An anti-seismic safety factor analysis method for hydraulic structures

Abstract

This invention relates to the field of seismic design and safety assessment of hydraulic structures, and discloses a method for analyzing the seismic safety factor of hydraulic structures. First, a seismic safety analysis model is established, consisting of a geological condition model layer, a hydraulic structure model layer, and a dynamic vibration model layer. The environmental seismic resistance coefficients corresponding to structures in different geological environments are analyzed to obtain the geological condition coefficients. A three-dimensional model of the hydraulic structure is established and the stress points are analyzed to obtain the hydraulic structure bearing capacity coefficients. Graded vibration simulation is performed and hazard warning points are marked; the vibration simulation coefficient is obtained based on the proportion of hazard warning points. The seismic safety factor is calculated. Operational monitoring data of the hydraulic structure is collected periodically to update the seismic safety factor. This invention solves the limitations of existing technologies that only perform single-factor analysis in seismic analysis of hydraulic structures, failing to adapt to seismic capacity analysis in different geological environments and failing to accommodate different types and operating conditions of hydraulic structures.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of seismic design and safety assessment of hydraulic structures, and in particular to a method for analyzing the seismic safety factor of hydraulic structures. Background Technology

[0002] As a core component of water conservancy projects, the seismic safety of hydraulic structures is directly related to the safety of people's lives and property and the stability of the regional economy.

[0003] Currently, traditional methods for assessing the seismic safety of hydraulic structures mostly rely on single-factor analysis or empirical formulas, which have the following drawbacks: First, they fail to fully consider the complexity of the geological environment, using only fixed geological coefficients, which cannot reflect the impact of different geological conditions on the seismic resistance of the structure; second, the stress analysis of hydraulic structures is not precise enough, lacking refined stress point identification combined with three-dimensional models; third, vibration simulations often use single-level or fixed seismic waves, making it difficult to reflect the dynamic response of the structure during the increase of earthquake intensity; and fourth, the weights of each influencing factor are set fixedly and cannot be dynamically adjusted according to the structure type, geological conditions, etc., resulting in large deviations in the calculation results of the seismic safety factor, which is difficult to meet the actual needs of engineering projects.

[0004] Therefore, there is an urgent need for a multi-dimensional, refined, and dynamically adjustable seismic safety factor analysis method to improve the accuracy and reliability of seismic assessment of hydraulic structures. Summary of the Invention

[0005] The present invention aims to provide a method for analyzing the seismic safety factor of hydraulic structures, in order to solve the limitations of existing technologies that only perform single-factor analysis of seismic resistance analysis of hydraulic structures, which cannot adapt to the seismic capacity analysis of different geological environments and cannot be adapted to different types and working conditions of hydraulic structures.

[0006] To achieve the above objectives, the present invention provides the following method:

[0007] The present invention provides a method for analyzing the seismic safety factor of hydraulic structures:

[0008] S1: Establish a seismic safety analysis model, which consists of a geological condition model layer, a hydraulic structure model layer, and a dynamic vibration model layer;

[0009] S2: By analyzing the seismic resistance coefficients of different geological environment structures through the geological condition model layer, and combining the seismic resistance requirements of hydraulic structures, the geological condition coefficients are obtained.

[0010] S3: Establish a three-dimensional model of the hydraulic structure through the hydraulic structure model layer and analyze the stress points to obtain the bearing coefficient of the hydraulic structure;

[0011] S4: Perform graded vibration simulation through dynamic vibration model layer and mark danger warning points. Obtain vibration simulation coefficients based on the proportion of danger warning points.

[0012] S5: Calculate the seismic safety factor based on the geological condition coefficient, hydraulic structure bearing capacity coefficient and vibration simulation coefficient;

[0013] S6: Regularly collect operational monitoring data of hydraulic structures and update the seismic safety factor.

[0014] Preferably, the process of constructing the geological condition model layer includes: collecting geological exploration data of the area where the hydraulic structure is located, including stratigraphic lithology, soil and rock mechanical parameters, groundwater distribution characteristics, and fault development; classifying different geological environment structures, and calculating the corresponding environmental seismic resistance coefficient for each type of geological environment structure using numerical simulation methods; determining the seismic resistance requirement weights based on the design seismic resistance level, service function, and service life of the hydraulic structure, and weighting and fusing the environmental seismic resistance coefficients with the weights to obtain the geological condition coefficient.

[0015] Preferably, the collection of geological exploration data in the area where the hydraulic structure is located also includes: in-situ testing, which includes standard penetration test, static cone penetration test and shear wave velocity test. The actual mechanical performance parameters of the soil and rock mass are obtained through the in-situ testing, the errors of the indoor test data are corrected and the accuracy of the calculation of the environmental seismic coefficient is improved. The numerical simulation method uses FLAC3D or ABAQUS software and considers the nonlinear structural relationship of the soil and rock mass and the interaction with the hydraulic structure.

[0016] Preferably, the step of establishing a three-dimensional model of the hydraulic structure through a hydraulic structure model layer and analyzing the stress points to obtain the hydraulic structure bearing capacity coefficient includes: collecting design drawings, material parameters, and construction records of the hydraulic structure based on BIM technology, and establishing a 1:1 scale three-dimensional solid hydraulic structure model; using the finite element analysis method to mesh the three-dimensional solid hydraulic structure model, applying conventional loads such as gravity and water pressure, and calculating the structural stress distribution cloud map; using the structural stress distribution cloud map, marking areas with stress values ​​exceeding 80% of the material's allowable stress as key stress points, statistically analyzing the number, distribution density, and maximum stress value of key stress points, and obtaining the hydraulic structure bearing capacity coefficient through normalization processing.

