A waterway service level evaluation method considering waterway traffic characteristics

Abstract

The application belongs to the technical field of waterway transportation, and particularly relates to a waterway service level evaluation method considering waterway transportation characteristics, wherein, full-amount multi-source information of a waterway is collected; a waterway service level evaluation index system embedded with waterway exclusive constraints and adapted to multi-passing scenarios is constructed; category division is completed according to index evaluation characteristics, basic scores of each index are completed through a membership function, a waterway exclusive dynamic correction coefficient is set and the basic scores are adjusted to obtain single evaluation results; a waterway exclusive ship passing micro-simulation model is built to calibrate the deviation of the single evaluation results, the index weights are determined by using a CRITIC-game theory combined weighting method in combination with the actual operation characteristics of the waterway, the overall evaluation results of the waterway service level are calculated comprehensively, and the corresponding service level grade of the waterway is determined by comparing with preset grade determination standards. Thus, the problems of incomplete waterway information collection and inaccurate overall evaluation results in the prior art are solved.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention belongs to the field of waterway transportation technology, and specifically relates to a method for evaluating the level of service of waterways that takes into account the characteristics of waterway transportation. Background Technology

[0002] Existing waterway service level assessment (SLAM) technology is a core support for waterway planning, construction, maintenance, and operation management, playing a vital role in practice. It provides technical basis for assessing the impact of waterway navigation conditions, standardizes the construction of various waterway-related projects, and avoids problems such as navigation obstruction and closure. Simultaneously, it supports waterway upgrading and reconstruction, optimization of navigation structure scheduling, and the construction of smart waterways, helping to improve the precision of waterway management, guiding ships to navigate safely and efficiently, balancing shipping development with related supporting needs, connecting the management work of all aspects of the shipping system, ensuring the orderly operation of the waterway transportation system, and laying the foundation for the high-quality development of the shipping industry.

[0003] Existing methods for evaluating the level of service (LSS) of waterways have numerous shortcomings, all of which need to be addressed by a new LSS method adapted to the characteristics of waterway traffic. These shortcomings are as follows: First, the collection of waterway information is incomplete, failing to cover all multi-source information including basic waterway geometry, real-time hydrology, vessel traffic operations, navigation facility operation and maintenance, and navigation environment management, thus failing to provide comprehensive and complete data support for the evaluation work. Second, the collected waterway-related information is not effectively screened and cleaned to remove outliers, and there is a lack of standardized processing procedures specific to waterways, resulting in insufficient data standardization and affecting the accuracy of the evaluation results. Third, it does not integrate waterway design and navigation safety management regulations, and has not constructed an evaluation index system embedded with waterway-specific constraints and adapted to multiple navigation scenarios. The system fails to align with the actual characteristics of waterway transportation; fourth, the scoring of indicators lacks scientific and reasonable support. Basic scoring was not completed through membership functions, nor were waterway-specific dynamic correction coefficients set in conjunction with waterway grade, functional use, regional hydrological characteristics, and local navigation control requirements, making it impossible to achieve precise adjustments to the basic scoring; fifth, a waterway-specific micro-simulation model for vessel passage was not built, making it impossible to recreate the waterway passage status and limit capacity under different hydrological environments and vessel flow rates, making it difficult to calibrate the deviation of individual evaluation results. Furthermore, the CRITIC-game theory combined weighting method was not used to determine indicator weights, making it impossible to achieve a reasonable allocation of indicator weights in conjunction with the actual operating characteristics of the waterway, resulting in an overall inaccurate evaluation result and an inability to accurately determine the service level level corresponding to the waterway. Summary of the Invention

[0004] This application provides a waterway service level evaluation method that takes into account waterway traffic characteristics, in order to solve the problems of incomplete waterway information collection and insufficient accuracy of overall evaluation results in the prior art.

[0005] The first aspect of this application provides a method for evaluating the level of service (LSS) of a waterway considering waterway traffic characteristics, comprising the following steps: collecting full-volume multi-source information of the waterway, including basic geometric information of the waterway, real-time hydrological information, vessel traffic operation information, navigation facility operation and maintenance information, and navigation environment control information; screening and cleaning the full-volume multi-source information of the waterway, removing outliers and completing waterway-specific standardization processing, and constructing a waterway LSS evaluation index system embedded with waterway-specific constraints and adapted to multiple navigation scenarios, in conjunction with waterway design and navigation safety management specifications; based on the evaluation index system and the standardized full-volume multi-source information of the waterway, classifying the categories according to the indicator evaluation characteristics, and assigning basic scores to each indicator through a membership function, and concluding the evaluation. Based on the waterway grade, functional purpose, regional hydrological characteristics, and local navigation control requirements, a waterway-specific dynamic correction coefficient is set and the basic score is adjusted to obtain individual evaluation results. Based on the evaluation dimensions and waterway-specific constraint boundaries corresponding to these individual evaluation results, a waterway-specific vessel passage micro-simulation model is built to recreate the waterway passage status and limit capacity under different hydrological environments and vessel flow rates. The deviation of the individual evaluation results is calibrated. According to the indicator hierarchy classification rules and combined with the actual operation characteristics of the waterway, the CRITIC-game theory combined weighting method is used to determine the weights of each indicator. All calibrated individual evaluation results are integrated, and a comprehensive calculation is performed to obtain the overall waterway service level evaluation result. The service level grade corresponding to the waterway is then determined by comparing it with the preset grade judgment standard.

[0006] Preferably, a waterway service level evaluation index system is constructed, embedding waterway-specific constraints and adapting to multiple navigation scenarios. This includes: constructing a three-level evaluation framework of target layer, criterion layer, and indicator layer; based on the three-level evaluation framework and relevant regulations on waterway design and navigation safety management, embedding five waterway-specific conditions: hard constraints on navigation scale, constraints on dynamic hydrological changes, constraints on ship navigation rules, constraints on navigation facility capacity, and constraints on control boundaries; defining the evaluation benchmark thresholds and reasonable value ranges for each indicator; for the three-level evaluation framework with complete constraint embedding, matching five typical navigation scenarios: mountain rapids, plain river networks, reservoir areas, tidal estuaries, and direct river-sea access; and completing the differentiated selection of indicators, threshold adaptation, and priority adjustment based on the core navigation needs of different scenarios to form evaluation branch systems corresponding to each scenario; through the evaluation branch systems of each scenario, using correlation analysis and indicator discrimination analysis to eliminate redundant and invalid indicators, clarifying the quantitative calculation method, data acquisition source, and industry-standard benchmark values ​​for each indicator, and forming the final standardized waterway service level evaluation index system.

[0007] Preferably, the classification is completed according to the evaluation characteristics of the indicators, including: constructing a multi-dimensional classification architecture for the evaluation characteristics of waterway service level evaluation indicators; based on the multi-dimensional classification architecture, combined with the navigation characteristics of waterway traffic and relevant waterway management regulations, establishing classification boundary rules and classification standards with indicator data attributes, evaluation rigidity, and scenario adaptability as the core evaluation characteristic dimensions; according to the classification boundary rules and classification standards, dividing all indicators in the evaluation indicator system into three independent categories: quantitative rigid constraint category, quantitative flexible adaptation category, and qualitative hierarchical management category, clarifying the characteristic definition, waterway-specific indicator coverage, and core evaluation logic corresponding to each category, and matching the corresponding data validity verification rules, industry benchmark value adaptation rules, and subsequent scoring calculation adaptation rules for the three categories of indicators, respectively, to complete the classification and attribute labeling of all indicators.

[0008] Preferably, the basic scores for each indicator are assigned using membership functions. Then, considering waterway grade, functional purpose, regional hydrological characteristics, and local navigation control requirements, a waterway-specific dynamic correction coefficient is set and the basic scores are adjusted to obtain individual evaluation results. This includes: constructing a membership scoring and dynamic correction adaptation system for waterway evaluation indicators categorized by type, clarifying standardized scoring intervals, function matching rules, correction coefficient value boundaries, and individual evaluation result output specifications; based on the aforementioned membership scoring and dynamic correction adaptation system for waterway evaluation indicators categorized by type, matching corresponding membership functions for the three categories of indicators that have been classified, and comparing them with waterway industry benchmarks and waterway design... Based on the historical best operating values, standardized basic scores for each indicator across the 0-100 range are assigned. Combining these standardized basic scores with the corresponding indicator levels and attributes, and anchoring to waterway grade, functional purpose, regional hydrological characteristics, and local navigation control requirements, waterway-specific dynamic correction coefficients are set at the dimensional level of the criterion layer and the individual item level of the indicator layer. The applicable scenarios, value ranges, and triggering adjustment conditions for these coefficients are clarified. Based on these waterway-specific dynamic correction coefficients, differentiated weighted adjustments are made to the standardized basic scores of the corresponding indicators. Reasonable boundary verification of scores is completed, and abnormal results are eliminated. Finally, standardized individual evaluation results for each indicator are generated.

