|Table of Contents|

Bridge health assessment based on comprehensive variable weight and multi-source indicator evaluation(PDF)

长安大学学报（自然科学版）[ISSN:1006-6977/CN:61-1281/TN]

Issue:
2025年6期
Page:
200-2015
Research Field:
桥梁智能运维与防灾减灾
Publishing date:

Info

Title:
Bridge health assessment based on comprehensive variable weight and multi-source indicator evaluation
Author(s):
SUN Bo1;  XIAO Xiang-jun1;  CHEN Yong2; 3;  WU Tao3;  RUAN Wei-dong1
(1. College of Civil Engineering, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou 310023, Zhejiang, China; 2. College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, Zhejiang, China; 3. Shanghai Research Institute of Building Sciences Co., Ltd., Shanghai 200032, China)
Keywords:
bridge engineering;  health assessment;  subjective-objective information;  fuzzy variable weight;  multi-source heterogeneous indicator;  technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution
PACS:
U446
DOI:
-
Abstract:
To address the diversity of weighting information and multi-source heterogeneity of indicator evaluation data in current bridge health condition assessment, a bridge health condition assessment method based on variable weighting of subjective-objective information and multi-source heterogeneous indicator evaluation was proposed. The subjective and objective information of indicators were weighted through the analytic hierarchy process(AHP)and improved entropy weight method(EWM), and the game theory was applied to combinatorially optimize the subjective and objective weights. Then, combined with the evaluation values of indicators, the variable weighting theory was used to determine the comprehensive variable weights of indicators. A classification and evaluation method for multi-source heterogeneous(semantic, numerical, and spatial sequence)indicators was established through the unified expression of trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. The variable weighting correction for multi-measurement point evaluation results was considered in the evaluation of numerical and spatial sequence indicators. A virtual negative ideal solution was proposed to improve the traditional technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution(TOPSIS). The horizontal cut-off set theory was applied to calculate the fuzzy relative fit intervals under different cut-off sets, and the comprehensive assessment results were obtained through the defuzzification and standardization process. Then, the classification criteria for bridge status levels were provided. The established method was applied to evaluate the health condition of an single-tower cable-stayed bridge, and key steps of the method were analyzed. The assessment results show that the assessment value of the example bridge health condition is 0.837 2, which is in a good health condition(Grade B). Daily maintenance and minor repairs after special inspections should be carried out. The subjective-objective optimization weighting method comprehensively considers the subjective-objective information from the expert evaluations. The optimized weighting results are always closer to the subjective weighting results, indicating that the information contained in pairwise comparisons from experts has a greater impact on the optimized weights. Under severe deterioration of piers, the evaluation value of the high-stress indicator of pier top section significantly decreases. This indicator corresponds to a relatively high risk level and controls the overall health condition of the structure. Taking the indicator evaluation value of 20 as an example, the assessment value is 0.633 0 when ignoring the variable weighting correction, and 0.568 5 with simple AHP. When the variable weighting correction and improved TOPSIS are adopted, the assessment result changes into 0.379 6. The variable weighting correction establishes an effective penalty mechanism for abnormal indicators, while the improved TOPSIS further enhances the ability to identify the distance between the assessment target and the negative ideal solution, making the comprehensive assessment results better reflect the actual bridge condition.10 tabs, 11 figs, 31 refs.

References:

