CN111476486A - Multi-level evaluation method for channel maintainability dredging construction safety risk - Google Patents

Multi-level evaluation method for channel maintainability dredging construction safety risk Download PDF

Info

Publication number
CN111476486A
CN111476486A CN202010269159.9A CN202010269159A CN111476486A CN 111476486 A CN111476486 A CN 111476486A CN 202010269159 A CN202010269159 A CN 202010269159A CN 111476486 A CN111476486 A CN 111476486A
Authority
CN
China
Prior art keywords
risk
evaluation
level
management
safety risk
Prior art date
Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
Pending
Application number
CN202010269159.9A
Other languages
Chinese (zh)
Inventor
刘义武
陈一梅
陈晓卫
齐林林
孟萍萍
陆诚
马文泰
苗圃
金剑
周永康
郝建新
Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.)
Southeast University
Nanjing Changjiang Waterway Engineering Bureau
Original Assignee
Southeast University
Nanjing Changjiang Waterway Engineering Bureau
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by Southeast University, Nanjing Changjiang Waterway Engineering Bureau filed Critical Southeast University
Priority to CN202010269159.9A priority Critical patent/CN111476486A/en
Publication of CN111476486A publication Critical patent/CN111476486A/en
Pending legal-status Critical Current

Links

Images

Classifications

    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
    • G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
    • G06Q10/063—Operations research, analysis or management
    • G06Q10/0635—Risk analysis of enterprise or organisation activities
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
    • G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
    • G06Q10/063—Operations research, analysis or management
    • G06Q10/0639—Performance analysis of employees; Performance analysis of enterprise or organisation operations
    • G06Q10/06393—Score-carding, benchmarking or key performance indicator [KPI] analysis
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q50/00—Information and communication technology [ICT] specially adapted for implementation of business processes of specific business sectors, e.g. utilities or tourism
    • G06Q50/08—Construction

Landscapes

  • Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • Human Resources & Organizations (AREA)
  • Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Economics (AREA)
  • Strategic Management (AREA)
  • Entrepreneurship & Innovation (AREA)
  • General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
  • Educational Administration (AREA)
  • Marketing (AREA)
  • Development Economics (AREA)
  • General Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • Tourism & Hospitality (AREA)
  • Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Quality & Reliability (AREA)
  • Operations Research (AREA)
  • Game Theory and Decision Science (AREA)
  • Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
  • General Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
  • Primary Health Care (AREA)
  • Management, Administration, Business Operations System, And Electronic Commerce (AREA)

Abstract

The invention discloses a multi-level evaluation method for channel maintainability dredging construction safety risk, which comprises the following steps: acquiring channel maintainability dredging construction risk factors, and establishing a risk evaluation index system; performing first-level single-factor risk index evaluation; performing second-level personnel safety risk evaluation by MTU weighted summation to obtain a personnel safety risk value p and the level thereof; carrying out second-level ship equipment safety risk evaluation by variable weight weighted summation to obtain a ship equipment safety risk value s and the level thereof; performing second-level environment type safety risk evaluation by a variable-weight gray clustering method, and obtaining an environment type safety risk value e and the level thereof; PSE weighted summation is carried out to carry out second-level management type safety risk evaluation, and a management type safety risk value m and the level thereof are obtained; and converting the management risk value into a 3-class risk management coefficient, and performing third-level comprehensive safety risk evaluation. The invention can ensure the maintainability of the channel and the safe dredging construction.