[0017] Preferably, the construction of the three-dimensional model of the hydraulic structure also considers the cumulative damage effect of the structure. The carbonation depth of concrete is determined by phenolphthalein titration. Detection points are arranged according to specifications at key stress points, core samples are drilled and the average value of the detection is calculated, the degree of steel corrosion is detected by a steel corrosion instrument, abnormal areas are chiseled open for verification, and the length and width data of cracks in the hydraulic structure are collected simultaneously to mark structural damage cracks and obtain multiple damage indicators. Subsequently, the multiple damage indicators are quantified, a correlation model with the mechanical properties of materials is established, the strength and elastic modulus parameters of concrete and steel are corrected, and the parameters are accurately mapped to the corresponding areas of the three-dimensional model of the hydraulic structure using BIM technology to obtain a three-dimensional model of the hydraulic structure with integrated damage parameters. Based on the three-dimensional model of the hydraulic structure with integrated damage parameters, a finite element stress analysis is carried out again to correct the stress concentration effect in the damaged area, so that the stress point identification is more in line with the actual state of the structure, and the bearing capacity of the hydraulic structure can truly reflect the disaster resistance capacity after damage accumulation, ensuring the accuracy of the seismic safety factor assessment.

[0018] Preferably, the step of performing graded vibration simulation through a dynamic vibration model layer and marking danger warning points, and obtaining vibration simulation coefficients based on the proportion of danger warning points, includes: setting ground motion parameters, including peak ground acceleration, response spectrum characteristic period, and duration, according to the seismic design code for buildings and the specific seismic standard for hydraulic structures; dividing the vibration level into multiple levels, starting from the benchmark level lower than the design seismic intensity, with the peak ground acceleration of each vibration level increasing by a preset proportion; during the vibration simulation process at each vibration level, monitoring the displacement, velocity, and acceleration response values ​​of the hydraulic structure in real time, marking the locations where the displacement, velocity, and acceleration response values ​​of the hydraulic structure exceed the safety threshold as danger warning points, and calculating the proportion of the danger warning points to the total surface area of ​​the hydraulic structure under each vibration level to obtain the vibration simulation coefficient of the hydraulic structure.

[0019] Preferably, a random vibration model is introduced in the vibration simulation process. Based on the seismic hazard analysis results of the site, multiple sets of artificial seismic waves with different spectral characteristics are generated. Vibration simulation is performed on each set of artificial seismic waves, and the average value of the proportion of hazard warning points is used as the basic data for vibration simulation at that level, thereby reducing the analysis bias caused by a single seismic wave. The safety warning points are determined based on the allowable deformation value of the hydraulic structure and the critical state of structural failure.

[0020] Preferably, the step of calculating the seismic safety factor based on the geological condition coefficient, hydraulic structure bearing capacity coefficient, and vibration simulation coefficient includes: calculating the seismic safety factor using a weighted comprehensive algorithm, with the formula as follows:

[0021] KZ=α×A1+β×A2+γ×A3

[0022] Where KZ is the seismic safety factor, A1 is the geological condition factor, A2 is the hydraulic structure bearing capacity factor, A3 is the vibration simulation factor, α, β, and γ are the weighting factors of each factor, and α+β+γ=1. The weighting factors of each factor are determined by the proportion of each factor's influence on the hydraulic structure. The weighting factors of each factor are dynamically adjusted according to the type of hydraulic structure, the degree of geological complexity, and the importance of seismic resistance.

[0023] Preferably, after calculating the seismic safety factor based on the geological condition coefficient, hydraulic structure bearing capacity coefficient, and vibration simulation coefficient, the method further includes: a verification step for the seismic safety factor: selecting a similar hydraulic structure case that has experienced an earthquake disaster, collecting ground motion parameters, structural damage data, and geological condition data, calculating the seismic safety factor of the case using this method, comparing the calculation result with the actual damage level, and verifying the method if the error is within ±10%; if the error exceeds ±10%, adjusting the weighting coefficient and the calculation model of each coefficient until the verification requirements are met.

[0024] Preferably, the step of periodically collecting operational monitoring data of the hydraulic structure and updating the seismic safety factor includes: periodically collecting operational monitoring data of the hydraulic structure, including structural displacement monitoring, stress monitoring, and environmental monitoring data, and updating the data in conjunction with changes in the geological environment and the vibration environment; the structural displacement monitoring uses a combination of a GPS positioning system and a total station to accurately capture settlement and horizontal displacement data of key parts such as the dam body and piers, with an accuracy of millimeters; the stress monitoring uses fiber optic grating sensors or strain gauges to collect dynamic stress changes at stress points in real time, and records the peak and cumulative stress values ​​under load cycles; the environmental monitoring collects air temperature, humidity, groundwater level, and water corrosion components to understand the dynamics of environmental erosion; it tracks changes in the geological environment, including stratum subsidence, variations in groundwater seepage fields, and signs of fault activity, and updates the vibration environment parameters in conjunction with regional seismic activity trends; based on the updated monitoring data and the vibration environment parameters, it recalculates the geological condition coefficient, the hydraulic structure bearing capacity coefficient, and the vibration simulation coefficient, and iteratively updates the seismic safety factor through a predetermined weighted comprehensive algorithm.