[1] 中华人民共和国交通运输部.2023年交通运输行业发展统计公报[J].中国水运,2024(8):31-35.
Ministry of Transport of the People's Republic of China. Statistical bulletin on development of transportation industry in 2023[J]. China Water Transport, 2024(8): 31-35.
[2]黄 侨,任 远,许 翔,等.大跨径缆索承重桥梁状态评估的研究现状与发展[J].哈尔滨工业大学学报,2017,49(9):1-9.
HUANG Qiao, REN Yuan, XU Xiang, et al. Research progress of condition evaluation for large span cable supported bridges[J]. Journal of Harbin Institute of Technology, 2017, 49(9): 1-9.
[3]孙 博,肖汝诚.基于层次分析-模糊综合评价法的桥梁火灾风险评估体系[J].同济大学学报(自然科学版),2015,43(11):1619-1625.
SUN BO, XIAO Ru-cheng. Bridge fire risk assessment system based on analytic hierarchy process-fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method[J]. Journal of Tongji University(Natural Science), 2015, 43(11): 1619-1625.
[4]陈 娜,向 辉,叶 强,等.基于层次分析法的弹性城市评价体系研究[J].湖南大学学报(自然科学版),2016,43(7):146-150.
CHEN Na, XIANG Hui, YE Qiang, et al. An AHP-based approach for evaluation index system of resilience city[J]. Journal of Hunan University(Natural Sciences), 2016, 43(7): 146-150.
[5]许 翔,黄 侨,任 远,等.基于群组AHP的悬索桥状态评估指标权重确定[J].湖南大学学报(自然科学版),2018,45(3):122-128.
XU Xiang, HUANG Qiao, REN Yuan, et al. Determination of index weights in suspension bridge condition assessment based on group-AHP[J]. Journal of Hunan University(Natural Sciences), 2018, 45(3): 122-128.
[6]NYIMBILI P H, ERDEN T. Comparative evaluation of GIS-based best-worst method(BWM)for emergency facility planning: perspectives from two decision-maker groups[J]. Natural Hazards, 2021, 105: 1031-1067.
[7]ROY P K, SHAW K. Modelling a sustainable credit score system(SCSS)using BWM and fuzzy TOPSIS[J]. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 2022, 29(3): 195-208.
[8]迟国泰,李 刚,程砚秋.基于AHP-标准离差的人的全面发展评价模型及其实证研究[J].管理学报,2010,7(2):301-310.
CHI Guo-tai, LI Gang, CHENG Yan-qiu. The human all-round development evaluation model based on AHP and standard deviation and empirical study[J]. Chinese Journal of Management, 2010, 7(2): 301-310.
[9]赵书强,汤善发.基于改进层次分析法、CRITIC法与逼近理想解排序法的输电网规划方案综合评价[J].电力自动化设备,2019,39(3):143-148,162.
ZHAO Shu-qiang, TANG Shan-fa. Comprehensive evaluation of transmission network planning scheme based on improved analytic hierarchy process, CRITIC method and TOPSIS[J]. Electric Power Automation Equipment, 2019, 39(3): 143-148, 162.
[10]SUN B, ZHOU H K, DONG F H, et al. Risk assessment of bridge construction safety considering multi-information fusion[J]. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering, 2022, 8(4): 04022045.
[11]LIU H B, WANG X R, TAN G J, et al. System reliability evaluation of a bridge structure based on multivariate copulas and the AHP-EW method that considers multiple failure criteria[J]. Applied Sciences, 2020, 10(4): 1399.
[12]杨永清,杨 灯,余 取.基于不确定AHP的桥梁加固方案模糊综合评价[J].西南交通大学学报,2019,54(2):219-226,216.
YANG Yong-qing, YANG Deng, YU Qu. Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of bridge reinforcement scheme based on uncertain AHP[J]. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 2019, 54(2): 219-226, 216.
[13]马亚丽,王东炜,张爱林.在役桥梁结构健康等级的多级模糊综合评判[J].北京工业大学学报,2005,31(1):36-40.
MA Ya-li, WANG Dong-wei, ZHANG Ai-lin. A structural health-evaluating method of bridge on service: multi-phase fuzzy comprehensive evaluation[J]. Journal of Beijing University of Technology, 2005, 31(1): 36-40.
[14]JTG/T H21—2011,公路桥梁技术状况评定标准[S].
JTG/T H21—2011, standards for technical condition evaluation of highway bridges[S].
[15]JTG/T J21—2011,公路桥梁承载能力检测评定规程[S].
JTG/T J21—2011, specification for inspection and evaluation of load-bearing capacity of highway bridges[S].
[16]王其昂,刘 泉,马占国,等.基于稀疏贝叶斯学习与改进D-S证据理论多源数据融合的结构性能评估[J/OL].工程力学,(2024-11-08)[2025-10-15].https://link.cnki.net/urlid/11.2595.O3.20241108.1410.018.
WANG Qi-ang, LIU Quan, MA Zhan-guo, et al. Structural performance assessment enabled by sparse Bayesian learning and by improved D-S evidence theory for multi-data fusion[J]. Engineering Mechanics,(2024-11-08)[2025-10-15]. https://link.cnki.net/urlid/11.2595.O3.20241108.1410.018.
