges, which serves as a measure of the output dispersion of that node.

[0105] σ_i = sqrt( [(F_Ai-μ_i)^2 + (F_Bi-μ_i)^2 + (F_Ci-μ_i)^2 + (F_Di-μ_i)^2] / 4 ), where μ_i is the average output force of the four edges at node i.

[0106] Step 2: Determine the consistency coefficient; Iterate through all nodes and calculate the average of the standard deviations σ_i of all nodes, which is denoted as the average dispersion (σ_avg).

[0107] σ_avg = (Σ σ_i) / N.

[0108] The consistency coefficient (C_c) is defined as a value negatively correlated with the average dispersion. One definition is: C_c = 1 / (1 + σ_avg / F_norm), where F_norm is a normalized force value, such as the design value or average value of the top thrust (assumed to be 200 tons).

[0109] Assuming the calculated values ​​are σ_avg = 8 tons and F_norm = 200 tons, then: C_c = 1 / (1 + 8 / 200) = 1 / 1.04 ≈ 0.9615.

[0110] The ideal value for the consistency coefficient is 1, which indicates complete synchronization; the smaller the value, the less consistent the output of the four sides.

[0111] III. Evaluate the reliability coefficient of the ejection force; Step 1: Calculate the slope of the thrust variation on each side; For each edge (taking edge A as an example), calculate the slope K_Ai of the thrust variation at each node i.

[0112] K_Ai = (F_Ai - F_A(i-1)) / Δt (if time is the horizontal axis) or / Δs (if displacement is the horizontal axis). For simplicity, we focus on its absolute value |K_Ai|, which represents the degree of change.

[0113] Step 2: Identify abnormal and drastic changes; Set a slope threshold K_th, for example, K_th = 30 tons / minute (or tons / millimeter). This threshold is determined based on equipment performance and historical stable data. If |K|>K_th for a certain edge of a node, then the node is considered to have experienced abnormally drastic changes, possibly caused by equipment slippage, sudden load changes, or control disturbances.

[0114] Step 3: Determine the reliability coefficient; Count the total number of times (N_err) the four edges exhibit "abnormal and drastic changes" across all N nodes.

[0115] The reliability coefficient (C_r) is defined as a value negatively correlated with the frequency of abnormal fluctuations. One definition is: C_r = 1 - (N_err / (4 * N)). The denominator 4*N represents the theoretical maximum number of abnormal fluctuations (each node on all four edges is abnormal).

[0116] Assuming an analysis of 500 nodes, a total of 12 abnormal and drastic change events were detected (which may be distributed across different edges and different nodes).

[0117] Then C_r = 1 - (12 / (4 * 500)) = 1 - (12 / 2000) = 1 - 0.006 = 0.994.

[0118] The ideal value of the reliability coefficient is 1, which indicates that the entire process is completely stable; the smaller the value, the more unstable and unreliable the output process is.

[0119] IV. Comprehensive assessment of the reliability of monitoring data and decision-making for improvement; Step 1: Calculate the reliability of the monitoring data; The reliability of monitoring data (R_m) is a comprehensive indicator, which can be calculated using the weighted geometric mean or arithmetic mean of the consistency coefficient and the reliability coefficient. To emphasize the importance of both, the geometric mean is used: R_m = sqrt(C_c * C_r).

[0120] Substitute the above example values: \(R_m=\sqrt{0.9615\times0.994}\approx\sqrt{0.9557}\approx0.9776\).

[0121] Step 2: Make a decision based on the reliability threshold; Set a monitoring data reliability threshold \(R_{th}\). This threshold can be adjusted according to the sensitivity of the construction stage (initial commissioning, normal propulsion, critical crossing). Assume that in the normal propulsion stage, \(R_{th}=0.970\) is set.

[0122] Decision rule: If \(R_m\geq R_{th}\), it is considered that the monitoring data is good and the construction state is good, and no improvement treatment is required, and construction can continue. If \(R_m < R_{th}\), it is considered that the monitoring data is poor and improvement treatment is required.

