Drainage pipe network health dynamic assessment method and system

Abstract

The application provides a kind of sewer network health dynamic evaluation method and system, it is related to municipal water supply and drainage pipe network operation and maintenance technical field, by building structure safety, function operation, inspection well three-dimensional evaluation system, collect pipe section detection data, pipe material and structure parameters, operating parameters and inspection well data and other basic data;Based on pipe material deterioration coefficient and function deterioration coefficient, introduce interface risk, defect density, operation load, water quality scale and other dynamic correction factors, respectively calculate structure safety score, function operation score and inspection well health score;According to the preset dimension weight fusion gets comprehensive health degree score, divides health grade and matches maintenance and repair measures.The application solves the problem of traditional evaluation weight rough, single dimension, lack of predictability and environmental adaptability, realizes the accurate, dynamic, forward-looking evaluation of pipe network health status, and provides a scientific basis for fine maintenance and accurate repair.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of municipal water supply and drainage network operation and maintenance technology, and more specifically, to a method and system for dynamic health assessment of drainage networks. Background Technology

[0002] Drainage pipe networks are an important component of urban infrastructure, undertaking the crucial functions of collecting, transporting, and treating urban sewage. With the acceleration of urbanization, the scale and complexity of drainage pipe networks are constantly increasing, and their health status is directly related to the quality of the urban environment and the quality of life of residents.

[0003] Statistics show that the total length of urban drainage pipe networks in my country has exceeded 700,000 kilometers. However, problems such as aging, damage, and blockage of these networks are becoming increasingly prominent, leading to frequent environmental issues such as urban flooding and groundwater pollution. To scientifically assess the health status of drainage pipe networks, the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development issued the "Technical Specification for Inspection and Evaluation of Urban Drainage Pipelines" (CJJ 181-2012). This specification uses closed-circuit television (CCTV) inspection technology to obtain images of the internal pipes and scores them based on the type and severity of defects, providing a technical basis for the maintenance and management of drainage pipe networks.

[0004] However, with the accumulation of testing data and the increasing demand for assessment, the existing procedures have gradually revealed their limitations in terms of assessment accuracy, dynamic prediction, and multi-dimensional analysis, making it difficult to meet the needs of refined management and preventive maintenance.

[0005] The specific issues are as follows: (1) The defect weight setting is crude: the impact of pipe type (concrete pipe, plastic pipe, steel pipe, etc.) and interface form on defects is not distinguished. Defects of the same degree are assigned the same risk level, which fails to reflect the actual risk differences of different pipe materials. (2) Weak inspection well assessment system: Only simple visual inspection of inspection wells is carried out, without structural and functional quantitative assessment indicators. In many major cities, the incidence of inspection well defects is over 30%, and potential hidden dangers are difficult to identify accurately. (3) Time dimension assessment is missing: the defect development trend prediction is not included, the correlation model between pipe age and deterioration rate is not established, the stable defects and rapid deterioration defects cannot be distinguished, and the maintenance plan lacks foresight; (4) Insufficient environmental sensitivity: The impact of groundwater level changes on pipeline corrosion rate and structural stability was not considered, and the assessment criteria were not adjusted according to groundwater level fluctuations, which may lead to an underestimation of the actual risks of the pipeline.

[0006] Existing assessment methods, with their single-dimensional and static weighting models, suffer from insufficient scientific rigor, accuracy, and practicality, failing to provide effective support for the refined maintenance and precise repair of drainage pipe networks. Therefore, there is an urgent need for a comprehensive, dynamic, and forward-looking method to assess the health of drainage pipe networks. Summary of the Invention

[0007] In view of the above-mentioned problems existing in the existing CJJ 181-2012 standard, the purpose of this invention is to provide a method and system for dynamic health assessment of drainage pipe networks. By constructing a three-dimensional assessment system of structural safety, functional operation, and inspection wells, dynamic weights of dimensions are introduced, predictive indicators and environmental sensitivity parameters are incorporated, and a grade classification mechanism and supporting maintenance and repair measures are combined to achieve a scientific assessment of the health of the pipe network.

[0008] On one hand, the present invention provides a method for dynamic health assessment of drainage pipe networks, comprising: Collect basic data for pipeline network assessment; wherein, the basic data for pipeline network assessment includes pipe section inspection data, pipe material and structural parameters, operating parameters and inspection well data; Based on the pipeline network assessment data, a three-dimensional assessment system is constructed, including structural safety, functional operation, and inspection well dimensions, and scores for each dimension are determined according to preset scoring rules. Based on the determined scores for each dimension and the preset weight ratios, the comprehensive health score H of the pipeline network is calculated using the following formula: H = Ws × (Hs / Cs) + Wf × (Hf / Cf) + Wj × Hj; where Ws is the structural safety weight, Hs is the structural base score, Cs is the structural correction coefficient, Wf is the functional operation weight, Hf is the functional base score, Cf is the functional correction coefficient, Wj is the manhole weight, and Hj is the manhole health score. Based on the comprehensive health score of the pipeline network, the health levels are divided according to the preset level classification rules, and corresponding maintenance and repair measures are matched for each health level.

