An Evaluation Framework for Construction Quality of Bridge Monitoring System Using the DHGF Method
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. DHGF Algorithm
3. Construction of Bridge Monitoring System Evaluation Model
3.1. Selection of Evaluation Indicators
3.2. The Evaluation Index Weights
3.3. Determine the Evaluation Level of the BHM System
- ●
- Level I indicates that the system is in an “excellent” state, where the BHM system fully meets the needs of the monitoring work and has performance beyond the requirements of “Technical Code for Monitoring Highway Bridge Structures” (JT T 1037-2022).
- ●
- Level II indicates that the system is in a “good” state, where the BHM system meets the needs of monitoring work, and the system meets the specifications of (JT T 1037-2022).
- ●
- Level III indicates that the system is in a “medium” state, where the BHM system has a few defects but basically meets the needs of monitoring work.
- ●
- Level IV means that the system is in a “poor” state, where the monitoring system defects are more obvious and cannot meet the needs of monitoring work.
3.4. Determine the Gray Class Assessment
3.5. Gray Statistical Calculation
3.6. Fuzzy All-Round Assessment Matrix
3.7. Calculation of Evaluation Results
4. Analysis of Example
4.1. Overview of the BHM System
4.2. Comprehensive Evaluation
4.2.1. Building the Sample Matrix of Evaluation Quantities
4.2.2. The Weights of Evaluation Indicators
4.2.3. Gray Statistical Calculation
4.2.4. Fuzzy Comprehensive Assessment Matrix
4.2.5. Calculate the Results of the Overall Evaluation
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Xin, J.; Tang, H.; Wang, J.; Tang, Q.; Xin, D.; Qu, J. Automatic separation of temperature effects from bridge cable force data based on the VMD-PE-KLD algorithm. Int. J. Robot. Autom. 2023, 38, 247–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, S.; Xin, J.; Jiang, Y.; Wang, C.; Zhou, J.; Yang, X. Temperature-induced deflection separation based on bridge deflection data using the TVFEMD-PE-KLD method. J. Civ. Struct. Health Monit. 2023, 13, 781–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xin, J.; Jiang, Y.; Zhou, J.; Peng, L.; Liu, S.; Tang, Q. Bridge deformation prediction based on SHM data using improved VMD and conditional KDE. Eng. Struct. 2022, 261, 114285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, Y.; Hui, Y.; Wang, Y.; Peng, L.; Huang, G.; Liu, S. A novel eigenvalue-based iterative simulation method for multi-dimensional homogeneous non-Gaussian stochastic vector fields. Struct. Saf. 2023, 100, 102290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Z.; Zhang, C.; Wang, X.; Ma, C. Wind Tunnel Measurements for Flutter of a Long-Afterbody Bridge Deck. Sensors 2017, 17, 335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Tang, Q.; Zhou, J.; Xin, J.; Zhao, S.; Zhou, Y. Autoregressive model-based structural damage identification and localization using convolutional neural networks. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2020, 24, 2173–2185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tao, T.; Wang, H. Efficient Buffeting Analysis of Long-Span Bridges under Non-Stationary Winds: A 2D Interpolation Enhanced Approach. J. Sound Vib. 2023, 559, 117754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, S.; Jiang, Y.; Qiao, K.; Peng, L.; Liu, D. Record-based simulation of three-component long-period ground motions: Hybrid of surface wave separation and multivariate empirical mode decomposition. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2023, 172, 108037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, Y.; Zhao, N.; Peng, L.; Zhao, L.; Liu, M. Simulation of stationary wind field based on adaptive interpolation-enhanced scheme. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 2019, 195, 104001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, N.; Jiang, Y.; Peng, L.; Chen, X. Fast simulation of nonstationary wind velocity fields by proper orthogonal decomposition interpolation. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 2021, 219, 104798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, J.; Chen, R.; Zhang, Z.; Zou, Y.; Zhou, J.; Xia, J. Experimental study on the ultimate bearing capacity of damaged RC arches strengthened with ultra-high performance concrete. Eng. Struct. 2023, 279, 115611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, Y.; Liu, S.; Peng, L.; Zhao, N. A novel wind speed prediction method based on robust local mean decomposition, group method of data handling and conditional kernel density estimation. Energ. Convers. Manag. 