Rapid safety evaluation method for historical building with similar brick-wood structure

Abstract

The invention discloses a rapid safety evaluation method for historical buildings with similar brick and wood structures. The method comprises the following steps: S1, determining an area range of a to-be-evaluated historical building group; s2, preliminarily classifying historical building communities in the area range, determining all historical buildings of a brick-wood structure, and searching a single typical historical building of the brick-wood structure as a known building for evaluation and identification; s3, an analytic hierarchy process is introduced, and evaluation indexes and weights of all levels of historical buildings with similar brick-wood structures are determined; s4, calculating a Pearson correlation coefficient S; s5, judging whether the safety evaluation grades of the unknown building and the known building are similar or not; if not, relaxing the judgment condition or replacing the known building for re-comparison, otherwise, adopting a traditional identification method; and S6, when the grades are similar, outputting a safety assessment result which is the same as that of the known building. The method effectively solves the problems of low efficiency and large interference of traditional evaluation of such buildings, and belongs to the technical field of building structure safety evaluation.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of building structure safety assessment technology, specifically to a rapid safety assessment method for historical buildings with similar brick-and-wood structures. Background Technology

[0002] Among the many targets of urban renewal, distinctive historical buildings, which bear witness to history, inherit culture, record urban imprints, showcase the changes of the times, and have considerable reuse value, have become an important lever for renewal work.

[0003] Historical buildings, as important carriers of local history and culture, not only bear the memory of regional economic development but also reflect the social landscape and technological level of a specific historical period. However, many old buildings face safety hazards such as structural instability and reduced durability, urgently requiring scientific assessment and effective protection strategies.

[0004] Brick-and-wood structures are a typical structural form in historical buildings. Due to years of disrepair and complex historical evolution, many existing brick-and-wood historical buildings pose serious safety hazards. Currently, the state has relevant regulations for the protection of historical buildings, requiring that buildings of commemorative significance be repaired and preserved. When reinforcing these buildings, their style should be preserved as much as possible, restoring them to their original state so that they can continue to be used. Furthermore, the safety level of these buildings should meet the requirements of current standards as much as possible. The maintenance and protection of these historical buildings should also be based on a comprehensive inspection and assessment of the building. Only with a full understanding of the current condition of the building can there be a basis for repair and reinforcement, addressing existing safety issues and ensuring its longevity.

[0005] Furthermore, in the limited number of cases, due to the lack of construction documents and the influence of uncertainties such as the different construction methods and materials used in the past, the determination of safety evaluation indicators often differs from that of modern buildings. Using traditional structural assessment methods is sometimes difficult to achieve effective safety assessment and evaluation.

[0006] In order to effectively assess the structural safety performance of historical building complexes, and considering the inevitable subjectivity and ambiguity in the building safety assessment process, it is particularly important to establish a scientifically weighted, qualitative and quantitative analysis method for evaluating the safety of similar brick-and-wood structure historical buildings. Summary of the Invention

[0007] To address the technical problems existing in the prior art, the purpose of this invention is to provide a rapid safety evaluation method for similar brick-and-wood structure historical buildings, simplifying the evaluation process.

[0008] The safety assessment method for similar brick-and-wood structure building complexes based on statistical correlation analysis theory refers to using three characteristic indicators of assessed buildings—historical environment, appearance, and structural durability—as samples. It employs fuzzy mathematics principles, establishes a hierarchical structure model through the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), calculates the weights of the evaluation indicators, and selects a large number of unassessed brick-and-wood structure buildings in the area for safety assessment. This yields the degree of similarity between the unassessed buildings and the assessed buildings in terms of the three similarity characteristic indicators, ultimately assessing the safety status of the unknown buildings.

[0009] To achieve the above objectives, the present invention adopts the following technical solution:

[0010] A rapid safety assessment method for similar brick-and-wood structure historical buildings includes the following steps:

[0011] S1: Determine the geographical scope of the historical building complex to be assessed;

[0012] S2: Preliminarily classify the historical building clusters within the region, identify all brick-and-wood structure historical buildings, find a single typical brick-and-wood structure historical building as a known building for evaluation and appraisal, and obtain its safety status assessment results.

[0013] S3: Introduce the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to determine the evaluation indicators and weights at each level for similar brick-and-wood structure historical buildings;

[0014] S4: Calculate the Pearson correlation coefficient S to determine whether an unknown building is similar to a known building;

[0015] S5: Determine whether the safety evaluation level of the unknown building is similar to that of the known building by using the Pearson correlation coefficient S; if they are not similar, relax the judgment conditions, or select other known buildings for comparison and repeat steps S4 and S5; if no similar known buildings can be found in the end, then the traditional identification method is used for the unknown building.