[0009] One possible approach is that the pipe section inspection data includes the pipe section repair index and maintenance index; the material and structural parameters include pipe type, pipe age, interface type, and groundwater level; the operating parameters include actual flow rate, design flow rate, water quality type, and time since the last maintenance; and the manhole data includes the total number of manholes N in the pipe section and the defect type and number of individual manholes.

[0010] One possible approach is to set the preset weight ratio as Ws:Wf:Wj = 50:35:15.

[0011] One option is that the structural basis score is calculated based on the pipe segment repair index according to the following formula: Hs=max(0,100-10×RI), Where Hs is non-negative, and RI is the pipe section repair index; The structural correction factor is calculated according to the following formula: Cs = B(t,W) 0.55 × R 0.25 × Ds 0.20 , B(t,W)=1+k1·exp[λ1(W)·t / T] + k2·exp[λ2·t / T] Where B(t,W) is the pipe deterioration coefficient, R is the interface risk coefficient, Ds is the structural defect density coefficient, t is the pipe age; T=10 years is the base time; k1 and k2 are deterioration coefficients; λ1(W) is the water level correction function for fast deterioration rate, and λ2 is the slow deterioration rate.

[0012] One possible approach is to use the following fast degradation rate water level correction function: λ1(W) = λ1× (a + b·W) Where W is the groundwater level correction coefficient, and λ1, a, and b are correction parameters related to pipe material.

[0013] One option is that the functional baseline score is calculated based on the maintenance index according to the following formula: Hf=max(0,100-10×MI), Where Hf takes a non-negative value, and MI is the maintenance index; The functional correction factor is calculated according to the following formula: Cf=F(Δt) 0.46 × L 0.17 × C 0.12 × R 0.12 × Df 0.13 , F(Δt) = 1 + f1·exp( 1·Δt / T) + f2·exp( 2·Δt / T), Wherein, F(Δt) is the functional degradation coefficient within the time interval Δt, Δt=min(t-Tm,10), Tm is the time of the last maintenance, and if it exceeds 10 years, it is calculated as 10 years; T=10 years is the base time; Φ1, Φ2, f1, f2 are the functional degradation characteristic coefficients of different pipe materials.

[0014] One optional approach is to calculate the health score of the inspection well according to the following formula: , Where n is the total number of inspection wells in the pipe section. P i For the first i Points will be deducted for each inspection well.

[0015] One optional approach is to include a logic verification and anomaly correction step after calculating the comprehensive health score of the pipeline network. Anomalies are corrected using preset logic verification rules, and data recalculation is triggered when an anomaly is detected. The preset logic verification rules include: The numerical relationship between F and S / Smax is: F should be greater than or equal to max (Smax, S); The numerical relationship between G and Y / Ymax is: G should be greater than or equal to max(Ymax,Y); The trend relationship between F and RI: F and RI are positively correlated; The trend relationship between G and MI: G and MI are positively correlated; Compatibility between Cs and S: Cs should be calculated based on S; Where F is the functional degradation coefficient, S is the total structural damage score, and Smax is the theoretical maximum value of structural damage; G is the structural degradation coefficient, Y is the total functional damage score, and Ymax is the theoretical maximum value of functional damage. If any item receives an abnormal verification result based on the preset logical verification rules, a recalculation mechanism is triggered; if all items pass verification, the process proceeds to the next step of classifying health levels.

[0016] On the other hand, the present invention also provides a dynamic health assessment system for drainage pipe networks, comprising: The data acquisition unit is used to collect basic data for pipeline network assessment; wherein, the basic data for pipeline network assessment includes pipe section inspection data, pipe material and structural parameters, operating parameters, and inspection well data; The dimensional assessment unit is used to construct a three-dimensional assessment system based on the pipeline network assessment basic data, including structural safety dimension, functional operation dimension, and inspection well dimension, and to determine the score of each dimension according to the preset scoring rules. The comprehensive evaluation unit is used to calculate the overall health score H of the pipeline network based on the determined scores for each dimension and the preset weighting ratios, using the following formula: H=Ws×(Hs / Cs)+Wf×(Hf / Cf)+Wj×Hj; Wherein, Ws is the structural safety weight, Hs is the structural basic score, Cs is the structural correction coefficient, Wf is the functional operation weight, Hf is the functional basic score, Cf is the functional correction coefficient, Wj is the manhole weight, and Hj is the manhole health score. The grading unit is used to classify health levels according to the comprehensive health score of the pipeline network and according to the preset grading rules, and to match corresponding maintenance and repair measures for each health level.

[0017] Compared with existing technologies, the drainage network health dynamic assessment method and system of the present invention, by establishing a dynamic weight allocation mechanism and a three-dimensional comprehensive assessment system that considers factors such as pipe material type, interface form, and groundwater level, effectively improves the pertinence and accuracy of the assessment, realizes the prediction of pipeline defect development trends, enhances the foresight of maintenance plans, and enables a comprehensive and scientific assessment of the health status of drainage networks.

