Evaluation device, evaluation method, and evaluation program

Abstract

To conduct a simple and efficient risk assessment of potential risks in sewage treatment facilities. [Solution] The evaluation device (1) includes a first acquisition unit (141) that acquires multiple types of influence parameters, a second acquisition unit (142) that acquires multiple types of risk parameters, and an evaluation score calculation unit (143) that calculates an influence evaluation score by weighting each of the multiple types of influence parameters acquired by the first acquisition unit, and also calculates a risk evaluation score by weighting each of the multiple types of risk parameters acquired by the second acquisition unit.

Description

Technical Field

[0004] ,

[0006] , , , , , ,

[0005] , , , , ,

[0001] The present disclosure relates to an evaluation device, an evaluation method, an evaluation program, and the like.

Background Art

[0002] Since sewer pipelines are socially important infrastructure, guidelines (Non-Patent Document 1) have been issued and prepared by the government for the implementation of stock management including the evaluation of possible risks.

Prior Art Documents

Non-Patent Documents

[0003]

Non-Patent Document 1

Summary of the Invention

Problems to be Solved by the Invention

[0004] However, in the guidelines according to Non-Patent Document 1, the damage scale (impact degree) and the occurrence probability of defects (risk degree) are each evaluated by only one item. As an evaluation of the risks of sewer facilities that actually occur with many factors intricately intertwined, there is room for improvement. Also, the realization of a system that can simply and efficiently perform such risk evaluations is also required.

[0005] One aspect of the present disclosure is to realize simplicity and efficiency in risk evaluation by providing an evaluation device or the like that comprehensively and accurately evaluates risks that may occur in sewer facilities based on multiple items.

Means for Solving the Problems

[0006] An evaluation device according to one aspect of the present disclosure is an evaluation device for evaluating risks that may occur in sewer pipelines, comprising: a first acquisition unit that acquires multiple types of impact parameters, which are indicators that influence the scale of damage when the risk occurs; a second acquisition unit that acquires multiple types of risk parameters, which are indicators that influence the probability of the risk occurring; and an evaluation score calculation unit that calculates an impact evaluation score by weighting each of the multiple types of impact parameters acquired by the first acquisition unit, and calculates a risk evaluation score by weighting each of the multiple types of risk parameters acquired by the second acquisition unit.

[0007] An evaluation method according to one aspect of the present disclosure is an evaluation method performed by a computer to evaluate risks that may occur in a sewer pipeline, comprising: a first acquisition step of acquiring multiple types of impact parameters, which are indicators that affect the scale of damage when the risk occurs; a second acquisition step of acquiring multiple types of risk parameters, which are indicators that affect the probability of the risk occurring; and an evaluation score calculation step of calculating an impact evaluation score by weighting each of the multiple types of impact parameters acquired in the first acquisition step, and calculating a risk evaluation score by weighting each of the multiple types of risk parameters acquired in the second acquisition step.

[0008] An evaluation program according to one aspect of this disclosure is an evaluation program for evaluating risks that may occur in sewer pipelines, and is an evaluation program that causes a computer to execute: a first acquisition step of acquiring multiple types of impact parameters, which are indicators that affect the scale of damage when the risk occurs; a second acquisition step of acquiring multiple types of risk parameters, which are indicators that affect the probability of the risk occurring; and an evaluation score calculation step of calculating an impact evaluation score by weighting each of the multiple types of impact parameters acquired in the first acquisition step, and calculating a risk evaluation score by weighting each of the multiple types of risk parameters acquired in the second acquisition step. [Effects of the Invention]

[0009] According to one aspect of this disclosure, it is possible to perform a risk assessment that may occur in sewage treatment facilities in a simple and efficient manner. [Brief explanation of the drawing]

[0010] [Figure 1] This is a block diagram showing an example of the configuration of the evaluation device in this embodiment. [Figure 2] This is a diagram showing an example of piping data. [Figure 3] This diagram shows the relationship between caliber, one of the impact parameters, and the degree to which the scale of damage is indicated, and also the relationship between the installation year, one of the risk parameters, and the degree to which the risk is likely to occur. [Figure 4] This figure shows an example of the relationship between the combination of classifications set for impact assessment points and classifications set for risk assessment points and the groups, as well as an example of weighting coefficients. [Figure 5] This figure shows an example of the operation screen displayed on the display unit. [Figure 6] This figure shows an example of an input screen displayed on the display unit. [Figure 7] This flowchart shows an example of the processing flow by the control unit. [Modes for carrying out the invention]

[0011] [Evaluation device] Figure 1 is a block diagram showing an example of the configuration of the evaluation device 1. The evaluation device 1 is a device for evaluating the risks that may occur in sewer pipelines. The evaluation device 1 includes, for example, an input unit 11, a display unit 12, a storage unit 13, and a control unit 14, as shown in Figure 1. However, the evaluation device 1 does not necessarily have to include at least one of the input unit 11, the display unit 12, and the storage unit 13. Components that are not included in the evaluation device 1 can function as external devices that are connected to the evaluation device 1 in a communicative manner. In the following description, sewer pipelines will be simply referred to as pipelines.

[0012] The input unit 11 accepts various input operations, such as operations to cause the control unit 14 to perform various processes. Examples of such operations include operations to cause the control unit 14 to acquire various data from the storage unit 13, operations to perform the risk evaluation described above, operations to output the results of the risk evaluation described above, and operations to modify various data stored in the storage unit 13. The input unit 11 is an operation unit that can be operated by the user, such as a mouse, keyboard, or touch panel.

[0013] The display unit 12 is a display screen that displays various information. The display unit 12 displays, for example, an operation screen that accepts various operations, various data stored in the storage unit 13, and the results of the risk evaluation mentioned above. Hereafter, the results of the risk evaluation will simply be referred to as the evaluation results. The display unit 12 may be an example of a presentation unit that presents information output by the control unit 14. The presentation unit may be, for example, a speaker that outputs various information as sound.

