基于组合赋权法的城市桥梁可靠性模糊综合评价

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.S1.2494

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为评估城市桥梁的可靠性,预防桥梁发生安全事故,考虑到城市桥梁评估的多标准、多因素需求以及评估体系建立的复杂性、模糊性,结合城市桥梁结构特点及规范要求,建立桥梁结构可靠性综合评价指标体系,采用改进的层次分析法(AHP),通过1—9标度法和自然指数标度法构建判断矩阵,确定评价体系各级指标主观权重,通过熵权法(EWM)确定各级指标客观权重,组合2种方法对指标进行赋权。引入模糊理论,选取柯西分布隶属函数并围绕桥梁结构工程特点进行修正,再计算各级指标隶属度矩阵值;并以某桥梁结构工程实例验证构建的指标体系和计算方法。结果表明:结合行业规范和专家经验确立评价指标体系,在现有研究的基础上使用改进AHP方法并引入模糊理论,能够提高桥梁可靠性评估的客观性和准确性。

关键词: 组合赋权法, 城市桥梁, 模糊综合评价, 层次分析法(AHP), 熵权法(EWM)

Abstract:

In order to evaluate the reliability of urban bridges and prevent safety accidents of bridges, the multi-standard and multi-factor requirements of urban bridge evaluation and the complexity and fuzziness of the evaluation system were considered. A comprehensive evaluation index system for bridge structure reliability was established according to the structural characteristics and code requirements of urban bridges. An improved AHP was adopted to construct a judgment matrix through the 1-9 scale method and the natural index scale method, so as to determine the subjective weights of indexes at all levels of the evaluation system. The objective weights of indexes at all levels were determined through the EWM, and the indexes were empowered by combining the above two methods. The fuzzy theory was introduced, and the Cauchy distribution membership function was selected and corrected based on the characteristics of bridge structure engineering. Then the membership matrix values of the indexes at all levels were calculated. The index system and calculation method were validated in real bridge structure engineering. The results show that combining industry codes and expert experience to establish an evaluation index system, using an improved AHP based on the existing research, and introducing fuzzy theory can enhance the objectivity and accuracy of bridge reliability evaluation.

Key words: combination weighting method, urban bridge, fuzzy comprehensive evaluation, analytic hierarchy process (AHP), entropy weight method (EWM)

周海怡, 鲍全贵, 叶茂, 朱圣文, 林颖典. 基于组合赋权法的城市桥梁可靠性模糊综合评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(S1): 156-161.

ZHOU Haiyi, BAO Quangui, YE Mao, ZHU Shengwen, LIN Yingdian. Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of urban bridge reliability based on combination weighting method[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(S1): 156-161.