Description

Multi-level evaluation method for channel maintainability dredging construction safety risk
Technical Field
The invention relates to the technical field of channel maintainability dredging construction safety risk evaluation, in particular to a channel maintainability dredging construction safety risk multi-level evaluation method.
Background
Channel maintenance dredging is an engineering measure which must be taken to ensure the smoothness of a channel. Because the channel is not disconnected in the construction period, the difficulty of managing and controlling the construction safety risk is high, the tonnage of a high-grade channel ship is high, once a safety accident occurs, the economic loss is serious, safety evaluation needs to be made on the channel maintainability dredging construction urgently to guide the risk management and control, and the safety accident occurrence and the economic loss are reduced.
However, the maintainability dredging construction system is complex, and from the perspective of safety system engineering, the channel maintainability dredging construction system relates to four aspects of personnel, ship equipment, environment and management, wherein the personnel comprises management, technology, general and the like; marine equipment for construction; the environment includes natural environment, traffic environment, channel environment, etc.; the management comprises safety control before construction, field safety management and the like, and the whole system has many related influence factors, wide risk sources, high prediction difficulty and difficult control.
At present, the field of construction safety evaluation focuses on researches such as bridge construction safety risk evaluation, subway construction safety risk evaluation, building construction safety risk evaluation and the like. For the safety risk evaluation of navigation channel navigation, the risk evaluation is usually only carried out on the external environment (channel condition, natural hydrological environment and the like), and the safety risk of a complex system of channel maintainability dredging construction is little.
Traditional safety evaluation methods (such as pre-hazard analysis (PHA), failure mode, impact and hazard analysis (FMECA), risk and operability research (HAZOP), fault tree analysis, event tree analysis, etc.) are mainly based on probability analysis, and since the probability of occurrence of related events in a complex system is often difficult to determine, the traditional method based quantitative analysis is not very operable under uncertain conditions.
Disclosure of Invention
The invention aims to solve the technical problem of providing a multi-level evaluation method for the safety risk of the channel maintainability dredging construction, which can perform three-level safety risk evaluation of single factor, single category and comprehensive risk on the channel maintainability dredging construction, provide guidance for the formulation of safety precaution and emergency plan in construction and ensure the channel maintainability dredging safety construction.
In order to solve the technical problems, the invention provides a multi-level evaluation method for the safety risk of channel maintainability dredging construction, which comprises the following steps:
(1) acquiring channel maintainability dredging construction risk factors, and establishing a risk evaluation index system from four categories of personnel-environment-equipment-management;
(2) performing first-level single-factor risk index evaluation;
(3) performing weighted summation on MTU (management, technical and univeral) to evaluate the personnel safety risk of the second level, and obtaining a personnel safety risk value p and the level thereof;
(4) carrying out second-level ship equipment safety risk evaluation by variable weight weighted summation to obtain a ship equipment safety risk value s and the level thereof;
(5) performing second-level environment type safety risk evaluation by a variable-weight gray clustering method, and obtaining an environment type safety risk value e and the level thereof;
(6) PSE (Person, ship and environment) weighted summation is carried out to carry out second-level management type security risk evaluation, and a management type security risk value m and the level thereof are obtained;
(7) and converting the management risk value into a 3-class risk management coefficient, and performing third-level comprehensive safety risk evaluation.
Preferably, in step (1), the risk evaluation index of the personnel involved in construction is marked as Pi(i 1,2, …, m) and the "marine facility" risk assessment index is denoted as Si(i-1, 2, …, n), "environmental" type risk assessment is denoted as Ei(i is 1,2, …, k) and risk evaluation indexes of "management" are classified into risk evaluation indexes of personnel management, ship equipment management and environment management, and are respectively recorded as MPi(i＝1，2，…,f)、MSi(i＝1，2，…,g)、MEi(i＝1，2，…,h)。
Preferably, in the step (2), each risk evaluation index of the single factors is divided into 5 interval grades, I grade, II grade, iii grade, iv grade and V grade according to an evaluation standard, the corresponding risk degree is negligible risk, low risk, medium risk, high risk and catastrophic risk, and the corresponding risk score is 1 score, 2 score, 3 score, 4 score and 5 score;
the significance of the risk grade of each single factor evaluation index is the same as that in the table 1, when the single factor risk index is in the V grade, a vote rejection is carried out, and the risk is unacceptable; during single-class evaluation and comprehensive evaluation, the single factor index of the one-ticket veto is 5 points, the calculation of the single-class evaluation risk and the comprehensive risk score is carried out, and the factor of the one-ticket veto needs to be indicated separately;
TABLE 1 Single-Category Risk level evaluation Table
