Method, device and equipment for automatic checking and intelligent modification of drainage pipeline achievement map and storage medium

Abstract

The application relates to a method, device and equipment for automatically checking and intelligently modifying a drainage pipeline achievement map and a storage medium, which comprises the following steps: obtaining drainage pipeline data from the drainage pipeline achievement map; performing multi-dimensional rule checking on the drainage pipeline data to generate a checking error set; establishing an associated mapping between each checking error in the checking error set and a graphic object in the drainage pipeline achievement map to generate a checking report; matching a corresponding modification strategy according to the error type of each checking error, and performing a modification operation on the drainage pipeline achievement map according to the modification strategy; and outputting the modified drainage pipeline achievement map and a modification record. The application can simultaneously perform multi-dimensional checking and hierarchical intelligent modification on the drainage pipeline achievement map, thereby reducing the workload of manual item-by-item checking and manual correction.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This application relates to the field of underground pipeline detection, and in particular to an automatic verification and intelligent correction method, apparatus, equipment and storage medium for drainage pipeline result maps. Background Technology

[0002] After underground pipeline detection is completed, the pipeline data collected in the field needs to be converted into output maps through an indoor mapping system. These output maps are the foundation for pipeline information delivery, storage, and subsequent management. During the mapping process, the data quality of the output maps for drainage pipelines directly affects subsequent operation and maintenance analysis and planning decisions for the drainage network due to factors such as elevation reduction constraints, flow direction markings, intersections of multiple pipeline types, and markings of special ancillary facilities.

[0003] Existing mapping systems typically offer data supervision and inspection functions, enabling them to perform attribute queries, duplicate checks, excessive length checks, isolated point checks, and value range checks on pipeline data, and generate supervision reports for operators to refer to. Regarding map revision, existing systems also provide editing tools for modifying pipe point coordinates, correcting the direction of special points, reversing pipeline routes, and adjusting line types and colors. Operators can locate and manually correct errors one by one based on the supervision reports.

[0004] However, the aforementioned verification and correction processes are separate: the verification module only outputs error reports, while the correction operation relies on operators manually selecting the corresponding editing tool to perform the correction after interpreting each error type in the report. When a finished drawing contains multiple types of pipeline data and a large number of errors, the workload of interpreting each error and manually correcting them increases, and omissions or incorrect corrections are prone to occur. Furthermore, the existing verification function mainly checks the compliance of the attributes of a single pipe point or a single pipeline segment independently, lacking the ability to perform link-level correlation verification along the drainage network topology. For example, the elevation value of a single pipeline segment may be within a reasonable range, but when this segment is observed in the context of the upstream and downstream of the entire drainage main, there may be an anomaly of an interruption in the elevation decreasing trend, and such cross-segment correlation anomalies cannot be detected by independently checking each segment. Furthermore, existing trimming tools do not consider the dependencies between different types of trimming operations when performing trimming operations. For example, flow direction trimming changes the criteria for determining the direction of elevation decrease. If elevation label trimming is performed before flow direction trimming, the result of elevation label trimming may fail based on the incorrect flow direction, leading to a chain of trimming errors. Summary of the Invention

[0005] In order to enable the simultaneous execution of verification and modification, possess both individual verification and topology-related verification capabilities, and perform modifications in an orderly manner according to the dependencies between modification operations, this application provides an automatic verification and intelligent modification method, device, equipment, and storage medium for drainage pipeline result diagrams.

[0006] Firstly, this application provides an automatic verification and intelligent adjustment method for drainage pipeline result diagrams, which adopts the following technical solution: An automatic verification and intelligent correction method for drainage pipeline renderings includes the following steps: S1. Obtain drainage pipeline data from the drainage pipeline result map. The drainage pipeline data includes pipe point coordinates, pipe bottom elevation, burial depth, pipe diameter, material, pipeline connection relationship, flow direction, and special point type. S2. Perform multi-dimensional rule verification on the drainage pipeline data to generate a set of verification errors. The multi-dimensional rule verification includes elevation correctness verification, burial depth correctness verification, pipe point duplication verification, pipeline segment duplication verification, pipeline segment excessive length verification, isolated point verification, material consistency verification, pipeline and burial method rationality verification, value range verification, and data standard verification. S3. Establish an association mapping between each verification error in the set of verification errors and the graphic object in the drainage pipeline result diagram, and generate a verification report; S4. Match the corresponding trimming strategy according to the error type of each verification error in the verification error set, and perform trimming operation on the drainage pipeline result diagram according to the trimming strategy; S5. Output the revised drainage pipeline result diagram and revision record. The revision record includes the value before modification, the value after modification, and the basis for correction for each revision operation.

[0007] By adopting the above technical solution, drainage pipeline data undergoes rule-based verification covering ten dimensions: elevation, burial depth, duplication, excessive length, isolated points, material, installation method, value range, and data standards. Verification errors are then mapped to graphical objects, allowing operators to directly locate errors in the resulting diagram from the verification report, eliminating the need for manual searching. Correction strategies are automatically matched and executed based on the error type, linking verification and correction into a continuous process. A correction record is output, including the original value, the modified value, and the basis for the correction, ensuring traceability and verifiability of each correction operation and preventing secondary errors caused by omissions or misoperations during manual correction.

[0008] Optionally, step S2 includes the following sub-steps: S21. Perform attribute compliance checks independently on each pipe point and each pipe segment in the drainage pipeline data to generate a first-stage error set. The attribute compliance checks include verification of the correctness of the burial depth, verification of the value range, verification of the consistency of the material, verification of the duplication of the pipe point, verification of the duplication of the pipe segment, verification of the excessive length of the pipe segment, verification of the isolated point, verification of the rationality of the pipeline and the burial method, and verification of the data standard. S22. Construct the topology of the drainage network based on the pipeline connection relationship. For the drainage pipeline data that has passed the attribute compliance check, traverse the bottom elevation of the pipe along each continuous pipeline link in the topology of the drainage network from upstream to downstream to detect the continuity of the elevation decrease trend and the rationality of the pipe diameter change of adjacent pipeline segments, and generate a second-stage error set. S23. Merge the first stage error set with the second stage error set to obtain the verification error set.

[0009] By adopting the above technical solution, the verification process is divided into two cascaded stages: attribute compliance check and correlation verification. The first stage independently performs attribute-level compliance checks on each pipe point and each pipeline segment, filtering out data with non-compliant attribute values. The second stage, based on the data approved in the first stage, constructs the topology of the drainage network according to pipeline connection relationships. It traverses the pipe bottom elevation and diameter along each continuous pipeline link from upstream to downstream, thereby identifying cross-pipeline correlation anomalies such as compliant attribute values ​​for individual pipeline segments but exhibiting interruptions in elevation decreasing trends or unreasonable diameter changes within the upstream and downstream context. The verification scope of the second stage is based on the data approved in the first stage, avoiding invalid topology traversal on data with known attribute errors.