[0018] To achieve the foregoing and related objectives, one or more aspects of the invention include the features which will be described in detail below and specifically pointed out in the claims. The following description and accompanying drawings illustrate certain exemplary aspects of the invention. However, these aspects indicate only a few of the various ways in which the principles of the invention can be used. Furthermore, the invention is intended to include all such aspects and their equivalents. Attached Figure Description

[0019] Other objects and results of the invention will become more apparent and readily understood with reference to the following description taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings and the contents of the claims, and with a more complete understanding of the invention. In the drawings: Figure 1 This is a schematic diagram of the dynamic health assessment method for drainage pipe networks according to an embodiment of the present invention; Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of a dynamic health assessment method for drainage pipe networks according to another embodiment of the present invention; Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram of the structure of a drainage network health dynamic assessment system according to an embodiment of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0020] In the following description, numerous specific details are set forth for illustrative purposes and to provide a thorough understanding of one or more embodiments. However, it will be apparent that these embodiments may also be implemented without these specific details. In other instances, well-known structures and devices are shown in block diagram form for ease of description of one or more embodiments.

[0021] To better illustrate the technical solution of this invention, the following explanations are provided for some abbreviations and key terms involved in this invention: CCTV (Closed Circuit Television) refers to a detection method that uses endoscopic cameras to acquire images of internal defects in pipelines and record the type, location, and severity of the defects.

[0022] RI (Repair Index) reflects the degree of damage to the pipeline structure. It is a comprehensive index of structural damage calculated based on CCTV inspection results. The higher the value, the more serious the structural defects in the pipeline and the greater the urgency of repair.

[0023] MI (Maintenance Index) reflects the degree of functional damage to pipelines. It is a comprehensive index of functional degradation calculated based on CCTV inspection results. The higher the value, the more severe the functional defects of the pipeline and the greater the urgency of maintenance.

[0024] Hs (Structural Basic Score) is a structural health baseline score calculated based on the Repair Index (RI). The score ranges from 0 to 100, with a higher score indicating a better condition of the pipeline structure.

[0025] Hf (Functional Basic Score) is a basic functional health score calculated based on the Maintenance Index (MI). The score ranges from 0 to 100, with a higher score indicating a better pipeline drainage function.

[0026] H (Comprehensive Health Score) is the overall health score of the pipeline network obtained by integrating the three-dimensional scores of structure, function, and inspection wells. The score ranges from 0 to 100, and the higher the score, the better the overall health status of the pipeline network.

[0027] B(t,W) (Pipe deterioration coefficient) is a dynamic deterioration factor related to pipe age t and groundwater level W. It is dimensionless and used to characterize the degree of structural aging of pipes over time and in response to environmental factors.

[0028] Cs (Structural correction factor) is a dimensionless dynamic correction factor that integrates pipe material deterioration, interface risk, and structural defect density. It is used to correct the structural baseline score and reflects the actual structural safety level.

[0029] Cf (Functional correction factor) is a dimensionless dynamic correction factor that integrates functional degradation, operating load, water quality scaling, interface risk, and functional defect density. It is used to correct the functional baseline score and reflects the actual operational functional level.

[0030] To address the problems existing in the current CJJ 181-2012 standard, this invention proposes a method and system for dynamic health assessment of drainage pipe networks. By constructing a three-dimensional assessment system encompassing structural safety, functional operation, and inspection wells, it introduces dynamic weights and a dual-exponential degradation model, incorporates predictive indicators and environmental sensitivity parameters, and combines an anomaly correction mechanism to achieve a scientific assessment of pipe network health. The specific embodiments of this invention will be described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings.

[0031] Figure 1 The process of the dynamic health assessment method for drainage pipe networks according to an embodiment of the present invention is illustrated by way of example.

[0032] like Figure 1 As shown, the dynamic health assessment method for drainage pipe networks provided in this embodiment mainly includes the following steps: S110: Collect basic data for pipeline network assessment.

[0033] This step is used to acquire basic testing data. The basic data for pipeline network assessment includes three main categories: pipe segment testing data, pipe material and structural parameters, and operational parameters and manhole data. As an example, these three categories of data specifically include: 1) Pipeline section inspection data: Repair Index (RI) and Maintenance Index (MI) in the CCTV inspection report; 2) Pipe material and structural parameters: Pipe type (plastic pipe, steel pipe, concrete pipe, etc.), pipe age (t), joint type (rigid, flexible, welded), and groundwater level location; 3) Operating parameters: actual flow rate Q, design flow rate Qd, water quality type, and time since last maintenance Δt; 4) Inspection well data.

[0034] S120: Based on the pipeline network assessment data, construct a three-dimensional assessment system including structural safety dimension, functional operation dimension, and inspection well dimension, and determine the score for each dimension according to the preset scoring rules.