Figure BDA0002442451710000021
Figure BDA0002442451710000031
Preferably, in the step (3), when the MTU carries out the personnel safety risk evaluation by weighted summation, a personnel safety risk value p is obtained by a personnel risk evaluation index, and the personnel safety risk level can be judged by looking up a table 1; when the MTU carries out personnel safety risk evaluation, the personnel categories are divided into management personnel, technical personnel and common personnel due to different construction related work types; the person risk score for a "management" staff member is noted as pim(i is 1,2, …, i; i is the number of the members participating in the management class), and the risk score of the members in the technical class is recorded as pit(it is 1,2, …, i; i is the number of technical staff participating in the evaluation), and the staff risk score of the staff of the 'ordinary' category is recorded as piu(i is 1,2, …, i; i is the reference general class personnel number), and the personnel safety risk value p is calculated according to the formula (1):
p＝max(pim)×wm+max(pit)×wt+max(piu)×wu(1)
in the formula wm、wt、wuSecurity risk weights for management, technical and general staff, respectively;
when MTU weighted summation is used for personnel safety risk evaluation, AHP is used for obtaining each index weight of personnel safety risk, after indexes are scored, weighted summation is used for obtaining safety risk score p of each person participating in evaluationim、pit、piu。
Preferably, in the step (4), when the ship equipment safety risk evaluation is carried out through variable weight weighted summation, a ship equipment safety risk value s is obtained through a ship equipment risk evaluation index, and the safety risk level of the ship equipment can be judged through a table 1; when ship equipment safety risk evaluation is carried out through variable weight weighted summation, a ship equipment risk score is recorded as SisAnd i is 1,2, …, i is an evaluation index number, and the ship equipment risk value s is calculated according to the formula (2):
Figure BDA0002442451710000032
w in formula (2)isThe variable weight represents the variable weight of each evaluation index of the risk of the ship equipment;
when the ship equipment safety risk evaluation is carried out through variable weight weighting summation, in order to solve the problem of balance among evaluation indexes of the ship equipment, the weight of the ship equipment risk evaluation index obtains the variable weight w according to a variable weight comprehensive theoryisThe variable weight is obtained by constant weight and construction equalization function, and the constant weight is recorded as
Figure BDA0002442451710000041
Preferably, in the step (5), when the environment-based security risk evaluation is performed by the variable-weight gray clustering method, an environment security risk value e is obtained by an environment-based risk evaluation index, and the environment-based security risk level can be determined by looking up a table 1; when the variable-weight gray clustering method is used for environment type safety risk evaluation, the environment type risk indexes comprise natural environments, channel conditions and traffic environments; the environmental risk evaluation index is used for actual measurement value, and a clustering coefficient vector obtained by adopting a variable weight gray clustering method is recorded as (e)1,e2，e3，e4，e5) The environmental security risk value e is calculated according to formula (3):
e＝i (3)
i is a grey cluster category coefficient, the value of i is 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5, and when E is1At maximum, i takes 1, and so on.
Preferably, in step (6), when performing management-based security risk evaluation by PSE weighted summation, the management-based risk indicators are classified into 3 types including personnel management, ship equipment management and environment management evaluation indicators, and from the 3 types of risk evaluation indicators, the 3 types of management security risk value personnel management risk values m are respectively obtainedPAnd a ship equipment management risk value mSEnvironmental management risk value mEThe comprehensive management risk value is recorded as m and calculated according to a formula (4), and the management risk level can be judged by looking up a table 1;
m＝mP×wP+mS×wS+mE×wE(4)
in the formula wP、wS、wEThe management security risk weights of the personnel management class, the ship equipment management class and the environment management class are obtained through AHP;
when PSE weighted summation is used for management safety risk evaluation, AHP is used for obtaining the weight of each index of management safety risk, after the indexes are scored, 3 management safety risk values m can be obtained through weighted summationP、mS、mE。
Preferably, in step (7), when the third-level comprehensive security risk evaluation is performed, 3 management-class security risk values m are usedP、mS、mEObtaining 3 personnel management risk coefficients m 'for managing safety risk coefficients after conversion'PAnd ship equipment management risk coefficient m'SAnd environment management risk coefficient m'E；
3 administrative Security Risk values mP、ms、mEConversion to Risk coefficient m'P、m′S、m′EThe method comprises the following steps:
Figure BDA0002442451710000051
in the formula (5), m is mP、mS、mEM 'are each m'P、m′S、m′E；
When the third-level comprehensive security risk evaluation is carried out, the comprehensive risk evaluation value r is calculated according to the following formula (6):
r＝m′P×p+m′S×4+m′E×e (6)
and (4) judging the risk level of the maintainability dredging construction by looking up a table 2 according to the comprehensive risk evaluation value r.
Preferably, in step (7), the criterion for determining the comprehensive risk level of the maintainability dredging construction from the comprehensive risk assessment value r is as follows:
TABLE 2 comprehensive Risk level evaluation Table
Figure BDA0002442451710000052
The invention has the beneficial effects that: (1) the method comprises the following steps of (1) evaluating maintainability dredging construction safety risk evaluation indexes according to four categories of personnel-equipment-environment-management by a man-machine ring pipe theory, wherein the management risk controls other three types of risks; (2) aiming at a multi-index, multi-class and multi-level security risk evaluation system, a risk evaluation method which is suitable for the characteristics of risk indexes of various classes is respectively adopted for various classes, combination of subjective risk evaluation and objective risk evaluation is realized, and comprehensive risk evaluation with higher reference value is made under the condition of multiple indexes and less samples; (3) the risk evaluation is divided into three levels of single factor evaluation, single category evaluation and comprehensive evaluation, and a safety risk evaluation system is simple and clear; in addition, single factor and single category risk evaluation can be carried out independently and simultaneously without mutual interference, the evaluation efficiency is high, and the practicability is strong; (4) the variable weight theory is used for safety evaluation of ship equipment, a variable weight evaluation model is established, the problem of balance among ship equipment evaluation indexes is solved, and compared with the traditional weighting risk evaluation, the method is more flexible, and the evaluation result is more fit to the actual situation; (5) the variable weight gray clustering method is used for environment-based safety risk evaluation, and is suitable for the characteristics of more evaluation indexes, fewer samples and measurable evaluation index values.
Drawings
FIG. 1 is a schematic flow chart of the method of the present invention.
Detailed Description
As shown in fig. 1, a multi-level evaluation method for the safety risk of channel maintainability dredging construction includes the following steps:
(1) acquiring channel maintainability dredging construction risk factors, and establishing a risk evaluation index system from four categories of personnel-environment-equipment-management;
TABLE 3 Risk assessment index System
Figure BDA0002442451710000061
Figure BDA0002442451710000071
(2) Performing first-level single-factor risk index evaluation;
① evaluation standard of single-factor risk index at first level
In order to facilitate the second and third level security risk evaluation, 5 levels I, II, III, IV and V of each single-factor evaluation index are respectively applied for 1-5 points, and correspondingly, the single-factor risk score also corresponds to the single-factor risk security level. The evaluation index value criteria are shown in the following table 4:
table 4 first-level single-factor evaluation table for various types of security risks
Figure BDA0002442451710000072
Figure BDA0002442451710000081
Figure BDA0002442451710000091
Figure BDA0002442451710000101
Figure BDA0002442451710000111
② first-level single-factor risk assessment results
TABLE 5 first-level safety Risk assessment of individual channels
Figure BDA0002442451710000112
Figure BDA0002442451710000121
Figure BDA0002442451710000131
Note that the numerical values in the index tables of personnel, ship equipment and management are illustrative numerical values, the actual evaluation is scored according to the actual situation, in order to simplify the illustration, the results of the single-factor evaluation of personnel of the personnel of management, technical and general class 3 employees are all the results in the tables, the specification and the size of the construction ship are 'long whale 7', the main parameters are that the main dimension of the ship body is about 121 meters × 24.8.8 meters × 9.6.6 meters × 8.3.3 meters (the total length × type wide × type deep × dredging draught), the average draught is 8.3 meters, and the free navigational speed is not less than 14.0 knots.
In the above table 5, when the single-factor evaluation is performed at the first level, the evaluation index "ship design draft/channel depth" of the harmony water channel is scored by 5 points, which indicates that under the existing ship equipment condition, the harmony water channel depth is not enough, and a vote rejection is performed for unacceptable risks. Similarly, the unacceptable risk factors of the port straight water channel are as follows: the number of anchor areas and mooring areas is large, and the water depth of a water channel is insufficient; unacceptable risk factors of the water channel in the northwest province include dense traffic of the ascending ship, a large number of anchor areas and mooring areas and a large number of turning points; unacceptable risk factors of the Funan water channel include a large number of anchor areas and mooring areas; the unacceptable risk factor of the south channel is that the turning points are more.
(3) Performing weighted summation on MTU (management, technical and univeral) to evaluate the personnel safety risk of the second level, and obtaining a personnel safety risk value p and the level thereof;
and acquiring a personnel safety risk value by the first-level single-factor risk evaluation index value of the personnel class.
① AHP method obtains the weight of 3 evaluation indexes, w1；、w2；、w3；Values of (d) of 0.584, 0.135, 0.280;
② AHP method obtains the weight w of 3 types of work typesm、wt、wuValues of (d) 0.637, 0.258, 0.105;
③ second-level personal safety risk evaluation, calculating personal safety risk value p according to formula (1) and table 5 personal single-factor evaluation result
p＝max(Pim)×wm+max(Pit)×wt+max(Piu)×wu(1)
And calculating the second-level personnel safety risk value p of each water channel by the above formula, and showing in the following summary table 7.