[17]王其昂,吴子燕,贾兆平.桥梁系统地震多维易损性分析[J].工程力学,2013,30(10):192-198.
WANG Qi-ang, WU Zi-yan, JIA Zhao-ping. Multi-dimensional fragility analysis of bridge system under earthquake[J]. Engineering Mechanics, 2013, 30(10): 192-198.
[18]HWANG, C L, YOON, K. Methods for multiple attribute decision making[M]//BECKMANN M, KÜNZI H P. Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Berlin: Springer, 1981: 186, 58-191.
[19]陆易凡,刘 达,张 洋,等.基于博弈论组合赋权和改进优劣解距离法的输变电工程建设时序规划[J].科学技术与工程,2024,24(10):4124-4131.
LU Yi-fan, LIU Da, ZHANG Yang, et al. Construction sequence planning of power transmission and transformation projects based on game theory combined weighting and improved technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution[J]. Science Technology and Engineering, 2024, 24(10): 4124-4131.
[20]XU B S, QI N N, ZHOU J P, et al. Reliability assessment of highway bridges based on combined empowerment-TOPSIS method[J]. Sustainability, 2022, 14(13): 7793.
[21]孙淼军,陈玉静,杨风艳,等.基于熵权-TOPSIS法的漂浮式海上风电基础结构方案多准则评价研究[J].太阳能学报,2025,46(4):406-414.
SUN Miao-jun, CHEN Yu-jing, YANG Feng-yan, et al. Multi-criteria evaluation of floating offshore wind turbine substructure schemes based on entropy weight-TOPSIS method[J]. Acta Energiae Solaris Sinica, 2025, 46(4): 406-414.
[22]陈 涛,刘 勇,贾 然,等.改进熵权TOPSIS的综合传动装置磨损状态评价方法[J].湖南大学学报(自然科学版),2024,51(12):10-18.
CHEN Tao, LIU Yong, JIA Ran, et al. Wear state evaluation method based on improved entropy-weighted TOPSIS for power-shift steering transmission[J]. Journal of Hunan University(Natural Sciences), 2024, 51(12): 10-18.
[23]何 赟,施先亮,单泓睿,等.基于模糊-TOPSIS的中欧班列高质量发展动态评价体系[J].中国铁道科学,2025,46(4):235-247.
HE Yun, SHI Xian-liang, SHAN Hong-rui, et al. Dynamic evaluation system for high-quality development of China railway express based on fuzzy-TOPSIS[J]. China Railway Science, 2025, 46(4): 235-247.
[24]NURANI A I, PRAMUDYANINNGRUM A T, FADHILA S R, et al. Analytical hierarchy process(AHP), fuzzy AHP, and TOPSIS for determining bridge maintenance priority scale in Banjarsari, Surakarta[J]International Journal of Science and Applied Science: Conference Series, 2017, 2(1): 60-71.
[25]MALEKINEZHAD H, SEPEHRI M, PHAM Q B, et al. Application of entropy weighting method for urban flood hazard mapping[J]. Acta Geophysica, 2021, 69, 841-854.
[26]张近乐,任 杰.熵理论中熵及熵权计算式的不足与修正[J].统计与信息论坛,2011,26(1):3-5.
ZHANG Jin-le, REN Jie. The deficiencies and amendments of the calculation formulate of entropy and entropy weight in the theory of entropy[J]. Statistics and Information Forum, 2011, 26(1): 3-5.
[27]刘文奇.均衡函数及其在变权综合中的应用[J].系统工程理论与实践,1997,17(4):58-64,74.
LIU Wen-qi. Balanced function and its application for variable weight synthesizing[J]. Systems Engineering Theory and Practice, 1997, 17(4): 58-64, 74.
[28]兰 海,史家钧.灰色关联分析与变权综合法在桥梁评估中的应用[J].同济大学学报(自然科学版),2001,29(1):50-54.
LAN Hai, SHI Jia-jun. Degree of grey incidence and variable weight synthesizing applied in bridge assessment[J]. Journal of Tongji University(Natural Science), 2001, 29(1): 50-54.
[29]胡永宏.对TOPSIS法用于综合评价的改进[J].数学的实践与认识,2002,32(4):572-575.
HU Yong-hong. The improved method for topsis in comprehensive evaluation[J]. Mathematics in Practice and Theory, 2002, 32(4): 572-575.
[30]屈 兵,漆安宁,余加仙,等.基于模糊变权TOPSIS的桥梁状态评估方法[J].莆田学院学报,2023,30(2):102-108.
QU Bing, QI An-ning, YU Jia-xian, et al. A bridge condition assessment method based on fuzzy variable weighted TOPSIS[J]. Journal of Putian University, 2023, 30(2): 102-108.
[31]于丽英,蒋宗彩.基于α-水平截集的模糊TOPSIS方法在公共危机管理能力评价中的应用研究[J].运筹与管理,2013,22(5):203-208.
YU Li-ying, JIANG Zong-cai. Application of fuzzy TOPSIS based on alpha level sets in evaluating public crisis management capability[J]. Operations Research and Management Science, 2013, 22(5): 203-208.

Memo

Memo:
-
Last Update: 2025-12-20