[0035] To break through the traditional single-dimensional assessment model, this invention constructs a three-dimensional assessment system encompassing structural safety, functional operation, and inspection wells, calculating health scores for each dimension to achieve a comprehensive depiction of the pipeline network's health status. The scoring calculation methods for the three dimensions will be illustrated below.

[0036] 1) Structural performance score calculation

[0037] Structural performance scoring reflects the safety status of the pipeline structure itself, and is determined by a basic structural score and a structural correction factor. It incorporates the impacts of pipe material deterioration, joint risks, structural defect density, and groundwater level. Structural base score: Calculated based on the repair index RI detected by CCTV. The formula is: Hs=max(0,100-10×RI), where Hs is the structural base score, which is non-negative. The larger the RI, the more serious the pipeline structural defects and the lower the base score.

[0038] The structural correction factor Cs is calculated using the following formula: Cs = B(t,W) 0.55 × R 0.25 × Ds 0.20 Where B(t,W) is the pipe deterioration coefficient, R is the interface risk coefficient, and Ds is the structural defect density coefficient.

[0039] The pipe degradation coefficient B(t,W) can be calculated using a double exponential degradation model: B(t,W)=1+k1·exp[λ1(W)·t / T] + k2·exp[λ2·t / T] In the formula: t is the pipe age; T=10 years is the base time; k1 and k2 are the deterioration coefficients; λ1(W) is the water level correction function for fast deterioration rate, and λ2 is the slow deterioration rate (insensitive to water level).

[0040] By establishing a dual-exponential degradation model of pipe age and degradation rate, and adding predictive indicators such as aging coefficient and defect density coefficient, it is possible to distinguish between stable defects and rapidly deteriorating defects, and to predict the development trend of defects, making maintenance plans more forward-looking.

[0041] Alternatively, a single-exponential model, a triple-exponential model, or a polynomial model can be used to replace the double-exponential degradation model in this embodiment, as long as the correlation between pipe age and degradation degree can be achieved. This embodiment establishes a correlation model between groundwater level change and pipe degradation rate by using groundwater level change as a key environmental parameter. The assessment criteria are adjusted according to the groundwater level location to avoid underestimating the actual corrosion and structural risks of the pipeline, effectively improving the scientific nature of the assessment.

[0042] The water level correction function for rapid degradation rate is: λ1(W) = λ1× (a + b·W) Where W is the groundwater level correction coefficient, and λ1, a, and b are correction parameters related to pipe material.

[0043] The table below provides illustrative examples of parameters such as pipe deterioration parameters, groundwater level, interface risk coefficient, and defect density coefficient.

[0044] Table 1 Pipe Deterioration Parameters

[0045] Table 2 Correction Table for Pipe Deterioration Parameters

[0046] Table 3 Groundwater Level Correction Factors

[0047] Table 4 Interface Risk Coefficient Table

[0048] Table 5 Defect Density Coefficient Table

[0049] 2) Functional performance score calculation

[0050] The functional performance score reflects the drainage operation capacity of the pipeline. It is determined by the basic functional score and the functional correction coefficient, and incorporates the effects of maintenance interval, operating load, water quality scaling, interface risk and functional defect density.

[0051] The functional baseline score is calculated based on the Maintenance Index (MI) measured by CCTV, and the specific calculation formula is as follows: Hf=max(0,100-10×MI) Hf is the functional baseline score, which is non-negative. The larger the MI, the more serious the pipeline functional defects and the lower the baseline score.

[0052] Functional correction factor Cf: Cf=F(Δt) 0.46 × L 0.17 × C 0.12 × R 0.12 × Df 0.13 Wherein, F(Δt) is the functional degradation coefficient, which can be constructed using a double exponential model to reflect the impact of the time elapsed since the last maintenance on the degradation of pipeline function: F(Δt) = 1 + f1·exp( 1·Δt / T) + f2·exp( 2·Δt / T), Where Δt=min(t-Tm,10), Tm is the time since the last maintenance, and is calculated as 10 years if it exceeds 10 years; T=10 years is the baseline time; Φ1, Φ2, f1, and f2 are the functional degradation characteristic coefficients of different pipe materials, and their specific values ​​are shown in Table 6; the meanings of other parameters are as follows: t: age of administration L: Operating load factor, which is determined based on the ratio of actual flow to design flow Q / Qd. The specific division and values ​​are shown in Table 7. C: Water quality scaling coefficient, which is classified and valued according to water quality type, as shown in Table 7; R: Interface risk coefficient, with the same value standard as in Table 4; Df: Functional defect density coefficient, which is consistent with the standard for the structural defect density coefficient Ds, as shown in Table 5.