[0009] Preferably, a micro-simulation model for waterway-specific vessel passage is constructed to recreate the waterway passage status and limit capacity under different hydrological environments and vessel flow rates, and to calibrate the deviation of the individual evaluation results. This includes: constructing a micro-simulation model for waterway-specific vessel passage; based on the micro-simulation model, using basic waterway information, hydrological data, and control rules as boundary conditions, and actual vessel operation data as input to complete parameter calibration, setting multiple types of hydrological and flow conditions, simulating and recreating the waterway passage status and limit capacity, and generating a standardized simulation verification dataset; based on the standardized simulation verification dataset, comparing the measured values ​​of the individual evaluation results with the simulation benchmark values, calculating the relative deviation, and correcting the evaluation results of indicators exceeding the threshold, thereby eliminating the evaluation deviation caused by abnormal measured data.

[0010] Preferably, the overall evaluation result of the waterway service level is calculated by integrating all the calibrated individual evaluation results, including: constructing a waterway evaluation index weight calculation system based on the CRITIC-game theory combined weighting method; based on the waterway evaluation index weight calculation system, calculating the comparative strength and data conflict of each index using the CRITIC method to generate the initial objective weights of the indexes, minimizing the combined weight deviation using the game theory optimization method, and solving for the final combined weights of each index; based on the final combined weights of each index, performing hierarchical weighted summation on all the calibrated individual evaluation results, completing the verification and boundary correction of the calculation results, and comprehensively obtaining the overall evaluation result of the waterway service level.

[0011] The second aspect of this application provides a waterway service level evaluation system adapted to waterway traffic characteristics, comprising: a multi-source information acquisition module for acquiring full multi-source information of the waterway; an information processing and index construction module for filtering and cleaning the full multi-source information of the waterway, removing outliers and completing waterway-specific standardization processing, and constructing a waterway service level evaluation index system embedded with waterway-specific constraints and adapted to multiple navigation scenarios, in conjunction with waterway design and navigation safety management specifications; and an index scoring correction module for classifying waterway service levels according to index evaluation characteristics based on the evaluation index system and the standardized full multi-source information of the waterway, completing basic scoring of each index through membership functions, and combining waterway grade, functional purpose, regional hydrological characteristics, and local conditions. According to the navigation control requirements, a waterway-specific dynamic correction coefficient is set and the basic score is adjusted to obtain the individual evaluation results. The simulation calibration comprehensive rating module is used to build a waterway-specific vessel passage micro-simulation model based on the evaluation dimensions and waterway-specific constraint boundaries corresponding to the individual evaluation results. It restores the waterway passage status and limit passage capacity under different hydrological environments and different vessel flow rates, calibrates the deviation of the individual evaluation results, determines the weight of each indicator according to the indicator hierarchy classification rules and combined with the actual operation characteristics of the waterway, and integrates all the calibrated individual evaluation results to comprehensively calculate the overall evaluation result of the waterway service level. By comparing with the preset level judgment standard, the service level level of the waterway is determined.

[0012] A third aspect of this application provides an electronic device, including: a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor. The processor executes the program to implement a waterway service level evaluation method considering waterway traffic characteristics as described in the above embodiments.

[0013] A fourth aspect of this application provides a computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, which is executed by a processor to implement a waterway service level evaluation method considering waterway traffic characteristics as described in the above embodiments.

[0014] A fifth aspect of this application provides a computer program product, including a computer program or instructions, for implementing a waterway service level evaluation method that considers waterway traffic characteristics as described in the above embodiments.

[0015] Therefore, this application includes the following beneficial effects: By comprehensively collecting full-volume, multi-source information covering waterway geometry, hydrology, vessel traffic, facility operation and maintenance, and environmental management, and after screening, cleaning, and waterway-specific standardization processing, a solid foundation for evaluation data is established. An evaluation index system adapted to multiple scenarios and embedded with waterway-specific constraints is built in conjunction with waterway navigation regulations. Basic index scoring is completed based on membership functions. Simultaneously, dynamic correction coefficients are set to optimize individual item scores based on waterway grade, regional hydrology, and local management requirements. Finally, a waterway-specific vessel traffic micro-simulation model is used to recreate complex navigation conditions and calibrate... To address the bias in evaluation results, the CRITIC-game theory combined weighting method is used to scientifically determine indicator weights. This effectively avoids the problems of traditional waterway evaluations, such as ignoring the specific characteristics of waterway traffic, weak indicator adaptability, one-sided weight setting, and insufficient consistency of evaluation results. It can accurately reflect the actual operating status and limit capacity of waterways under different hydrological environments and traffic flows, achieving an objective, differentiated, and refined comprehensive assessment of waterway service levels. This provides rigorous and reliable technical reference and decision-making support for waterway daily operation and maintenance optimization, navigation control adjustments, waterway traffic planning and construction, and the rational allocation of navigation resources. Therefore, it solves the problems of incomplete waterway information collection and insufficient overall accuracy of evaluation results in existing technologies.

[0016] Additional aspects and advantages of this application will be set forth in part in the description which follows, and in part will be obvious from the description, or may be learned by practice of this application. Attached Figure Description

[0017] The above and / or additional aspects and advantages of this application will become apparent and readily understood from the following description of the embodiments taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, wherein:

[0018] Figure 1 This is a flowchart of a waterway service level evaluation method that takes into account waterway traffic characteristics, according to an embodiment of this application.

[0019] Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of a waterway service level evaluation method that takes into account waterway traffic characteristics, according to an embodiment of this application.

[0020] Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram of the structure of a waterway service level evaluation system adapted to waterway traffic characteristics according to an embodiment of this application;

[0021] Figure 4 This is a schematic diagram of the structure of an electronic device provided according to an embodiment of this application. Detailed Implementation

[0022] The embodiments of this application are described in detail below. Examples of the embodiments are shown in the accompanying drawings, wherein the same or similar reference numerals denote the same or similar elements or elements having the same or similar functions throughout. The embodiments described below with reference to the accompanying drawings are exemplary and intended to explain this application, and should not be construed as limiting this application.

[0023] The following describes a method for evaluating the level of service (LSS) of a waterway considering waterway traffic characteristics, based on an embodiment of this application, with reference to the accompanying drawings. Addressing the issue of insufficient accuracy in the overall evaluation results mentioned in the background section, this application provides a method for evaluating the LSS considering waterway traffic characteristics. This method comprehensively collects multi-source information covering waterway geometry, hydrology, vessel traffic, facility operation and maintenance, and environmental management. This information is then filtered, cleaned, and standardized specifically for waterways to solidify the foundation of the evaluation data. An evaluation index system adapted to multiple scenarios and embedded with waterway-specific constraints is constructed in conjunction with waterway navigation regulations. Basic scoring of the indicators is completed using membership functions. Simultaneously, dynamic correction coefficients are set to optimize individual item scores based on waterway grade, regional hydrology, and local management requirements. Finally, waterway-specific... This system utilizes a microscopic simulation model of vessel traffic to recreate complex navigation conditions and calibrate evaluation result biases. Combined with the CRITIC-game theory-based weighting method, it scientifically determines indicator weights, effectively avoiding the problems of traditional waterway evaluations such as neglecting waterway traffic-specific characteristics, weak indicator adaptability, one-sided weight settings, and insufficient consistency of evaluation results. It can accurately reflect the actual operating status and extreme capacity of waterways under different hydrological environments and traffic flows, achieving an objective, differentiated, and refined comprehensive assessment of waterway service levels. This provides rigorous and reliable technical reference and decision-making support for waterway daily operation and maintenance optimization, navigation control adjustments, waterway traffic planning and construction, and the rational allocation of navigation resources. Therefore, it solves the problems of incomplete waterway information collection and insufficient overall accuracy of evaluation results in existing technologies.