[0123] Step 3: Make a decision in this example; Compare the calculated result \(R_m\approx0.9776\) with the threshold \(R_{th}=0.970\). Since \(0.9776 > 0.970\), at this time, the current comprehensive evaluation quantity meets the requirements. At this time, according to the similar pushing scheme and the second preset reliability threshold (0.975) and the preset reliability threshold (0.98), it is determined whether improvement treatment is required.

[0124] Step 4: Further analysis (even if the decision is "not required"); Even if the overall decision is "not required", the differences between the consistency coefficient (\(C_c\approx0.9615\)) and the reliability coefficient (\(C_r\approx0.994\)) provide useful information: Consistency problem (\(C_c\) is relatively low): The average dispersion of 8 tons indicates that there are certain deviations in the output forces of the four sides. Although it does not trigger immediate improvement, it can prompt the control system to pay attention to the fine-tuning of the output force synchronization.

[0125] Excellent reliability (\(C_r\) is very high): It indicates that the construction process is very stable and there are no violent abnormal fluctuations, which is a manifestation of good construction control.

[0126] Embodiment 2 In addition, it should be noted that the method for determining the pushing reliability of the pushing device is as follows: Use the curve to determine the slope of the change in the pushing force at different nodes in different pushing force intervals, and based on the slope of the change in the pushing force at different nodes, determine the average value of the slope of the change in the pushing force in different pushing force intervals. When there is a pushing force interval where the average value of the slope of the change in the pushing force does not meet the requirements, it is determined that the pushing device does not belong to a stable working device; When the average values of the slopes of the change in the pushing force in different pushing force intervals all meet the requirements: Based on the slope of the jacking force variation, the jacking reliability deviation sub-intervals of different jacking force intervals are determined. When the number of jacking reliability deviation sub-intervals of the jacking equipment does not meet the requirements, the jacking equipment is determined not to be a stable working equipment. When the number of sub-intervals of the jacking reliability deviation of the jacking device meets the requirements: Obtain the number of sub-intervals with jacking reliability deviation for different jacking force ranges. If there is a jacking force range where the number of sub-intervals with jacking reliability deviation does not meet the requirements, then the jacking equipment is determined not to be a stable working equipment. When there is no jacking force interval where the number of jacking reliability deviation sub-intervals does not meet the requirements: The proportion of the jacking reliability deviation sub-interval in the jacking force interval and the average value of the jacking force variation slope in the jacking force interval are obtained. The reliability coefficient of different jacking force intervals is determined in combination with the number of jacking reliability deviation sub-intervals in the jacking force interval. When there is a jacking force interval whose reliability coefficient does not meet the requirements, it is determined that the jacking equipment is not a stable working equipment. When the reliability coefficients of the top thrust range all meet the requirements: The reliability of the jacking process of the jacking equipment is determined based on the reliability coefficient of different jacking force ranges.

[0127] Furthermore, the curve deviation includes the thrust deviation at different nodes in different thrust ranges.

[0128] Example 3 It should also be noted that the method for determining the available working equipment in the stable working equipment is as follows: The deviation of the jacking force between the stable working equipment and other stable working equipment in different jacking force ranges is determined by the curve deviation. The number of deviation nodes in different jacking force ranges is determined by the jacking force deviation at different nodes in different jacking force ranges. Other stable working equipment with a total number of deviation nodes greater than a preset number of nodes are identified as deviation equipment. When the proportion of deviation equipment does not meet the requirements, the stable working equipment is determined not to be usable working equipment. When the proportion of the deviation devices meets the requirements: The deviation thrust range is determined based on the number of deviation nodes. The curve deviation coefficient between the stable working equipment and other stable working equipment is determined by the proportion of the number of deviation thrust ranges. When the average value of the curve deviation coefficient between the stable working equipment and other stable working equipment does not meet the requirements, the stable working equipment is determined not to be a usable working equipment. When the average value of the curve deviation coefficient between the stabilized working device and other stabilized working devices meets the requirements: Based on the curve deviation coefficient, the deviation working equipment among the other stable working equipment is determined. When the number of deviation working equipment does not meet the requirements, it is determined that the stable working equipment is not a usable working equipment. When the number of the deviation working devices meets the requirements: The overall deviation between the stable working device and other stable working devices is determined by the deviation of the jacking force at different nodes. If the number of other stable working devices within the preset deviation range does not meet the requirements, the stable working device is determined not to be a usable working device. When the number of other stable working devices within the preset deviation range meets the requirements: The deviation of the working curve of the stable working equipment is determined based on the comprehensive deviation from other stable working equipment, and whether the stable working equipment is a usable working equipment is determined based on the deviation of the working curve.