[0014] The memory unit 13 stores data and programs necessary for control by the control unit 14. For example, the memory unit 13 stores piping data indicating the attributes of at least one pipe constituting the pipeline and the evaluation results for that pipe. In addition, the memory unit 13 stores data such as weighting coefficients and classifications corresponding to the magnitude of risk.

[0015] Figure 2 shows an example of piping data. Piping data is stored for each pipe. The piping data includes, for example, pipe attributes, as shown by reference numeral 101.

[0016] The attributes of the piping include, for example, the area (water system) where the piping is laid, the extension of the piping (pipe length, unit [m]), the type of the piping (pipe type), the material of the piping, and the diameter of the piping (unit [mm]). In addition, the attributes of the piping include the installation year of the piping, the facility where the piping is laid (important facility), the location affected by damage or deterioration of the piping (hereinafter referred to as damage, etc.) (affected location), and the results of inspection and patrol. The important facility is a facility assumed as an important infrastructure socially.

[0017] The attributes of the piping are input via the input unit 11. As the important facility and the affected location, facilities that can be selected may be preset. Considering the piping not laid in the important facility and the piping having no location affected by damage, etc., "none" may also be set as the setting item of the important facility and the affected location. Regarding the results of inspection and patrol, the item of the results that can be selected may be preset.

[0018] Also, as shown by reference numeral 102 in FIG. 2, the piping data includes, for example, an influence degree parameter and a risk degree parameter.

[0019] The influence degree parameter is an index that affects the scale of damage when a risk occurs. The influence degree parameter includes, for example, 1-1) An index value indicating the diameter of the piping in the pipeline, 1-2) An index value indicating the importance related to the function of the facility in the pipeline, and 1-3) An index value indicating the social importance of the facility in the pipeline including.

[0020] The influence degree parameter corresponds to a part of a plurality of items included in the attributes of the piping, and indicates the degree indicating the size of the damage scale set for the value (for example, numerical value or content) that the item can indicate. That is, the degree indicating the size of the damage scale refers to the index value of the influence degree parameter described above.

[0021] In Figure 3, the symbol 111 shows the correspondence between pipe diameter, one of the types of impact parameters, and the degree (ranking) that indicates the magnitude of the damage. The larger the pipe diameter, the greater the potential damage when there is damage to the piping. Therefore, the degree that indicates the magnitude of the damage for pipe diameter is set to increase as the pipe diameter increases. In symbol 111, the degree that indicates the magnitude of the damage is set from "1" to "5" for pipe diameters classified into five stages.

[0022] Furthermore, the importance of the functions of the facilities mentioned above corresponds, for example, to important facilities included in the attributes of piping. The degree to which the scale of damage is indicated for facilities related to their functions may be set so that the degree increases for facilities that are of higher importance as social infrastructure. Examples of important facilities indicated for their function include hospitals and schools. In addition, examples of such important facilities include trunk lines such as lines that are important for sewage functions and lines that are important for disaster prevention. For example, a degree of "5" is set for these facilities and trunk lines to indicate the scale of damage.

[0023] In this embodiment, as can be seen from reference numerals 101 and 102 in Figure 2, for example, the degree indicating the magnitude of damage to "hospitals" and "main pipelines" is set to "5". The main pipelines shown in Figure 2 refer to pipelines laid on the main routes mentioned above, and are a term corresponding to main routes. In addition, facilities that are not of particularly high importance as social infrastructure include, for example, "private pipes" as shown in "Importance related to the function of facilities" in Figure 6, which will be described later. Private pipes refer to pipes laid on private land. In this embodiment, the degree indicating the magnitude of damage to "private pipes" is set to "1". Furthermore, even when there are "no" important facilities, the degree indicating the magnitude of damage is set to "1".

[0024] Furthermore, the social importance of the facilities mentioned above corresponds, for example, to the content of the affected areas included in the attributes of the piping. The degree to which the scale of damage is indicated in relation to the social importance of the facilities is set to be greater for areas where damage to the piping has a greater social impact. Examples of affected areas indicated in relation to the social importance of the facilities include areas where pipelines cross facilities or railway lines (railway crossings), areas where pipelines are laid under emergency transport routes (under emergency transport routes), and areas where pipelines cross rivers (river crossings). For example, relatively large values ​​are set for these areas to indicate the scale of damage.

[0025] In this embodiment, as can be seen from reference numerals 101 and 102 in Figure 2, for example, the degree indicating the magnitude of damage for "crossing railway tracks" is set to "5". Also in this embodiment, as shown in Figure 6 which will be described later, for example, the degree indicating the magnitude of damage for "under emergency transport routes" is set to "5", and the degree indicating the magnitude of damage for "crossing rivers" is set to "4". Furthermore, if there are "no" affected areas, the degree indicating the magnitude of damage is set to "1".

[0026] The control unit 14 sets the degree to which the magnitude of the damage corresponds to the values ​​set for "diameter," "critical facility," and "affected location" for each pipe, for each of the impact parameters, namely "diameter," "importance related to the function of the facility," and "social importance of the facility."

[0027] The degree to which the magnitude of damage is indicated for the values ​​that the above items can represent may be set considering the degree to which each impact parameter has an impact on the evaluation results. For example, the degree to which the magnitude of damage is indicated may not be limited to five levels, but may be classified into multiple levels. Also, the number of classifications may differ for at least some of the various impact parameters. Furthermore, the degree to which the magnitude of damage is indicated does not have to be set to a positive value. For example, it may be an integer other than a positive value, or it may include real numbers such as decimals. Also, the difference between two adjacent values ​​may be 2 or more.

[0028] Furthermore, while the above describes a case where one type of impact parameter corresponds to a single item included in the pipe attributes, it is not limited to this, and may correspond to multiple items included in the pipe attributes. For example, the social importance of the facility mentioned above may correspond to the content of the affected locations and critical facilities included in the pipe attributes. In this case, a degree indicating the magnitude of the damage may be set for each combination of affected locations and critical facilities.