[0010] Optionally, S22 includes the following sub-steps: S221. Perform structural segment identification on the topology of the drainage pipe network, and mark each pipe segment as a conventional gravity flow segment, an inverted siphon segment, or a booster pump station segment; wherein, by detecting the U-shaped feature of the pipe bottom elevation along the flow direction showing a decrease followed by an increase, the corresponding pipe segment is marked as the inverted siphon segment; by detecting the feature that the proportion of the pipe diameter decreasing along the flow direction between adjacent pipe segments exceeds a preset pipe diameter change threshold and the magnitude of the increase in the pipe bottom elevation along the flow direction exceeds a preset elevation increase threshold, the corresponding pipe segment is marked as the booster pump station segment; S222. Switch the corresponding verification rules and set the corresponding verification thresholds according to the structural segment type marked for each pipeline segment. Specifically, for pipelines marked as conventional gravity flow segments, check the continuity of the elevation decrease trend. For pipelines marked as inverted siphon segments, perform a range verification of the difference between the bottom elevation at the inlet and the bottom elevation at the outlet of the inverted siphon segment. For pipelines marked as booster pump station segments, perform a reasonableness verification of the elevation difference before and after the pump station.

[0011] By adopting the above technical solution, the topology of the drainage pipe network is first identified before performing correlation verification. Pipelines are categorized into three types: conventional gravity flow sections, inverted siphon sections, and booster pump station sections. The corresponding verification rules are then switched according to the section type. For conventional gravity flow sections, the continuity of the elevation decrease trend is checked; for inverted siphon sections, the range of the difference in pipe bottom elevation between the inlet and outlet is verified; and for booster pump station sections, the reasonableness of the elevation difference before and after the pump station is verified. This avoids misjudging normal elevation drops followed by rises in inverted siphon sections or normal elevation jumps in booster pump station sections as verification errors, reducing false alarms without reducing the stringency of verification for conventional pipe sections.

[0012] Optionally, the verification threshold is dynamically calculated based on the pipe diameter and burial depth of the corresponding pipeline segment, wherein the larger the pipe diameter, the smaller the allowable elevation deviation value.

[0013] By adopting the above technical solution, the verification threshold is dynamically calculated based on the pipe diameter and burial depth of the pipeline segment. The larger the pipe diameter, the smaller the allowable elevation deviation. The construction precision of large-diameter drainage pipelines is higher than that of small-diameter pipelines, and their reasonable range of elevation deviation is even smaller. The dynamic threshold matches the strictness of the verification with the actual construction precision level of the pipeline, further reducing missed detections or false alarms caused by improper threshold settings.

[0014] Optionally, step S4 includes the following sub-steps: S41. Establish a dependency relationship for all the correction operations in the set of verification errors according to the operation type, and determine multiple priority batches, wherein the priority of the flow direction correction operation is higher than that of the elevation correction operation and the burial depth correction operation, the priority of the elevation correction operation and the burial depth correction operation is higher than that of the annotation correction operation, and the priority of the annotation correction operation is higher than that of the occlusion correction operation. S42. The trimming operation in each priority batch is executed sequentially according to the order of the priority batches. After each priority batch is completed, the status of the drainage pipeline data is updated, and subsequent priority batches are executed based on the updated status of the drainage pipeline data.

[0015] By adopting the above technical solution, all trimming operations are established according to their operation type and divided into four priority batches: flow direction correction, elevation and depth correction, label correction, and occlusion correction. These batches are executed sequentially. After each batch is completed, the data status is updated, and subsequent batches are executed based on the updated status. Flow direction correction takes precedence over elevation correction, ensuring that the criterion for determining the direction of elevation decrease is correct when correcting the elevation. Label correction is executed after the coordinate and elevation values ​​are corrected, ensuring that the label content is consistent with the corrected attribute values. Occlusion correction is executed after all label positions are determined, ensuring that avoidance adjustments are based on the final label layout. This avoids a chain reaction of correction errors caused by improper execution order of trimming operations, which could lead to subsequent batches being based on incorrect intermediate states.

[0016] Optionally, S42 includes the following sub-steps: S421. Calculate the correction confidence for each trimming operation in the current priority batch. The calculation basis for the correction confidence includes the number of connecting pipelines involved in the corresponding verification error, whether multiple pipeline types are involved, and the uniqueness of the correction scheme. S422. Based on the modified confidence level, the trimming operations in the current priority batch are divided into three levels: trimming operations with a modified confidence level higher than the first threshold are marked as high confidence operations, trimming operations with a modified confidence level between the second threshold and the first threshold are marked as medium confidence operations, and trimming operations with a modified confidence level lower than the second threshold are marked as low confidence operations. S423. For the trimming operation marked as the high confidence operation, execute it directly; for the trimming operation marked as the medium confidence operation, execute it and mark it as pending review in the trimming record; for the trimming operation marked as the low confidence operation, only generate a correction suggestion scheme without executing it.

[0017] By adopting the above technical solution, the correction confidence level is calculated for each correction operation before each priority batch execution. Based on the number of connecting pipelines at the pipe point, whether multiple pipeline types intersect, and the uniqueness of the correction plan, the correction operations are divided into three confidence levels: high, medium, and low. High-confidence operations are executed directly, medium-confidence operations are executed but marked as pending review, and low-confidence operations only generate suggested solutions without execution. Thus, simple errors with clear correction plans and a single impact range are automatically corrected to improve efficiency, while manual intervention is retained for correction operations in complex scenarios such as multi-pipeline intersections to ensure accuracy.

[0018] Optionally, S4 further includes the following step: S43. Re-execute the multi-dimensional rule verification on the pipe points and pipe segments involved in the trimming operation to generate a re-inspection result; S44. In response to the presence of new verification errors or the failure to eliminate existing verification errors in the back-check results, the correction confidence of the corresponding trimming operation is downgraded to low confidence, the automatic trimming result of the corresponding trimming operation is withdrawn, and the corresponding verification error is switched to manual confirmation mode.

[0019] By adopting the above technical solution, after all trimming operations are completed, multi-dimensional rule verification is re-executed on the pipe points and pipeline segments involved in the trimming to generate back-check results. When the back-check finds new verification errors or original errors that have not been eliminated, the confidence level of the corresponding trimming operation is downgraded to low confidence, the automatic trimming result is withdrawn, and the process is switched to manual confirmation mode. The back-check mechanism constitutes a closed-loop verification of the automatic trimming results, which can capture new errors introduced by the trimming operations or residual errors that have not been effectively corrected, preventing defective trimming results from entering the final output diagram.

[0020] Secondly, the automatic verification and intelligent correction device for drainage pipeline result diagrams provided in this application adopts the following technical solution: An automatic verification and intelligent correction device for drainage pipeline diagrams includes: The data acquisition module is configured to acquire drainage pipeline data from the drainage pipeline result map. The drainage pipeline data includes pipe point coordinates, pipe bottom elevation, burial depth, pipe diameter, material, pipeline connection relationship, flow direction, and special point type. The rule verification module is configured to perform multi-dimensional rule verification on the drainage pipeline data and generate a set of verification errors. An error location module is configured to establish an association mapping between each verification error in the set of verification errors and a graphical object in the drainage pipeline result diagram, and generate a verification report. The intelligent trimming module is configured to match a corresponding trimming strategy to the error type of each check error in the check error set, and to perform trimming operations on the drainage pipeline result diagram according to the trimming strategy; and The output module is configured to output the finished drainage pipeline diagram and repair record.