[0025] The beneficial effects of this invention are as follows: This invention constructs a three-layer collaborative analysis model of "geological conditions - hydraulic structure - dynamic vibration," comprehensively covering the three core influencing factors of geological environment, structural characteristics, and seismic action. This overcomes the limitations of traditional single-factor analysis methods and significantly improves the comprehensiveness and systematic nature of seismic safety factor calculation. The geological condition coefficient integrates in-situ testing and numerical simulation technology to accurately reflect the seismic contribution of complex geological environments. Simultaneously, it dynamically allocates weights based on structural seismic requirements, ensuring the targeted nature of geological factor assessment. The hydraulic structure bearing capacity coefficient incorporates the damage accumulation effect, achieving deep integration of damage parameters and the three-dimensional model through on-site detection and BIM technology, thus enhancing the structural bearing capacity. The force assessment is more closely aligned with actual service conditions; it employs graded vibration simulation combined with a random ground motion model to simulate the dynamic response of structures under earthquakes of varying intensities, avoiding analytical biases caused by single seismic waves. Simultaneously, it improves the intuitiveness and reliability of vibration simulation results through quantitative assessment of hazard warning points. The weighting coefficients determine the proportion of each coefficient's influence on the hydraulic structure, and dynamically adjust the weighting coefficients based on the type of hydraulic structure, geological complexity, and seismic importance to adapt to the assessment needs of hydraulic structures under different working conditions. Supporting verification steps and a dynamic update mechanism ensure the scientific rigor, effectiveness, and timeliness of the method, providing continuous and accurate technical support for the seismic safety of hydraulic structures throughout their entire lifecycle. Attached Figure Description

[0026] To more clearly illustrate the specific embodiments of the present invention or the technical solutions in the prior art, the accompanying drawings used in the description of the specific embodiments or the prior art will be briefly introduced below. In all the drawings, similar elements or parts are generally identified by similar reference numerals. In the drawings, the elements or parts are not necessarily drawn to scale.

[0027] Figure 1 A flowchart illustrating a seismic safety factor analysis method for hydraulic structures provided in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0028] Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the process of calculating and dynamically updating the seismic safety factor in an embodiment of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0029] To enable those skilled in the art to better understand the present invention, the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of the present invention, and not all embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0030] The terms "first," "second," etc., used in the specification, claims, and accompanying drawings of this invention are used to distinguish different objects, not to describe a specific order. Furthermore, the terms "comprising" and "having," and any variations thereof, are intended to cover non-exclusive inclusion. For example, a process, method, apparatus, product, or end that includes a series of steps or units is not limited to the listed steps or units, but may optionally include steps or units not listed, or may optionally include other steps or units inherent to these processes, methods, products, or ends.

[0031] In this document, the term "embodiment" means that a particular feature, structure, or characteristic described in connection with an embodiment may be included in at least one embodiment of the invention. The appearance of this phrase in various places throughout the specification does not necessarily refer to the same embodiment, nor is it a separate or alternative embodiment mutually exclusive with other embodiments. It will be explicitly and implicitly understood by those skilled in the art that the embodiments described herein can be combined with other embodiments.

[0032] Currently, traditional methods for assessing the seismic safety of hydraulic structures mostly rely on single-factor analysis or empirical formulas, which have the following drawbacks: First, they fail to fully consider the complexity of the geological environment, using only fixed geological coefficients, which cannot reflect the impact of different geological conditions on the seismic resistance of the structure; second, the stress analysis of hydraulic structures is not precise enough, lacking refined stress point identification combined with three-dimensional models; third, vibration simulations often use single-level or fixed seismic waves, making it difficult to reflect the dynamic response of the structure during the increase of earthquake intensity; and fourth, the weights of each influencing factor are set fixedly and cannot be dynamically adjusted according to the structure type, geological conditions, etc., resulting in large deviations in the calculation results of the seismic safety factor, which is difficult to meet the actual needs of engineering projects.

[0033] Therefore, there is an urgent need for a multi-dimensional, refined, and dynamically adjustable seismic safety factor analysis method to improve the accuracy and reliability of seismic assessment of hydraulic structures.

[0034] The present invention aims to provide a method for analyzing the seismic safety factor of hydraulic structures, in order to solve the limitations of existing technologies that only perform single-factor analysis of seismic resistance analysis of hydraulic structures, which cannot adapt to the seismic capacity analysis of different geological environments and cannot be adapted to different types and working conditions of hydraulic structures.

[0035] like Figure 1 and Figure 2 As shown in the figure, a specific embodiment of the present invention provides a method for seismic safety factor analysis of hydraulic structures, comprising the following steps:

[0036] S1: Establish a seismic safety analysis model, which consists of a geological condition model layer, a hydraulic structure model layer, and a dynamic vibration model layer.

[0037] In this embodiment of the invention, the seismic safety analysis model consists of a geological condition model layer, a hydraulic structure model layer, and a dynamic vibration model layer. The model layers are interconnected and work together. The geological condition model layer provides environmental data for seismic safety assessment, the hydraulic structure model layer accurately depicts the structural bearing characteristics, and the dynamic vibration model layer simulates the structural response under seismic action. The three together support the accurate calculation of the seismic safety factor.

[0038] S2: By analyzing the seismic resistance coefficients of different geological environment structures through the geological condition model layer, the geological condition coefficients are obtained by combining the seismic resistance requirements of hydraulic structures.