(4) Carrying out second-level ship equipment safety risk evaluation by variable weight weighted summation to obtain a ship equipment safety risk value s and the level thereof;
and obtaining a safety risk value s of the ship equipment by the first-level single-factor risk evaluation index value of the ship equipment.
① AHP obtains constant weights
Figure BDA0002442451710000141
Values of (3) are 0.488, 0.345, 0.098, 0.069.
② calculating the variable weight vector according to the following formula:
Figure BDA0002442451710000142
in the formula, sisIs the value of the ith evaluation index, n is the number of the evaluation indexes, wisIs the variable weight of the ith evaluation index,
Figure BDA0002442451710000143
the constant weight of the ith evaluation index and the equalization coefficient α are used, and in general, α is used when the equalization problem of each index is not considered much>1/2, when severe defect of some factors can not be tolerated, choose α<1/2, when α is 1, it corresponds to a constant weight mode, and α is 0.1 for the evaluation index of the ship equipment, considering that the reliability of the electromechanical equipment and the maneuvering equipment is not high, the safety state of the whole ship equipment is seriously affected.
③, carrying out safety risk evaluation on ship equipment at a second level;
the variable weight and the single-factor evaluation result of the ship equipment class shown in the table 5 are substituted into a formula (2) to calculate the safety risk value s of the ship equipment class, and the calculation result is shown in a summary table 7 below.
Figure BDA0002442451710000144
(5) Performing second-level environment type safety risk evaluation by a variable-weight gray clustering method, and obtaining an environment type safety risk value e and the level thereof; and obtaining an environmental security risk value e by the environment-type first-level single-factor risk evaluation index value.
The traditional risk analysis method has certain limitation when being used for the complex and changeable system risk evaluation, so that the environment type safety risk evaluation adopts grey cluster analysis.
① classifying gray
The environmental safety risk degree of the navigation channel is divided into 5 grades: risks, low risks, medium risks, high risks and catastrophic risks can be ignored, and 5 degrees of environmental safety risks correspond to five levels of environmental safety evaluation indexes, and therefore, gray-class results divided by the evaluation indexes are shown in table 5.
② constructing a function of likelihood
-mixing the likelihood function based on the center point
5 levels of the environmental safety risk of the navigation channel correspond to 5 gray classes, and are marked as k being 1,2,3,4 and 5; the endpoint value of each index division interval is marked as ak。
For gray class 1 and gray class 5, corresponding lower bound measure likelihood functions are constructed
Figure BDA0002442451710000151
And upper bound measure probability function
Figure BDA0002442451710000152
λk＝(ak+Ck+1)/2
For gray classes 2,3,4, a trigonometric likelihood function is constructed.
The likelihood function is calculated as:
ash class 1:
Figure BDA0002442451710000153
ash 5:
Figure BDA0002442451710000154
ashes 2,3, 4:
Figure BDA0002442451710000155
③ determination of variable weight
Normalizing the endpoint values of the evaluation indexes and calculating according to the following formula:
Figure BDA0002442451710000156
④ calculating the comprehensive environmental clustering coefficient of each water channel
TABLE 6 comprehensive clustering coefficient value of each water channel environment under variable weight
1 2 3 4 5
Hechang Zhou water channel 0.0000 0.0816 0.3528 0.2704 0.2000
Port straight water channel 0.0000 0.0501 0.4038 0.1413 0.2000
Water channel good for north 0.0000 0.0503 0.1719 0.0862 0.3000
Water passage in good fortune 0.0000 0.0000 0.2585 0.1558 0.1000
Funan water channel 0.0332 0.1387 0.2420 0.1336 0.1464
Nantong water channel 0.0000 0.1086 0.2368 0.1447 0.3264
⑤ second level environmental class safety risk evaluation
Substituting the 6 water course gray clustering evaluation results obtained in the table 6 into a formula (3) to obtain an environmental safety risk value e, wherein the results are shown in a summary table 7.
e＝i (3)
(6) PSE (Person, ship and environment) weighted summation is carried out to carry out second-level management type security risk evaluation, and a management type security risk value m and the level thereof are obtained;
and acquiring a management security risk value m by using the management type first-level single-factor risk evaluation index value.
② AHP method obtaining weight wP、wS、wEValues of (d) 0.637, 0.258, 0.105;
② and carrying out second-level management type security risk evaluation, namely substituting the management type single-factor evaluation result in the table 5 into a formula (4) to obtain a management type security risk value m, wherein the result is shown in a summary table 7.
m＝mP×wP+mS×wS+mE×wE(4)
(7) And converting the management risk value into a 3-class risk management coefficient, and performing third-level comprehensive safety risk evaluation.
① calculate 3 management security risk factors according to equation (5), the results are shown in summary table 7.
Figure BDA0002442451710000161
②, calculating the comprehensive risk assessment value r of each channel system according to the formula (6), and obtaining the comprehensive risk assessment grade, as shown in the following table 7:
r＝m′P×p+m′S×4+m′E×e (6)
TABLE 7 summary of safety risk evaluation results of various waterways
Figure BDA0002442451710000162
Figure BDA0002442451710000171
Figure BDA0002442451710000181
③ Risk assessment conclusions
The first-level single-factor risk evaluation result of each water channel is as follows: see table 5.
And (3) single-class risk evaluation results of a second level of each water course: see table 7.
And (3) evaluating the third-level comprehensive risk of each water channel: see table 7.