[0053] Table 6 Functional Degradation Parameters

[0054] Table 7 Operating Load and Water Quality Scaling Coefficient

[0055] 3) Inspection well scoring

[0056] As a critical node in the pipeline network, manholes are included in the evaluation system separately and are quantitatively scored. Based on a pre-set deduction table for manhole defects (as shown in Table 8), various defects of each manhole (such as missing manhole covers, leakage in the manhole wall, and mud accumulation at the bottom of the manhole) are accumulated to obtain a single (number) score. i (Number) points deducted from inspection wells P i Then the inspection well score H j is: ; Where n is the total number of manholes in the pipeline section. The manhole health score is out of 100, and is calculated by deducting points based on the average score from the total number of manholes n in the pipeline section. H j, the more points deducted... H The lower the j value, the worse the health status of the inspection well.

[0057] Table 8. Deduction Values ​​for Inspection Well Defects

[0058] After determining the scores for each dimension, proceed to S130: calculate the overall health score of the pipeline network based on the determined scores for each dimension and the preset weight ratios. This invention introduces a dynamic weight allocation mechanism, setting dimension weights according to the actual characteristics of the pipeline network, and calculating the overall health score of the pipeline network using the following formula: H=Ws×(Hs / Cs)+Wf×(Hf / Cf)+Wj×Hj; Wherein, Ws is the structural safety weight, Hs is the structural basic score, Cs is the structural correction coefficient, Wf is the functional operation weight, Hf is the functional basic score, Cf is the functional correction coefficient, Wj is the inspection well weight, and Hj is the inspection well health score.

[0059] Among them, Hs / Cs, Hf / Cf, and Hj are the individual correction scores for structural, functional, and inspection well aspects, respectively; H is the comprehensive health score, and the higher the value, the better the health status of the pipeline network.

[0060] In one specific embodiment of the present invention, the weight ratio of structural safety, functional operation, and inspection well is set to 50:35:15, and the comprehensive health score formula is as follows: H=Hs / Cs×0.5+Hf / Cf×0.35+Hj×0.15 In addition, in specific applications, the proportions of structural weight, functional weight, and manhole weight can be adjusted according to the actual conditions of different regions and different types of pipe networks. For example, the proportions can be adjusted to 60:30:10 or 40:40:20 to adapt to different assessment needs.

[0061] To ensure the accuracy of the assessment results, an anomaly correction mechanism can be introduced after calculating the comprehensive health score of the pipeline network. In one specific embodiment of the invention, five core logical checks are introduced to verify the consistency of key parameters such as structural safety score, functional operation score, deterioration coefficient, and defect index. If the checks fail, an anomaly is determined, triggering data recalculation, parameter reassignment, and basic data review to ensure the reliability and logical consistency of the assessment results and to avoid calculation errors or data entry deviations.

[0062] Specifically, as an example, the five core logic verification items and their logical relationships are as follows: (1) Verification of the numerical relationship between F and S / Smax: F should be greater than or equal to max (Smax,S); Where F represents the functional degradation coefficient, reflecting the degree of decline in drainage function caused by maintenance intervals, siltation, and scaling, and is dimensionless; the larger the value, the more severe the functional degradation. S represents the total structural damage score, obtained by accumulating CCTV defect levels, and is dimensionless; the more defects and the higher the level, the larger S is. Smax represents the theoretical maximum value of structural damage, the maximum allowable defect deduction value for a single pipe section given by the regulations, and is dimensionless; it is used to normalize the degree of structural damage. S / Smax is the normalized structural damage ratio, dimensionless; it ranges from 0 to 1, and the larger the value, the more severe the structural damage.

[0063] (2) Verification of the numerical relationship between G and Y / Ymax: G should be greater than or equal to max (Ymax,Y); Wherein, G represents the structural deterioration coefficient, i.e., the pipe material deterioration coefficient B(t,W), which is dimensionless; it reflects the degree of structural aging caused by pipe age, groundwater level, and material. The larger the value, the more severe the structural deterioration. Y represents the total functional damage score, which is obtained by accumulating the corresponding defect deductions from MI. It is dimensionless. The more severe the siltation, scaling, and deformation, the larger Y is. Ymax represents the theoretical maximum value of functional damage, which is the maximum deduction value for functional defects in a single pipe section given by the specification. It is dimensionless. Y / Ymax represents the normalized functional damage ratio, which is dimensionless. It ranges from 0 to 1, and the larger the value, the more severe the functional damage.

[0064] (3) Verification of the trend relationship between F and RI: The functional degradation coefficient F and the repair index RI should be positively correlated, that is, if F is high, RI should be high; if RI is large (the more severe the structural defect), F should be large (the more severe the functional degradation).

[0065] (4) Verification of the trend relationship between G and MI: The structural deterioration coefficient G and the maintenance index MI should be positively correlated, that is, if G is high, MI should be high; if MI is large (the functional defects are more serious), G should be large (the structural aging is more serious).

[0066] (5) Compatibility verification of Cs and S: Cs should be calculated based on S.

[0067] Wherein, Cs represents the structural correction coefficient, which is dimensionless; it is the amplification / attenuation coefficient of the structural score due to the aging of the pipe material, the risk of the interface, and the density of defects, with a value ≥1; the more severe the defects / aging, the larger Cs is.