[0039] In this embodiment of the invention, comprehensive geological exploration data of the area where the hydraulic structure is located is collected, covering core aspects such as lithology (e.g., hard rock layers, soft soil layers, fracture zones), mechanical parameters of the soil and rock mass (elastic modulus, Poisson's ratio, shear strength, cohesion, etc.), groundwater distribution characteristics (water level, permeability coefficient, water quality composition), and fault development (location, strike, dip angle, activity). Simultaneously, in-situ tests are conducted, including standard penetration tests, static cone penetration tests, and shear wave velocity tests. These in-situ tests obtain the actual mechanical performance parameters of the soil and rock mass under natural conditions, correcting errors in the indoor test data caused by sampling disturbances and environmental changes, thus providing accurate data support for calculating the environmental seismic resistance coefficient. First, the collected geological data were classified and organized into different categories according to the geological environment structure type. For each geological environment structure, a geological-structure interaction model was established using FLAC3D or ABAQUS numerical simulation software. This model fully considered the nonlinear constitutive relationship of the soil and rock mass (such as the Mohr-Coulomb model and the Duncan-Chang model) and the contact effect between the soil and rock mass and the hydraulic structure. The environmental seismic resistance coefficient corresponding to each geological environment structure was calculated through numerical simulation. This coefficient ranges from 0 to 1; a larger value indicates a more favorable geological environment for seismic resistance, and vice versa. Based on the design seismic resistance level of the hydraulic structure (such as Class A, Class B, and Class C), its core functions (such as flood control, water supply, power generation, and irrigation), and its service life, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was used to determine the seismic resistance requirement weights for each geological environment category, ensuring that the weight allocation matches the actual seismic resistance requirements of the structure. Subsequently, the environmental seismic resistance coefficients of each geological environment structure were weighted and summed with their corresponding weights to obtain the geological condition coefficient A1. The calculation formula is: A1 = Σ(W i ×K i ), where W i K represents the weight of the i-th type of geological environment. i Let ΣW be the environmental seismic resistance coefficient for the i-th geological environment, and ΣW i =1.

[0040] S3: Establish a three-dimensional model of the hydraulic structure through the hydraulic structure model layer and analyze the stress points to obtain the bearing coefficient of the hydraulic structure.

[0041] In this embodiment of the invention, 1. Three-dimensional solid model construction: Based on BIM (Building Information Modeling) technology, comprehensive collection of design drawings (including structural layout drawings and component details), material parameters (concrete strength grade, steel bar type and mechanical properties, masonry strength, etc.) and construction records (including construction technology and concealed works acceptance data) of the hydraulic structure is carried out to establish a three-dimensional solid hydraulic structure model with a 1:1 scale to the actual structure. The model must completely include the main structure, auxiliary components (such as gates, opening and closing equipment, corridors) and connection nodes to ensure that the geometry and material properties of the model are completely consistent with the actual structure. 2. Damage cumulative effect fusion: For hydraulic structures with a service life of more than 10 years, the damage cumulative effect of the structure needs to be considered in detail. Damage data was collected through on-site testing: the carbonation depth of concrete was determined using the phenolphthalein titration method. Testing points were set up every 10 square meters in key structural stress areas, windward surfaces, and areas prone to carbonation fluctuations. Three concrete core samples with a depth of at least 20 mm were drilled from each testing point, and the carbonation depth was measured and averaged. The degree of steel reinforcement corrosion was non-destructively tested using a steel corrosion analyzer. Areas with abnormal test results (corrosion potential exceeding the allowable range in the standard) were locally chiseled open for verification, and the steel reinforcement corrosion area ratio, corrosion depth, and distribution pattern were recorded. Simultaneously, surface crack data were collected. Crack width rulers and crack depth gauges were used to measure the length, width, and depth of cracks. Cracks with a width exceeding 0.3 mm and a depth exceeding 50 mm were marked as structural damage cracks. Subsequently, the collected damage indicators, such as carbonation depth, steel corrosion parameters, and crack data, were quantified to establish a correlation model between damage indicators and material mechanical properties. Based on the degree of damage, parameters such as the compressive strength and elastic modulus of concrete, and the tensile strength and yield strength of steel were corrected. Using BIM technology, the corrected material parameters were accurately mapped to the corresponding areas of the 3D solid model, resulting in a 3D model of the hydraulic structure incorporating the damage parameters. 3. Stress Analysis and Identification of Key Stress Points: The 3D solid model incorporating the damage parameters was meshed using the finite element method. Key stress-bearing parts (such as dam heel, dam toe, gate pier roots, and beam-column joints) were meshed with a denser mesh, while non-critical parts were meshed with a sparser mesh, balancing computational accuracy and efficiency. Then, conventional loads such as gravity, water pressure, earth pressure, and wave pressure were applied to the model to simulate the stress conditions under normal service conditions. The stress distribution cloud map of the structure was obtained through finite element calculation. 4. Calculation of bearing capacity of hydraulic structures: Based on the stress distribution cloud map of the structure, areas where the stress value exceeds 80% of the allowable stress of the material are marked as critical stress points. The number, distribution density, and maximum stress value (P) of critical stress points are statistically analyzed. max The statistical results were normalized and mapped to the 0-1 interval to obtain the hydraulic structure bearing capacity coefficient A2. The normalization calculation formula is: A2=1-(P max -P c ) / (P j -Pc ), where P c P is the allowable stress of the material. j This represents the ultimate stress of the material. This coefficient directly reflects the actual load-bearing capacity and damage resistance of the hydraulic structure.

[0042] S4: Perform graded vibration simulation through dynamic vibration model layers and mark danger warning points. Obtain vibration simulation coefficients based on the proportion of danger warning points.