Claims (9)

1. A multi-level evaluation method for the safety risk of channel maintainability dredging construction is characterized by comprising the following steps:
(1) acquiring channel maintainability dredging construction risk factors, and establishing a risk evaluation index system from four categories of personnel-environment-equipment-management;
(2) performing first-level single-factor risk index evaluation;
(3) performing second-level personnel safety risk evaluation by MTU weighted summation to obtain a personnel safety risk value p and the level thereof;
(4) carrying out second-level ship equipment safety risk evaluation by variable weight weighted summation to obtain a ship equipment safety risk value s and the level thereof;
(5) performing second-level environment type safety risk evaluation by a variable-weight gray clustering method, and obtaining an environment type safety risk value e and the level thereof;
(6) PSE weighted summation is carried out to carry out second-level management type safety risk evaluation, and a management type safety risk value m and the level thereof are obtained;
(7) and converting the management risk value into a 3-class risk management coefficient, and performing third-level comprehensive safety risk evaluation.
2. The multi-level risk assessment method for channel maintainability dredging construction safety according to claim 1, wherein in step (1), the risk assessment index of "personnel" related to construction is marked as PiI 1,2, …, m, risk assessment of the "marine installation" type is denoted by the reference SiI-1, 2, …, n, "environmental" class risk assessment is designated as EiWhen i is 1,2, …, k, risk evaluation indexes of "management" category are classified into risk evaluation indexes of personnel management, ship equipment management and environment management, and are respectively recorded as MPi，i＝1，2，…,f、MSi，i＝1，2，…,g、MEi，i＝1，2，…,h。
3. The multi-level risk evaluation method for channel maintainability dredging construction safety according to claim 1, wherein in step (2), each risk evaluation index of the single factor is divided into 5 interval levels according to the evaluation standard, I level, II level, iii level, iv level and V level, the corresponding risk degree is negligible risk, low risk, medium risk, high risk and catastrophic risk, and the corresponding risk score is 1,2,3,4 and 5;
the significance of the risk grade of each single factor evaluation index is the same as that in the table 1, when the single factor risk index is in the V grade, a vote rejection is carried out, and the risk is unacceptable; during single-class evaluation and comprehensive evaluation, the single factor index of the one-ticket veto is 5 points, the calculation of the single-class evaluation risk and the comprehensive risk score is carried out, and the factor of the one-ticket veto needs to be indicated separately;
TABLE 1 Single-Category Risk level evaluation Table
Figure FDA0002442451700000011
Figure FDA0002442451700000021
4. The multi-level evaluation method for the safety risk of the channel maintainability dredging construction according to claim 1, wherein in the step (3), when the MTU weights and sums to evaluate the personnel safety risk, the personnel safety risk value p is obtained by the personnel risk evaluation index, and the personnel safety risk level can be determined by looking up table 1; when the MTU carries out personnel safety risk evaluation, the personnel categories are divided into management personnel, technical personnel and common personnel due to different construction related work types; the person risk score for a "management" staff member is noted as pimI is 1,2, …, i; i is the number of the person participating in the management class, and the risk score of the person of the technical class is recorded as pit1,2, …, i; i is the number of technical staff participating in the evaluation, and the risk score of the staff of the general class is recorded as piuI is 1,2, …, i; i is the serial number of the general evaluation personnel, and the safety risk value p of the personnel is calculated according to the formula (1):
p＝max(pim)×wm+max(pit)×wt+max(piu)×wu(1)
in the formula wm、wt、wuSecurity risk weights for management, technical and general staff, respectively;
when MTU weighted summation is used for personnel safety risk evaluation, AHP is used for obtaining each index weight of personnel safety risk, after indexes are scored, weighted summation is used for obtaining safety risk score p of each person participating in evaluationim、pit、piu。
5. The multi-level evaluation method for the safety risk of the channel maintainability dredging construction according to claim 1, wherein in the step (4), when the ship equipment safety risk evaluation is performed by the variable weight weighting summation, the ship equipment safety risk value s is obtained by the ship equipment risk evaluation index, and the ship equipment safety risk level can be judged by looking up a table 1; when ship equipment safety risk evaluation is carried out through variable weight weighted summation, a ship equipment risk score is recorded as Sis，i＝1,2,…And i is an evaluation index number, and the ship equipment risk value s is calculated according to a formula (2):