[0029] The memory unit 13 stores multiple types of impact parameters. However, the impact parameters do not have to include all three types mentioned above; they only need to include one of the three types. Furthermore, the impact parameters may include types other than the three mentioned above. The impact parameters may be set and changed as appropriate by the user of the evaluation device 1 (for example, the business operator managing each water system). For example, the user may set as an impact parameter any indicator they consider important that affects the scale of damage.

[0030] Risk parameters are indicators that influence the probability of a risk occurring. For example, risk parameters include: 2-1) An index value indicating the year of installation of piping in a pipeline, 2-2) Index values ​​indicating the material of piping in pipelines, and 2-3) Indicator values ​​showing the results of pipeline inspections and patrols Includes.

[0031] The risk parameter also corresponds to some of the items included in the piping attributes, and indicates the degree to which the probability of a risk occurring is set for the values ​​(e.g., numerical values ​​or content) that the item can represent. In other words, the degree to which the probability of a risk occurring is indicated by the index value of the risk parameter mentioned above.

[0032] In Figure 3, reference numeral 112 represents the correspondence between the installation year, one of the risk parameters, and the degree of probability of risk occurrence (ranking). In reference numeral 112, the degree of risk occurrence is associated with the number of years elapsed, which is calculated by the difference between the current year and the installation year. As the number of years elapsed (the older the installation year), the probability of risk occurrence due to damage to the piping, etc., increases. Therefore, the degree indicating the probability of risk occurrence for the installation year (number of years elapsed) is set to increase as the number of years elapsed increases. In reference numeral 112, the degree indicating the probability of risk occurrence is set from "1" to "5" for the number of years elapsed, which is classified into 5 stages. In this embodiment, the installation year is represented as the number of years elapsed, but it is not limited to this, and may be represented as a range of installation years (for example, 1986 to 1995).

[0033] Furthermore, the piping material described above corresponds, for example, to the pipe type included in the piping attributes. The degree indicating the probability of risk occurring for a material may be set so that it is higher for materials with lower strength. In this embodiment, piping materials are also classified into five categories based on their strength, and a degree indicating the probability of risk occurring for each category is set from "1" to "5". An example of the correspondence between piping material and the degree indicating the probability of risk occurring is shown in Figure 6, which will be described later.

[0034] Furthermore, the results of the inspections described above correspond to, for example, the content of the inspection results included in the attributes of the piping. The degree to which the probability of risk occurring based on the inspection results is indicated is set to be higher for results that indicate significant damage to the piping, etc. In this embodiment, the inspection results are classified into 15 categories according to the degree of damage to the piping, etc., and a degree to which the probability of risk occurring is indicated for each category is set from "1" to "15". As shown by reference numeral 102 in Figure 2, for example, if the inspection result indicates "corrosion", the degree to which the probability of risk occurring is set to "15". Also, if there is no damage to the piping or there are no problems with the use of the piping, the degree to which the probability of risk occurring is set to "1".

[0035] The control unit 14 sets the degree to which the probability of risk occurring corresponds to the values ​​set for "installation year," "material," and "inspection and patrol results" for each pipe, which are the risk parameters "installation year," "material," and "inspection and patrol results."

[0036] The degree to which the probability of risk occurrence is indicated for the values ​​that the above items can represent may be set considering the degree to which each risk parameter has an impact on the evaluation results. For example, the degree to which the probability of risk occurrence is indicated is not limited to 5 or 15 levels, but may be classified into multiple levels. Also, the number of classifications may differ for at least some of the various risk parameters, or the number of classifications for each of the various risk parameters may be the same for all of them. Furthermore, the degree to which the probability of risk occurrence is indicated does not have to be set to a positive value. For example, it may be an integer other than a positive value, or it may include real numbers such as decimals. Also, the difference between two adjacent values ​​may be 2 or more.

[0037] Furthermore, while the above describes a case where one type of risk parameter corresponds to one item included in the pipe attributes, it is not limited to this case; it may also correspond to multiple items included in the pipe attributes.

[0038] The memory unit 13 stores multiple types of risk parameters. However, the risk parameters do not have to include all three types mentioned above; they only need to include one of the three types. Furthermore, the risk parameters may be other than the three types mentioned above. The risk parameters may be set and changed as appropriate by the user using the evaluation device 1. For example, the user may set as a risk parameter any indicator they consider important that affects the probability of a risk occurring.

[0039] Furthermore, as shown by reference numeral 103 in Figure 2, the piping data includes evaluation results. These evaluation results include, for example, impact evaluation points, risk evaluation points, total score, impact rank, risk rank, and overall evaluation.

[0040] The impact assessment score is a risk assessment value calculated based on the degree to which multiple damages are indicated (i.e., index values ​​of multiple types of impact parameters). The risk assessment score is a risk assessment value calculated based on the degree to which multiple risks are indicated (i.e., index values ​​of multiple types of risk parameters). The total score is the sum of the impact assessment score and the risk assessment score.

[0041] The impact rank indicates a classification based on the magnitude of the impact assessment score. The risk rank indicates a classification based on the magnitude of the risk assessment score.

[0042] The first relationship data, which shows the relationship between the magnitude of the impact assessment score and multiple classifications, and the relationship between the magnitude of the risk assessment score and multiple classifications, is stored in the storage unit 13. These relationships can be set arbitrarily. That is, the number of classifications shown in the impact rank and the number of classifications shown in the risk rank can be set arbitrarily. Therefore, the number of classifications shown in the impact rank and the number of classifications shown in the risk rank may be the same or may be different from each other.

[0043] In this embodiment, in the first relationship data described above, both the impact evaluation score and the risk evaluation score are • Scores between 0 and 10 are classified as "Small". • Scores between 10 and 20 are classified as "Medium". • For ratings of 20 or more, the category is "Large". In this embodiment, three classifications are set for each of the impact rank and risk rank: "high," "medium," and "low."

[0044] The overall evaluation shows the evaluation results based on the classification set as the impact rank and the classification set as the risk rank. Figure 4 shows an example of the relationship between the combination of the classification set for the impact evaluation points and the classification set for the risk evaluation points and the group. Second relationship data showing the relationship between the above combination and the group is stored in the storage unit 13. Figure 121 is a visualization of the above second relationship data.