[0043] In this embodiment of the invention, the seismic motion parameters are strictly set in accordance with GB 50011 "Code for Seismic Design of Buildings" and SL 203 "Code for Seismic Design of Hydraulic Structures" and combined with the seismic hazard analysis results of the area where the hydraulic structure is located. These parameters include peak ground acceleration (0.05g-0.4g, where g is the acceleration due to gravity), characteristic period of response spectrum (0.3s-1.5s), and earthquake duration (10s-30s) to ensure that the parameter settings meet the actual seismic fortification requirements of the structure. The vibration level is divided into 5-8 levels, with the level 1 degree lower than the design seismic intensity as the benchmark level. The peak ground acceleration of each vibration level increases by a preset ratio of 10%-20%, realizing the gradient simulation of earthquake intensity from low to high. In each vibration simulation, a stochastic ground motion model is introduced. Based on the seismic hazard analysis results of the site, 5-10 sets of artificial seismic waves with different spectral characteristics are generated, covering the spectral characteristics of different earthquake types (such as near-field and far-field earthquakes). Vibration simulations are performed on each set of artificial seismic waves, and the displacement, velocity, and acceleration response data of the hydraulic structure are monitored in real time. Based on the allowable deformation value of the hydraulic structure (e.g., the allowable displacement value is taken as 1 / 500 of the structure height) and the critical failure state of the structure (e.g., concrete cracking, steel bar yielding), safety thresholds for displacement, velocity, and acceleration are determined. Locations where the response value exceeds the safety threshold during the vibration simulation are marked as hazard warning points. The proportion of hazard warning points to the total surface area of ​​the hydraulic structure under each vibration level is statistically analyzed. The average value of multiple sets of artificial seismic wave simulation results is taken as the basic data for that level. The vibration simulation coefficient A3 of the hydraulic structure is obtained by integrating the data from each level.

[0044] S5: Calculate the seismic safety factor based on the geological condition coefficient, hydraulic structure bearing capacity coefficient, and vibration simulation coefficient.

[0045] In this embodiment of the invention, a weighted comprehensive algorithm is used to calculate the seismic safety factor KZ, and the calculation formula is as follows:

[0046] KZ = α×A1 + β×A2 + γ×A3;

[0047] Wherein, α, β, and γ are the weighting coefficients of the geological condition coefficient A1, the hydraulic structure bearing capacity coefficient A2, and the seismic simulation coefficient A3, respectively, and satisfy α+β+γ=1. The weighting coefficients are determined by the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) combined with scores from 5-10 industry experts. The core basis is the proportion of each coefficient's influence on the seismic safety of the hydraulic structure. At the same time, the weighting coefficients are dynamically adjusted according to the type of hydraulic structure (such as dams, sluices, aqueducts), the degree of geological complexity (simple, medium, complex), and the level of seismic importance (Level I, II, III). For example, for dam structures, which are significantly affected by the geological environment, α is taken as 0.3-0.4; for sluice structures, which are subject to complex structural stresses, β is taken as 0.35-0.45. Case studies of similar hydraulic structures that have experienced earthquake disasters are selected, and the seismic motion parameters (peak acceleration, duration, etc.), actual structural damage (minor damage, moderate damage, severe damage), and geological condition data of these cases are collected. The seismic safety factor of these cases is calculated using this method, and the calculation results are quantitatively compared with the actual degree of damage. If the error between the calculated result and the actual damage level is within ±10%, the method is verified to be effective; if the error exceeds ±10%, the weighting coefficients and the calculation models of each coefficient are adjusted (such as optimizing numerical simulation parameters, correcting safety thresholds, and adjusting damage correlation models), and the calculation is repeated until the error requirements are met.

[0048] S6: Regularly collect operational monitoring data of hydraulic structures and update the seismic safety factor.

[0049] In this embodiment of the invention, operational monitoring data collection involves periodically collecting operational monitoring data of hydraulic structures every 1-3 years. The core data includes three categories: structural displacement monitoring, which uses a combination of GPS positioning and total station to accurately capture settlement and horizontal displacement data of key components such as dams, piers, beams, and columns, achieving millimeter-level accuracy; stress monitoring, which uses fiber optic sensors or strain gauges deployed at key stress points to collect dynamic stress changes under cyclic loading in real time, recording peak and cumulative stress values; and environmental monitoring, which focuses on collecting data such as air temperature, humidity, groundwater level, and water quality corrosion components (e.g., chloride ion and sulfate content) to comprehensively understand environmental erosion dynamics. Environmental and seismic parameter updates are also implemented: Geological environmental changes are tracked synchronously, including ground subsidence, variations in groundwater seepage fields, and signs of fault activity. Combined with regional seismic network monitoring data and seismic activity trend analysis, seismic environmental parameters are updated (e.g., adjusting peak ground acceleration and response spectrum characteristic period) to ensure that the parameters match the current environmental conditions. Coefficient Iterative Update: Based on updated operational monitoring data, geological environment change data, and vibration environment parameters, the geological condition coefficient A1, hydraulic structure bearing capacity coefficient A2, and vibration simulation coefficient A3 are recalculated and substituted into a weighted comprehensive algorithm to iteratively update the seismic safety factor KZ. The updated coefficients can intuitively reflect the current seismic safety status of the structure, providing accurate decision-making basis for operation and maintenance units and realizing closed-loop management of "monitoring-assessment-maintenance". Specific Implementation

[0050] I. Overview of Hydraulic Structures

[0051] A concrete gravity dam is located in the middle reaches of a river basin. The dam is 80m high, 300m long at the crest, 10m wide at the crest, and 60m wide at the base. It is constructed with C30 concrete and reinforced with HRB400 steel. The dam has a service life of 15 years, is designed for seismic resistance of Class A, and has a design seismic intensity of 8 degrees (corresponding to a peak ground acceleration of 0.2g). Its core functions are flood control, power generation, and water supply. The geological environment of the dam area is mainly composed of granite strata, with localized weak interlayers of 0.5-1.2m thickness. The groundwater level is 10m above the dam foundation, and the water is fresh and non-corrosive.