Figure FDA0002442451700000031
w in formula (2)isThe variable weight represents the variable weight of each evaluation index of the risk of the ship equipment;
when the ship equipment safety risk evaluation is carried out through variable weight weighting summation, in order to solve the problem of balance among evaluation indexes of the ship equipment, the weight of the ship equipment risk evaluation index obtains the variable weight w according to a variable weight comprehensive theoryisThe variable weight is obtained by constant weight and construction equalization function, and the constant weight is recorded as
Figure FDA0002442451700000032
6. The multi-level evaluation method for the channel maintainability dredging construction safety risk according to claim 1, wherein in the step (5), when the environment type safety risk evaluation is performed by the variable weight gray clustering method, the environment type safety risk value e is obtained by the environment type risk evaluation index, and the environment type safety risk level can be judged by looking up table 1; when the variable-weight gray clustering method is used for environment type safety risk evaluation, the environment type risk indexes comprise natural environments, channel conditions and traffic environments; the environmental risk evaluation index is used for actual measurement value, and a clustering coefficient vector obtained by adopting a variable weight gray clustering method is recorded as (e)1,e2，e3，e4，e5) The environmental security risk value e is calculated according to formula (3):
e＝i (3)
i is a grey cluster category coefficient, the value of i is 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5, and when E is1At maximum, i takes 1, and so on.
7. The multi-level evaluation method for the safety risk of channel maintainability dredging construction according to claim 1, wherein in step (6), PSE weighted summation is used for managing safety windIn risk evaluation, the management risk indexes are divided into 3 types including personnel management, ship equipment management and environment management evaluation indexes, and 3 types of management safety risk values and personnel management risk values m are respectively obtained from the 3 types of risk evaluation indexesPAnd a ship equipment management risk value mSEnvironmental management risk value mEThe comprehensive management risk value is recorded as m and calculated according to a formula (4), and the management risk level can be judged by looking up a table 1;
m＝mP×wP+mS×wS+m0×wE(4)
in the formula wP、ws、wEThe management security risk weights of the personnel management class, the ship equipment management class and the environment management class are obtained through AHP;
when PSE weighted summation is used for management safety risk evaluation, AHP is used for obtaining the weight of each index of management safety risk, after the indexes are scored, 3 management safety risk values m can be obtained through weighted summationP、ms、mE。
8. The multi-level evaluation method for the safety risk of channel maintainability dredging construction according to claim 1, wherein in the step (7), when the third-level comprehensive safety risk evaluation is performed, 3 management-type safety risk values m are usedP、ms、mEObtaining 3 personnel management risk coefficients m 'for managing safety risk coefficients after conversion'PAnd ship equipment management risk coefficient m'sAnd environment management risk coefficient m'E；
3 administrative Security Risk values mP、mS、mEConversion to Risk coefficient m'P、m′S、m′EThe method comprises the following steps:
Figure FDA0002442451700000041
in the formula (5), m is mP、mS、mEM 'are each m'P、m′S、m′E；
When the third-level comprehensive security risk evaluation is carried out, the comprehensive risk evaluation value r is calculated according to the following formula (6):
r＝m′P×p+m′S×4+m′E×e (6)
and (4) judging the risk level of the maintainability dredging construction by looking up a table 2 according to the comprehensive risk evaluation value r.
9. The multi-level risk assessment method for channel maintainability dredging construction safety according to claim 8, wherein in step (7), the criterion for determining the comprehensive risk level of the maintainability dredging construction from the comprehensive risk assessment value r is as follows:
TABLE 2 comprehensive Risk level evaluation Table
Figure FDA0002442451700000042
CN202010269159.9A 2020-04-08 2020-04-08 Multi-level evaluation method for channel maintainability dredging construction safety risk Pending CN111476486A (en)