[0016] S6: When the safety evaluation level of an unknown building is similar to that of a known building, output the same safety assessment result as the known building.

[0017] As a preferred option, in step S2, based on the identification of the known building A1, if the first identification is not similar, the unknown building is then subjected to traditional identification, and the result is used as the safety assessment result of the second known building A2; subsequently, unknown buildings are searched to determine whether they are similar to the previously identified known buildings A1 or A2, and so on, to evaluate the building group.

[0018] As a preferred embodiment, step S3 includes:

[0019] S31: Establish a hierarchical structure model;

[0020] S32: Constructing the Judgment Matrix: Invite industry experts to score the factors at the same level relative to a certain criterion at the next higher level, comparing them pairwise. Use a 1-9 scale to assign scores and establish a judgment matrix C = (α... ij In the judgment matrix, α ij Let represent the comparison result of the i-th element relative to the j-th element, satisfying:

[0021] (1)α ij >0, (2)α ij =1 / α ji (3)α ii =α jj =1;

[0022] S33: Calculate the weight vector and perform a consistency check; calculate the largest eigenvalue λ of the judgment matrix C using mathematical methods. max The weight vector is obtained by normalizing the eigenvector W and its corresponding eigenvector; the largest eigenvalue λ max The weight vector is used for consistency testing and for similarity judgment in step S4.

[0023] S34: Perform overall hierarchical sorting and obtain the hierarchical structure model: Combine the weight vectors of each level, calculate the combined weight of the scheme layer relative to the target layer, and sort and select the schemes according to the combined weight.

[0024] As a preferred embodiment, step S31 includes the following steps:

[0025] (1) Determine the decision-making target layer: Select similarity evaluation indicators for brick-and-wood structured historical buildings as the target layer;

[0026] (2) Determine the intermediate criterion layer: Select three similar characteristics, namely historical environment, appearance shape and structural durability, as the criterion layer;

[0027] (3) Determine the indicator scheme layer: The evaluation indicators corresponding to historical environmental characteristics are age gap, functional use, site conditions, and biological erosion; the evaluation indicators corresponding to appearance and shape characteristics are building height, number of building floors, plan shape, structural length, and structural width; the evaluation indicators corresponding to structural durability characteristics are building materials, structural system, construction measures, lateral settlement, component aging, and crack condition.

[0028] As a preferred option, in step S32, the evaluation index weight judgment matrix is ​​obtained by means of an expert questionnaire survey; wherein, the weights of the intermediate layer evaluation indexes are determined by consulting experts and combining engineering experience, respectively taking the following weights: similarity in historical environmental characteristics W1=1 / 4, similarity in appearance and shape characteristics W2=1 / 4, and similarity in structural durability characteristics W3=1 / 2; the index scheme layer is determined by expert scoring.

[0029] As a preferred option, the weight calculation method in step S33 includes: eigenvector method, geometric mean method, arithmetic mean method, and least squares method.

[0030] As a preferred option, in step S33, the formula for calculating the consistency degree of the comparison matrix is:

[0031] ,

[0032] ,

[0033] Where n is the order of the matrix, the standard value of the average random consistency index RI is obtained by looking up a table, CI is the consistency index, and CR is the consistency ratio.

[0034] As a preferred approach, when CR < 0.1, the consistency of the judgment matrix C is considered to meet the requirements; when CR ≥ 0.1, the consistency of the judgment matrix C is considered to not meet the requirements, and the importance of the i-th element relative to the j-th element in the judgment matrix C needs to be adjusted until the judgment matrix meets the standard of CR < 0.1. After the test is passed, the weight vector of the judgment matrix is ​​calculated, that is, the weight of each level indicator.

[0035] As a preferred option, in step S4, the Pearson correlation coefficient S is:

[0036] ,

[0037] Where vector A = (A1, A2, ..., A... n Vector B = (B1, B2, ..., B) n A i B i Given the components of building vector A and the unknown building vector B, A i = s i ×a i B i = s i ×b i s i This represents the combined weights of the similarity indices obtained through the analytic hierarchy process in step S3, a. i , b i This represents the similarity score between known and unknown buildings, obtained by looking up a table. and A respectively i and B i The mean.