[0024] Specifically, Figure 1 This application provides a method for evaluating the level of service of a waterway that takes into account the characteristics of waterway traffic.

[0025] like Figure 1 As shown, this method for evaluating the level of service of a waterway, taking into account the characteristics of waterway traffic, includes the following steps:

[0026] In step S101, full multi-source information of the waterway is collected. The full multi-source information includes basic geometric information of the waterway, real-time hydrological information, vessel traffic operation information, navigation facility operation and maintenance information, and navigation environment management information.

[0027] It is understood that the embodiments of this application provide comprehensive, accurate, and reliable basic data support for the evaluation of waterway service levels. This not only compensates for the limitations of a single information dimension and ensures the completeness and timeliness of the evaluation data, but also provides data basis for the entire process, including subsequent information screening and cleaning, construction of a dedicated evaluation indicator system, indicator scoring and dynamic correction, micro-simulation calibration of vessel traffic, and combined weighting calculation. At the same time, it aligns with the core characteristics of dynamic changes and diverse scenarios in waterway traffic, making the evaluation process more targeted and scientific. Ultimately, it ensures that the evaluation results of waterway service levels can truly reflect the actual operating status of the waterway, providing reliable data support for waterway operation management, safety control, and optimization.

[0028] In step S102, the full amount of multi-source information of the waterway is screened and cleaned, outliers are removed and waterway-specific standardization processing is completed. Combined with waterway design and navigation safety management specifications, a waterway service level evaluation index system is constructed that is embedded with waterway-specific constraints and adapted to multiple navigation scenarios.

[0029] The waterway service level evaluation index system is a comprehensive set of indicators that measures waterway capacity, operational efficiency, safety and user satisfaction. It mainly includes core indicators such as navigation guarantee rate, waterway saturation, average vessel waiting time, average speed, accident rate and service level index, which are used to systematically evaluate the smoothness and service quality of waterways under different loads.

[0030] It is understood that the waterway service level evaluation index system in this application is the core foundation for waterway quantitative evaluation. It establishes a three-level architecture, embeds five waterway-specific constraints, matches five typical navigation scenarios, eliminates redundant indicators, and clarifies quantitative standards, data sources, and industry benchmarks. It unifies the evaluation criteria, eliminates subjective biases, conforms to the characteristics of waterway traffic operation, supports the entire subsequent evaluation process, adapts to the needs of different waterways, accurately reflects the waterway's navigation guarantee capacity, and provides objective quantitative references for waterway operation, transformation, and planning.

[0031] In this embodiment, a waterway service level evaluation index system is constructed, embedding waterway-specific constraints and adapting to multiple navigation scenarios. This includes: constructing a three-level evaluation hierarchy framework of target layer, criterion layer, and indicator layer; based on the three-level evaluation hierarchy framework and relevant regulations on waterway design and navigation safety management, embedding five waterway-specific conditions: hard constraints on navigation scale, constraints on dynamic hydrological changes, constraints on ship navigation rules, constraints on navigation facility capacity, and constraints on control boundaries; defining the evaluation benchmark thresholds and reasonable value ranges for each indicator; for the three-level evaluation hierarchy framework with complete constraint embedding, matching five typical navigation scenarios: mountain rapids, plain river networks, reservoir areas, tidal estuaries, and direct river-sea access; and completing the differentiated selection, threshold adaptation, and priority adjustment of indicators based on the core navigation needs of different scenarios to form evaluation branch systems corresponding to each scenario; through the evaluation branch systems of each scenario, using correlation analysis and indicator discrimination analysis to eliminate redundant and invalid indicators, clarifying the quantitative calculation method, data acquisition source, and industry-standard benchmark values ​​for each indicator, and forming the final standardized waterway service level evaluation index system.

[0032] The three-level evaluation framework refers to dividing the evaluation system into three progressive levels: the target level, the criteria level, and the indicator level, in order to achieve a systematic evaluation structure.

[0033] It is understood that the three-level evaluation framework of this application constructs a hierarchical and progressive evaluation logic structure, which breaks down the overall evaluation objectives from top to bottom, divides the evaluation content and element subordinate relationships layer by layer, clearly distinguishes the macro evaluation objectives, meso-level criteria dimensions and micro-level specific indicators, straightens out the internal relationship of various evaluation elements of waterway navigation, and prevents the evaluation content from being mixed up. It provides a regular structural carrier for embedding waterway-specific constraints, adapting and optimizing indicators for multiple navigation scenarios, and screening and eliminating redundant indicators. At the same time, it connects the subsequent graded scoring, layered correction and hierarchical weight calculation process, ensuring that the overall evaluation logic is rigorous and orderly and the hierarchy is clear, and effectively improves the systematicness and regularity of the waterway service level evaluation system.

[0034] In step S103, based on the evaluation index system and the standardized multi-source information of the waterway, the categories are classified according to the evaluation characteristics of the indexes. The basic scores of each index are assigned through the membership function. In combination with the waterway grade, function and purpose, regional hydrological characteristics and local navigation control requirements, the waterway-specific dynamic correction coefficient is set and the basic scores are adjusted to obtain the individual evaluation results.

[0035] The membership function is a function used in fuzzy sets to quantify the degree to which an element belongs to the set, and its value range is usually [0,1].

[0036] It is understood that the membership function in this application can achieve standardized and quantitative transformation of various differentiated evaluation indicators for waterways, break down the barriers between quantitative and qualitative indicators in unified scoring, and define reasonable scoring intervals based on waterway industry benchmarks and waterway operation regulations to accurately quantify the quality and compliance of individual indicators. It adapts to the complex navigation characteristics of waterways and the needs of multi-category indicator evaluation, avoids errors caused by subjective human scoring, and forms a standardized and unified basic scoring standard. This provides a regular quantitative basis for subsequent dynamic correction coefficient adjustments, simulation deviation calibration, and combined weight fusion calculations, ensuring the objectivity and controllability of the indicator scoring process and improving the scientificity and accuracy of waterway service level evaluation results.

[0037] In this embodiment, the classification is completed according to the evaluation characteristics of the indicators, including: constructing a multi-dimensional classification architecture for the evaluation characteristics of waterway service level evaluation indicators; based on the multi-dimensional classification architecture, combined with the navigation characteristics of waterway traffic and relevant waterway management regulations, establishing classification boundary rules and classification standards with indicator data attributes, evaluation rigidity, and scenario adaptability as the core evaluation characteristic dimensions; according to the classification boundary rules and classification standards, dividing all indicators in the evaluation indicator system into three independent categories: quantitative rigid constraint category, quantitative flexible adaptation category, and qualitative hierarchical management category, clarifying the characteristic definition, waterway-specific indicator coverage, and core evaluation logic corresponding to each category, and matching the corresponding data validity verification rules, industry benchmark value adaptation rules, and subsequent scoring calculation adaptation rules for the three categories of indicators, thereby completing the classification and attribute labeling of all indicators.

[0038] Among them, the multi-dimensional classification architecture of waterway service level evaluation indicators refers to a structured framework that systematically divides and organizes various evaluation indicators and their evaluation characteristics of waterway service level from multiple dimensions.

[0039] It is understood that the multi-dimensional classification architecture of the waterway service level evaluation index in this application combines the characteristics of waterway traffic and navigation with industry management standards. It divides core dimensions around the index data attributes, evaluation rigidity, and scenario adaptability, clearly defining unified classification boundary rules and standards. This rationally distinguishes the evaluation logic and application scope of different types of evaluation indicators, completing the labeling and classification of all index attributes. It specifically matches data verification, benchmark adaptation, and scoring calculation rules for various indicators, effectively avoiding the problem of mixed and chaotic index evaluation standards. This aligns with the evaluation needs of complex waterway navigation scenarios, providing a well-organized classification support for subsequent differentiated scoring and precise adjustments, ensuring a standardized and orderly overall evaluation process, and improving the relevance and rigor of waterway index evaluation.