图/表 4

图1

表1

表2

表3

参考文献 20

[1]	黄侨, 唐海红, 任远. 基于模糊理论的大跨度桥梁评估理论研究[J]. 公路交通科技, 2010, 27(1):62-66.
	HUANG Qiao, TANG Haihong, REN Yuan. Study of assessment theory of long-span bridges based on fuzzy theory[J]. Journal of Highway and Transportation Research and Development, 2010, 27(1):62-66.
[2]	吕跃进, 陈万翠, 钟磊. 层次分析法标度研究的若干问题[J]. 海南热带海洋学院学报, 2013, 20(5):1-6.
	LYU Yuejin, CHEN Wancui, ZHONG Lei. A survey on the scale of analytic hierarchy process[J]. Journal of Hainan Tropical Ocean University, 2013, 20(5):1-6.
[3]	杨耀生, 陈嘉伟, 张舜. 基于模糊层次分析法的既有公路桥梁抗震性能评估[J]. 建筑结构, 2021, 51(增2):581-585.
	YANG Yaosheng, CHEN Jiawei, ZHANG Shun. Seismic performance evaluation of existing highway bridges based on fuzzy analytic hierarchy process[J]. Building Structure, 2021, 51(S2):581-585.
[4]	李晓静, 朱维申, 陈卫忠, 等. 层次分析法确定影响地下洞室围岩稳定性各因素的权值[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2004(增2):4 731-4 734.
	LI Xiaojing, ZHU Weishen, CHEN Weizhong, et al. Determining weight of factors in stability analysis of underground caverns by analytic hierarchy process[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2004(S2):4 731-4 734.
[5]	刘钰杰, 王文雅, 邱玲玲. 大跨径人行索道桥舒适度评价及振动控制[J]. 建筑结构, 2021, 51(增2):684-688.
	LIU Yujie, WANG Wenya, QIU Lingling. Comfort evaluation and vibration control of long span pedestrian suspension bridge[J]. Building Structure, 2021, 51(S2):684-688.
[6]	黄侨, 任远, 林阳子. 不确定型层次分析在斜拉桥状态评估中的应用(英文)[J]. 东南大学学报:英文版, 2007(4):599-603.
	HUANG Qiao, REN Yuan, LIN Yangzi. Application of uncertain type of analytic hierarchy process to condition assessment of cable-stayed bridges[J]. Journal of Southeast University:English Edition, 2007(4):599-603.
[7]	黄志伟, 黄侨, 任远. 基于程度分析的中小桥梁评估方法[J]. 东南大学学报:自然科学版, 2012, 42(2):358-362.
	HUANG Zhiwei, HUANG Qiao, REN Yuan. Assessment method of existing bridge with mid-small span based on degree analysis theory[J]. Journal of Southeast University:Natural Science Edition, 2012, 42(2):358-362.
[8]	蒋良奎. 模糊一致矩阵在层次分析法中的应用[J]. 上海海运学院学报, 1998, 19(2):57-62.
	JIANG Liangkui. The fuzzy consistent matrix applied in analytic hierarchy process[J]. Journal of Shanghai Maritime University, 1998, 19(2):57-62.
[9]	王建民. 公路桥梁结构运营荷载下安全状态评价方法[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(7):48-54. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2020.07.008
	WANG Jianmin. Evaluation method for safety state of highway bridge structure under operation load[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2020, 30(7):48-54. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2020.07.008
[10]	崔钢. 基于网络分析法的公路桥梁施工安全风险评价及应用研究[D]. 长沙: 长沙理工大学, 2014.
	CUI Gang. Research on security risk assessment and application for highwaybridge during construction based on the theory of analytic hierarchy process[D]. Changsha: Changsha University of Science & Technology, 2014.
[11]	王刚, 商荦真, 刘学麟, 等. 采用AHP-熵权法的巷道启封中毒窒息致因研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(7):187-192. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.07.026
	WANG Gang, SHANG Luozhen, LIU Xuelin, et al. Study on causes of poisoning and asphyxiation in roadway opening by AHP-entropy weight method[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(7):187-192. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.07.026
[12]	葛杨, 刘松涛. 基于指数标度层次分析法和Vague集的雷达导引头干扰效能评估[J]. 探测与控制学报, 2020, 42(3):69-74.
	GE Yang, LIU Songtao. Radar seeker jamming effect evaluation based on exponential scale AHP and vague set[J]. Journal of Detection & Control, 2020, 42(3):69-74.
[13]	罗日洪, 黄锦林. 基于改进AHP-熵权法和群组决策的土石坝安全综合评价[J]. 广东水利水电, 2021(4):25-30,45.
	LUO Rihong, HUANG Jinlin. Comprehensive safety evaluation of embankment dam based on improved AHP-entropy weight and group decision[J]. Guangdong Water Resources and Hydropower, 2021(4):25-30,45.
[14]	杨耀生, 陈嘉伟, 张舜. 基于模糊层次分析法的既有公路桥梁抗震性能评估[J]. 建筑结构, 2021, 51(增2):581-585.
	YANG Yaosheng, CHEN Jiawei, ZHANG Shun. Seismic performance evaluation of existing highway bridges based on fuzzy analytic hierarchy process[J]. Building Structure, 2021, 51(S2):581-585.
[15]	吴晓笑, 沈圣, 麻胜兰, 等. 熵权法确定病害权重的桥梁水下桩基安全评估改进方法[J]. 福州大学学报:自然科学版, 2022, 50(1):111-119.
	WU Xiaoxiao, SHEN Sheng, MA Shenglan, et al. Improved method for safety assessment of bridge underwater pile foundation based on entropy method determing defect weight[J]. Journal of Fuzhou University:Natural Science Edition, 2022, 50(1):111-119.
[16]	陈玮莹. 江西电网Z供电分公司综合绩效评价研究[D]. 南昌: 东华理工大学, 2019.
	CHEN Weiying. Research on comprehensive performance evaluation of Z power supply branch of Jiangxi power grid[D]. Nanchang: East China University of Technology, 2019.
[17]	张晋芳, 余隆丽, 周郅炅, 等. 基于层次分析法的超高层建筑结构选型[J]. 建筑结构, 2021, 51(增1):358-362.
	ZHANG Jinfang, YU Longli, ZHOU Zhijiong, et al. Structural selection of super high-rise building based on analytic hierarchy process[J]. Building Structure, 2021, 51(S1):358-362.
[18]	张迅. 基于模糊层次分析法的高速公路养护施工安全风险评价研究:以X项目为例[D]. 广州: 华南理工大学, 2019.
	ZHANG Xun. Study on safety risk assessment of expressway maintenance construction based on analytic hierarchy process[D]. Guangzhou: South China University of Technology, 2019.
[19]	李博. 城市斜拉桥先进维护技术研究[D]. 石家庄: 石家庄铁道大学, 2019.
	LI Bo. Study on advanced maintenance technology of urban cable-stayed bridges[D]. Shijiazhuang: Shijiazhuang Tiedao University, 2019.
[20]	陈金州, 钟正. 基于AHP-TOPSIS模糊多准则决策的桥梁拆除方案优选模型[J]. 建筑结构, 2021, 51(增2):1 861-1 865.
	CHEN Jinzhou, ZHONG Zheng. Optimal model of bridge demolition methods based on fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making[J]. Building Structure, 2021, 51(S2):1 861-1 865.