[0052] II. Calculation of Geological Condition Coefficient (A1)

[0053] 1. Geological Exploration Data Acquisition: Mechanical parameters of granite and weak interlayers were obtained through borehole sampling. The granite had an elastic modulus of 60 GPa, Poisson's ratio of 0.25, shear strength of 1.8 MPa, and cohesion of 0.5 MPa. The weak interlayer had an elastic modulus of 5 GPa, Poisson's ratio of 0.35, shear strength of 0.3 MPa, and cohesion of 0.08 MPa. Standard penetration tests (30 test points), static cone penetration tests, and shear wave velocity tests were conducted in the field to correct the indoor test data, yielding an actual elastic modulus of 58 GPa for the granite and 4.8 GPa for the weak interlayer.

[0054] 2. Calculation of environmental seismic resistance coefficient: A geological-structural interaction model was established using FLAC3D software. Considering the nonlinear constitutive relationship of the rock and soil mass (Mohr-Coulomb model), the environmental seismic resistance coefficient of the granite strata was calculated to be k1=0.9, and the environmental seismic resistance coefficient of the weak interlayer was k2=0.3.

[0055] 3. Weight determination and coefficient integration: Based on the Class A seismic resistance level of the dam and its core functions of flood control and power generation, the weight of the granite stratum w1=0.85, the weight of the weak interlayer w2=0.15, and the geological condition coefficient A1=0.85×0.9+0.15×0.3=0.81 were determined by the analytic hierarchy process.

[0056] III. Calculation of the bearing capacity coefficient (A2) of hydraulic structures

[0057] 1. Construction of 3D solid model: Based on BIM technology, the mechanical parameters of C30 concrete and HRB400 steel reinforcement (compressive strength of concrete 30MPa, tensile strength of steel reinforcement 400MPa) and construction records of the dam were collected to establish a 1:1 3D solid model, including the dam body, dam foundation, spillway and gallery and other auxiliary structures.

[0058] 2. Damage Cumulative Effect Integration: After 15 years of service, the dam underwent on-site damage testing. 45 concrete carbonation depth testing points were identified, with an average carbonation depth of 3.2 mm. No abnormal corrosion areas were found in the steel reinforcement. Eight surface cracks were observed, with a maximum width of 0.2 mm and a depth of 35 mm, which did not meet the criteria for structural damage cracks. Based on the test data, the concrete elastic modulus was adjusted to 32.5 GPa, while the steel reinforcement mechanical parameters remained unchanged. The adjusted parameters were then integrated into the 3D model.

[0059] 3. Stress Analysis and Coefficient Calculation: Finite element analysis was performed using ANSYS software. A total of 1.2 million meshes were created, with a mesh size of 5cm for critical components and 20cm for non-critical components. Gravity, water pressure (70m upstream water level), and earth pressure were applied to calculate the maximum stress value P of the structure. max =3.2MPa, allowable stress P of C30 concrete c =3.5MPa, ultimate stress P j =5.0MPa. Substituting into the normalization formula, we calculate: A2 = 1 - (3.2 - 3.5) / (5.0 - 3.5) = 0.8.

[0060] IV. Calculation of Vibration Simulation Coefficients (A3)

[0061] 1. Ground motion parameter settings: Peak ground acceleration baseline level 0.1g, response spectrum characteristic period 0.4s, earthquake duration 20s, and the ground motion level is divided into 6 levels, with the peak ground acceleration increasing by 15% for each level. The peak ground accelerations for each level are 0.1g, 0.115g, 0.132g, 0.152g, 0.175g, and 0.201g, respectively.

[0062] 2. Graded vibration simulation: Based on the site seismic hazard analysis results, 8 sets of artificial seismic waves with different spectral characteristics were generated. The ABAQUS software was used to perform 6 levels of vibration simulation on each set of seismic waves to monitor the displacement and acceleration response of key parts such as the dam crest, dam heel, and dam toe. The displacement safety threshold was set to ≤0.16m (1 / 500 of the structural height) and the acceleration safety threshold was set to ≤0.3g.

[0063] 3. Coefficient Calculation: The proportion of danger warning points to the total surface area of ​​the dam under each level was statistically analyzed, and the average value of 8 sets of seismic wave simulation results was taken to obtain the vibration simulation coefficient A3=0.75.

[0064] V. Calculation and Verification of Seismic Safety Factor (KZ)

[0065] 1. Coefficient Calculation: Using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) combined with scores from 5 hydraulic structure seismic experts, the weighting coefficients were determined as follows: α = 0.35 (geological condition coefficient weight), β = 0.4 (hydraulic structure bearing capacity coefficient weight), and γ = 0.25 (vibration simulation coefficient weight). Substituting these values ​​into the formula, the coefficients were calculated as follows: KZ = 0.35 × 0.81 + 0.4 × 0.8 + 0.25 × 0.75 = 0.79.

[0066] 2. Verification: A case study of a similar concrete gravity dam damaged in an earthquake of intensity 8 was selected. This dam was 75m high, had a service life of 12 years, and was located in an area dominated by granite. The peak ground acceleration was 0.2g, and the actual damage was classified as minor. The seismic safety factor KZ calculated using this method was 0.72. Comparing this to the actual damage level, the error was 8.3%, meeting the ±10% verification requirement, thus proving the effectiveness of this method.