[0021] Thirdly, the computer device provided in this application adopts the following technical solution: A computer device comprising: One or more processors; Memory; One or more applications, wherein the one or more applications are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more applications being configured to: The above-described automatic verification and intelligent correction method for drainage pipeline result diagrams is implemented.

[0022] Fourthly, the computer-readable storage medium provided in this application adopts the following technical solution: A computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program that can be loaded by a processor and executed as described above.

[0023] The storage medium stores at least one instruction, at least one program, a code set, or an instruction set, wherein the at least one instruction, the at least one program, the code set, or the instruction set is loaded and executed by the processor to implement the following: The above-mentioned method for automatic verification and intelligent adjustment of drainage pipeline result diagrams. Attached Figure Description

[0024] Figure 1 This is a comparative schematic diagram of the drainage pipeline layout before and after verification and adjustment in one embodiment of this application.

[0025] Figure 2 This is a flowchart illustrating the automatic verification and intelligent adjustment method for drainage pipeline result diagrams in one embodiment of this application.

[0026] Figure 3 This is a flowchart of a two-stage cascaded verification process for multi-dimensional rule verification in one embodiment of this application.

[0027] Figure 4 This is a flowchart illustrating the dynamic switching of structural segment identification and verification rules in one embodiment of this application.

[0028] Figure 5 This is a flowchart illustrating the trimming operation's dependency on sorting and batch execution in one embodiment of this application.

[0029] Figure 6 This is a flowchart illustrating the confidence level grading and adjustment process in one embodiment of this application.

[0030] Figure 7 This is a flowchart of the process for reviewing the repair results in one embodiment of this application.

[0031] Figure 8 This is a schematic diagram of a computer device according to an embodiment of this application. Detailed Implementation

[0032] The present application will be further described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings. It should be understood that the specific embodiments described herein are merely illustrative of the application and are not intended to limit the scope of the application.

[0033] This application discloses an automatic verification and intelligent adjustment method for drainage pipeline renderings. Before detailing the embodiments of this application, some terms will be explained.

[0034] A drainage pipeline result map is a graphic file generated based on a CAD platform, containing the spatial attributes and attribute information of pipelines. It is a deliverable generated by an indoor mapping system after the field data collection for underground pipeline detection is completed. The pipeline attribute information in the drainage pipeline result map is stored on the entity objects corresponding to the CAD drawings. Each graphic entity carries the structured attributes of pipe points or pipeline segments through extended data fields.

[0035] Control points are the points on a pipeline that record its spatial attributes, such as coordinates, elevation, and burial depth. Special points are the control points corresponding to auxiliary facilities with specific functions on the pipeline, including valves, grates, and inspection wells. Pipeline connection relationships refer to the correspondence between the starting and ending control points of each pipeline segment, reflecting the connection method between pipeline segments. Burial method refers to the pipeline laying type code, including direct burial, trench, and overhead types.

[0036] The following example illustrates the method of this application. In a city's drainage network survey project, after field data collection, a drainage pipeline map containing rainwater and sewage pipelines is generated. The map includes 11 pipeline points (P1 to P9) and 9 pipeline segments (L1 to L9) at both ends of an independent pipeline segment L6. Subsequent numerical examples are based on this scenario.

[0037] Figure 1 This diagram shows a comparison of the aforementioned drainage pipeline layout before and after verification and correction. In the diagram, hollow circles represent pipe points, solid lines with arrows represent pipeline segments and their flow directions, dashed lines with arrows represent pipeline segments with verification errors, crosses indicate verification error markers, checkmarks indicate automatic corrections, and question marks indicate areas requiring manual confirmation. The values ​​marked next to each pipe point are the pipe bottom elevations, i.e., the vertical height of the bottom of the pipeline at that point from the Earth's reference surface. Figure 1 As shown on the left, the drainage pipeline result diagram before verification and correction contained six verification errors: incorrect flow direction, burial depth exceeding the limit, elevation increase, duplicate pipe points, isolated points, and inconsistent materials. Figure 1 As shown on the right, after automatic verification and intelligent correction, four errors have been automatically corrected, while the other two errors (elevation rise and isolated point) are marked as awaiting manual confirmation due to insufficient correction confidence or lack of a unique automatic correction solution.

[0038] like Figure 2 As shown, the method includes steps S1 to S5.

[0039] S1. Obtain drainage pipeline data from the drainage pipeline result map. The drainage pipeline data includes pipe point coordinates, pipe bottom elevation, burial depth, pipe diameter, material, pipeline connection relationship, flow direction, and special point type.

[0040] Specifically, the process involves traversing the CAD graphic entities in the drainage pipeline rendering, parsing the pipeline attribute information stored in the extended data fields of each graphic object, and converting the unstructured graphic data into a structured attribute data set. For example, the attribute data parsed for pipe point P1 is: coordinates (199943.68, 60293.33), pipe bottom elevation 5.89m, burial depth 1.70m, pipe diameter 200mm, and material PVC. The attribute data parsed for pipeline segment L1 is: starting pipe point P1, ending pipe point P2, flow direction from P1 to P2, pipeline material PVC, and pipe diameter 200mm. By traversing all 11 pipe points and 9 pipeline segments in the above manner, a complete drainage pipeline data set is obtained. The connection relationships of pipeline segments L1 to L9 are as follows: L1 connects P1 to P2, L2 connects P2 to P3, L3 connects P1 to P4, L4 connects P4 to P5, L5 connects P5 to P6, L6 is an independent pipeline segment, L7 connects P3 to P6, L8 connects P7 to P8, and L9 connects P5 to P8.

[0041] S2. Perform multi-dimensional rule verification on drainage pipeline data and generate a set of verification errors. Multi-dimensional rule verification includes elevation correctness verification, burial depth correctness verification, pipe point duplication verification, pipeline segment duplication verification, pipeline segment excessive length verification, isolated point verification, material consistency verification, pipeline and burial method rationality verification, value range verification, and data standard verification.

[0042] Errors in drainage pipeline data are diverse, including attribute value out-of-bounds errors, duplicate entries, topological breaks, and logical contradictions. A single verification dimension cannot cover all error types. The following checks are performed: Elevation correctness verification checks whether the bottom elevation of the drainage pipeline meets the decreasing constraint along the flow direction. Burial depth correctness verification checks whether the burial depth value of the pipe point is within a reasonable range. Pipe point duplication verification checks for the existence of pipe points with identical coordinates. Pipeline segment duplication verification checks for overlapping pipeline segments with the same starting and ending pipe points. Pipeline segment excessive length verification checks whether the length of the pipeline segment exceeds a preset length threshold. Isolated point verification checks for pipe points with coordinates but not connected to any pipeline. Material consistency verification checks whether the material attributes marked at both ends of the same pipeline segment are consistent. Pipeline and burial method rationality verification checks whether the pipeline type and its marked burial method conform to industry standards. Value range verification checks whether the values ​​of each attribute field exceed the preset minimum to maximum value range. Data standard verification checks whether the format of the attribute data conforms to the prescribed data standards.