2019, 200, 112099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xin, J.; Zhou, C.; Jiang, Y.; Tang, Q.; Yang, X.; Zhou, J. A signal recovery method for bridge monitoring system using TVFEMD and encoder-decoder aided LSTM. Measurement 2023, 214, 112797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, Q.; Xin, J.; Jiang, Y.; Zhou, J.; Li, S.; Chen, Z. Novel identification technique of moving loads using the random response power spectral density and deep transfer learning. Measurement 2022, 195, 111120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, Q.; Xin, J.; Jiang, Y.; Zhou, J.; Li, S.; Fu, L. Fast identification of random loads using the transmissibility of power spectral density and improved adaptive multiplicative regularization. J. Sound Vib. 2022, 534, 117033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, Y.; Zhao, N.; Peng, L.; Liu, S. A new hybrid framework for probabilistic wind speed prediction using deep feature selection and multi-error modification. Energ. Convers. Manag. 2019, 199, 111981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.; Ansari, F.; Wu, B.; Li, S.; Morgese, M.; Zhou, J. LSTM approach for condition assessment of suspension bridges based on time-series deflection and temperature data. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2022, 25, 3450–3463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jian, X.D.; Zhong, H.Q.; Xia, Y.; Sun, L.M. Faulty data detection and classification for bridge structural health monitoring via statistical and deep-learning approach. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2021, 28, e2824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hajializadeh, D. Deep learning-based indirect bridge damage identification system. Struct. Health Monit.-Int. J. 2023, 22, 897–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; He, Y.; Cheng, S.; Wang, G.; Wang, B.; Chen, K.; Dong, L. Bayes method for bridge robustness assessment based on monitoring data. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety and Management (IABMAS), Electr Network, Sapporo, Japan, 11–18 April 2021; pp. 2126–2230. [Google Scholar]
- Li, L.; Liu, G.; Zhang, L.; Li, Q. Sensor fault detection with generalized likelihood ratio and correlation coefficient for bridge SHM. J. Sound Vib. 2019, 442, 445–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, S.; Jin, L.; Qiu, Y.; Zhang, M.M.; Wang, J. Signal Anomaly Detection of Bridge SHM System Based on Two-Stage Deep Convolutional Neural Networks. Struct. Eng. Int. 2023, 33, 74–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, X.B. Research on Sensor State Evaluation and Fault Diagnosis based on Multi-dimensional Information Fusion. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Optoelectronic Materials and Devices (ICOMD), Guangzhou, China, 18–20 December 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Qin, C.X.; Li, B.D.; Shi, B.; Qin, T.; Xiao, J.T.; Xin, Y.L. Location of substation in similar candidates using comprehensive evaluation method base on DHGF. Measurement 2019, 146, 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, D.Z.; Zhou, Y.T.; Liu, J.Y.; Han, M.G. Culture innovation of building enterprises based on WSR. Tech. Technol. Educ. Manag.-Ttem 2010, 5, 785–791. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, X.Y.; Yu, F.S.; Pedrycz, W.; Du, X.B. Multi-source fuzzy comprehensive evaluation. Appl. Soft Comput. 2023, 135, 110042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meng, M.; Zhao, P.; Bai, M.; Wang, J. Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of performance on urban water supply system. In Proceedings of the 40th Chinese Control Conference, Shanghai, China, 26–28 July 2021; pp. 6679–6684. [Google Scholar]
Scale | Meaning |
---|---|
1 | Indicator is just as important as indicator |
3 | Indicator is slightly more important than indicator |
5 | Indicator is more important than indicator |
7 | Indicator is important compared to indicator |
9 | Indicator is particularly important compared to indicator |
The median value | The median of the above scales (2, 4, 6, 8) |
Matrix Rank | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 0 | 0.58 | 0.90 | 1.12 | 1.24 | 1.32 | 1.41 | 1.45 | 1.49 |
Evaluation Level | I | II | III | IV |
---|---|---|---|---|
Hierarchical | [90, 100] | [70, 90) | [50, 70) | [20, 50) |