[0067] VI. Dynamic Update Plan

[0068] Based on the importance level of the dam, the data collection cycle for operation monitoring is set at 2 years. Data on dam displacement, stress and environmental monitoring are collected regularly to track changes in the regional geological environment and seismic activity trends. A1, A2, A3 and KZ are recalculated every 2 years to achieve dynamic updates of the seismic safety factor and provide real-time data support for dam operation, maintenance and reinforcement.

[0069] The beneficial effects of this invention are as follows: This invention constructs a three-layer collaborative analysis model of "geological conditions - hydraulic structure - dynamic vibration," comprehensively covering the three core influencing factors of geological environment, structural characteristics, and seismic action. This overcomes the limitations of traditional single-factor analysis methods and significantly improves the comprehensiveness and systematic nature of seismic safety factor calculation. The geological condition coefficient integrates in-situ testing and numerical simulation technology to accurately reflect the seismic contribution of complex geological environments. Simultaneously, it dynamically allocates weights based on structural seismic requirements, ensuring the targeted nature of geological factor assessment. The hydraulic structure bearing capacity coefficient incorporates the damage accumulation effect, achieving deep integration of damage parameters and the three-dimensional model through on-site detection and BIM technology, thus enhancing the structural bearing capacity. The force assessment is more closely aligned with actual service conditions; it employs graded vibration simulation combined with a random ground motion model to simulate the dynamic response of structures under earthquakes of varying intensities, avoiding analytical biases caused by single seismic waves. Simultaneously, it improves the intuitiveness and reliability of vibration simulation results through quantitative assessment of hazard warning points. The weighting coefficients determine the proportion of each coefficient's influence on the hydraulic structure, and dynamically adjust the weighting coefficients based on the type of hydraulic structure, geological complexity, and seismic importance to adapt to the assessment needs of hydraulic structures under different working conditions. Supporting verification steps and a dynamic update mechanism ensure the scientific rigor, effectiveness, and timeliness of the method, providing continuous and accurate technical support for the seismic safety of hydraulic structures throughout their entire lifecycle.

[0070] The above descriptions are merely embodiments of the present invention. Commonly known technical solutions or characteristics are not described in detail here. It should be noted that those skilled in the art can make various modifications and improvements without departing from the present invention, and these should also be considered within the scope of protection of the present invention. These modifications and improvements will not affect the effectiveness of the present invention or the practicality of the patent. The scope of protection claimed in this application should be determined by the content of its claims, and the specific embodiments described in the specification can be used to interpret the content of the claims.

Claims

1. A method for analyzing the seismic safety factor of hydraulic structures, characterized in that, The method includes: S1: Establish a seismic safety analysis model, which consists of a geological condition model layer, a hydraulic structure model layer, and a dynamic vibration model layer; S2: By analyzing the seismic resistance coefficients of different geological environment structures through the geological condition model layer, and combining the seismic resistance requirements of hydraulic structures, the geological condition coefficients are obtained. S3: Establish a three-dimensional model of the hydraulic structure through the hydraulic structure model layer and analyze the stress points to obtain the bearing coefficient of the hydraulic structure; S4: Perform graded vibration simulation through dynamic vibration model layer and mark danger warning points. Obtain vibration simulation coefficients based on the proportion of danger warning points. S5: Calculate the seismic safety factor based on the geological condition coefficient, hydraulic structure bearing capacity coefficient and vibration simulation coefficient; S6: Regularly collect operational monitoring data of hydraulic structures and update the seismic safety factor.

2. The method for seismic safety factor analysis of hydraulic structures according to claim 1, characterized in that: The process of constructing the geological condition model layer includes: collecting geological exploration data of the area where the hydraulic structure is located, including stratigraphic lithology, rock and soil mechanical parameters, groundwater distribution characteristics and fault development; Different geological environment structures are classified, and the corresponding environmental seismic resistance coefficient is calculated for each type of geological environment structure using numerical simulation methods. The seismic resistance requirement weights are determined based on the design seismic resistance level, usage function, and service life of the hydraulic structure. The geological condition coefficient is obtained by weighting and integrating the environmental seismic resistance coefficient with the weights.

3. The method for seismic safety factor analysis of hydraulic structures according to claim 2, characterized in that: The collection of geological exploration data in the area where the hydraulic structure is located also includes: in-situ testing, which includes standard penetration test, static cone penetration test and shear wave velocity test. The actual mechanical performance parameters of the soil and rock mass are obtained through the in-situ testing, the errors of the indoor test data are corrected and the accuracy of the calculation of the environmental seismic coefficient is improved. The numerical simulation method uses FLAC3D or ABAQUS software and considers the nonlinear structural relationship of the soil and rock mass and the interaction with the hydraulic structure.

4. The method for seismic safety factor analysis of hydraulic structures according to claim 1, characterized in that, The steps of establishing a three-dimensional model of the hydraulic structure through a hydraulic structure model layer and analyzing the stress points to obtain the bearing coefficient of the hydraulic structure include: Based on BIM technology, design drawings, material parameters and construction records of hydraulic structures are collected to establish a 1:1 scale three-dimensional solid hydraulic structure model. The three-dimensional solid hydraulic structure model was meshed using the finite element analysis method, and conventional loads such as gravity and water pressure were applied to calculate the stress distribution cloud map of the structure. Using the stress distribution cloud map of the structure, areas where the stress value exceeds 80% of the allowable stress of the material are marked as critical stress points. The number, distribution density and maximum stress value of the critical stress points are counted, and the bearing capacity coefficient of the hydraulic structure is obtained through normalization.