[0043] like Figure 3 As shown, in some embodiments, multi-dimensional rule verification is executed in two cascading stages, S21 and S22.

[0044] S21. In the first phase, attribute compliance checks are performed independently on each pipe point and each pipe segment in the drainage pipeline data, generating a first-phase error set. Attribute compliance checks include verification of burial depth correctness, value range verification, material consistency verification, pipe point duplication verification, pipe segment duplication verification, pipe segment excessive length verification, isolated point verification, pipeline and burial method rationality verification, and data standard verification.

[0045] The attribute compliance check is performed independently for each pipe point and each pipeline segment. That is, the verification of each pipe point and each pipeline segment is independent of each other, and the verification result of a certain pipeline segment does not affect the verification judgment of other pipelines.

[0046] Taking the above scenario as an example, the following errors were found during the attribute compliance check: The burial depth of pipe point P5 is -0.3m, which is negative and not within the preset reasonable value range of 0.3m to 8.0m, triggering a value range verification error. The coordinates of pipe points P3 and P7 are exactly the same, both (199914.51, 60313.52), triggering a pipe point duplication verification error. The starting pipe point P10 of pipeline segment L6 is made of PVC, while the ending pipe point P11 is made of steel, resulting in inconsistent materials at both ends, triggering a material consistency verification error. Pipe point P9 has a coordinate record but is not connected to any pipeline segment, triggering an isolated point verification error. Regarding the pipeline segment length verification, the coordinates of the starting point P1 of pipeline segment L1 are (199943.68, 60293.33), and the coordinates of the ending point P2 are (199988.48, 60328.07). The horizontal distance between the two points is approximately 56.7m, which does not exceed the preset length threshold of 200m, thus passing the pipeline segment length verification. The preset length threshold for pipeline segment length verification is determined based on the pipeline type and diameter. For example, the length threshold for a 200mm diameter drainage pipeline is 200m, and the length threshold for a 400mm diameter drainage pipeline is 300m. When the pipeline segment length exceeds the corresponding threshold, it usually means that a pipe point was missed in the middle.

[0047] Regarding data standard verification, the material field value of pipe point P1 is "PVC", which conforms to the prescribed material coding standard (allowed values ​​include PVC, PE, steel, cast iron, concrete, etc.); the burial method field value of pipe point P1 is "5", which conforms to the burial method coding standard (1 represents direct burial, 2 represents trench, 3 represents overhead, etc.). Data standard verification checks each attribute field's value to see if it belongs to the corresponding field's allowed value set or conforms to the prescribed coding format. If not, a data standard verification error is triggered. The above four errors constitute the first-stage error set. No errors were found in the pipeline segment overlength verification and data standard verification in this scenario.

[0048] S22. In the second stage, the topology of the drainage network is constructed based on the pipeline connection relationship. The drainage pipeline data that has passed the attribute compliance check is traversed from upstream to downstream along each continuous pipeline link in the topology of the drainage network to detect the continuity of the elevation decrease trend and the rationality of the diameter change of adjacent pipeline segments, and the second stage error set is generated.

[0049] The topology of a drainage network is a directed graph constructed with pipe nodes as nodes and pipe segments as edges, the direction of which is determined by the flow direction. A continuous pipeline link refers to a sequence of continuous pipe segments that starts from an upstream endpoint, passes through intermediate pipe nodes along the flow direction, and reaches a downstream endpoint.

[0050] The first phase of attribute compliance checks can detect errors where the attribute values ​​of a single pipe point or pipeline segment are non-compliant, but it cannot detect anomalies in the correlation between pipeline segments. For example, the bottom elevation of pipe point P6 is 4.20m, which is within a reasonable range, and the first phase of value range verification passes. However, the bottom elevation of pipe point P5 is 4.10m, and P6 is located downstream of P5 (connected via pipeline segment L5), showing an anomaly where the downstream elevation is higher than the upstream elevation. This error, where the elevation decreasing trend is interrupted, occurs between two adjacent pipeline segments and requires a link-level traversal along the pipeline network topology to detect.

[0051] Taking the above scenario as an example, traversing the bottom elevation along a continuous pipeline link P1→P2→P3→P6, the recorded flow direction of L2 is from P3 to P2, which is opposite to the actual decreasing elevation direction (from 5.45m at P2 to 4.89m at P3), triggering a flow direction anomaly error. Traversing the bottom elevation along another continuous pipeline link P1→P4→P5→P6, the elevation sequence is 5.89m→4.80m→4.10m→4.20m. The elevation difference between pipe point P5 and pipe point P6 is -0.10m, indicating an increase, interrupting the decreasing elevation trend, and triggering an elevation increase error. Regarding the reasonableness detection of pipe diameter changes in adjacent pipeline segments, the pipe diameter of the drainage main should increase or remain unchanged along the flow direction. If the pipe diameter decreases along the flow direction (excluding the booster pump station section), a pipe diameter change reasonableness error is triggered.

[0052] like Figure 4 As shown, in some embodiments, S22 includes the following sub-steps S221-S222.

[0053] S221. Before performing the association verification, perform structural segment identification on the topology of the drainage network and mark each pipeline segment as a regular gravity flow segment, inverted siphon segment, or booster pump station segment.

[0054] A conventional gravity flow section is a pipe section that relies on gravity for drainage, with the pipe bottom elevation decreasing monotonically along the flow direction. An inverted siphon section is a U-shaped pipe section where the drainage pipeline bends downwards and then upwards when crossing a river or underground obstacle; its pipe bottom elevation first decreases and then increases along the flow direction, which is a normal engineering structure and not a data error. A booster pump station section is a pipe section that uses pumps to lift sewage from a low level to a high level; its pipe diameter decreases along the flow direction and its pipe bottom elevation increases along the flow direction, which is also a normal engineering structure.

[0055] The specific method for structural section identification is as follows: by detecting the U-shaped feature of the pipe bottom elevation along the flow direction, which first decreases and then increases, the corresponding pipeline section is marked as an inverted siphon section; by detecting the feature that the proportion of pipe diameter reduction along the flow direction between adjacent pipeline sections exceeds the preset pipe diameter change threshold and the magnitude of the increase in pipe bottom elevation along the flow direction exceeds the preset elevation increase threshold, the corresponding pipeline section is marked as a booster pump station section; the remaining pipeline sections are marked as conventional gravity flow sections.

[0056] Taking the above scenario as an example, the bottom elevation of pipeline segments L1 to L5 and L7 to L9 decreases monotonically along the flow direction or meets the characteristics of conventional gravity flow, and is marked as a conventional gravity flow segment. The above scenario does not include inverted siphon segments and booster pump station segments.