[0040] In this embodiment, basic scores for each indicator are assigned using membership functions. Combined with waterway grade, functional purpose, regional hydrological characteristics, and local navigation control requirements, a waterway-specific dynamic correction coefficient is set and the basic scores are adjusted to obtain individual evaluation results. This includes: constructing a membership scoring and dynamic correction adaptation system for waterway evaluation indicators of different categories, clarifying standardized scoring intervals, function matching rules, correction coefficient value boundaries, and individual evaluation result output specifications; based on the membership scoring and dynamic correction adaptation system for waterway evaluation indicators of different categories, matching corresponding membership functions for the three categories of indicators that have been classified, and comparing with waterway industry benchmarks and navigation... Based on the design values ​​and historical best operating values, standardized basic scores for each indicator across 0-100 zones are assigned. Combining the indicator levels and attributes corresponding to these standardized basic scores, and anchoring to the waterway grade, functional purpose, regional hydrological characteristics, and local navigation control requirements, waterway-specific dynamic correction coefficients are set at the dimensional level of the criterion layer and the individual item level of the indicator layer. The applicable scenarios, value ranges, and triggering adjustment conditions for these coefficients are clarified. Based on the set waterway-specific dynamic correction coefficients, differentiated weighted adjustments are made to the standardized basic scores of the corresponding indicators. Reasonable boundary verification of scores is completed, and abnormal results are eliminated. Finally, standardized individual evaluation results for each indicator are generated.

[0041] Standardized baseline scoring refers to the method of converting raw scores into comparable benchmark scores according to pre-set unified standards and conversion rules.

[0042] It is understood that the standardized basic scoring in this application relies on a unified score range combined with waterway industry benchmarks, channel design values, and historical operational data to complete the scoring. This unifies the quantitative caliber and measurement standards of different types of evaluation indicators, eliminates evaluation interference caused by differences in the dimensions of various indicators, and avoids evaluation bias caused by inconsistent scoring standards. It provides a unified and standardized score base for subsequent adjustments to waterway-specific dynamic correction coefficients and calibration of simulation model deviations, enabling horizontal comparison and objective quantification of multiple categories of indicators, ensuring fair and reasonable initial scoring, and providing accurate and reliable basic data support for subsequent weight calculation and comprehensive evaluation integration.

[0043] In step S104, based on the evaluation dimensions and waterway-specific constraint boundaries corresponding to the individual evaluation results, a micro-simulation model of waterway-specific vessel passage is built to restore the waterway passage status and limit passage capacity under different hydrological environments and different vessel flow rates. The deviation of the individual evaluation results is calibrated. According to the indicator hierarchy classification rules, combined with the actual operation characteristics of the waterway, the weight of each indicator is determined by the CRITIC-game theory combined weighting method. All calibrated individual evaluation results are integrated, and the overall evaluation result of the waterway service level is calculated. The service level level of the waterway is determined by comparing it with the preset level judgment standard.

[0044] Among them, the CRITIC-game theory combined weighting method is a multi-attribute decision-making method that combines the CRITIC objective weighting method with game theory ideas, and optimizes the combined weights by solving the Nash equilibrium between different weighting methods.

[0045] It is understood that the CRITIC-game theory combined weighting method in this application can combine the strength and conflict of indicator data to calculate objective weights, optimize weight allocation and reduce combination bias through game theory algorithms, avoid the one-sidedness and subjectivity of a single weighting method, and balance the influence ratio of various evaluation indicators. It aligns with the diverse navigation characteristics and actual operational patterns of waterways, scientifically defines the importance of indicators at different levels, eliminates evaluation distortion caused by unreasonable weight settings, and provides accurate weighting basis for the hierarchical weighted integration of multiple individual evaluation results, effectively improving the rationality, objectivity, and credibility of the comprehensive evaluation results of waterway service levels.

[0046] In this embodiment, a micro-simulation model for waterway-specific vessel passage is constructed to recreate the channel passage status and limit capacity under different hydrological environments and vessel flow rates, and to calibrate the deviation of individual evaluation results. This includes: constructing a micro-simulation model for waterway-specific vessel passage; based on the micro-simulation model, using basic channel information, hydrological data, and control rules as boundary conditions, and actual vessel operation data as input to complete parameter calibration, setting multiple types of hydrological and flow conditions, simulating and recreating the channel passage status and limit capacity, and generating a standardized simulation verification dataset; based on the standardized simulation verification dataset, comparing the measured values ​​of individual evaluation results with the simulation baseline values, calculating the relative deviation, and correcting the evaluation results of indicators exceeding the threshold, thus eliminating evaluation deviations caused by abnormal measured data.

[0047] Among them, the micro-simulation model for waterway-specific vessel passage refers to a computational model that performs detailed simulations of individual vessel behavior, interaction rules, and navigation processes in specific waterways.

[0048] It is understood that the micro-simulation model for waterway-specific vessel traffic in this application uses basic waterway conditions, hydrological environment, and navigation control rules as constraints. Combined with actual vessel operation data for parameter calibration, it can simulate various complex hydrological conditions and vessel traffic scenarios, realistically reproducing vessel navigation behavior, real-time waterway traffic status, and extreme navigation capabilities. This compensates for the limitations of limited coverage of on-site monitoring data and the lack of data on extreme conditions. It accurately compares measured index values ​​with simulation baseline values, quickly calculates and corrects evaluation deviations, eliminates evaluation errors caused by abnormal data, effectively verifies and optimizes individual evaluation results, and aligns with the dynamic and ever-changing navigation characteristics of waterway traffic. This provides reliable simulation verification support for the comprehensive evaluation of waterway service levels, further enhancing the authenticity and rigor of the overall evaluation results.

[0049] In this embodiment, the overall evaluation result of the waterway service level is calculated by integrating all calibrated individual evaluation results. This includes: constructing a waterway evaluation index weight calculation system based on the CRITIC-game theory combined weighting method; calculating the comparative strength and data conflict of each index using the CRITIC method based on the waterway evaluation index weight calculation system, generating initial objective weights for the indexes, minimizing the combined weight deviation using game theory optimization methods, and solving for the final combined weights of each index; and performing hierarchical weighted summation on all calibrated individual evaluation results based on the final combined weights of each index to complete the verification and boundary correction of the calculation results, and comprehensively obtaining the overall evaluation result of the waterway service level.

[0050] Among them, the initial objective weight of the indicator refers to the importance coefficient of each evaluation indicator in the initial state, calculated based on the statistical characteristics of the data itself without relying on subjective judgment.

[0051] It is understood that the initial objective weights of the indicators in this application's embodiments are calculated and generated based on the data characteristics of the indicators themselves. They objectively reflect the actual contribution of each indicator based on the strength and conflict of data comparisons, completely eliminating subjective human intervention and accurately reflecting the data patterns of waterway navigation operations. This precisely distinguishes the differentiating ability and influence of different evaluation indicators, avoiding arbitrary biases in subjective weighting, and providing a reasonable benchmark for subsequent game theory optimization and weight combination solutions. This ensures the objectivity and rigor of the underlying logic of the weight system, supporting the efficient and standardized implementation of weighted integration calculations for waterway service levels.

[0052] The following will illustrate a method for evaluating the level of service of waterways that considers the characteristics of waterway traffic through a specific embodiment. Figure 2 As shown, it includes:

[0053] To verify the feasibility and practicality of the waterway service level evaluation method that considers waterway traffic characteristics, a comprehensive evaluation was conducted on a Class III restricted inland waterway. This waterway primarily serves freight transport with passenger transport as a secondary function, and the vessels navigating it are mainly 1,000-ton cargo ships and 300-ton passenger ships. Continuous observation and data collection were employed throughout the entire waterway.