[0038] As a preferred option, in step S5, if the Pearson correlation coefficient S is greater than 0.95, then the safety evaluation level of the unknown building is similar to that of the known building.

[0039] The principle of this invention is:

[0040] This invention proposes a method model for quickly evaluating the safety status of unknown brick-and-wood structure historical buildings by qualitatively analyzing the similarity features of buildings based on the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and statistical similarity judgment theory. Its core objective is:

[0041] When assessing similar or comparable brick-and-wood structure historical buildings (such as uniformly constructed village dwellings, industrial plants from the same period, and ancestral halls and temples of the same style) within a certain spatial area, traditional methods of detailed assessment of each individual building suffer from problems such as repetitive assessments, time-consuming and labor-intensive processes, and low efficiency, making it difficult to meet the needs of rapid screening and assessment. Furthermore, some older buildings may lack initial construction data or cannot be effectively inspected due to preservation principles. These factors hinder the implementation of historical building protection work, thereby affecting historical building protection applications and macro-level decision-making. Therefore, this invention provides a rapid safety evaluation method model for similar brick-and-wood structure historical buildings to address the problems existing in the prior art.

[0042] The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a comprehensive evaluation method that combines qualitative and quantitative analysis, and it is also a multi-objective decision analysis method. Its core idea is to divide complex decision problems into different levels, such as objectives, criteria, and alternatives. By comparing factors pairwise within the same level, a judgment matrix is ​​constructed. Then, the weight vector of the matrix (i.e., the relative importance weight of each factor) is calculated, ultimately leading to the optimal selection and decision-making of the alternative.

[0043] In statistics, the Pearson correlation coefficient measures the correlation (linear correlation) between two variables X and Y, with values ​​ranging from -1 to 1. In the natural sciences, this coefficient is widely used to measure the degree of correlation between two variables. The Pearson correlation coefficient considers vector centering (subtracting the mean), making it more sensitive to relative changes in the indicators and better suited for this application scenario because it captures the patterns of difference between the two variables on various indicators relative to their respective average levels.

[0044] The present invention has the following advantages:

[0045] 1. Innovative and targeted approach: This method is the first to propose a rapid safety evaluation method specifically for brick-and-wood structured historical buildings, effectively solving the problems of low efficiency and high interference in traditional assessments of such buildings.

[0046] 2. Comprehensive Model System with Complete Indicators: A three-layer evaluation model consisting of target layer, criterion layer, and scheme layer was constructed. It innovatively proposed three similarity criteria: historical environment, appearance shape, and structural durability, and clarified their weight relationship (1 / 4, 1 / 4, 1 / 2), systematically covering 15 key influencing factors.

[0047] 3. Well-founded and scientifically rigorous: The evaluation system closely relies on current national standards such as the "Technical Standard for Structural Safety Assessment of Modern and Contemporary Historical Buildings" (JGJ / T 489-2021) and the "Standard for Identification of Dangerous Buildings" (JGJ125-2016), and combines fuzzy mathematics theory with engineering experience to ensure the scientific nature and authority of the method.

[0048] 4. High practical value and broad application prospects: The established evaluation system can be directly applied to the rapid screening and safety assessment of historical building clusters, and can provide scientific and efficient decision support for the protection and restoration of traditional villages and historical blocks, which has important practical significance and promotion value. Attached Figure Description

[0049] Figure 1 This is a flowchart of a rapid safety assessment method for historical buildings with similar brick and wood structures.

[0050] Figure 2 These are the basic steps of the analytic hierarchy process.

[0051] Figure 3 It is a hierarchical structure model of similarity evaluation indicators for brick-and-wood structured historical buildings. Detailed Implementation

[0052] The present invention will now be described in further detail with reference to specific embodiments.

[0053] A rapid safety assessment method for similar brick-and-wood structure historical buildings, such as Figure 1 As shown, the method includes steps S1-S6, as detailed below:

[0054] S1: Determine the area of ​​the historical building complex to be assessed (within a certain area, natural factors such as climate and geological conditions can be guaranteed to be consistent).

[0055] S2: Preliminary classification of historical building clusters within the region, identification of all brick-and-wood structure historical buildings, and assessment and evaluation of individual typical brick-and-wood structure buildings to obtain their safety status assessment results (as known buildings).

[0056] Based on the identification of known building A1, if the first identification is not similar, the unknown building B1 is then identified using traditional methods, and the result is used as the second known building A2. Subsequently, unknown buildings are searched to determine whether they are similar to the previously identified known buildings A1 or A2, and so on, to evaluate the building complex.