[0057] In other embodiments, the drainage network may include inverted siphon sections and booster pump station sections. For example, a section of pipeline with a bottom elevation sequence of 3.50m→2.80m→3.40m, exhibiting a U-shaped characteristic of first decreasing and then increasing, is marked as an inverted siphon section. As another example, if the pipe diameter between two adjacent pipeline sections changes from 400mm to 200mm, a reduction of 50%, exceeding a preset pipe diameter change threshold of 30%, and the bottom elevation rises from 2.10m to 5.60m, an increase of 3.50m, exceeding a preset elevation increase threshold of 2.0m, this is marked as a booster pump station section.

[0058] The above describes one implementation method for structural segment identification, namely, automatic identification based on elevation sequence features and pipe diameter variation features. In other embodiments, structural segment identification can also directly read the segment type based on the pre-labeled pipeline subtype field in the pipeline attribute data, without inferring from elevation and pipe diameter features, thus applicable to result maps where the attribute data already contains segment labels. Both of the above methods belong to implementation methods for performing structural segment identification on the topology of drainage pipe networks.

[0059] S222. Switch the corresponding verification rules and set the corresponding verification thresholds according to the structural section type marked for each pipeline segment. For pipelines marked as conventional gravity flow sections, check the continuity of the elevation decrease trend; for pipelines marked as inverted siphon sections, verify the range of the difference between the bottom elevation at the inlet and outlet of the inverted siphon section; for pipelines marked as booster pump station sections, verify the rationality of the elevation difference before and after the pump station.

[0060] Taking the above scenario as an example, pipeline segments L1 to L5 and L7 to L9 are all marked as conventional gravity flow segments. The bottom elevation of the pipe is traversed along the continuous pipeline link to detect whether the difference in bottom elevation between adjacent pipe points is positive, that is, whether the bottom elevation of the downstream pipe point is lower than the bottom elevation of the upstream pipe point.

[0061] In embodiments including inverted siphon sections, the difference between the inverted siphon section's inlet and outlet bottom elevations is verified. For example, if the inlet bottom elevation of an inverted siphon section is 3.50m and the outlet bottom elevation is 3.40m, the difference is 0.10m. The inlet bottom elevation is higher than the outlet bottom elevation, and the difference is within the allowable range of 0 to 0.5m, thus passing the verification. If the conventional gravity flow section's elevation reduction verification rule is still applied to the inverted siphon section, a normal engineering structure where the bottom elevation rises from 2.80m to 3.40m would be incorrectly judged. In embodiments including booster pump station sections, the reasonableness of the elevation difference before and after the booster pump station is verified. For example, if the inlet bottom elevation of a booster pump station section is 2.10m and the outlet bottom elevation is 5.60m, the difference is 3.50m, which is within the reasonable range, thus passing the verification.

[0062] In some embodiments, the verification threshold used for correlation verification is dynamically calculated based on the pipe diameter and burial depth of the corresponding pipeline segment, where a larger pipe diameter results in a smaller allowable elevation deviation. The construction measurement accuracy for large-diameter drainage pipelines is higher than that for small-diameter pipelines, and the reasonable range for elevation deviation is even smaller. For example, for a pipeline segment with a diameter of 200mm, the allowable elevation deviation is 0.15m; for a pipeline segment with a diameter of 400mm, the allowable elevation deviation is 0.08m; and for a pipeline segment with a diameter of 800mm, the allowable elevation deviation is 0.05m. When traversing along a continuous pipeline link, if the absolute value of the difference in pipe bottom elevation between adjacent pipe points is less than the allowable elevation deviation value of the corresponding pipeline segment, it is determined to be within the allowable range, and no verification error is triggered; if it exceeds the allowable elevation deviation value, an elevation correctness verification error is triggered.

[0063] S23. Merge the first-stage error set with the second-stage error set to obtain the verification error set.

[0064] Taking the above scenario as an example, the first-stage error set contains four errors: the burial depth of pipe point P5 is out of range, pipe points P3 and P7 are duplicated, the material of pipeline segment L6 is inconsistent, and pipe point P9 is an isolated point. The second-stage error set contains two errors: abnormal flow direction of pipeline segment L2 and elevation increase between pipe points P5 and P6. The merged verification error set contains a total of six errors.

[0065] S3. Establish an association mapping between each verification error in the verification error set and the graphic object in the drainage pipeline result diagram, and generate a verification report.

[0066] Each verification error record stores a unique identifier for the corresponding graphic object. Selecting an error record from the verification report will locate the corresponding pipe point or pipe segment in the drainage pipeline rendering. For example, selecting the error record "Pipe point P5 burial depth value range out of bounds" will automatically jump to the location of pipe point P5 in the rendering and highlight the pipe point. The verification report is presented in tabular form, with each row corresponding to one verification error. Columns include error number, error type, error location, verification stage, source, and error description.

[0067] S4. Match the corresponding trimming strategy to the error type of each verification error in the verification error set, and perform trimming operation on the drainage pipeline result map according to the trimming strategy.

[0068] The correction strategy is a combination of predefined correction actions and parameters for each error type. The correction logic differs for different error types. For example, the correction strategy for a pipe point duplication error is to retain one pipe point and delete the duplicate one; the correction strategy for a material inconsistency error is to unify the material of the pipe points at both ends of the pipeline segment to the material value of the pipe point at the beginning of the pipeline segment; the correction strategy for a burial depth value exceeding the limit error is to interpolate the correction value based on the burial depth values ​​of adjacent pipe points; and the correction strategy for an isolated point error is to mark the pipe point as awaiting manual confirmation.

[0069] like Figure 5 As shown, in some embodiments, S4 includes the following sub-steps S41-S42.

[0070] S41. Establish dependencies for all correction operations in the error set according to operation type and determine multiple priority batches. Among them, the flow direction correction operation has higher priority than the elevation correction operation and the burial depth correction operation, the elevation correction operation and the burial depth correction operation have higher priority than the annotation correction operation, and the annotation correction operation has higher priority than the occlusion correction operation.

[0071] Data dependencies exist between different types of correction operations. Flow direction correction changes the criterion for determining the direction of elevation decrease; if elevation correction is performed before flow direction correction, it may fail due to an incorrect flow direction. Elevation and depth corrections change the attribute values ​​of pipe points; if annotation correction is performed before attribute value correction, the annotation content will be inconsistent with the final attribute values. Annotation correction changes the position of annotations on the drawing; if occlusion correction is performed before the annotation position is determined, occlusion avoidance calculations will fail due to an uncertain annotation layout. Therefore, the execution order needs to be determined according to the dependencies between operation types.

[0072] Taking the above scenario as an example, the correction operations corresponding to the verification error set include: flow direction correction operation for pipeline segment L2, burial depth correction operation for pipe point P5, elevation correction operation for pipeline segment L5, deduplication operation for pipe points P3 and P7, isolated point handling operation for pipe point P9, and material correction operation for pipeline segment L6. These are divided into multiple batches according to priority: the first batch is flow direction correction, including the flow direction correction operation for pipeline segment L2; the second batch includes elevation and burial depth correction, including the burial depth correction operation for pipe point P5 and the elevation correction operation for pipeline segment L5; the third batch is attribute correction, including deduplication operation for pipe points P3 and P7, isolated point handling operation for pipe point P9, and material correction operation for pipeline segment L6.