[0068] If any verification result is abnormal, a recalculation mechanism is triggered, prioritizing the review of basic data (RI, MI, water level, pipe age, defect table); if the data is correct, the deterioration model parameters (k1, λ1, f1, ...) are reassigned. 1) If the second verification is still abnormal, prompt for manual review of CCTV footage and on-site conditions to ensure consistency of evaluation logic and reliability of results. If F≠max (Smax,S), the testing unit is required to recalculate relevant parameters. If the trends of RI and F are seriously divergent, check the rationality of the values ​​of degradation coefficients such as K, E, and T. If the verification is normal, proceed to the subsequent grade classification steps.

[0069] This implementation introduces an anomaly correction mechanism, which verifies the evaluation results based on multiple logical checks and triggers recalculation for abnormal data, thus ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the evaluation results.

[0070] S140: Based on the comprehensive health score of the pipeline network, the health level is divided according to the preset level division rules, and corresponding maintenance and repair measures are matched for each health level.

[0071] In this embodiment, the drainage network is divided into five health levels based on the comprehensive health score H, and corresponding repair urgency and targeted maintenance and repair measures are matched to realize the transformation of the assessment results into actual engineering applications. The specific classification criteria are shown in Table 9.

[0072] Table 9 Health Level Classification

[0073] In practice, the score thresholds for health levels can be adjusted based on actual engineering experience and management needs, such as using a four-level classification (healthy, sub-healthy, sick, severely sick) or a six-level classification.

[0074] The following section provides a more detailed explanation of each step in the above-described dynamic health assessment method for drainage pipe networks, using a specific embodiment as an example.

[0075] Taking a 15-year-old concrete pipe in a city's municipal sewage network as an example, where the groundwater level is higher than the top of the pipe, a health assessment is conducted. Specific steps include: (1) Data acquisition: CCTV detected RI=3, MI=2; the pipe material is concrete pipe (high water level), the pipe age is t=15 years, the joint type is socket, the groundwater level is higher than the top of the pipe; the operating load Q / Qd=0.9, the water quality is domestic sewage + 20% industrial wastewater; the time since the last maintenance Δt=8 years; the total number of manholes in the pipe section N=2, the deduction of manhole #1 P1=8, the deduction of manhole #2 P2=10.

[0076] (2) Parameter matching: According to Table 3, the groundwater level is higher than the top of the pipe, W=1.2; according to Table 4, the rigid interface R=1; according to Table 5, the density of structural / functional defects is 0.2, Ds=Df=1.1; According to Table 1, the deterioration parameters of the concrete pipe (high water level) are: k1=0.55, λ1=0.15, k2=0.3, λ2=0.05; according to Table 2, the water level sensitivity of the concrete pipe is moderate, λ1(W)=0.15×(0.8+0.2×1.2)=0.16; According to Table 6, the functional degradation parameters of the concrete pipe are: f1=0.35, Φ1=0.12, f2=0.4, Φ2=0.05; According to Table 7, Q / Qd=0.9, operating load factor L=0.95; domestic sewage + 20% industrial wastewater, water quality scaling factor C=1.00.

[0077] (3) Three-dimensional scoring calculation: Structural performance: Hs = 100 - 10 × 3 = 70; B(t,W)=1+0.55×exp(0.16×15 / 10)+0.3×exp(0.05×15 / 10)≈2.02; Cs=2.020.55×10.25×1.10.20≈1.5; Functionality and performance: Hf = 100 - 10 × 2 = 80; F(Δt)=1+0.35×exp(0.12×8 / 10)+0.4×exp(0.05×8 / 10)≈1.80; Cf=1.800.46×0.950.17×1.000.12×10.12×1.10.13≈1.32; Inspection well rating: Hj=100-(8+10) / 2=91.

[0078] Overall health score calculation: H=70 / 1.5×0.5+80 / 1.32×0.35+91×0.15≈58.53 (5) Anomaly correction: After logical verification, all verification items are normal and the evaluation results are valid.

[0079] (6) Level and measures: According to Table 9, the overall health score of 58.53 points belongs to the mild pathological level. The urgency of repair is medium. It is recommended to include it in the repair plan and complete the treatment within 1 year.

[0080] Corresponding to the above-mentioned dynamic health assessment method for drainage pipe networks, the present invention also provides a dynamic health assessment system for drainage pipe networks. Figure 3 The structure of a dynamic health assessment system for drainage pipe networks according to an embodiment of the present invention is shown, such as... Figure 3 As shown, the drainage network health dynamic assessment system 300 in this embodiment mainly includes a data acquisition unit 310, a dimension assessment unit 320, a comprehensive assessment unit 330, and a level classification unit 340.

[0081] The unit of this invention can also be called a module, which refers to a series of computer program segments that can be executed by the processor of an electronic device and can perform a fixed function, and are stored in the memory of the electronic device.