Index | I [90–100] | II [70–90) | III [50–70) | IV [20–50) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Monitoring project | The monitoring project exceeds the specifications | Monitor whether the project meets the specifications | Most of the monitoring projects meet the specifications | The monitoring project basically does not meet the requirements of the specification |
Layout of measurement point | The layout of the measurement point accurately meets the needs of monitoring work, and there are redundant measurement points in key parts | The layout of the measurement point meets the needs of monitoring work, and there are redundant measurement points in key parts | The layout of the measurement points basically meets the needs of monitoring work | The layout of the measurement points basically does not meet the needs of the monitoring work |
Monitoring methods | All sensor parameters meet the requirements, the monitoring method is suitable, and the sampling frequency meets the requirements | More than 90% of the sensor parameters meet the requirements, the monitoring method is appropriate, and the sampling frequency meets the requirements | More than 80% of the sensor parameters meet the requirements, the monitoring method is basically suitable, and the sampling frequency basically meets the requirements | The sensor parameters meet the requirements, the monitoring methods are mostly inappropriate, and the sampling frequency mostly does not meet the requirements |
Acquisition and transmission software | The indicators are fully functional and exceed the needs of monitoring work | The indicators are fully functional to meet the needs of monitoring | The indicators have basic functions and basically meet the needs of monitoring work | The indicators are not fully functional and do not meet the needs of monitoring |
Data processing and management software | The indicators are fully functional and exceed the needs of monitoring work | The indicators are fully functional to meet the needs of monitoring | The indicators have basic functions and basically meet the needs of monitoring work | The indicators are not fully functional and do not meet the needs of monitoring |
Visual interface | The layout of the visual interface is very clear and reasonable, which can intuitively reflect data changes, and the response time of the operation is timely, and mobile software is available | The layout of the visual interface is clear and reasonable, which can intuitively reflect data changes, and the response time of the operation is timely, and mobile software is available | The layout of the visual interface is reasonable, which can reflect data changes, and the response time of the operation is acceptable, and mobile software is not available | The layout of the visual interface is chaotic, which does not clearly reflect data changes, operation response times are too long, and mobile software is not available |
Sensor installation | Each measurement point is stable and has excellent working environment and very good protection measures | Each measurement point is stable, has a good working environment, and good protection measures | Each measurement point is stable and has an acceptable working environment and general protection measures | Each measurement point is not in a stable position and has a poor working environment and no protective measures |
Installation of the collection station and the computer room | The indicator has a reasonable position and very stable installation, which is very neat and beautiful, meets the process requirements, and the terminal contact is good | The indicator has a reasonable position and stable installation, which is neat and beautiful, in line with process requirements, and the terminal contact is good | The indicator has a reasonable position, and the installation is relatively stable, which is relatively neat and basically meets the process requirements, and the terminal contact is good | The indicator does not have a reasonable position, the installation is not stable, which does not meet the process requirements, and the terminal contact is poor |
Integrated wiring | The wiring is specified and is clearly marked, beyond the requirements of specifications | The wiring is relatively specified, has a relatively clear mark, and satisfies the requirements of specifications | The wiring meets the requirements of use, which has marks but falls below the specifications | The wiring is cluttered and has no clear marks |
Data uptime | ≥ 95% | 90% ≤ ≤ 95% | 85% ≤ ≤ 90% | ≤ 85% |