[0045] In this embodiment, both the classification set for the impact assessment points and the classification set for the risk assessment points are of three types: "large," "medium," and "small." Therefore, as shown by reference numeral 121, there are nine possible combinations of these two classifications. Accordingly, in this embodiment, in the second relational data, groups G1 to G9 are associated with each of these nine combinations.

[0046] The control unit 14 comprehensively controls the evaluation device 1. As shown in Figure 1, for example, the control unit 14 includes a first acquisition unit 141, a second acquisition unit 142, an evaluation score calculation unit 143, a classification determination unit 144, an overall evaluation calculation unit 145, an output unit 146, a first reception unit 147, and a second reception unit 148.

[0047] The first acquisition unit 141 acquires multiple types of impact parameters. The first acquisition unit 141 acquires multiple types of impact parameters included in the piping data stored in the storage unit 13 for each pipe. In this embodiment, the first acquisition unit 141 acquires the index values ​​of the impact parameters 1-1) to 1-3) above for each pipe. Specifically, the first acquisition unit 141 acquires the degree to which the magnitude of the damage is indicated for the impact parameters "diameter," "importance related to the function of the facility," and "social importance of the facility," as shown by reference numeral 102 in Figure 2, for each pipe.

[0048] The second acquisition unit 142 acquires multiple types of risk parameters. The second acquisition unit 142 acquires multiple types of risk parameters included in the piping data stored in the storage unit 13 for each pipe. In this embodiment, the second acquisition unit 142 acquires the index values ​​of the risk parameters 2-1) to 2-3) above for each pipe. Specifically, the second acquisition unit 142 acquires for each pipe the degree indicating the probability of risk occurrence set for the risk parameters "installation year," "material," and "inspection and patrol results" shown as reference numeral 102 in Figure 2.

[0049] The evaluation score calculation unit 143 calculates an impact evaluation score by weighting each of the multiple types of impact parameters acquired by the first acquisition unit 141. The evaluation score calculation unit 143 also calculates a risk evaluation score by weighting each of the multiple types of risk parameters acquired by the second acquisition unit 142.

[0050] Figure 4 shows an example of a weighting coefficient, indicated by symbol 122. Examples of weighting coefficients include a weighting coefficient used by the evaluation score calculation unit 143 for calculating the impact evaluation score, and a weighting coefficient used by the evaluation score calculation unit 143 for calculating the risk evaluation score. Hereafter, the former weighting coefficient will be referred to as the first weighting coefficient, and the latter as the second weighting coefficient. These may also be collectively referred to simply as weighting coefficients. The first weighting coefficient may be set considering the degree of influence of various impact parameters on the evaluation result. The second weighting coefficient may also be set considering the degree of influence of various risk parameters on the evaluation result.

[0051] In this embodiment, the evaluation score calculation unit 143 calculates the influence evaluation score by multiplying each of the index values ​​of multiple types of influence parameters acquired by the first acquisition unit 141 by a first weighting coefficient corresponding to each index value, and then summing up the results. The evaluation score calculation unit 143 calculates the influence evaluation score for each pipe.

[0052] Specifically, the evaluation score calculation unit 143 multiplies each degree indicating the magnitude of damage, which is set for "diameter," "importance related to the function of the facility," and "social importance of the facility" acquired by the first acquisition unit 141, by a first weighting coefficient corresponding to each degree. Then, the evaluation score calculation unit 143 adds up the results of each multiplication. For example, for the pipe with management number "0001," the evaluation score calculation unit 143 calculates a value of 3 × 1.2 + 5 × 1.2 + 5 × 1.1 = 15.1 as the impact evaluation score.

[0053] In this embodiment, the evaluation score calculation unit 143 calculates the risk evaluation score by multiplying each of the index values ​​of multiple types of risk parameters acquired by the second acquisition unit 142 by a second weighting coefficient corresponding to each index value and then adding the results together. The evaluation score calculation unit 143 calculates the risk evaluation score for each pipe.

[0054] Specifically, the evaluation score calculation unit 143 multiplies each degree of damage scale, which is set in the "installation year," "material," and "inspection patrol results" acquired by the second acquisition unit 142, by a second weighting coefficient corresponding to each degree. Then, the evaluation score calculation unit 143 adds up the results of each multiplication. For example, for the pipe with management number "0001," the evaluation score calculation unit 143 calculates a risk evaluation score of 2 × 1.3 + 2 × 0.8 + 1 × 1.5 = 5.7.

[0055] The evaluation score calculation unit 143 may also calculate a total score for each pipe by adding the impact evaluation score and the risk evaluation score. For example, for the pipe with management number "0001", the evaluation score calculation unit 143 calculates a total score of 15.1 + 5.7 = 20.8.

[0056] The classification determination unit 144 determines which of the multiple classifications set according to the magnitude of the evaluation points is to be belonged to for each of the impact evaluation points and risk evaluation points calculated by the evaluation point calculation unit 143. The classification determination unit 144 determines the classification to which the impact evaluation points calculated by the evaluation point calculation unit 143 belong by referring to the first relationship data stored in the storage unit 13. The classification determination unit 144 also determines the classification to which the risk evaluation points calculated by the evaluation point calculation unit 143 belong by referring to the first relationship data stored in the storage unit 13. The classification determination unit 144 performs these classification determinations for each pipe.

[0057] As shown by reference numeral 103 in Figure 2, for example, for the piping with management number "0001", the impact assessment score is calculated to be 15.1, so the classification determination unit 144 determines that the impact assessment score belongs to the "medium" category. The classification determination unit 144 then sets the impact rank of the piping to "medium". Also, since the risk assessment score for the piping is calculated to be 5.7, the classification determination unit 144 determines that the risk assessment score belongs to the "low" category. The classification determination unit 144 then sets the risk rank of the piping to "low".