[0073] S42. Execute the trimming operations in each priority batch in the order of priority batches. After each priority batch is completed, update the status of the drainage pipeline data. Subsequent priority batches are executed based on the updated status of the drainage pipeline data.

[0074] After each batch is executed, the corrected attribute values ​​are written back to the drainage pipeline data set. Subsequent batches read the corrected data, not the original data. For example, after the first batch of execution of the flow direction correction for pipeline segment L2, the flow direction of L2 is corrected from P3→P2 to P2→P3, and this correction result is written back to the data set. When the second batch of execution of the elevation correction for pipeline segment L5 and the burial depth correction for pipe point P5 is performed, the flow direction information read is already the corrected flow direction, and the calculated elevation decrease direction and interpolation direction are correct.

[0075] like Figure 6 As shown, in some embodiments, S42 includes the following sub-steps S421-S423.

[0076] S421. Calculate the correction confidence for each trimming operation in the current priority batch. The calculation of the correction confidence is based on the number of connecting pipelines involved in the corresponding check error, whether multiple pipeline types intersect, and the uniqueness of the correction scheme.

[0077] The number of connecting pipelines reflects the topological complexity of the pipe point. More connecting pipelines result in a larger impact range for the correction operation and make it more difficult to predict the cascading effects on surrounding pipelines. Whether multiple pipeline types intersect indicates the presence of stormwater and sewage pipelines at that location. Corrections at intersections require consideration of differentiated rules for different pipeline types, increasing the uncertainty of the correction. The uniqueness of the correction scheme indicates whether only one reasonable correction method exists for the error. A higher confidence level is when only one correction scheme exists compared to when multiple schemes coexist.

[0078] S422. Based on the modified confidence level, the trimming operations in the current priority batch are divided into three levels: trimming operations with a modified confidence level higher than the first threshold are marked as high confidence operations, trimming operations with a modified confidence level between the second threshold and the first threshold are marked as medium confidence operations, and trimming operations with a modified confidence level lower than the second threshold are marked as low confidence operations.

[0079] S423. For adjustments marked as high confidence operations, execute them directly; for adjustments marked as medium confidence operations, execute them and mark them as pending review in the adjustment record; for adjustments marked as low confidence operations, only generate correction suggestions without executing them.

[0080] Taking the above scenario as an example, the confidence calculation process for the burial depth correction operation of pipe point P5 in the second batch is as follows: Pipe point P5 connects to 3 pipeline segments (L4, L5, L9), a moderate number; P5 only involves sewage pipelines and does not involve pipeline type intersections; the burial depth correction scheme is to correct the negative value of -0.3m to the interpolated burial depth result of 1.65m for adjacent pipe points P4 and P6, and the correction scheme is unique. Based on the above three criteria, the correction confidence is higher than the first threshold, and it is marked as a high-confidence operation, which is executed directly.

[0081] In another scenario, the elevation correction operation for pipeline segment L5 involves pipe points P5 and P6. Pipe point P6 connects two pipeline segments (L5 and L7), and is simultaneously located at the confluence of two continuous pipeline links (link P1→P4→P5→P6 and link P1→P2→P3→P6). There are two possible elevation correction schemes (lowering the elevation of P6 based on the elevation of the upstream link P5, or lowering the elevation of P6 based on the elevation of another upstream link P3), meaning the correction scheme is not unique. Considering both the fact that it is located at a link confluence and the fact that the correction scheme is not unique, the correction confidence level is below the second threshold, and it is marked as a low-confidence operation. Only a suggested correction scheme is generated for the operator to choose from; it is not executed automatically.

[0082] like Figure 7 As shown, in some embodiments, S4 further includes the steps S43-S44.

[0083] S43. After all the trimming operations are completed, re-execute the multi-dimensional rule verification on the pipe points and pipe segments involved in the trimming operations to generate the back-inspection results.

[0084] Automatic trimming operations may introduce new verification errors. For example, after correcting the burial depth of pipe point P5 from -0.3m to 1.65m, the difference in burial depth between P5 and the adjacent pipe point P4 may exceed the reasonable range, creating a new error in the burial depth accuracy verification. Furthermore, the original error correction scheme may not effectively eliminate the error, and the corrected value may still not meet the verification rules. Therefore, it is necessary to re-verify the data involved in the trimming.

[0085] The scope of the re-inspection is limited to the pipe points and pipeline segments involved in the correction operation, rather than a full recalibration of all drainage pipeline data. For example, the burial depth correction operation for pipe point P5 involves pipe point P5 and its adjacent pipeline segments L4, L5, and L9. The re-inspection scope is pipe point P5, pipeline segment L4, pipeline segment L5, and pipeline segment L9. Attribute compliance checks and correlation verifications are re-performed on these four objects.

[0086] Taking the above scenario as an example, after the burial depth of pipe point P5 is corrected from -0.3m to 1.65m, the attribute compliance check is re-executed for P5 and its adjacent pipeline segments L4, L5, and L9. The corrected burial depth value of 1.65m for P5 is within the reasonable range of 0.3m to 8.0m, and passes the range verification. The correlation verification is re-executed along the continuous pipeline link P1→P4→P5→P6. The pipeline bottom elevation sequence is 5.89m→4.80m→4.10m→4.20m. The elevation rise error between P5 and P6 still exists (this error belongs to the elevation correctness verification error and is unrelated to the burial depth correction operation), but no new errors are introduced due to the burial depth correction. The burial depth correction operation of P5 passes the re-check.

[0087] S44. In response to the presence of new verification errors or the failure to eliminate existing verification errors in the back-check results, the correction confidence of the corresponding trimming operation is downgraded to low confidence, the automatic trimming result of the corresponding trimming operation is withdrawn, and the corresponding verification error is switched to manual confirmation mode.

[0088] For example, in another scenario, after the elevation of a pipe point is automatically corrected from 3.20m to 3.80m, a re-verification of the connection between the pipe point and its adjacent pipe segments is performed. It is found that the corrected elevation value differs from the downstream pipe point's bottom elevation of 3.75m by only 0.05m. The pipe segment has a diameter of 800mm, and the corresponding allowable elevation deviation is 0.05m. Since the elevation difference equals the boundary of the allowable deviation, the re-check is determined to be a new verification error. In this case, the confidence level of the elevation correction operation is downgraded to low confidence, the automatic correction result is withdrawn (the elevation value is restored to the original 3.20m), and the verification error is switched to manual confirmation mode, marked "Re-check failed, manual confirmation required" in the correction record.

[0089] S5. Output the revised drainage pipeline result diagram and revision record. The revision record includes the values ​​before modification, the values ​​after modification, and the basis for correction for each revision operation.