Priority Applications (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
CN202010269159.9A CN111476486A (en) 2020-04-08 2020-04-08 Multi-level evaluation method for channel maintainability dredging construction safety risk

Applications Claiming Priority (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
CN202010269159.9A CN111476486A (en) 2020-04-08 2020-04-08 Multi-level evaluation method for channel maintainability dredging construction safety risk

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
CN111476486A true CN111476486A (en) 2020-07-31

Family

ID=71750695

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
CN202010269159.9A Pending CN111476486A (en) 2020-04-08 2020-04-08 Multi-level evaluation method for channel maintainability dredging construction safety risk

Country Status (1)

Country Link
CN (1) CN111476486A (en)

Citations (5)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
CN107591030A (en) * 2017-09-21 2018-01-16 中华人民共和国天津海事局 Ship Traffic Service waters traffic dynamic risk management method
CN108876184A (en) * 2018-06-29 2018-11-23 中车建设工程有限公司 A kind of security risk evaluations and method for early warning of Railway Tunnel operation phase
CN108960677A (en) * 2018-07-25 2018-12-07 东南大学 A kind of evaluation method of subway station operation security
CN109086992A (en) * 2018-07-27 2018-12-25 苏交科集团股份有限公司 Waterway engineering construction safety risk appraisal procedure
CN109978415A (en) * 2019-04-15 2019-07-05 中国计量大学 Based on level gray theory to the appraisal procedure of elevator safety guard system

Patent Citations (5)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
CN107591030A (en) * 2017-09-21 2018-01-16 中华人民共和国天津海事局 Ship Traffic Service waters traffic dynamic risk management method
CN108876184A (en) * 2018-06-29 2018-11-23 中车建设工程有限公司 A kind of security risk evaluations and method for early warning of Railway Tunnel operation phase
CN108960677A (en) * 2018-07-25 2018-12-07 东南大学 A kind of evaluation method of subway station operation security
CN109086992A (en) * 2018-07-27 2018-12-25 苏交科集团股份有限公司 Waterway engineering construction safety risk appraisal procedure
CN109978415A (en) * 2019-04-15 2019-07-05 中国计量大学 Based on level gray theory to the appraisal procedure of elevator safety guard system

Non-Patent Citations (2)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Title
刘晴，徐跑主编: "渔业环境评价与生态修复", 海洋出版社, pages: 128 *
王群朋: "复杂海上工程施工期的通航安全动态风险评价模型研究", 中国优秀硕士学位论文全文数据库, no. 4, pages 128 *

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
CN111507586B (en) Navigation water area water construction safety risk early warning grading method and system
CN108894282B (en) Municipal pipe network operation safety dynamic early warning method
Kaptan Risk assessment of ship anchorage handling operations using the fuzzy bow-tie method
CN114548725A (en) Deep foundation pit stability evaluation method based on entropy weight-level analysis fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method
CN109657880A (en) A kind of Collision Accidents of Ships grade prediction technique and system based on Bayesian network
CN110400087A (en) Based on the elevator safety guard system evaluation method for improving weight and variable fuzzy sets
CN109872247B (en) Pump set characteristic curve fitting method
CN111126853A (en) Fuzzy FMEA-based hydraulic engineering risk early warning analysis method and system
CN106779320A (en) A kind of gas pipeline damage from third-party methods of risk assessment based on fuzzy mathematics
CN107239905A (en) Onboard networks safety risk estimating method based on advanced AHP GCM
CN109973331A (en) A kind of fan blade of wind generating set fault diagnosis algorithm based on bp neural network
CN112330187A (en) Underground facility flood risk assessment method, system, terminal and storage medium
CN113538971A (en) Risk ship detection method based on multi-source heterogeneous data fusion
CN111310323A (en) Deep sea pipeline comprehensive risk index evaluation method based on MATLAB software
CN111476486A (en) Multi-level evaluation method for channel maintainability dredging construction safety risk
CN114841518A (en) Service state evaluation method for inland river navigation aid sign
WO2024077850A1 (en) Method for constructing evaluation index system for autonomous berthing and unberthing function of ship
CN113361014A (en) Intelligent energy efficiency management method for ship
CN109145951A (en) A kind of tunnel lining structure duty status evaluation method based on Bayesian network
CN116468277A (en) Coastal maritime jurisdiction risk assessment method based on ship report data
Fang et al. Risk assessment of construction safety of prefabricated building hoisting based on cloud model-entropy method
CN115034648B (en) Bridge engineering risk assessment method based on BP neural network under condition of few samples
CN114167837B (en) Intelligent fault diagnosis method and system for railway signal system
CN110347972A (en) The weight sets of electromechanical special safety equipment assessment indicator system combines quantization method
Guo et al. Risk assessment of disconnect operations of MNPP using similarity aggregation method based fuzzy dynamic Bayesian networks model

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
PB01 Publication
PB01 Publication
SE01 Entry into force of request for substantive examination
SE01 Entry into force of request for substantive examination
RJ01 Rejection of invention patent application after publication

Application publication date: 20200731