[0058] The comprehensive evaluation calculation unit 145 calculates the overall risk evaluation based on the classification determination result by the classification determination unit 144, i.e., the classification set as the impact rank and the risk rank. In this embodiment, the comprehensive evaluation calculation unit 145 determines which group the combination of classifications set by the classification determination unit 144 as the impact rank and the risk rank belongs to by referring to the second relationship data stored in the storage unit 13. The comprehensive evaluation calculation unit 145 calculates the group to which the above combination belongs as the overall risk evaluation and inputs the calculation result into the overall evaluation shown by reference numeral 103 in Figure 2. The comprehensive evaluation calculation unit 145 calculates the overall risk evaluation for each pipe.

[0059] For example, the piping with management number "0001" is set to have an impact rank of "medium" and a risk rank of "low". Therefore, the comprehensive evaluation calculation unit 145 determines that the group to which the impact rank and risk rank of the piping belong is "Group G2" based on the second relationship data shown by reference numeral 121 in Figure 4.

[0060] The output unit 146 outputs various data to the display unit 12. For example, the output unit 146 outputs the evaluation results for each pipe calculated by the control unit 14 to the display unit 12. The output unit 146 may output the evaluation results for each pipe, or it may output the evaluation results for multiple pipes in list format.

[0061] Examples of evaluation results include the information shown by reference numeral 103 in Figure 2. Specifically, this includes the impact evaluation score, risk evaluation score, and total score calculated by the evaluation score calculation unit 143, the impact rank and risk rank set by the classification determination unit 144, and the total evaluation calculated by the total evaluation calculation unit 145. The output unit 146 may output only some of this information as evaluation results, rather than all of it.

[0062] Furthermore, the output unit 146 may output the pipe attributes, influence parameters, and risk parameters shown by reference numerals 101 and 102 in Figure 2, along with the evaluation results. The output unit 146 may output only a portion of the pipe attributes, influence parameters, and risk parameters, rather than all of them.

[0063] Figure 5 shows an example of an operation screen displayed on the display unit 12. The output unit 146 displays the operation screen on the display unit 12. As shown in Figure 5, the output unit 146 reads multiple types of influence parameters and multiple types of risk parameters included in the piping data shown by reference numeral 102 in Figure 2 from the storage unit 13 and outputs them along with the operation screen. The output unit 146 also reads a first weighting coefficient corresponding to each of the multiple types of influence parameters and a second weighting coefficient corresponding to each of the multiple types of risk parameters from the storage unit 13 and outputs them along with the operation screen.

[0064] The operation screen includes an execution button 202 for performing a risk assessment. When the input unit 11 receives a click operation on the execution button 202, the processing of the first acquisition unit 141, the second acquisition unit 142, the evaluation score calculation unit 143, the classification determination unit 144, and the overall evaluation calculation unit 145 may be executed.

[0065] If the output unit 146 does not output an impact rank and a risk rank, the processing of the classification determination unit 144 and the overall evaluation calculation unit 145 does not need to be performed. Alternatively, the control unit 14 does not need to include the classification determination unit 144 and the overall evaluation calculation unit 145. Also, if the output unit 146 does not output an overall evaluation, the processing of the overall evaluation calculation unit 145 does not need to be performed. Alternatively, the control unit 14 does not need to include the overall evaluation calculation unit 145.

[0066] The operation screen also includes an output button 203 for outputting evaluation results. When the input unit 11 receives a click operation on the output button 203, the output unit 146 may execute the evaluation result output processing.

[0067] The first reception unit 147 accepts user changes to at least one of the first weighting coefficient and the second weighting coefficient used by the evaluation score calculation unit 143.

[0068] In this embodiment, the operation screen shown in Figure 5 includes an edit button 201. In this embodiment, when the input unit 11 receives a click operation on the edit button 201, the output unit 146 displays the input screen (input sheet) shown in Figure 6 on the display unit 12.

[0069] Figure 6 shows an example of an input screen (input sheet) displayed on the display unit 12. The input screen accepts operations to input (or change) parameters such as the type of parameter, the classification set for each type, the degree to which the scale of damage is indicated or the degree to which the risk is indicated, and the weighting coefficient. In the input screen shown in Figure 6, the "Major Classification" item indicates the type of parameter, and the "Minor Classification" item indicates the classification set for each type. The "Value (Score)" item indicates the degree to which the scale of damage is indicated or the degree to which the risk is indicated, and corresponds to the "Ranking" in Figure 3.

[0070] In the input screen shown in Figure 6, when the user selects "Impact" in the "Risk or Impact" field, the "Major Category" field indicates the type of impact parameter, and the "Weighting Coefficient" field displays the first weighting coefficient. In Figure 6, the minor category "Branch Line" in the major category "Importance Related to Facility Function" may refer to a pipeline branching off from the main pipeline. Also, when the user selects "Risk" in the "Risk or Impact" field, the "Major Category" field indicates the type of risk parameter, and the "Weighting Coefficient" field displays the second weighting coefficient. The input screen shown in Figure 6 reflects the piping data and weighting coefficients stored in the memory unit 13.

[0071] With the input screen displayed, the first reception unit 147 can accept operations to input a first weighting coefficient for one of several types of influence parameters, and / or an operation to input a second weighting coefficient for one of several types of risk parameters. This allows the user to arbitrarily change the first and second weighting coefficients. The first reception unit 147 updates the first or second weighting coefficient to be stored in the storage unit 13 with the changed first or second weighting coefficient. The output unit 146 can also display the changed first or second weighting coefficient on the display unit 12.

[0072] The second reception unit 148 accepts user changes to at least one of the types of impact parameters acquired by the first acquisition unit 141 and the types of risk parameters acquired by the second acquisition unit 142.

[0073] The second reception unit 148 can accept an operation to change the type of impact parameter or risk parameter (the type set in the "Major Classification" item in Figure 6) when, for example, the input screen shown in Figure 6 is displayed on the display unit 12. This operation to change the type of impact parameter or risk parameter may include an operation to delete the type of impact parameter or risk parameter.