[0090] The correction record is output in tabular form, with each row corresponding to one correction operation. Taking the above scenario as an example, the correction record includes the following entries: Pipeline point P5 burial depth correction: original value -0.3m, modified value 1.65m, correction basis is value range verification plus interpolation of adjacent pipeline point burial depths, confidence level is high confidence, and review status is completed. Pipeline segment L6 material correction: original value is starting point PVC and ending point steel, modified value is starting point PVC and ending point PVC, correction basis is material consistency verification plus unification to the starting pipeline point material, confidence level is high confidence, and review status is completed. Pipeline segment L2 flow direction correction: original value is from P3 to P2, modified value is from P2 to P3, correction basis is elevation decrease direction determination, confidence level is high confidence, and review status is completed. The pipe points P3 and P7 were deduplicated. Before the modification, P3 and P7 were two pipe points with the same coordinates. After the modification, P3 was retained, the duplicate pipe point P7 was deleted, and the pipe segment L8 originally connected to P7 was reconnected to P3. The correction was based on pipe point duplication verification plus retention of a single pipe point. The confidence level was high, and the review status was completed. For the modification operations marked as medium confidence, the review status was pending review. For the modification operations marked as low confidence, only the suggested solution was recorded in the modification record, the modified value was empty, and the review status was pending manual confirmation. In this scenario, the modification operations marked as pending manual confirmation include the elevation correction of pipe segment L5 and the isolated point processing of pipe point P9.

[0091] In the revised drainage pipeline rendering, the attributes of the graphic objects corresponding to the revised operations have been updated to the corrected values, while the graphic objects corresponding to the low-confidence revision operations that were not performed retain their original values.

[0092] It should be understood that the sequence number of each step in the above embodiments does not imply the order of execution. The execution order of each process should be determined by its function and internal logic, and should not constitute any limitation on the implementation process of the embodiments of this application.

[0093] In one embodiment, an automatic verification and intelligent correction device for drainage pipeline result diagrams is provided. This device corresponds one-to-one with the automatic verification and intelligent correction method for drainage pipeline result diagrams described in the above embodiments. The device includes a data acquisition module, a rule verification module, an error location module, an intelligent correction module, and an output module. Detailed descriptions of each functional module are as follows: The data acquisition module is configured to acquire drainage pipeline data from the drainage pipeline result map. The drainage pipeline data includes pipe point coordinates, pipe bottom elevation, burial depth, pipe diameter, material, pipeline connection relationship, flow direction, and special point type.

[0094] The rule verification module is configured to perform multi-dimensional rule verification on the drainage pipeline data and generate a set of verification errors.

[0095] The error location module is configured to establish an association mapping between each verification error in the set of verification errors and a graphic object in the drainage pipeline result diagram, and generate a verification report.

[0096] The intelligent trimming module is configured to match the corresponding trimming strategy according to the error type of each verification error in the verification error set, and perform trimming operations on the drainage pipeline result diagram according to the trimming strategy.

[0097] The output module is configured to output the finished drainage pipeline diagram and repair record.

[0098] Specific limitations regarding the automatic verification and intelligent modification device for drainage pipeline diagrams can be found in the limitations of the automatic verification and intelligent modification method for drainage pipeline diagrams described above, and will not be repeated here. Each module in the aforementioned automatic verification and intelligent modification device for drainage pipeline diagrams can be implemented entirely or partially through software, hardware, or a combination thereof. These modules can be embedded in or independent of the processor in a computer device, or stored in the memory of a computer device as software, so that the processor can call and execute the corresponding operations of each module.

[0099] In one embodiment, a computer device is provided, which may be a server, and its internal structure diagram may be as follows: Figure 8 As shown, the computer device includes a processor, memory, network interface, and database connected via a system bus. The processor provides computational and control capabilities. The memory includes a non-volatile storage medium and internal memory. The non-volatile storage medium stores the operating system, computer programs, and database. The internal memory provides an environment for the operation of the operating system and computer programs stored in the non-volatile storage medium. The database contains data related to the automatic verification and intelligent adjustment method for drainage pipeline diagrams. The network interface is used for communication with external terminals via a network connection. When executed by the processor, the computer program implements an automatic verification and intelligent adjustment method for drainage pipeline diagrams.

[0100] In one embodiment, a computer device is provided, including a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor. When the processor executes the computer program, it implements the automatic verification and intelligent adjustment method for drainage pipeline result diagrams described in the above embodiment. Alternatively, when the processor executes the computer program, it implements the functions of each module / unit of the automatic verification and intelligent adjustment device for drainage pipeline result diagrams described in the above embodiment. To avoid repetition, further details are omitted here.

[0101] In one embodiment, a computer-readable storage medium is provided, on which a computer program is stored. When executed by a processor, the computer program implements the automatic verification and intelligent adjustment method for drainage pipeline result diagrams described in the above embodiments. Alternatively, when executed by a processor, the computer program implements the functions of each module / unit in the automatic verification and intelligent adjustment device for drainage pipeline result diagrams described in the above device embodiments. To avoid repetition, further details are omitted here.

[0102] Those skilled in the art will understand that all or part of the processes in the methods of the above embodiments can be implemented by a computer program instructing related hardware. This computer program can be stored in a non-volatile computer-readable storage medium. When executed, the computer program can include the processes of the embodiments of the above methods. Any references to memory, storage, databases, or other media used in the embodiments of this application can include non-volatile and / or volatile memory. Non-volatile memory can include read-only memory (ROM), programmable ROM (PROM), electrically programmable ROM (EPROM), electrically erasable programmable ROM (EEPROM), or flash memory. Volatile memory can include random access memory (RAM) or external cache memory. By way of illustration and not limitation, RAM is available in various forms, such as static RAM (SRAM), dynamic RAM (DRAM), synchronous DRAM (SDRAM), dual data rate SDRAM (DDRSDRAM), enhanced SDRAM (ESDRAM), synchronous link DRAM (SLDRAM), Rambus direct RAM (RDRAM), direct memory bus dynamic RAM (DRDRAM), and memory bus dynamic RAM (RDRAM), etc.

[0103] Those skilled in the art will clearly understand that, for the sake of convenience and brevity, the above-described division of functional units and modules is used as an example. In practical applications, the above functions can be assigned to different functional units and modules as needed, that is, the internal structure of the device can be divided into different functional units or modules to complete all or part of the functions described above.

[0104] The above embodiments are only used to illustrate the technical solutions of this application, and are not intended to limit them. Although this application has been described in detail with reference to the foregoing embodiments, those skilled in the art should understand that modifications can still be made to the technical solutions described in the foregoing embodiments, or equivalent substitutions can be made to some of the technical features. Such modifications or substitutions do not cause the essence of the corresponding technical solutions to deviate from the spirit and scope of the technical solutions of the embodiments of this application, and should all be included within the protection scope of this application.