[0057] S3: Introduce the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to define the evaluation indicators and weights for each level of similar brick-and-wood structure historical buildings. The steps are as follows: Figure 2 As shown, specifically S31-S34.

[0058] S31: Establish a hierarchical structure model: such as Figure 3 As shown.

[0059] (1) Determine the decision-making target layer: Select the similarity evaluation index of brick and wood structure historical buildings as the target layer.

[0060] (2) Determine the intermediate criterion layer: Select three similar characteristics, namely historical environment, appearance shape and structural durability, as the criterion layer.

[0061] (3) Determine the indicator scheme layer: For the characteristics of similar historical environment, similar appearance and shape, and similar structural durability, 15 evaluation indicators are selected as the scheme layer, namely, the age difference, function and use, site conditions, biological erosion, building height, number of building floors, plan shape, structural length, structural width, building materials, structural system, construction measures, lateral settlement, component aging, and crack condition.

[0062] S32: Construct the judgment matrix.

[0063] Industry experts were invited to score the factors, comparing their importance pairwise to a criterion at the next higher level. A 1-9 scale was used for scoring (see Table 1), and a judgment matrix C = (α...) was established. ij Table 1 can be derived from the experience of those skilled in the art. The evaluation index weight judgment matrix was obtained by consulting experienced experts through a questionnaire survey. The weights of the intermediate-layer evaluation indicators were determined by consulting experts and combining engineering experience, with the following weights: similarity in historical environmental characteristics W1=1 / 4, similarity in appearance and shape characteristics W2=1 / 4, and similarity in structural durability characteristics W3=1 / 2. The indicator scheme layer was determined by expert scoring; the indicator weight coefficient matrix is ​​shown in Tables 2, 3, and 4. In the judgment matrix, α... ij This represents the comparison result of the i-th element relative to the j-th element. During this process, α needs to be repeatedly evaluated. ij The value is calculated until the model meets the requirements. The judgment matrix must satisfy the following conditions:

[0064] The matrix is ​​a positive reciprocal matrix: (1) α ij >0, (2)α ij=1 / α ji (3)α ii =α jj =1.

[0065] Table 1. Scale Assignment Table for Judgment Matrix

[0066]

[0067] Table 2 Historical Environmental Feature Similarity Judgment Matrix

[0068]

[0069] Table 3 Similarity Judgment Criteria for Appearance Shape Features

[0070]

[0071] Table 4. Similarity Judgment Matrix of Structural Durability Features

[0072]

[0073] S33: Calculate the weight vector and perform a consistency check.

[0074] The largest eigenvalue λ of the judgment matrix is ​​calculated using mathematical methods. max And its corresponding eigenvector W, after normalizing W, becomes the weight vector. The largest eigenvalue λ max Based on the judgment matrix C and the calculated eigenvector W, the relation C * W = λ can be used to... max * W is approximately calculated, or directly provided by relevant calculation software (Excel, etc.). Subsequently, the judgment matrix is ​​tested by calculating the consistency index (CI) and consistency ratio (CR) to ensure satisfactory consistency. The elements of W are the ranking weights of elements at the same level relative to a certain factor at the next higher level; this process is called hierarchical single ranking.

[0075] The specific implementation method is as follows:

[0076] (1) Calculate the weights (n is the order of the judgment matrix).

[0077] The weight calculation methods include the following options: eigenvector method, geometric mean method, arithmetic mean method, and least squares method. This embodiment uses the geometric mean method and the arithmetic mean method as examples for illustration.

[0078] Assume the judgment matrix is ​​C = (α ij ) n×n The weight vector to be determined is W = (w1, w2, ..., w n ) T .

[0079] ① Geometric Mean Method (GA) (Root Mean Method):

[0080] ,

[0081] The geometric mean (GA) method first calculates the geometric mean (numerator) of each row of the judgment matrix, and then normalizes the geometric mean of all rows to obtain the weights.

[0082] ② Arithmetic Mean Method (AA) (Sum-Product Method):

[0083] ,

[0084] The arithmetic mean (AA) method first normalizes the judgment matrix column by column, and then calculates the arithmetic mean of the elements in each normalized row.

[0085] (2) Consistency check.