[0074] Furthermore, the second reception unit 148 may accept operations to change the classification of a certain type of impact parameter or risk parameter in the "Subcategory" field on the input screen shown in Figure 6 (including operations to add and delete classifications). In addition, the second reception unit 148 may accept operations to change the degree to which the magnitude of damage or the probability of risk occurrence is indicated for each classification set for a certain type of impact parameter or risk parameter in the "Value (Score)" field.

[0075] Furthermore, the second reception unit 148 may accept an operation to add a type of impact parameter or risk parameter as one of the above-mentioned modification operations. The second reception unit 148 may accept an operation to add an impact parameter or risk parameter by, for example, changing the "Optional Item" in the "Major Category" item of the input screen shown in Figure 6 to a new type of impact parameter or risk parameter. When such an addition operation is accepted, the new type of impact parameter or risk parameter is added to the piping data. In the piping data as well, an optional item field (see Figures 5 and 6) is provided where the type of impact parameter or risk parameter can be entered, and the new type of impact parameter or risk parameter can be entered in this optional item field.

[0076] When a new type of impact parameter is added, the second reception unit 148 accepts the operation of selecting "Impact" in the "Risk or Impact" item on the input screen shown in Figure 6. The second reception unit 148 also accepts the operation of setting multiple classification levels for the new type of impact parameter in the "Subcategory" item, and the operation of setting the degree indicating the magnitude of the damage for each classification in the "Value (Score)" item. The second reception unit 148 also accepts the input of the attributes of the piping to be associated with the impact parameter.

[0077] Furthermore, when a new type of risk parameter is added, the second reception unit 148 accepts the operation of selecting "risk level" in the "risk level or impact level" item on the input screen shown in Figure 6. The second reception unit 148 also accepts the operation of setting multiple classification levels for the new type of risk parameter in the "subclassification" item, and the operation of setting the degree indicating the probability of risk occurrence for each classification in the "value (score)" item. The second reception unit 148 also accepts the input of the attributes of the piping to be associated with the risk parameter.

[0078] Furthermore, the first reception unit 147 accepts input for the first weighting coefficient of a new type of influence parameter to be added, or the second weighting coefficient of a new type of risk parameter to be added, in the "weighting coefficient" item. This operation of accepting input for the new first or second weighting coefficient may be included in the operation of changing the first or second weighting coefficient.

[0079] In this way, the user can arbitrarily change the type of impact parameter or risk parameter. The user can also arbitrarily change the classification related to the type of impact parameter or risk parameter, the degree to which the scale of damage is indicated, and / or the degree to which the probability of the risk occurring is indicated. The second reception unit 148 reflects the changed information in the piping data stored in the storage unit 13. The output unit 146 can also display information such as the changed type of impact parameter or risk parameter on the display unit 12. If a new type of impact parameter or risk parameter is added, the output unit 146 can display information such as the impact parameter and the first weighting coefficient, or the risk parameter and the second weighting coefficient, on the display unit 12.

[0080] The types of impact and risk parameters required as indicators for risk assessment may vary from user to user. If a user performs a risk assessment using types of impact and risk parameters that are unnecessary for them, the assessment device 1 may waste processing load and processing time on assessment results that may not be useful to the user. As described above, by allowing users to arbitrarily change the types of impact or risk parameters, the possibility of performing a risk assessment using types of impact and risk parameters that are unnecessary for the user can be reduced. Therefore, the assessment device 1 can output assessment results that meet user needs while reducing processing load and processing time.

[0081] Furthermore, the types of impact and risk parameters that are considered important in risk assessment may differ from user to user. Therefore, the setting of weighting coefficients for each type of impact and risk parameter may also differ from user to user. As described above, by allowing users to arbitrarily change the weighting coefficients, the evaluation device 1 can output evaluation results that meet user needs.

[0082] In this embodiment, when an operation is received on the edit button 201, the first reception unit 147 and the second reception unit 148 can accept the changes on the input screen shown in Figure 6, but this is not limited to this. The first reception unit 147 and the second reception unit 148 may accept the changes on the operation screen shown in Figure 5. In this case, the control unit 14 reflects the changes received on the operation screen in the piping data stored in the storage unit 13.

[0083] Furthermore, in this embodiment, as shown in Figure 5, five types of influence parameters and five types of risk parameters can be set, but this is not limited to this. It is sufficient to be able to set multiple types of influence parameters and risk parameters.

[0084] [Evaluation Method] Figure 7 is a flowchart showing an example of the processing flow by the control unit 14. This processing flow is an example of an evaluation method performed by a computer to assess the risks that may occur in the pipeline.

[0085] As shown in Figure 7, when the input unit 11 receives an instruction to perform a risk assessment, the first acquisition unit 141 acquires multiple types of impact parameters (S1: first acquisition step). In this embodiment, the first acquisition unit 141 acquires the index values ​​of multiple types of impact parameters included in the piping data stored in the storage unit 13 for each pipe.

[0086] Next, the evaluation score calculation unit 143 calculates an influence evaluation score by weighting each of the multiple types of influence parameters acquired in S1 (S2: evaluation score calculation step). In this embodiment, the evaluation score calculation unit 143 calculates an influence evaluation score by applying a first weighting coefficient corresponding to each index value stored in the storage unit 13 to each of the index values ​​of the multiple types of influence parameters. The evaluation score calculation unit 143 calculates an influence evaluation score for each pipe.

[0087] Next, the classification determination unit 144 determines which of the multiple classifications set according to the magnitude of the impact evaluation points calculated in S3 belongs to. In this embodiment, the classification determination unit 144 determines the classification to which the impact evaluation points calculated in S3 belong by referring to the first relationship data stored in the storage unit 13. The classification determination unit 144 determines the classification to which the impact evaluation points belong for each pipe.

[0088] Furthermore, when the input unit 11 receives an instruction to perform a risk assessment, the second acquisition unit 142 acquires multiple types of risk parameters (S4: second acquisition step). In this embodiment, the second acquisition unit 142 acquires the index values ​​of multiple types of risk parameters included in the piping data stored in the storage unit 13 for each pipe.