[0129] It is understood that the required number of available working equipment is determined based on the jacking force requirement of the steel box girder and the jacking force of the available working equipment.

[0130] Example 4 It should also be noted that the method for determining the preferred jacking scheme among the alternative jacking processing schemes is as follows: Based on the jacking distribution location, determine the corresponding available working equipment for the four sides of the steel box girder, and use the curves of the available working equipment corresponding to different sides in different jacking force ranges to determine the jacking force curves of different sides in different jacking force ranges. The deviation between different sides in different jacking force intervals is determined by using the jacking force curves of different jacking force intervals. The number of deviation sides in different jacking force intervals is determined based on the deviation from the jacking force curves of other sides. When there are jacking force intervals where the number of deviation sides does not meet the requirements, the alternative jacking treatment scheme is determined to be the preferred jacking scheme. When there is no jacking force range where the number of deviation edges does not meet the requirements: The deviation of the output force of different jacking force intervals is determined based on the deviation of the jacking force curve between different sides of different jacking force intervals. When there is a jacking force interval whose output force deviation does not meet the requirements, the alternative jacking treatment scheme is determined to be the preferred jacking scheme. When there is no jacking force range where the output deviation does not meet the requirements: The comprehensive output deviation of the alternative jacking treatment scheme is determined based on the output deviation of the intervals of different jacking force ranges. When the comprehensive output deviation of the alternative jacking treatment scheme does not meet the requirements, the alternative jacking treatment scheme is determined to be the preferred jacking scheme. When the overall output deviation of the alternative jacking treatment scheme meets the requirements: The comprehensive evaluation value of the alternative jacking scheme is determined by using the comprehensive output deviation and jacking reliability, and the comprehensive evaluation value is used to determine whether the alternative jacking scheme is the preferred jacking scheme.

[0131] The various embodiments in this specification are described in a progressive manner. Similar or identical parts between embodiments can be referred to mutually. Each embodiment focuses on describing the differences from other embodiments. In particular, the embodiments of apparatus, devices, and non-volatile computer storage media are basically similar to the method embodiments, so the descriptions are relatively simple; relevant parts can be referred to the descriptions of the method embodiments.

[0132] The foregoing has described specific embodiments of this specification. Other embodiments are within the scope of the appended claims. In some cases, the actions or steps recited in the claims may be performed in a different order than that shown in the embodiments and may still achieve the desired result. Furthermore, the processes depicted in the drawings do not necessarily require the specific or sequential order shown to achieve the desired result. In some embodiments, multitasking and parallel processing are possible or may be advantageous.

[0133] The above description is merely one or more embodiments of this specification and is not intended to limit this specification. Various modifications and variations can be made to the one or more embodiments of this specification by those skilled in the art. Any modifications, equivalent substitutions, improvements, etc., made within the spirit and principle of one or more embodiments of this specification should be included within the scope of the claims of this specification.

Claims

1. An information-based construction management method for the jacking of steel box girders, characterized in that, Specifically, it includes: The reliability of the jacking process of the jacking equipment and the stable working equipment in the jacking equipment are determined by the curves of different jacking force ranges. Determine the curve deviation between the stabilized working device and other stabilized working devices in different jacking force ranges, and determine the usable working devices among the stabilized working devices based on the curve deviation. The required number of available working equipment is determined based on the requirements of the steel box girder. Multiple alternative jacking schemes are generated based on the required number and available working equipment. When the jacking reliability of the alternative jacking scheme meets the requirements by checking the jacking distribution location and jacking processing reliability of the available jacking equipment in the alternative jacking scheme, the next step is initiated. By utilizing the jacking distribution location, the curve deviation data of the four sides of the steel box girder within the jacking force range are determined. Combined with the jacking reliability, the preferred jacking scheme of the alternative jacking treatment schemes is determined. The preferred jacking scheme is used to jack the steel box girder. Based on the analysis results of the jacking curves of the jacking equipment on the four sides of the steel box girder and the correlation between the available jacking schemes that meet the comprehensive evaluation requirements and the preferred jacking scheme, an improvement processing analysis strategy is determined.