[0086] Let matrix C be a matrix. If C has perfect consistency, then λ max =n, but in practice, it's impossible to construct matrices that are completely identical. Generally, it's sufficient to construct matrices with relative consistency, i.e., close consistency. The formula for calculating the degree of consistency of the comparison matrices is:

[0087]

[0088]

[0089] The standard value of the average random consistency index RI is obtained by looking up a table, as follows:

[0090]

[0091] When CR < 0.1, the consistency of the judgment matrix C is considered acceptable. When CR ≥ 0.1, the consistency of the judgment matrix C is considered unacceptable, and the importance of the i-th element relative to the j-th element in the matrix needs to be adjusted until the matrix meets the criterion of CR < 0.1. After the test is passed, the weight vector of the matrix is ​​calculated, that is, the weight of each level indicator.

[0092] S34: Perform overall hierarchical sorting and obtain the hierarchical structure model: Combine the weight vectors of each level, calculate the combined weight of the scheme layer relative to the target layer, and sort and select the schemes according to the combined weight.

[0093] S4: Calculate the Pearson correlation coefficient S to determine whether an unknown building is similar to a known building.

[0094] Let vector A (given buildings) = (A1, A2, ..., A nB (unknown building) = (B1, B2, ..., B n ),

[0095] The Pearson correlation coefficient S is:

[0096]

[0097] Where A i B i The components of vectors A and B, in this invention, refer to the parameters and weights related to building similarity. i = s i ×a i B i = s i ×b i , where s i This represents the weights of the similarity index obtained through the analytic hierarchy process (see Table 5), a i , b i This represents the similarity score between known building A (each with a score of 1 point) and unknown building B (see Table 6 for detailed scoring rules). and A respectively i and B i The mean.

[0098] Table 5 Weights of each indicator in the building similarity evaluation index

[0099]

[0100] Table 6 Comparison of Building Similarity Evaluation Index Scores

[0101]

[0102] Note: The specific testing methods and value ranges for the 15 indicators in the table can be determined by professionals in this field based on relevant national standards and engineering experience, according to different building types and evaluation examples. Table 6 represents the results available to those skilled in the art based on existing technology.

[0103] S5: To improve the accuracy of building complex safety assessment methods, it is assumed that when the Pearson correlation coefficient S is greater than 0.95, the safety assessment level of the unknown building is the same as that of the known building; otherwise, it is considered dissimilar to the known building and its safety level cannot be referenced. If no similar building is found, a comprehensive judgment is required. Based on the building complex's building quality and safety survey, the similarity judgment condition can be relaxed (e.g., the Pearson correlation coefficient S can be relaxed to 0.9), or the main characteristics of building dissimilarity can be identified, and a typical building with these characteristics can be selected for safety assessment, repeating steps S4-S5. If no similar known building can ultimately be found, return to step S2 and use traditional methods for identification.

[0104] S6: When the safety evaluation level of an unknown building is the same as that of a known building, output the same safety assessment result as the known building.

[0105] The above embodiments are preferred embodiments of the present invention, but the embodiments of the present invention are not limited to the above embodiments. Any changes, modifications, substitutions, combinations, or simplifications made without departing from the spirit and principle of the present invention shall be considered equivalent substitutions and shall be included within the protection scope of the present invention.

Claims

1. A rapid safety evaluation method for historical buildings with similar brick-and-wood structures, characterized in that, Includes the following steps: S1: Determine the geographical scope of the historical building complex to be assessed; S2: Preliminarily classify the historical building clusters within the region, identify all brick-and-wood structure historical buildings, find a single typical brick-and-wood structure historical building as a known building for evaluation and appraisal, and obtain its safety status assessment results. S3: Introduce the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to determine the evaluation indicators and weights at each level for similar brick-and-wood structure historical buildings; S4: Calculate the Pearson correlation coefficient S to determine whether an unknown building is similar to a known building; S5: Determine whether the safety evaluation level of the unknown building is similar to that of the known building by using the Pearson correlation coefficient S; if they are not similar, relax the judgment conditions, or select other known buildings for comparison and repeat steps S4 and S5; if no similar known buildings can be found in the end, then the traditional identification method is used for the unknown building. S6: When the safety evaluation level of an unknown building is similar to that of a known building, output the same safety assessment result as the known building.

2. The rapid safety evaluation method for similar brick-and-wood structure historical buildings according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step S2, based on the identification of the known building A1, if the first identification is not similar, the unknown building is then identified using traditional methods, and the result is used as the safety assessment result of the second known building A2. Subsequently, unknown buildings are searched to determine whether they are similar to the previously identified known buildings A1 or A2, and so on, to assess the building complex.