Claims

1. A method for automatic verification and intelligent adjustment of drainage pipeline renderings, characterized in that, Includes the following steps: S1. Obtain drainage pipeline data from the drainage pipeline result map. The drainage pipeline data includes pipe point coordinates, pipe bottom elevation, burial depth, pipe diameter, material, pipeline connection relationship, flow direction, and special point type. S2. Perform multi-dimensional rule verification on the drainage pipeline data to generate a set of verification errors. The multi-dimensional rule verification includes elevation correctness verification, burial depth correctness verification, pipe point duplication verification, pipeline segment duplication verification, pipeline segment excessive length verification, isolated point verification, material consistency verification, pipeline and burial method rationality verification, value range verification, and data standard verification. S3. Establish an association mapping between each verification error in the set of verification errors and the graphic object in the drainage pipeline result diagram, and generate a verification report; S4. Match the corresponding trimming strategy according to the error type of each verification error in the verification error set, and perform trimming operation on the drainage pipeline result diagram according to the trimming strategy; S5. Output the revised drainage pipeline result diagram and revision record. The revision record includes the values ​​before modification, the values ​​after modification, and the basis for correction for each revision operation.

2. The automatic verification and intelligent adjustment method for drainage pipeline result diagrams according to claim 1, characterized in that, S2 includes the following sub-steps: S21. Perform attribute compliance checks independently on each pipe point and each pipe segment in the drainage pipeline data to generate a first-stage error set. The attribute compliance checks include verification of the correctness of the burial depth, verification of the value range, verification of the consistency of the material, verification of the duplication of the pipe point, verification of the duplication of the pipe segment, verification of the excessive length of the pipe segment, verification of the isolated point, verification of the rationality of the pipeline and the burial method, and verification of the data standard. S22. Construct the topology of the drainage network based on the pipeline connection relationship. For the drainage pipeline data that has passed the attribute compliance check, traverse the bottom elevation of the pipe along each continuous pipeline link in the topology of the drainage network from upstream to downstream to detect the continuity of the elevation decrease trend and the rationality of the pipe diameter change of adjacent pipeline segments, and generate a second-stage error set. S23. Merge the first stage error set with the second stage error set to obtain the verification error set.

3. The automatic verification and intelligent adjustment method for drainage pipeline result diagrams according to claim 2, characterized in that, S22 includes the following sub-steps: S221. Perform structural segment identification on the topology of the drainage pipe network, and mark each pipe segment as a conventional gravity flow segment, an inverted siphon segment, or a booster pump station segment; wherein, by detecting the U-shaped feature of the pipe bottom elevation along the flow direction showing a decrease followed by an increase, the corresponding pipe segment is marked as the inverted siphon segment; by detecting the feature that the proportion of the pipe diameter decreasing along the flow direction between adjacent pipe segments exceeds a preset pipe diameter change threshold and the magnitude of the increase in the pipe bottom elevation along the flow direction exceeds a preset elevation increase threshold, the corresponding pipe segment is marked as the booster pump station segment; S222. Switch the corresponding verification rules and set the corresponding verification thresholds according to the structural segment type marked for each pipeline segment. Specifically, for pipelines marked as conventional gravity flow segments, check the continuity of the elevation decrease trend. For pipelines marked as inverted siphon segments, perform a range verification of the difference between the bottom elevation at the inlet and the bottom elevation at the outlet of the inverted siphon segment. For pipelines marked as booster pump station segments, perform a reasonableness verification of the elevation difference before and after the pump station.

4. The automatic verification and intelligent adjustment method for drainage pipeline result diagrams according to claim 3, characterized in that, The verification threshold is dynamically calculated based on the pipe diameter and burial depth of the corresponding pipeline segment, wherein the larger the pipe diameter, the smaller the allowable elevation deviation value.

5. The automatic verification and intelligent adjustment method for drainage pipeline result diagrams according to claim 1, characterized in that, S4 includes the following sub-steps: S41. Establish a dependency relationship for all the correction operations in the set of verification errors according to the operation type, and determine multiple priority batches, wherein the priority of the flow direction correction operation is higher than that of the elevation correction operation and the burial depth correction operation, the priority of the elevation correction operation and the burial depth correction operation is higher than that of the annotation correction operation, and the priority of the annotation correction operation is higher than that of the occlusion correction operation. S42. The trimming operation in each priority batch is executed sequentially according to the order of the priority batches. After each priority batch is completed, the status of the drainage pipeline data is updated, and subsequent priority batches are executed based on the updated status of the drainage pipeline data.

6. The automatic verification and intelligent adjustment method for drainage pipeline result diagrams according to claim 5, characterized in that, S42 includes the following sub-steps: S421. Calculate the correction confidence for each trimming operation in the current priority batch. The calculation basis for the correction confidence includes the number of connecting pipelines involved in the corresponding verification error, whether multiple pipeline types are involved, and the uniqueness of the correction scheme. S422. Based on the modified confidence level, the trimming operations in the current priority batch are divided into three levels: trimming operations with a modified confidence level higher than the first threshold are marked as high confidence operations, trimming operations with a modified confidence level between the second threshold and the first threshold are marked as medium confidence operations, and trimming operations with a modified confidence level lower than the second threshold are marked as low confidence operations. S423. For the trimming operation marked as the high confidence operation, execute it directly; for the trimming operation marked as the medium confidence operation, execute it and mark it as pending review in the trimming record; for the trimming operation marked as the low confidence operation, only generate a correction suggestion scheme without executing it.

7. The automatic verification and intelligent adjustment method for drainage pipeline result diagrams according to claim 6, characterized in that, S4 further includes the following steps: S43. Re-execute the multi-dimensional rule verification on the pipe points and pipe segments involved in the trimming operation to generate a re-inspection result; S44. In response to the presence of new verification errors or the failure to eliminate existing verification errors in the back-check results, the correction confidence of the corresponding trimming operation is downgraded to low confidence, the automatic trimming result of the corresponding trimming operation is withdrawn, and the corresponding verification error is switched to manual confirmation mode.

8. An automatic verification and intelligent adjustment device for drainage pipeline result diagrams, characterized in that, include: The data acquisition module is configured to acquire drainage pipeline data from the drainage pipeline result map. The drainage pipeline data includes pipe point coordinates, pipe bottom elevation, burial depth, pipe diameter, material, pipeline connection relationship, flow direction, and special point type. The rule verification module is configured to perform multi-dimensional rule verification on the drainage pipeline data and generate a set of verification errors. An error location module is configured to establish an association mapping between each verification error in the set of verification errors and a graphical object in the drainage pipeline result diagram, and generate a verification report. The intelligent trimming module is configured to match the corresponding trimming strategy according to the error type of each verification error in the verification error set, and perform trimming operation on the drainage pipeline result diagram according to the trimming strategy. The output module is configured to output the finished drainage pipeline diagram and repair record.

9. A computer device, characterized in that, The system includes a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program, and the processor executes the computer program to implement the automatic verification and intelligent adjustment method for the drainage pipeline result diagram as described in any one of claims 1 to 7.

10. A computer-readable storage medium, characterized in that, The computer-readable storage medium stores a computer program, which, when executed by a processor, implements the automatic verification and intelligent adjustment method for the drainage pipeline result diagram as described in any one of claims 1 to 7.

Images