[0054] The evaluation work first involved collecting comprehensive, multi-source information on the waterway, covering the entire waterway and surrounding navigable areas. The information encompassed five categories: basic geometric information, real-time hydrological information, vessel traffic and operation information, navigation facility operation and maintenance information, and navigation environment management information. Basic geometric information was collected using specialized surveying equipment. The total length of the waterway was measured to be 100 kilometers, including 75 kilometers of straight sections and 25 kilometers of curved sections. The minimum curvature radius of the curved sections was 480 meters, meeting the standard for the curvature radius of a Class III restricted waterway. The effective width of the waterway was 45 meters, with a designed depth of 3.2 meters. The actual measured average depth was 3.3 meters, the maximum depth was 4.1 meters, and the minimum depth was 2.9 meters. The waterway slope ratio was 1:3, and the bottom sediment was mainly silt and sand with a roughness coefficient of 0.035. Sixty navigation marks were installed along the route: 30 on the left, 25 on the right, and 5 position markers, with the spacing between the marks controlled between 1.5 and 2.0 kilometers. Real-time hydrological information is continuously collected from 10 hydrological monitoring stations along the route. The measured water level is 2.8 meters during normal water levels, 3.5 meters during the flood season, and 2.2 meters during the dry season, with a daily water level variation of 0.3 to 0.5 meters. The average flow velocity is 0.8 m / s during normal water levels, 1.5 m / s during the flood season, and 0.5 m / s during the dry season, with a maximum velocity fluctuation of 0.4 m / s. The characteristic flow rate is divided into three levels, with corresponding cross-sectional shape coefficients of 2.38, 1.91, and 1.77, respectively. The water depth correction coefficient increases linearly with the design navigation width, with corresponding water depth correction coefficients of 1.05, 1.12, and 1.18 for the three flow rates. The average sediment content of the water is 0.3 kg / m³, with a maximum of 0.8 kg / m³ during the flood season and a minimum of 0.1 kg / m³ during the dry season. There is no ice-free period, and the water is navigable year-round. Vessel traffic information was collected jointly through the Automatic Identification System (AIS) and video monitoring system. During the continuous collection period, 18,000 vessel passages were monitored, averaging 120 per day, including 15,000 cargo ships and 3,000 passenger ships. The average tonnage of cargo ships was 1,000 tons, with a maximum of 1,500 tons and a minimum of 500 tons, mainly transporting coal, building materials, and grain. The average tonnage of passenger ships was 300 tons, with a maximum of 400 tons and a minimum of 200 tons. The average speed of vessels was 8 km / h, with an average of 10 km / h on straight sections and 6 km / h on curved sections, with speed fluctuations ranging from 2 to 15 km / h. The average transit time was 4.2 hours, with 2.5 hours on straight sections and 1.7 hours on curved sections. The peak vessel traffic volume was 15 vessels per hour, and the off-peak flow was 5 vessels per hour. The vessel collision rate was 0.3 times per day, and there were no safety accidents such as grounding or collisions. The average waiting time for vessels was 15 minutes, with a maximum of 40 minutes and a minimum of 5 minutes.The navigation facility operation and maintenance information includes two single-stage locks along the waterway, with lock chambers 120 meters long and 18 meters wide, sill depths of 3.5 meters, maximum throughput capacity of 60 vessels per day, lock operation integrity rate of 98%, average annual operation hours of 8700 hours, average annual maintenance of 12 times, 8 hours per maintenance, and maintenance qualification rate of 100%; navigation aid telemetry and remote control terminal coverage rate of 95%, online rate of 92%, navigation aid normal operation rate of 99%, average annual maintenance of 30 times, 2 hours per maintenance; and 30 sets of hydrological monitoring equipment and video monitoring equipment along the waterway, with equipment operation integrity rate of 97%, data acquisition accuracy rate of 98%, average annual maintenance of 24 times, and fault response time not exceeding 2 hours. The navigation environment control information covers meteorology, navigation-related activities, and control requirements. The number of days with an average annual visibility of ≥10 km accounts for 90%, 5-10 km for 8%, and <5 km for 2%. The number of days with an average annual wind force ≤6 accounts for 95%, 7-8 for 4%, and ≥9 for 1%. The average annual rainfall is 1200 mm, with an average visibility of 6 km during periods of concentrated rainfall, and an average increase in current speed of 0.3 m / s. There are no permanent navigation-related constructions along the waterway. Temporary navigation operations occur an average of 3 times per year, each lasting no more than 3 days. Temporary navigation marks and warning signs are set up during operations, and they do not significantly affect navigation. Local navigation control requirements clearly stipulate a speed limit of 10 km / h for vessels and 6 km / h for curved sections. Passenger ships have priority passage, dangerous goods vessels must report in advance and be escorted by escort vessels, and navigation equipment and warning lights must be turned on for nighttime navigation. There were no major incidents violating control requirements throughout the year.

[0055] After completing the collection of full-volume, multi-source information, the process enters the information screening, cleaning, and indicator system construction phase. The collected information is screened and cleaned to remove outliers and invalid data: In the basic geometric information of the waterway, 12 sets of data with water depth measurement errors exceeding 0.2 meters and 3 sets of abnormal bending radius measurement data were removed, ensuring a 99% accuracy rate for geometric information data; in the real-time hydrological information, 8 sets of data with abnormal flow velocity fluctuations exceeding 1.0 m / s, 5 sets of abnormal water level changes, and 4 sets of abnormal sediment content data were removed, and missing data were supplemented using linear interpolation; in the vessel traffic operation information, 36 sets of abnormal data with speeds <2 km / h or >15 km / h, 12 sets of incorrect vessel tonnage records, and 9 sets of abnormal waiting times were removed; in the navigation facility operation and maintenance information, 6 sets of data with incomplete equipment maintenance records and 4 sets of abnormal operating status data were removed; and in the navigation environment control information, 7 sets of abnormal visibility and wind force measurement data and 2 sets of data with incomplete navigation operation records were removed. After screening and cleaning, various information items underwent waterway-specific standardization processing. A linear standardization method was used to convert index data of different dimensions into standardized values ​​from 0 to 100. Positive indicators such as effective width, design depth, average speed, and facility integrity rate were converted using standardized formulas, while negative indicators such as current velocity fluctuations, vessel delay time, and conflict rate were converted using inverse standardization formulas. The processed data all met the requirements for evaluation index values. Subsequently, in conjunction with waterway design specifications and navigation safety management requirements, a waterway service level evaluation index system was constructed, embedding waterway-specific constraints and adapting to multiple navigation scenarios. This system is divided into two levels: Level 1 indicators (5 items): waterway geometric conditions, hydrological conditions, vessel operating status, navigation facility operation and maintenance, and navigation environment control; and Level 2 indicators (19 items). The system assesses the following aspects: channel geometry (effective width, design depth, radius of curvature, and roughness); hydrological conditions (water level stability, flow velocity rationality, flow rate adaptability, and sediment content); vessel operation status (average daily flow, vessel tonnage adaptability, average speed, navigation delay, and conflict rate); navigation facility operation and maintenance (lock operation integrity rate, navigation mark normal operation rate, and equipment data accuracy rate); and navigation environment management (visibility, wind conditions, and compliance rate with navigation regulations). This indicator system fully considers the unique characteristics of inland waterways, such as hydrological changes, vessel navigation features, and facility operation patterns. It is suitable for multiple navigation scenarios, primarily for freight transport and secondarily for passenger transport, and clarifies the evaluation criteria and value ranges for each secondary indicator.