一级指标	二级指标	主要指标	标准特征值
一级指标	二级指标	主要指标	健康	亚健康	病变	危情
B₁	C₁₁	跨中挠度	无明显变形	≤1/1 000	1/1 000	承重结构
	C₁₂	沿支座一侧外鼓长度/ 相应边长/%	无外鼓或串动	≤10	10~25	>25
	C₁₃	裂缝缝长	钢筋完好,无裂缝	≤1/3	1/3~2/3	>2/3
	C₁₄	凹凸不平差值/cm	无凹凸不平且无破损	≤1	1~3	>3
	C₁₅	缺陷设施/总设施数量/%	泄水管、引水槽无缺陷	≤5	5~8	>8
	C₁₆	损坏长度/总长度/%	无撞坏、缺失	≤3	3~10	>10
B₂	C₂₁	冲蚀累计面积/构件面积/%	基础无冲蚀	≤3	3~10	>10
	C₂₂	露筋单处面积/m²	基础无露筋	≤0. 25	0.25~1.0	>1.0
	C₂₃	裂缝缝长	基础无裂缝	≤1/3	1/3~1/2	>1/2
B₃	C₃₁	年平均大风级数与天数	6级以上<10	6级以上<15	6级以上≥15	8级以上≥20
	C₃₂	桥梁所处环境	一般环境	干湿交替、尾气严重	轻度盐雾区、酸雨作用	重度盐雾、盐结晶
	C₃₃	冻结温度/℃	低于-15	-11~-15	-7~-11	-3~-7
	C₃₄	年能见度距离及天数	500 m以下<4	500 m以下<6	500 m以下≥6	200 m以下≥8
B₄	C₄₁	过桥车辆设计车速/(km·h^-1)	≤40	40~60	60~80	≥60
	C₄₂	超载率	1.2	1.5	1.8	≥2
	C₄₃	河流流速/(m·s^-1)	≤1.5	1.5~3	3~5	≥5
	C₄₄	抗爆设防等级	4级	3级	2级	低于2级
B₅	C₅₁	单跨跨径/m	5~20	20~40	40~150	>150
B₅	C₅₂	桥梁类别	一类桥	二类桥	三类桥	四类桥及以上
B₆	C₆₁	巡检次数	每季度巡检一次	一季度至半年巡检一次	半年至一年巡检一次	一年以上巡检一次
	C₆₂	管理报告及多层级多领域人员结构	全部满足	大多满足	一半满足	较少满足
	C₆₃	安全观测设施和流程	整体完备	较为完备	基本完备	部分缺失