2. The information-based construction management method for jacking steel box girders as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The curve of the jacking device in the jacking force range is determined based on the historical jacking data of the jacking device.

3. The information-based construction management method for jacking steel box girders as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The method for determining the reliability of the jacking process of the jacking equipment is as follows: The curve is used to determine the slope of the thrust variation at different nodes for different thrust ranges, and the thrust reliability deviation sub-ranges for different thrust ranges are determined based on the slope of the thrust variation. The reliability coefficient of different jacking force ranges is determined by the proportion of the jacking reliability deviation sub-range in the jacking force range; The reliability of the jacking process of the jacking equipment is determined based on the reliability coefficient of different jacking force ranges.

4. The information-based construction management method for jacking steel box girders as described in claim 1, characterized in that, When the reliability of the jacking process of the jacking device meets the requirements, the jacking device is determined to be a stable working device.

5. The information-based construction management method for jacking steel box girders as described in claim 3, characterized in that, The method for determining the sub-interval of jacking reliability deviation in the jacking force range is as follows: The jacking force interval is divided into multiple sub-intervals according to a preset division length. When the average value of the jacking force variation slope of the nodes in the sub-interval is less than the preset variation slope, the sub-interval is determined to be the jacking reliability deviation sub-interval.

6. The information-based construction management method for jacking steel box girders as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The curve deviation includes the thrust deviation at different nodes in different thrust ranges.

7. The information-based construction management method for jacking steel box girders as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The method for determining the available working equipment in the stable working equipment is as follows: The deviation of the curve is used to determine the jacking force deviation between the stabilized working equipment and other stabilized working equipment at different nodes in different jacking force ranges, and the number of deviation nodes in different jacking force ranges is determined by the jacking force deviation at different nodes in different jacking force ranges. The deviation thrust range is determined based on the number of deviation nodes, and the curve deviation coefficient between the stable working equipment and other stable working equipment is determined by the proportion of the number of deviation thrust ranges. Based on the curve deviation coefficient, the deviation working equipment among the other stable working equipment is determined. The working curve deviation of the stable working equipment is determined according to the proportion of the number of deviation working equipment. And the stable working equipment is determined as a usable working equipment according to the working curve deviation.

8. The information-based construction management method for jacking steel box girders as described in claim 7, characterized in that, The value of the working curve deviation ranges from 0 to 1. When the working curve deviation of the stable working device is greater than the preset deviation threshold, the stable working device is determined not to be a usable working device.

9. The information-based construction management method for launching steel box girders as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The required number of available working equipment is determined based on the jacking force requirement of the steel box girder and the jacking force of the available working equipment.

10. The information-based construction management method for jacking steel box girders as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The method for determining the improved processing and analysis strategy is as follows: Based on the analysis results of the jacking curves of the jacking equipment on the four sides of the steel box girder, the deviation of the jacking curves of the jacking equipment on the four sides is determined, and the consistency coefficient of the jacking force of the steel box girder is determined by the deviation of the jacking curves. Based on the analysis results, the slope of the jacking force variation of the four-sided jacking equipment is determined, and the reliability coefficient of the jacking force of the steel box girder is calculated based on the slope of the jacking force variation of the four-sided jacking equipment. The reliability of the monitoring data of the steel box girder is determined by the reliability coefficient and consistency coefficient of the jacking force. Based on the reliability of the monitoring data and its correlation with other available jacking schemes that meet the requirements of comprehensive evaluation, an improvement processing analysis strategy is determined.

Images