[0056] Single-item evaluations were conducted based on the constructed evaluation index system and standardized multi-source information. All 19 secondary indicators were used as quantitative indicators, categorized into four levels: excellent, good, average, and poor, according to standardized data. A trapezoidal membership function was used to assign basic scores to each quantitative indicator, ranging from 0 to 100 points, with excellent corresponding to 90-100 points, good to 80-89 points, average to 70-79 points, and poor to below 70 points. Basic scoring results: Effective width standardized value 90, basic score 88 points; Design water depth standardized value 85, score 83 points; Bending radius standardized value 82, score 80 points; Roughness standardized value 88, score 86 points; Water level stability standardized value 92, score 90 points; Flow velocity rationality standardized value 87, score 85 points; Flow rate adaptability standardized value 89, score 87 points; Sediment content standardized value 91, score 89 points; Daily average flow rate standardized value 86, score 84 points; Ship tonnage adaptability standardized value... The following values ​​are assigned scores: 90 (value), 88 (score); average speed (standardized value), 83 (score), 81 (score); navigation delay (standardized value), 85 (score), 83 (score); conflict rate (standardized value), 93 (score), 91 (score); lock operation integrity rate (standardized value), 98 (score), 96 (score); navigation mark normal operation rate (standardized value), 99 (score), 97 (score); equipment data accuracy rate (standardized value), 98 (score), 96 (score); visibility (standardized value), 88 (score); wind conditions (standardized value), 95 (score), 93 (score); and navigation control compliance rate (standardized value), 98 (score), 96 (score). Based on the waterway grade, functional purpose, regional hydrological characteristics, and local navigation control requirements, the following dynamic correction coefficients are set for waterways: Grade III waterway corresponds to a correction coefficient of 1.00; the functional purpose is mainly freight transport with passenger transport as a supplement, and the proportion of freight vessels is high, corresponding to a correction coefficient of 1.03; the regional hydrological characteristics are that the water level changes significantly during the flood season and the dry season, with correction coefficients of 0.98, 0.97, and 0.99 for water level stability, flow velocity rationality, and flow adaptability, respectively, and a correction coefficient of 1.02 for water depth-related indicators during the dry season; and the local navigation control requirements are strict, with a correction coefficient of 1.02 for navigation control compliance rate and vessel operation-related indicators.The individual evaluation results are obtained by adjusting the basic scores according to the correction coefficients: Effective width 88×1.02=89.76 points, Design water depth 83×1.02=84.66 points, Bending radius 80×1.00=80.00 points, Roughness 86×1.00=86.00 points, Water level stability 90×0.98=88.20 points, Flow velocity rationality 85×0.97=82.45 points, Flow rate suitability 87×0.99=86.13 points, Sediment content 89×1.00=89.00 points, Average daily flow rate 84×1.03=86.52 points, Ship tonnage suitability. The following scores were given: Matching performance: 88 × 1.03 = 90.64 points; Average speed: 81 × 1.03 = 83.43 points; Navigation delay: 83 × 1.03 = 85.49 points; Conflict rate: 91 × 1.03 = 93.73 points; Lock operational availability: 96 × 1.00 = 96.00 points; Navigation aid normal operation rate: 97 × 1.00 = 97.00 points; Equipment data accuracy: 96 × 1.00 = 96.00 points; Visibility: 88 × 1.00 = 88.00 points; Wind conditions: 93 × 1.00 = 93.00 points; Navigation control compliance rate: 96 × 1.02 = 97.92 points. All individual evaluation results accurately reflect the actual operational level of each indicator.

[0057] The overall evaluation phase begins. Based on the evaluation dimensions corresponding to the individual evaluation results and the waterway-specific constraint boundaries, a micro-simulation model for waterway-specific vessel traffic is constructed. The model is based on the actual geometric parameters of the waterway, hydrological data, and vessel operation data, embedding waterway-specific constraints such as vessel navigation dynamics, waterway flow characteristics, and navigation facility operation rules to recreate the waterway traffic status and limit capacity under different hydrological environments and vessel flow rates. The simulation sets up three hydrological scenarios: normal water level, flood season, and dry season. Under each scenario, three vessel flow conditions are set: low flow rate of 5 vessels / hour, average daily flow rate of 12 vessels / hour, and peak flow rate of 15 vessels / hour, obtaining vessel navigation state parameters under different scenarios. Under normal water level scenarios: During low flow periods, the average ship speed is 9.2 km / h, the navigation delay is 8 minutes, there are no conflicts, and the maximum passage capacity is 16 vessels / hour; during average daily flow periods, the average speed is 8.1 km / h, the delay is 14 minutes, the conflict rate is 0.2 times / day, and the maximum passage capacity is 14 vessels / hour; during peak flow periods, the average speed is 7.3 km / h, the delay is 22 minutes, the conflict rate is 0.5 times / day, and the maximum passage capacity is 12 vessels / hour. Under flood season scenarios: During low flow periods, the average speed is 8.8 km / h, the delay is 10 minutes, there are no conflicts, and the maximum passage capacity is 15 vessels / hour; during average daily flow periods, the average speed is 7.8 km / h, the delay is 16 minutes, the conflict rate is 0.3 times / day, and the maximum passage capacity is 13 vessels / hour; during peak flow periods, the average speed is 7.0 km / h, the delay is 25 minutes, the conflict rate is 0.6 times / day, and the maximum passage capacity is 11 vessels / hour. In the dry season scenario: during low flow, the average speed is 8.5 km / h, delay is 9 minutes, there are no conflicts, and the maximum throughput is 14 vessels / hour; during average daily flow, the average speed is 7.5 km / h, delay is 15 minutes, conflict rate is 0.2 times / day, and maximum throughput is 12 vessels / hour; during peak flow, the average speed is 6.8 km / h, delay is 23 minutes, conflict rate is 0.4 times / day, and maximum throughput is 10 vessels / hour. Based on the simulation results, deviations in individual evaluation results were calibrated. Indicators with significant deviations from the simulation results, such as average speed, navigation delay, and conflict rate, were adjusted: the original score for average speed (83.43) was calibrated to 84.20; the original score for navigation delay (85.49) was calibrated to 86.10; and the original score for conflict rate (93.73) was calibrated to 94.10. Other indicators with minor deviations did not require adjustment. The weights of each indicator were determined using the CRITIC-game theory combined weighting method. The CRITIC method calculates objective weights, the improved analytic hierarchy process (AHP) calculates subjective weights, and the game theory method combines objective and subjective weights to obtain a comprehensive weight.The comprehensive weights of the primary indicators are as follows: channel geometry conditions 0.25, hydrological conditions 0.20, vessel operating status 0.25, navigation facility operation and maintenance 0.15, and navigation environment control 0.15. The comprehensive weights of the secondary indicators are as follows: effective width 0.08, design water depth 0.07, bending radius 0.06, roughness coefficient 0.04, water level stability 0.05, flow velocity rationality 0.05, flow rate adaptability 0.05, sediment content 0.05, average daily flow rate 0.06, vessel tonnage adaptability 0.06, average speed 0.05, navigation delay 0.04, conflict rate 0.04, lock operation integrity rate 0.05, navigation mark normal operation rate 0.05, equipment data accuracy rate 0.05, visibility 0.05, wind conditions 0.05, and navigation control compliance rate 0.05. Integrating all calibrated individual evaluation results, the overall evaluation score is obtained according to the comprehensive score calculation formula: 89.76×0.08+84.66×0.07+80.00×0.06+86.00×0.04+88.20×0.05+82.45×0.05+86.13×0.05+89.00×0.05+86.52×0.06+90.64×0.06+84.20×0.05+86.10×0.04+94.10×0.04+96.00×0.05+97.00×0.05 05 + 96.00 × 0.05 + 88.00 × 0.05 + 93.00 × 0.05 + 97.92 × 0.05 = 7.1808 + 5.9262 + 4.8000 + 3.4400 + 4.4100 + 4.1225 + 4.3065 + 4.4500 + 5.1912 + 5.4384 + 4.2100 + 3.4440 + 3.7640 + 4.8000 + 4.8500 + 4.8000 + 4.4000 + 4.6500 + 4.8960 = 89.0796 points, or 89.08 points. According to the preset waterway service level assessment standards, the waterway's service level is Level II, indicating that the overall operation is good, and the various indicators meet the navigation needs of freight transport as the main focus and passenger transport as a supplement. The waterway geometry, navigation facility operation and maintenance, and navigation environment management are excellent, and the hydrological conditions and vessel operation status are good. There are only minor deficiencies in terms of speed in curved sections and navigation delays during the flood season, which can be further improved by optimizing the layout of navigation marks and strengthening waterway maintenance during the flood season.

[0058] In summary, this invention constructs a two-level evaluation index system adapted to the characteristics of waterway navigation through information collection, screening, cleaning, and standardization. It combines trapezoidal membership function scoring with waterway-specific dynamic correction coefficients to complete the evaluation of individual indicators. A micro-simulation model of vessel traffic is built to recreate multi-hydrological and multi-flow navigation scenarios and calibrate the evaluation results. A combined weighting method is used to calculate the overall service level of the waterway, accurately identifying the overall advantages and disadvantages of waterway operation, local shortcomings, and subsequent optimization directions. This case fully verifies that the waterway service level evaluation method incorporating waterway traffic characteristics possesses scientific rigor and engineering feasibility, can realistically and objectively reflect the actual navigation operation status of inland waterways, and forms a complete and replicable evaluation application paradigm. It can provide practical reference and guidance for the routine service level assessment, operation management, and maintenance quality improvement of various inland waterways.

[0059] Figure 3 This is a block diagram of a waterway service level evaluation system adapted to waterway traffic characteristics, according to an embodiment of this application.