[0082] The functions of each module / unit are as follows: The data acquisition unit 310 is used to collect basic data for pipeline network assessment; wherein, the basic data for pipeline network assessment includes pipe section inspection data, pipe material and structural parameters, operating parameters and inspection well data; The dimension evaluation unit 320 is used to construct a three-dimensional evaluation system including structural safety dimension, functional operation dimension and inspection well dimension based on the pipeline network evaluation basic data, and to determine the score of each dimension according to the preset scoring rules. The comprehensive evaluation unit 330 is used to calculate the overall health score H of the pipeline network based on the determined scores of each dimension and the preset weight ratios, using the following formula: H=Ws×(Hs / Cs)+Wf×(Hf / Cf)+Wj×Hj; Wherein, Ws is the structural safety weight, Hs is the structural basic score, Cs is the structural correction coefficient, Wf is the functional operation weight, Hf is the functional basic score, Cf is the functional correction coefficient, Wj is the manhole weight, and Hj is the manhole health score. The grading unit 340 is used to classify health levels according to the comprehensive health score of the pipeline network and according to the preset grading rules, and to match corresponding maintenance and repair measures for each health level.

[0083] The aforementioned drainage network health dynamic assessment system is an implementation system corresponding to the aforementioned drainage network health dynamic assessment method. Its specific execution steps can be referred to in the specific implementation of the aforementioned drainage network health dynamic assessment method, and will not be described in detail here.

[0084] The above describes the method and system for dynamic health assessment of drainage pipe networks according to embodiments of the present invention. It can be determined that using the above-described method and system for dynamic health assessment of drainage pipe networks breaks through the traditional single-structure assessment model, constructing a three-dimensional assessment system encompassing structural safety, functional operation, and inspection wells. Inspection wells, which account for more than 30% of pipe network failures, are included in the quantitative assessment, achieving a comprehensive depiction of the pipe network's health status. A dynamic weight allocation mechanism is introduced, adjusting the index weights based on actual parameters such as pipe material type, pipe age, interface type, and groundwater level, solving the problem of coarse weight settings in traditional regulations and reflecting the risk differences of different pipe materials and operating conditions. The comprehensive health level is divided into health grades, matching clear repair urgency and implementable maintenance and repair measures, achieving direct connection between assessment results and engineering practice, and providing a scientific basis for the refined maintenance and precise repair of urban drainage pipe networks.

[0085] In the several embodiments provided by this invention, it should be understood that the disclosed systems and methods can be implemented in other ways. For example, the system embodiments described above are merely illustrative; for instance, the division of modules is only a logical functional division, and other division methods may be used in actual implementation.

[0086] Furthermore, the functional modules in the various embodiments of the present invention can be integrated into one processing unit, or each unit can exist physically separately, or two or more units can be integrated into one unit. The integrated unit can be implemented in hardware or in the form of hardware plus software functional modules.

[0087] The method and system for dynamic health assessment of drainage pipe networks according to the present invention have been described above by way of example with reference to the accompanying drawings. However, those skilled in the art should understand that various modifications can be made to the method and system for dynamic health assessment of drainage pipe networks proposed in the present invention without departing from the scope of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for dynamic health assessment of drainage pipe networks, characterized in that, include: Collect basic data for pipeline network assessment; wherein, the basic data for pipeline network assessment includes pipe section inspection data, pipe material and structural parameters, operating parameters and inspection well data; Based on the pipeline network assessment data, a three-dimensional assessment system is constructed, including structural safety, functional operation, and inspection well dimensions, and scores for each dimension are determined according to preset scoring rules. Based on the determined scores for each dimension and the preset weight ratios, the comprehensive health score H of the pipeline network is calculated using the following formula: H = Ws × (Hs / Cs) + Wf × (Hf / Cf) + Wj × Hj; where Ws is the structural safety weight, Hs is the structural base score, Cs is the structural correction coefficient, Wf is the functional operation weight, Hf is the functional base score, Cf is the functional correction coefficient, Wj is the manhole weight, and Hj is the manhole health score. Based on the comprehensive health score of the pipeline network, the health levels are divided according to the preset level classification rules, and corresponding maintenance and repair measures are matched for each health level.

2. The method for dynamic health assessment of drainage pipe networks according to claim 1, characterized in that, The pipe segment inspection data includes the pipe segment repair index and maintenance index; The pipe and structural parameters include pipe type, pipe age, joint type, and groundwater level; The operating parameters include actual flow rate, design flow rate, water quality type, and time since the last maintenance. The inspection well data includes the total number of inspection wells N in the pipeline section, the defect type and number of individual inspection wells.

3. The method for dynamic health assessment of drainage pipe networks according to claim 2, characterized in that, The preset weight ratio is Ws:Wf:Wj=50:35:

15.