5. The method for seismic safety factor analysis of hydraulic structures according to claim 4, characterized in that: The construction of the three-dimensional model of the hydraulic structure also considers the cumulative effect of structural damage. The carbonation depth of concrete is determined by phenolphthalein titration. Test points are arranged in accordance with the specifications at key stress points. Core samples are drilled to calculate the average test value. The degree of steel corrosion is detected by a steel corrosion instrument. Abnormal areas are chiseled open for verification. The length and width data of hydraulic structure cracks are collected simultaneously, and structural damage cracks are marked to obtain multiple damage indicators. Subsequently, the damage indicators were quantified, a correlation model with the mechanical properties of materials was established, the strength and elastic modulus parameters of concrete and steel bars were corrected, and the parameters were accurately mapped to the corresponding areas of the three-dimensional model of the hydraulic structure using BIM technology to obtain a three-dimensional model of the hydraulic structure with integrated damage parameters. Based on the fused damage parameters, the three-dimensional model of the hydraulic structure is re-analyzed using finite element stress analysis. This corrects the stress concentration effect in the damaged area, making the stress point identification more consistent with the actual state of the structure. This allows the hydraulic structure's bearing capacity to truly reflect its disaster resistance capability after damage accumulation, ensuring the accuracy of the seismic safety factor assessment.

6. The method for seismic safety factor analysis of hydraulic structures according to claim 1, characterized in that, The steps of performing graded vibration simulation through a dynamic vibration model layer and marking hazard warning points, and obtaining vibration simulation coefficients based on the proportion of hazard warning points, include: According to the seismic design code for buildings and the seismic standard for hydraulic structures, the ground motion parameters are set, including peak ground acceleration, characteristic period of response spectrum and duration. The vibration level is divided into multiple levels, starting from the benchmark level which is lower than the design seismic intensity, and the peak acceleration of each vibration level increases by a preset ratio. During the vibration simulation at each vibration level, the displacement, velocity, and acceleration response values ​​of the hydraulic structure are monitored in real time. Locations where the displacement, velocity, and acceleration response values ​​of the hydraulic structure exceed the safety threshold are marked as danger warning points. The proportion of the danger warning points to the total surface area of ​​the hydraulic structure under each vibration level is calculated to obtain the vibration simulation coefficient of the hydraulic structure.

7. The method for seismic safety factor analysis of hydraulic structures according to claim 6, characterized in that: The vibration simulation process introduces a random vibration model. Based on the seismic hazard analysis results of the site, multiple sets of artificial seismic waves with different spectral characteristics are generated. Vibration simulation is performed on each set of artificial seismic waves, and the average value of the proportion of hazard warning points is used as the basic data for vibration simulation at that level, reducing the analysis bias caused by a single seismic wave. The safety warning points are determined based on the allowable deformation value of the hydraulic structure and the critical state of structural failure.

8. The method for seismic safety factor analysis of hydraulic structures according to claim 1, characterized in that, The step of calculating the seismic safety factor based on the geological condition coefficient, hydraulic structure bearing capacity coefficient, and vibration simulation coefficient includes: The seismic safety factor is calculated using a weighted comprehensive algorithm, and the formula is as follows: KZ=α×A1+β×A2+γ×A3 Where KZ is the seismic safety factor, A1 is the geological condition factor, A2 is the hydraulic structure bearing capacity factor, A3 is the vibration simulation factor, α, β, and γ are the weighting factors of each factor, and α+β+γ=1. The weighting factors of each factor are determined by the proportion of each factor's influence on the hydraulic structure. The weighting factors of each factor are dynamically adjusted according to the type of hydraulic structure, the degree of geological complexity, and the importance of seismic resistance.

9. The method for seismic safety factor analysis of hydraulic structures according to claim 8, characterized in that, After calculating the seismic safety factor based on the geological condition coefficient, hydraulic structure bearing capacity coefficient, and vibration simulation coefficient, the following is also included: The verification steps for the seismic safety factor are as follows: Select a similar hydraulic structure case that has experienced an earthquake disaster, collect data on ground motion parameters, structural damage, and geological conditions, calculate the seismic safety factor of the case using this method, and compare the calculation result with the actual damage level. If the error is within ±10%, the verification method is effective; if the error exceeds ±10%, adjust the weighting coefficients and the calculation model of each coefficient until the verification requirements are met.

10. The method for seismic safety factor analysis of hydraulic structures according to claim 1, characterized in that, The step of periodically collecting operational monitoring data of hydraulic structures and updating the seismic safety factor includes: Regularly collect operational monitoring data of hydraulic structures, including structural displacement monitoring, stress monitoring and environmental monitoring data, and update them in conjunction with changes in the geological environment and vibration environment; The structural displacement monitoring uses a combination of GPS positioning system and total station to accurately capture settlement and horizontal displacement data of key parts such as dam body and gate piers, with an accuracy of millimeters. The stress monitoring is achieved by deploying fiber optic grating sensors or strain gauges to collect dynamic stress changes at the stress points in real time and record the stress peak and cumulative values ​​under load cycles. The environmental monitoring system collects data on air temperature, humidity, groundwater level, and water corrosion components to understand the dynamics of environmental erosion. Track changes in the geological environment, including stratum subsidence, variations in groundwater seepage fields, and signs of fault activity. Update the seismic environment parameters in conjunction with regional seismic activity trends. Based on the updated monitoring data and the seismic environment parameters, recalculate the geological condition coefficient, the hydraulic structure bearing capacity coefficient, and the seismic simulation coefficient. Iteratively update the seismic safety factor using a predetermined weighted comprehensive algorithm.

Images