[0060] like Figure 3 As shown, the waterway service level evaluation system 10 adapted to waterway traffic characteristics includes: a multi-source information acquisition module 100, an information processing and index construction module 200, an index scoring correction module 300, and a simulation calibration comprehensive rating module 400.

[0061] The system includes: a multi-source information acquisition module 100, used to collect full-volume multi-source information about the waterway; an information processing and indicator construction module 200, used to screen and clean the full-volume multi-source information about the waterway, remove outliers, and complete waterway-specific standardized processing; and a waterway service level evaluation indicator system embedded with waterway-specific constraints and adapted to multiple navigation scenarios, combined with waterway design and navigation safety management regulations; and an indicator scoring and correction module 300, used to classify waterway indicators according to their evaluation characteristics based on the evaluation indicator system and the standardized waterway multi-source information, complete the basic scoring of each indicator through a membership function, and set waterway-specific... The dynamic correction coefficients and basic scores are adjusted to obtain individual evaluation results. The simulation calibration comprehensive rating module 400 is used to build a micro-simulation model of waterway-specific vessel passage based on the evaluation dimensions and waterway-specific constraint boundaries corresponding to the individual evaluation results. This model restores the waterway passage status and limit passage capacity under different hydrological environments and vessel flow rates, calibrates the deviation of individual evaluation results, and determines the weight of each indicator according to the indicator hierarchy classification rules and the actual operation characteristics of the waterway using the CRITIC-game theory combined weighting method. All calibrated individual evaluation results are integrated to comprehensively calculate the overall evaluation result of the waterway service level. The waterway service level is then determined by comparing it with the preset level judgment standard.

[0062] It should be noted that the foregoing explanation of an embodiment of a waterway service level evaluation method that considers waterway traffic characteristics also applies to a waterway service level evaluation system adapted to waterway traffic characteristics in this embodiment, and will not be repeated here.

[0063] According to the embodiments of this application, a waterway service level evaluation system adapted to waterway traffic characteristics is proposed. This system comprehensively collects multi-source information covering waterway geometry, hydrology, vessel traffic, facility operation and maintenance, and environmental management. After screening, cleaning, and waterway-specific standardization, a solid foundation for evaluation data is established. An evaluation index system adapted to multiple scenarios and embedded with waterway-specific constraints is constructed in conjunction with waterway navigation regulations. Basic index scoring is completed based on membership functions. Simultaneously, dynamic correction coefficients are set to optimize individual item scores based on waterway grade, regional hydrology, and local management requirements. Finally, a waterway-specific vessel traffic micro-simulation model is used to recreate the waterway traffic flow. By addressing complex navigation conditions and calibration evaluation biases, and employing the CRITIC-game theory combined weighting method to scientifically determine indicator weights, this approach effectively avoids the problems of traditional waterway evaluations, such as neglecting waterway traffic-specific characteristics, weak indicator adaptability, one-sided weight settings, and insufficient consistency of evaluation results. It can accurately reflect the actual operating status and maximum capacity of waterways under different hydrological environments and traffic flows, achieving an objective, differentiated, and refined comprehensive assessment of waterway service levels. This provides rigorous and reliable technical reference and decision-making support for waterway daily operation and maintenance optimization, navigation control adjustments, waterway traffic planning and construction, and the rational allocation of navigation resources. Thus, it solves the problems of incomplete waterway information collection and insufficient overall accuracy of evaluation results in existing technologies.

[0064] Figure 4 A schematic diagram of the structure of an electronic device provided in an embodiment of this application. The electronic device may include:

[0065] The memory 401, the processor 402, and the computer program stored on the memory 401 and capable of running on the processor 402.

[0066] When the processor 402 executes the program, it implements the waterway service level evaluation method that takes into account waterway traffic characteristics provided in the above embodiments.

[0067] Furthermore, electronic devices also include:

[0068] Communication interface 403 is used for communication between memory 401 and processor 402.

[0069] The memory 401 is used to store computer programs that can run on the processor 402.

[0070] The memory 401 may include high-speed RAM (Random Access Memory) memory, and may also include non-volatile memory, such as at least one disk storage.

[0071] If the memory 401, processor 402, and communication interface 403 are implemented independently, then the communication interface 403, memory 401, and processor 402 can be interconnected via a bus to complete communication between them. The bus can be an ISA (Industry Standard Architecture) bus, a PCI (Peripheral Component Interconnect) bus, or an EISA (Extended Industry Standard Architecture) bus, etc. The bus can be divided into address bus, data bus, control bus, etc. For ease of representation, Figure 4 The bus is represented by a single thick line, but this does not mean that there is only one bus or one type of bus.

[0072] Optionally, in a specific implementation, if the memory 401, processor 402, and communication interface 403 are integrated on a single chip, then the memory 401, processor 402, and communication interface 403 can communicate with each other through an internal interface.

[0073] Processor 402 may be a CPU (Central Processing Unit), an ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit), or one or more integrated circuits configured to implement the embodiments of this application.

[0074] This application also provides a computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program that, when executed by a processor, implements the above-described method for evaluating the level of service of a waterway considering waterway traffic characteristics.

[0075] Furthermore, this application also provides a computer program product, including a computer program or instructions, which, when executed, implement the above-described method for evaluating the level of service of a waterway that takes into account waterway traffic characteristics.

[0076] In the description of this specification, the references to the terms "an embodiment," "some embodiments," "example," "specific example," or "some examples," etc., refer to a specific feature, structure, material, or characteristic described in connection with that embodiment or example, which is included in at least one embodiment or example of this application. In this specification, the illustrative expressions of the above terms do not necessarily refer to the same embodiment or example. Furthermore, the specific features, structures, materials, or characteristics described may be combined in any suitable manner in one or more embodiments or examples. Moreover, without contradiction, those skilled in the art can combine and integrate the different embodiments or examples described in this specification, as well as the features of different embodiments or examples.

[0077] Furthermore, the terms "first" and "second" are used for descriptive purposes only and should not be construed as indicating or implying relative importance or implicitly specifying the number of technical features indicated. Thus, a feature defined as "first" or "second" may explicitly or implicitly include at least one of that feature. In the description of this application, "multiple" means at least two, such as two, three, etc., unless otherwise explicitly specified.

[0078] Any process or method description in the flowchart or otherwise herein can be understood as representing a module, segment, or portion of code comprising one or more executable instructions for implementing custom logic functions or processes, and the scope of the preferred embodiments of this application includes additional implementations in which functions may be performed not in the order shown or discussed, including substantially simultaneously or in reverse order depending on the functions involved, as should be understood by those skilled in the art to which embodiments of this application pertain.

[0079] It should be understood that various parts of this application can be implemented using hardware, software, firmware, or a combination thereof. In the above embodiments, multiple steps or methods can be implemented using software or firmware stored in memory and executed by suitable instructions. For example, if implemented in hardware as in another embodiment, it can be implemented using any of the following techniques known in the art, or a combination thereof: discrete logic circuits having logic gates for implementing logical functions on data signals, application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) having suitable combinational logic gates, programmable gate arrays (PGAs), field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), etc.

[0080] Those skilled in the art will understand that all or part of the steps of the methods in the above embodiments can be implemented by a program instructing related hardware. The program can be stored in a computer-readable storage medium, and when executed, the program includes one or a combination of the steps of the method embodiments.

[0081] Although embodiments of this application have been shown and described above, it is understood that the above embodiments are exemplary and should not be construed as limiting this application. Those skilled in the art can make changes, modifications, substitutions and variations to the above embodiments within the scope of this application.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating the level of service of waterways that considers the characteristics of waterway traffic, characterized in that, include: Collect full-volume multi-source information of the waterway, including basic geometric information of the waterway, real-time hydrological information, vessel traffic and operation information, navigation facility operation and maintenance information, and navigation environment management and control information; The full amount of multi-source information of the waterway is screened and cleaned, outliers are removed and waterway-specific standardization processing is completed. Combined with waterway design and navigation safety management specifications, a waterway service level evaluation index system is constructed that is embedded with waterway-specific constraints and adapted to multiple navigation scenarios. Based on the evaluation index system and the standardized multi-source information of the waterway, the categories are classified according to the evaluation characteristics of the indexes. The basic scores of each index are assigned through the membership function. In combination with the waterway grade, function and purpose, regional hydrological characteristics and local navigation control requirements, a waterway-specific dynamic correction coefficient is set and the basic scores are adjusted to obtain the individual evaluation results. Based on the evaluation dimensions and waterway-specific constraint boundaries corresponding to the individual evaluation results, a micro-simulation model of waterway-specific vessel passage is constructed to restore the waterway passage status and limit capacity under different hydrological environments and vessel flow rates. The deviation of the individual evaluation results is calibrated. According to the indicator hierarchy classification rules, combined with the actual operation characteristics of the waterway, the weight of each indicator is determined by the CRITIC-game theory combined weighting method. All calibrated individual evaluation results are integrated, and the overall evaluation result of the waterway service level is calculated. The service level level of the waterway is determined by comparing it with the preset level judgment standard.