[0089] Next, the evaluation score calculation unit 143 calculates a risk evaluation score by weighting each of the multiple types of risk parameters acquired in S4 (S5: evaluation score calculation step). In this embodiment, the evaluation score calculation unit 143 calculates a risk evaluation score by applying a second weighting coefficient corresponding to each index value, which is stored in the storage unit 13, to each of the index values ​​of the multiple types of risk parameters. The evaluation score calculation unit 143 calculates a risk evaluation score for each pipe.

[0090] The evaluation score calculation unit 143 may calculate a total score by adding the impact evaluation score and the risk evaluation score after processing S2 and S5.

[0091] Next, the classification determination unit 144 determines which of the multiple classifications set according to the magnitude of the risk assessment score calculated in S5 belongs to. In this embodiment, the classification determination unit 144 determines the classification to which the risk assessment score calculated in S5 belongs by referring to the first relationship data stored in the storage unit 13. The classification determination unit 144 determines the classification to which the risk assessment score belongs for each pipe.

[0092] The overall evaluation calculation unit 145 calculates an overall risk evaluation based on the classification determination results in S3 and S6 (S7). In this embodiment, the overall evaluation calculation unit 145 refers to the second relationship data stored in the storage unit 13 to determine which group the combination of the classification to which the impact evaluation score determined in S3 belongs and the risk evaluation score determined in S6 belongs. The overall evaluation calculation unit 145 calculates an overall risk evaluation for each pipe.

[0093] Next, the output unit 146 outputs the evaluation results for each pipe to the display unit 12. The output unit 146 may also output the evaluation results to the display unit 12, for example, when the input unit 11 receives an instruction to output the evaluation results.

[0094] In this embodiment, the output unit 146 outputs the evaluation results shown by reference numeral 103 in Figure 2 to the display unit 12. Specifically, the output unit 146 outputs the impact evaluation score calculated in S2, the risk evaluation score calculated in S5, the classification of the impact evaluation score determined in S3, the classification of the risk evaluation score determined in S6, and the overall evaluation calculated in S7 as evaluation results. The output unit 146 also outputs the overall score, which is the sum of the impact evaluation score and the risk evaluation score, as an evaluation result.

[0095] The output unit 146 may output some of this information as evaluation results. In addition, the output unit 146 may output at least some of the piping attributes, influence parameters, and risk parameters along with the evaluation results.

[0096] [Examples of implementation using software] The function of the evaluation device 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the device") is a program that causes the device to function as a computer, and can be realized by a program that causes each control block of the device (particularly each part included in the control unit 14) to function as a computer. This program is an example of an evaluation program.

[0097] In this case, the device includes a computer having at least one control device (e.g., a processor) and at least one storage device (e.g., memory) as hardware for executing the program. By executing the program using this control device and storage device, the functions described in each of the embodiments are realized.

[0098] The above program may be recorded on one or more computer-readable recording media, not temporary ones. These recording media may or may not be provided by the above device. In the latter case, the program may be supplied to the above device via any wired or wireless transmission medium.

[0099] Furthermore, some or all of the functions of each of the above control blocks can also be implemented by logic circuits. For example, an integrated circuit in which logic circuits functioning as each of the above control blocks are formed is also included in the scope of this disclosure. In addition, it is also possible to implement the functions of each of the above control blocks by, for example, a quantum computer.

[0100] Furthermore, each process described in the above embodiments may be performed by AI (Artificial Intelligence). In this case, the AI ​​may operate on the control device described above, or it may operate on other devices (for example, an edge computer or a cloud server).

[0101] 〔summary〕 The evaluation device according to Embodiment 1 of the present disclosure includes: a first acquisition unit that acquires multiple types of impact parameters, which are indicators that determine the scale of damage when the risk occurs; a second acquisition unit that acquires multiple types of risk parameters, which are indicators that determine the probability of the risk occurring; and an evaluation score calculation unit that calculates an impact evaluation score by weighting each of the multiple types of impact parameters acquired by the first acquisition unit, and calculates a risk evaluation score by weighting each of the multiple types of risk parameters acquired by the second acquisition unit.

[0102] With the above configuration, the impact and risk assessment scores calculated by the score calculation unit represent a multifaceted evaluation of the risks that may occur in sewage facilities based on multiple items. Moreover, the impact and risk assessment scores are weighted to accurately evaluate the risks. This makes it possible to perform a simple and efficient risk assessment of potential risks in sewage facilities.

[0103] The evaluation apparatus according to Embodiment 2 of the present disclosure includes a classification determination unit that determines which of a plurality of classifications set according to the magnitude of the evaluation scores each of the impact evaluation score and the risk evaluation score calculated by the evaluation score calculation unit belongs to.

[0104] With the above configuration, both the impact assessment score and the risk assessment score are sorted into multiple categories by the classification determination unit, making it easier to understand the results of the risk assessment.

[0105] The evaluation apparatus according to Embodiment 3 of the present disclosure includes, in Embodiment 1 or 2, a first receiving unit that accepts user changes to at least one of the weighting coefficients used by the evaluation score calculation unit for calculating the impact evaluation score and the weighting coefficients used by the evaluation score calculation unit for calculating the risk evaluation score.

[0106] According to the above configuration, weighting coefficients can be set according to user needs, enabling risk assessments that are more in line with user needs.

[0107] The evaluation device according to Embodiment 4 of the present disclosure includes, in any of Embodiments 1 to 3, a second receiving unit that accepts changes by the user to at least one of the types of influence parameters acquired by the first acquisition unit and the types of risk parameters acquired by the second acquisition unit.

[0108] With the above configuration, users can modify at least one of the impact parameter and the risk parameter, allowing for risk assessments that better meet user needs.

[0109] The evaluation device relating to aspect 5 of this disclosure is, in any of aspects 1 to 4, The aforementioned influence parameter is, 1-1) An index value indicating the diameter of the pipes in the sewer pipeline, 1-2) An index value indicating the importance of the function of the facilities in the sewer pipeline, and 1-3) It includes at least one of the indicator values ​​that show the social importance of the facilities in the sewer pipeline, The aforementioned risk parameter is, 2-1) An index value indicating the year of installation of piping in the aforementioned sewer pipeline, 2-2) An index value indicating the material of the piping in the sewer pipeline, and 2-3) Includes at least one of the index values ​​that indicate the results of inspections and patrols of the sewer pipelines.