鉴定项目	指标	评分条件	得分
B₁	C₁₁	梁体无明显变形,结构无明显位移	85
	C₁₂	支座完好	90
	C₁₃	钢筋有锈蚀现象,较少裂缝,缝宽未超限	70
	C₁₄	略有凹凸不平,锚固构件松动	75
	C₁₅	局部排水不畅,桥下出现漏水现象	67
	C₁₆	局部构件脱落、缺失,不影响功能	70
B₂	C₂₁	基础无冲蚀	85
	C₂₂	承台出现少量剥落、露筋、锈蚀现象	82
	C₂₃	结构应力异常,出现剪切裂缝, 缝宽未超限	83
B₃	C₃₁	年平均出现6级以上大风天数<15 d	86
	C₃₂	一般环境	90
	C₃₃	冻结温度范围在低于-15 ℃	90
	C₃₄	年能见度<500 m的雾天数<6 d	92
B₄	C₄₁	车辆过桥的设计车速<60 km/h	75
	C₄₂	超载率为1.5	67
	C₄₃	流速≥3 m/s且<5 m/s	78
	C₄₄	抗爆设防等级为4级	85
B₅	C₅₁	二类桥,抗爆设防等级为4级	85
B₅	C₅₂	大桥,总长100 m≤L≤1 000 m	90
B₆	C₆₁	一季度巡检一次,并形成巡检报告	87
	C₆₂	有书面化的管理制度及多层级多领域的人员配置	85
	C₆₃	有完备的安全观测设施和流程	83

指标项	专家评分	等级1	等级2	等级3	等级4
C₁₁	85	0.800 0	0.307 7	0.075 5	0.086 5
C₁₂	90	1.000 0	0.200 0	0.058 8	0.075 5
C₁₃	70	0.200 0	1.000 0	0.200 0	0.137 9
C₁₄	75	0.307 7	0.800 0	0.137 9	0.116 8
C₁₅	67	0.159 0	0.917 4	0.257 1	0.153 3
C₁₆	70	0.200 0	1.000 0	0.200 0	0.137 9
C₂₁	85	0.800 0	0.307 7	0.075 5	0.086 5
C₂₂	82	0.609 8	0.409 8	0.089 0	0.094 3
C₂₃	83	0.671 1	0.371 7	0.084 1	0.091 6
C₃₁	86	0.862 1	0.280 9	0.071 6	0.084 1
C₃₂	90	1.000 0	0.200 0	0.058 8	0.075 5
C₃₃	90	1.000 0	0.200 0	0.058 8	0.075 5
C₃₄	92	0.961 5	0.171 2	0.053 6	0.071 6
C₄₁	75	0.307 7	0.800 0	0.137 9	0.116 8
C₄₂	70	0.200 0	1.000 0	0.200 0	0.137 9
C₄₃	67	0.159 0	0.917 4	0.257 1	0.153 3
C₄₄	78	0.409 8	0.609 8	0.113 1	0.106 3
C₅₁	85	0.800 0	0.307 7	0.075 5	0.086 5
C₅₂	90	1.000 0	0.200 0	0.058 8	0.075 5
C₆₁	87	0.917 4	0.257 1	0.068 1	0.081 8
C₆₂	85	0.800 0	0.307 7	0.075 5	0.086 5
C₆₃	83	0.671 1	0.371 7	0.084 1	0.091 6