2. The method for evaluating the level of service of a waterway considering waterway traffic characteristics according to claim 1, characterized in that, Construct a waterway service level evaluation index system that embeds waterway-specific constraints and adapts to multiple navigation scenarios, including: Construct a three-level evaluation framework consisting of target layer, criterion layer, and indicator layer; Based on the aforementioned three-level evaluation framework and relevant regulations on waterway design and navigation safety management, five waterway-specific conditions are embedded: hard constraints on navigation scale, constraints on dynamic hydrological changes, constraints on ship navigation rules, constraints on navigation facility capacity, and constraints on control boundaries. The evaluation benchmark thresholds and reasonable value ranges for each indicator are defined. For the three-level evaluation framework with the constraints embedded, five typical navigation scenarios are matched: mountain rapids, plain river networks, reservoir areas, tidal estuaries, and direct river-sea access. Based on the core navigation needs of different scenarios, the indicators are differentiated, the thresholds are adapted, and the priorities are adjusted to form evaluation branch systems corresponding to various scenarios. By using the evaluation branches of each scenario, correlation analysis and indicator discrimination analysis are employed to eliminate redundant and invalid indicators, clarify the quantitative calculation method, data acquisition source, and industry-standard benchmark value of each indicator, and finally form a standardized waterway service level evaluation indicator system.

3. The method for evaluating the level of service of a waterway considering waterway traffic characteristics according to claim 1, characterized in that, The categories are divided according to the evaluation characteristics of the indicators, including: Construct a multi-dimensional classification framework for the evaluation indicators of waterway service level; Based on the multi-dimensional classification architecture, and combined with the navigation characteristics of waterways and the relevant regulations for waterway management, the classification boundary rules and category division standards are established with the core evaluation feature dimensions of indicator data attributes, evaluation rigidity, and scenario adaptability. Based on the classification boundary rules and category division standards, all indicators in the evaluation indicator system are divided into three independent categories: quantitative rigid constraint category, quantitative flexible adaptation category, and qualitative hierarchical control category. The feature definitions, waterway-specific indicator coverage, and core judgment logic corresponding to each category are clarified. For the three categories of indicators that have been divided, the corresponding data validity verification rules, industry benchmark value adaptation rules, and subsequent scoring calculation adaptation rules are matched respectively to complete the category division and attribute labeling of all indicators.

4. The method for evaluating the level of service of a waterway considering waterway traffic characteristics according to claim 1, characterized in that, The basic scores for each indicator are assigned using membership functions. Then, considering waterway grade, functional purpose, regional hydrological characteristics, and local navigation control requirements, a waterway-specific dynamic correction coefficient is set and the basic scores are adjusted to obtain individual evaluation results, including: Construct a membership degree scoring and dynamic correction adaptation system for waterway evaluation indicators of different types, and clarify the standardized scoring interval, function matching rules, correction coefficient value boundaries and single evaluation result output specifications. Based on the aforementioned classification of waterway evaluation indicators membership degree scoring and dynamic correction adaptation system, the corresponding membership degree functions are matched for the three categories of indicators that have been classified. By comparing with the waterway industry benchmark, waterway design value and historical best operating value, the standardized basic scoring of each indicator between 0-100 zones is completed. Based on the indicator levels and attributes corresponding to the standardized basic scoring, and anchoring the waterway grade, functional purpose, regional hydrological characteristics and local navigation control requirements, waterway-specific dynamic correction coefficients are set at the dimensional level of the criterion layer and the single-item level of the indicator layer, clarifying the applicable scenarios, value range and triggering adjustment conditions of the coefficients. Based on the established dynamic correction coefficients specific to waterways, the standardized basic scores of the corresponding indicators are adjusted with differentiated weighting. The reasonable boundary of the scores is verified and abnormal results are removed. Finally, standardized individual evaluation results for each indicator are generated.

5. The method for evaluating the level of service of a waterway considering waterway traffic characteristics according to claim 1, characterized in that, A microscopic simulation model of waterway vessel traffic was constructed to recreate the channel traffic status and limit capacity under different hydrological environments and vessel flow rates, and to calibrate the deviations of the individual evaluation results, including: Construct a microscopic simulation model for waterway-specific vessel passage; Based on the micro-simulation model of waterway-specific vessel passage, the parameters are calibrated by using basic waterway information, hydrological data, and control rules as boundary conditions and actual vessel operation data as input. Multiple types of hydrological and flow conditions are set to simulate and restore the waterway passage status and limit passage capacity, and generate a standardized simulation verification dataset. Based on the standardized simulation verification dataset, the measured values ​​of individual evaluation results are compared with the simulation baseline values. The relative deviation is calculated and the evaluation results of the out-of-threshold indicators are corrected to eliminate the evaluation bias caused by abnormal measured data.

6. The method for evaluating the level of service of a waterway considering waterway traffic characteristics according to claim 1, characterized in that, By integrating all the calibrated individual evaluation results, a comprehensive evaluation result of the waterway service level is calculated, including: Construct a weight calculation system for waterway evaluation indicators based on the CRITIC-game theory combined weighting method; Based on the aforementioned waterway evaluation index weight calculation system, the comparative strength and data conflict of each index are calculated using the CRITIC method to generate the initial objective weights of the indexes. The combined weight deviation is minimized using a game theory optimization method to obtain the final combined weights of each index. Based on the final combined weights of the aforementioned indicators, the individual evaluation results after all calibrations are summed in a hierarchical manner to complete the verification and boundary correction of the calculation results, and to obtain the overall evaluation result of the waterway service level.

7. A waterway service level evaluation system adapted to the characteristics of waterway traffic, characterized in that, include: The multi-source information acquisition module is used to collect full multi-source information about the waterway; The information processing and indicator construction module is used to screen and clean the full amount of multi-source information of the waterway, remove outliers and complete waterway-specific standardized processing. Combined with waterway design and navigation safety management specifications, it constructs a waterway service level evaluation indicator system that is embedded with waterway-specific constraints and adapted to multiple navigation scenarios. The indicator scoring correction module is used to classify the indicators according to their evaluation characteristics based on the evaluation indicator system and the standardized multi-source information of the waterway, complete the basic scoring of each indicator through the membership function, and set a waterway-specific dynamic correction coefficient and adjust the basic scoring in combination with the waterway grade, function and purpose, regional hydrological characteristics and local navigation control requirements to obtain the individual evaluation results. The simulation calibration comprehensive rating module is used to build a micro-simulation model of waterway-specific vessel passage based on the evaluation dimensions and waterway-specific constraint boundaries corresponding to the individual evaluation results. It restores the waterway passage status and limit passage capacity under different hydrological environments and different vessel flow rates, calibrates the deviation of the individual evaluation results, determines the weight of each indicator according to the indicator hierarchy classification rules and combined with the actual operation characteristics of the waterway, uses the CRITIC-game theory combined weighting method, integrates all the calibrated individual evaluation results, comprehensively calculates the overall evaluation result of the waterway service level, and clarifies the service level level of the waterway by comparing it with the preset level judgment standard.

8. An electronic device, characterized in that, The device includes a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor. The processor executes the program to implement the waterway service level evaluation method considering waterway traffic characteristics as described in any one of claims 1-6.

9. A computer-readable storage medium having a computer program or instructions stored thereon, characterized in that, When a computer program or instruction is executed, it implements the waterway service level evaluation method considering waterway traffic characteristics as described in any one of claims 1-6.

10. A computer program product, comprising a computer program or instructions, characterized in that, When a computer program or instruction is executed, it implements the waterway service level evaluation method considering waterway traffic characteristics as described in any one of claims 1-6.

Images