[0110] According to the above configuration, the impact parameters related to 1-1) to 1-3) and the risk parameters related to 2-1) to 2-3) are important indicators in risk assessment, and therefore an accurate risk assessment can be performed.

[0111] The evaluation method according to aspect 6 of the present disclosure is an evaluation method performed by a computer to evaluate risks that may occur in sewer pipelines, and includes: a first acquisition step of acquiring multiple types of impact parameters, which are indicators that affect the scale of damage when the risk occurs; a second acquisition step of acquiring multiple types of risk parameters, which are indicators that affect the probability of the risk occurring; and an evaluation score calculation step of calculating an impact evaluation score by weighting each of the multiple types of impact parameters acquired in the first acquisition step, and calculating a risk evaluation score by weighting each of the multiple types of risk parameters acquired in the second acquisition step.

[0112] According to the evaluation method described above, risk assessments that may occur in sewage facilities can be performed simply and efficiently, similar to the evaluation device relating to Embodiment 1 of this disclosure.

[0113] The evaluation program according to aspect 7 of the present disclosure is an evaluation program for evaluating risks that may occur in sewer pipelines, and is an evaluation program that causes a computer to execute the following: a first acquisition step of acquiring multiple types of impact parameters, which are indicators that affect the scale of damage when the risk occurs; a second acquisition step of acquiring multiple types of risk parameters, which are indicators that affect the probability of the risk occurring; and an evaluation score calculation step of calculating an impact evaluation score by weighting each of the multiple types of impact parameters acquired in the first acquisition step, and calculating a risk evaluation score by weighting each of the multiple types of risk parameters acquired in the second acquisition step.

[0114] According to the evaluation program described above, risk assessments that may occur in sewage facilities can be performed simply and efficiently, similar to the evaluation device described in Embodiment 1 of this disclosure.

[0115] Furthermore, each aspect of the evaluation apparatus described herein may be implemented by a computer. In this case, an evaluation program that implements the evaluation apparatus by computer by operating the computer as each part (software element) of the evaluation apparatus also falls within the scope of this disclosure. A computer-readable recording medium on which the evaluation program is recorded also falls within the scope of this disclosure.

[0116] [Additional Notes] This disclosure is not limited to the embodiments described above, and various modifications are possible within the scope of the claims. Embodiments obtained by appropriately combining the technical means disclosed in different embodiments are also included in the technical scope of this disclosure. [Explanation of Symbols]

[0117] 1. Evaluation device 141 First acquisition part 142 Second Acquisition Department 143 Evaluation Score Calculation Unit 144 Classification judgment part 147 Reception Desk 1 148 Second Reception Desk

Claims

1. An evaluation device for evaluating the risks that may occur in sewer pipelines, A first acquisition unit acquires multiple types of impact parameters, which are indicators that determine the scale of damage when the aforementioned risk occurs. A second acquisition unit acquires multiple types of risk parameters, which are indicators that influence the probability of the aforementioned risk occurring. An evaluation device comprising: an evaluation score calculation unit that calculates an influence evaluation score by weighting each of the multiple types of influence parameters acquired by the first acquisition unit, and calculates a risk evaluation score by weighting each of the multiple types of risk parameters acquired by the second acquisition unit.

2. The evaluation device according to claim 1, further comprising a classification determination unit that determines which of a plurality of classifications set according to the magnitude of the evaluation scores each of the impact evaluation score and the risk evaluation score calculated by the evaluation score calculation unit belongs to.

3. The evaluation apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a first receiving unit that accepts user changes to at least one of the weighting coefficients used by the evaluation score calculation unit for calculating the impact evaluation score, and the weighting coefficients used by the evaluation score calculation unit for calculating the risk evaluation score.

4. The evaluation apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a second receiving unit that accepts user changes to at least one of the types of influence parameters acquired by the first acquisition unit and the types of risk parameters acquired by the second acquisition unit.

5. The aforementioned influence parameter is, 1-1) An index value indicating the diameter of the pipes in the sewer pipeline, 1-2) An index value indicating the importance of the function of the facilities in the sewer pipeline, and 1-3) It includes at least one of the indicator values ​​that show the social importance of the facilities in the sewer pipeline, The aforementioned risk parameter is, 2-1) An index value indicating the year of installation of piping in the aforementioned sewer pipeline, 2-2) An index value indicating the material of the piping in the sewer pipeline, and 2-3) Including at least one of the index values ​​that indicate the results of inspections of the sewer pipelines, The evaluation apparatus according to claim 1.

6. A computer-based evaluation method for assessing potential risks in sewer pipelines, The first acquisition step involves obtaining multiple types of impact parameters, which are indicators that determine the scale of damage if the aforementioned risk occurs. A second acquisition step involves acquiring multiple types of risk parameters, which are indicators that influence the probability of the aforementioned risk occurring. An evaluation method comprising: an evaluation score calculation step which involves weighting each of the multiple types of influence parameters obtained in the first acquisition step to calculate an influence evaluation score, and weighting each of the multiple types of risk parameters obtained in the second acquisition step to calculate a risk evaluation score.

7. An assessment program for evaluating the risks that may occur in sewer pipelines, The first acquisition step involves obtaining multiple types of impact parameters, which are indicators that determine the scale of damage if the aforementioned risk occurs. A second acquisition step involves acquiring multiple types of risk parameters, which are indicators that influence the probability of the aforementioned risk occurring. An evaluation program that causes a computer to perform the following steps: an evaluation score calculation step which involves weighting each of the multiple types of influence parameters obtained in the first acquisition step to calculate an influence evaluation score, and weighting each of the multiple types of risk parameters obtained in the second acquisition step to calculate a risk evaluation score.

Images