4. The method for dynamic health assessment of drainage pipe networks according to claim 3, characterized in that, The structural basis score is calculated based on the pipe segment repair index according to the following formula: Hs=max(0,100-10×RI), Where Hs is non-negative, and RI is the pipe section repair index; The structural correction factor is calculated according to the following formula: Cs = B(t,W) 0.55 × R 0.25 × Ds 0.20 , B(t,W)=1+k1·exp[λ1(W)·t / T] + k2·exp[λ2·t / T] Where B(t,W) is the pipe deterioration coefficient, R is the interface risk coefficient, Ds is the structural defect density coefficient, t is the pipe age; T=10 years is the base time; k1 and k2 are deterioration coefficients; λ1(W) is the water level correction function for fast deterioration rate, and λ2 is the slow deterioration rate.

5. The method for dynamic health assessment of drainage pipe networks according to claim 4, characterized in that, The rapid deterioration rate water level correction function is as follows: λ1(W) = λ1× (a + b·W) Where W is the groundwater level correction coefficient, and λ1, a, and b are correction parameters related to pipe material.

6. The method for dynamic health assessment of drainage pipe networks according to claim 1, characterized in that, The functional baseline score is calculated based on the maintenance index using the following formula: Hf=max(0,100-10×MI), Where Hf takes a non-negative value, and MI is the maintenance index; The functional correction factor is calculated according to the following formula: Cf=F(Δt) 0.46 × L 0.17 × C 0.12 × R 0.12 × Df 0.13 , F(Δt) = 1 + f1·exp( 1·Δt / T) + f2·exp( 2·Δt / T), Wherein, F(Δt) is the functional degradation coefficient within the time interval Δt, Δt=min(t-Tm,10), Tm is the time of the last maintenance, and if it exceeds 10 years, it is calculated as 10 years; T=10 years is the base time; Φ1, Φ2, f1, f2 are the functional degradation characteristic coefficients of different pipe materials.

7. The method for dynamic health assessment of drainage pipe networks according to claim 1, characterized in that, The health score of the inspection well is calculated according to the following formula: ， Where n is the total number of inspection wells in the pipe section. P i For the first i Points will be deducted for each inspection well.

8. The method for dynamic health assessment of drainage pipe networks according to claim 1, characterized in that, After calculating the comprehensive health score of the pipeline network, the process also includes logical verification and anomaly correction steps. Anomaly correction is performed using preset logical verification rules, and data recalculation is triggered when an anomaly is detected. The preset logical verification rules include: The numerical relationship between F and S / Smax is: F should be greater than or equal to max (Smax, S); The numerical relationship between G and Y / Ymax is: G should be greater than or equal to max(Ymax,Y); The trend relationship between F and RI: F and RI are positively correlated; The trend relationship between G and MI: G and MI are positively correlated; Compatibility between Cs and S: Cs should be calculated based on S; Where F is the functional degradation coefficient, S is the total structural damage score, and Smax is the theoretical maximum value of structural damage; G is the structural degradation coefficient, Y is the total functional damage score, and Ymax is the theoretical maximum value of functional damage. If any item receives an abnormal verification result based on the preset logical verification rules, a recalculation mechanism is triggered; if all items pass verification, the process proceeds to the next step of classifying health levels.

9. The method for dynamic health assessment of drainage pipe networks according to claim 1, characterized in that, Based on the comprehensive health score of the drainage network, the drainage network is divided into five health levels; among which, When H≥85, the health level is healthy, the urgency of repair is: none, and the recommended maintenance measures are routine maintenance and retesting every 5-10 years. When 70≤H≤84, the health level is sub-healthy, the urgency of repair is low, and the recommended maintenance measures are to strengthen monitoring and retest every 2-3 years. When 55≤H≤69, the health level is mildly diseased, the urgency of repair is medium, and the recommended maintenance measures are to include it in the repair plan and deal with it within 1 year. When 40≤H≤54, the health level is moderately diseased, the urgency of repair is high, and the recommended maintenance measures are to repair as soon as possible and deal with it within six months. When H < 40, the health level is severely diseased, the urgency of repair is urgent, and the recommended maintenance measures are immediate repair or replacement.

10. A dynamic health assessment system for drainage pipe networks, characterized in that, include: The data acquisition unit is used to collect basic data for pipeline network assessment; wherein, the basic data for pipeline network assessment includes pipe section inspection data, pipe material and structural parameters, operating parameters, and inspection well data; The dimensional assessment unit is used to construct a three-dimensional assessment system based on the pipeline network assessment basic data, including structural safety dimension, functional operation dimension, and inspection well dimension, and to determine the score of each dimension according to the preset scoring rules. The comprehensive evaluation unit is used to calculate the overall health score H of the pipeline network based on the determined scores for each dimension and the preset weighting ratios, using the following formula: H=Ws×(Hs / Cs)+Wf×(Hf / Cf)+Wj×Hj; Wherein, Ws is the structural safety weight, Hs is the structural basic score, Cs is the structural correction coefficient, Wf is the functional operation weight, Hf is the functional basic score, Cf is the functional correction coefficient, Wj is the manhole weight, and Hj is the manhole health score. The grading unit is used to classify health levels according to the comprehensive health score of the pipeline network and according to the preset grading rules, and to match corresponding maintenance and repair measures for each health level.

Images