3. A rapid safety evaluation method for similar brick-and-wood structure historical buildings according to claim 1, characterized in that, Step S3 includes: S31: Establish a hierarchical structure model; S32: Constructing the Judgment Matrix: Invite industry experts to score the factors at the same level relative to a certain criterion at the next higher level, comparing them pairwise. Use a 1-9 scale to assign scores and establish a judgment matrix C = (α... ij In the judgment matrix, α ij Let represent the comparison result of the i-th element relative to the j-th element, satisfying: (1)α ij ＞0 ，(2)α ij ＝1 / α ji ，(3)α ii ＝α jj ＝1； S33: Calculate the weight vector and perform a consistency check; calculate the largest eigenvalue λ of the judgment matrix C using mathematical methods. max The weight vector is obtained by normalizing the eigenvector W and its corresponding eigenvector; the largest eigenvalue λ max The weight vector is used for consistency testing and is used for similarity judgment in step S4. S34: Perform overall hierarchical sorting and obtain the hierarchical structure model: Combine the weight vectors of each level, calculate the combined weight of the scheme layer relative to the target layer, and sort and select the schemes according to the combined weight.

4. A rapid safety evaluation method for similar brick-and-wood structure historical buildings according to claim 3, characterized in that, Step S31 includes the following steps: (1) Determine the decision-making target layer: Select similarity evaluation indicators for brick-and-wood structured historical buildings as the target layer; (2) Determine the intermediate criterion layer: Select three similar characteristics, namely historical environment, appearance shape and structural durability, as the criterion layer; (3) Determine the indicator scheme layer: The evaluation indicators corresponding to historical environmental characteristics are age gap, functional use, site conditions, and biological erosion; the evaluation indicators corresponding to appearance and shape characteristics are building height, number of building floors, plan shape, structural length, and structural width; the evaluation indicators corresponding to structural durability characteristics are building materials, structural system, construction measures, lateral settlement, component aging, and crack condition.

5. A rapid safety evaluation method for similar brick-and-wood structure historical buildings according to claim 3, characterized in that, In step S32, the evaluation index weight judgment matrix is ​​obtained by expert questionnaire survey; among them, the weights of the intermediate layer evaluation indexes are determined by consulting experts and combining engineering experience, respectively taking the following weights: similarity in historical environmental characteristics W1=1 / 4, similarity in appearance and shape characteristics W2=1 / 4, and similarity in structural durability characteristics W3=1 / 2; the index scheme layer is determined by expert scoring.

6. A rapid safety evaluation method for similar brick-and-wood structure historical buildings according to claim 3, characterized in that, In step S33, the weight calculation methods include: eigenvector method, geometric mean method, arithmetic mean method, and least squares method.

7. A rapid safety evaluation method for similar brick-and-wood structure historical buildings according to claim 3, characterized in that, In step S33, the formula for calculating the consistency degree of the comparison matrix is: ， ， Where n is the order of the matrix, the standard value of the average random consistency index RI is obtained by looking up a table, CI is the consistency index, and CR is the consistency ratio.

8. A rapid safety evaluation method for similar brick-and-wood structure historical buildings according to claim 7, characterized in that: When CR < 0.1, the consistency of the judgment matrix C is considered to meet the requirements; when CR ≥ 0.1, the consistency of the judgment matrix C is considered to not meet the requirements, and the importance of the i-th element relative to the j-th element in the judgment matrix C needs to be adjusted until the judgment matrix meets the standard of CR < 0.1; after the test is passed, the weight vector of the judgment matrix is ​​calculated, that is, the weight of each level indicator.

9. A rapid safety evaluation method for similar brick-and-wood structure historical buildings according to claim 1, characterized in that, In step S4, the Pearson correlation coefficient S is: ， Where vector A = (A1, A2, ..., A... n Vector B = (B1, B2, ..., B) n A i B i Given the components of building vector A and the unknown building vector B, A i = s i ×a i B i = s i ×b i s i This represents the combined weights of the similarity indices obtained through the analytic hierarchy process in step S3, a. i , b i This represents the similarity score between known and unknown buildings, obtained by looking up a table. and A respectively i and B i The mean.

10. A rapid safety evaluation method for similar brick-and-wood structure historical buildings according to claim 1, characterized in that, In step S5, if the Pearson correlation coefficient S is greater than 0.95, then the safety evaluation level of the unknown building is similar to that of the known building.

Images