Data accuracy | The BHM system data are in good agreement with the manual observation data | The BHM system data are consistent with the manual observation data | The BHM system data are basically consistent with the manual observation data | The BHM system data do not match the manual observation data |
Mean time between failures | ≥ 99% | 99% ≤ ≤ 95% | 90% ≤ ≤ 95% | ≤ 90% |
Structural status alerts | The upload, analysis, and submission of the collected data are very timely; structural safety alarms are very accurate, and almost no false positives | The upload, analysis, and submission of the collected data are timely, accurate alarms for structural safety issues, and the probability of false positives is within an acceptable range | The upload, analysis, and submission of the collected data are timely, the structural safety alarm is more accurate, and there are false positives, which do not affect the use of the system | The upload, analysis, and submission of the collected data are not timely, the alarm of structural safety is inaccurate, or the system’s alarm does not work if there is a major security problem in the structure, and the probability of false positives is high |
Hardware maintenance | The maintenance is very well and on time | The maintenance is well and on time | The maintenance is relatively on time | The maintenance is not on time |
Software maintenance | The maintenance is very well and on time | The maintenance is well and on time | The maintenance is relatively on time | The maintenance is not on time |
Monitoring data management | The monitoring data are regularly reported in detail, exceeding the requirements of the current norms | The monitoring data are regularly reported in detail, meeting the requirements of current norms | There is a slight delay in the formation of the monitoring report, and the content basically meets the requirements of the current norms | Reports are not produced regularly |
Label of Measurement Point | Type of Measurement Point | Number of Measurement Points |
---|---|---|
1# | Ambient temperature and humidity measurement point | 3 |
2# | Temperature and humidity measurement point in the Sota anchoring area | 4 |
3# | Vehicle load measurement point | 8 |
4# | Bridge deck wind speed and wind direction measurement point | 2 |
5# | Wind speed and direction measurement point at the top of the tower | 2 |
6# | Structural temperature measurement point | 56 |
7# | Ground motion measurement point | 2 |
8# | Main beam deflection measurement point | 34 |
9# | Lateral displacement measurement point of main beam | 1 |
10# | Seat shift measurement point | 8 |
11# | Beam end displacement measurement point | 4 |
12# | Offset measurement point at the top of the tower | 4 |
13# | Horizontal angle measurement point at beam end | 2 |
14# | Vertical angle measurement point of beam end | 2 |
15# | Main beam strain measurement point | 40 |
16# | Tower column strain measurement point | 16 |
17# | Cable-stayed cable force measurement point | 32 |
18# | Main beam vibration measurement point | 28 |
19# | Vibration measurement point at the top of the tower | 4 |
20# | Cable vibration measurement point | 32 |
21# | Video surveillance measurement points | 4 |
98 | 98 | 98 | 89 | 90 | 92 | 89 | 88 | 86 | 92 | 90 | 93 | 92 | 88 | 90 | 88 | |
100 | 96 | 94 | 92 | 90 | 90 | 85 | 85 | 85 | 92 | 88 | 93 | 89 | 89 | 92 | 92 | |
96 | 91 | 90 | 88 | 90 | 90 | 80 | 88 | 88 | 92 | 91 | 93 | 90 | 90 | 90 | 89 | |
96 | 93 | 91 | 90 | 92 | 88 | 88 | 90 | 89 | 92 | 87 | 93 | 87 | 87 | 87 | 91 | |
95 | 93 | 90 | 90 | 91 | 89 | 86 | 83 | 80 | 92 | 89 | 93 | 88 | 85 | 85 | 87 | |
100 | 96 | 95 | 92 | 88 | 88 | 90 | 86 | 86 | 92 | 93 | 93 | 89 | 89 | 89 | 86 | |
96 | 96 | 93 | 91 | 91 | 90 | 86 | 82 | 86 | 92 | 91 | 93 | 92 | 92 | 88 | 88 | |
96 | 94 | 94 | 90 | 90 | 92 | 83 | 86 | 84 | 92 | 86 | 93 | 87 | 90 | 90 | 92 | |
98 | 95 | 95 | 90 | 90 | 90 | 87 | 84 | 83 | 92 | 89 | 93 | 92 | 91 | 86 | 86 | |
92 | 90 | 90 | 98 | 88 | 92 | 81 | 86 | 83 | 92 | 87 | 93 | 89 | 89 | 85 | 86 |
Criterion Layer | BHM System Design | BHM System Construction | BHM System Operation | BHM System Maintenance | Eigenvalue | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BHM system design | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0.4515 | 4.02 |
BHM system construction | 1/2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0.2257 | |
BHM system operation | 1/2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0.2507 | |
BHM system maintenance | 1/4 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1 | 0.1033 |
Target Layer | Criterion Layer | Weights of Criterion Layer | Index Layer | Weights of Index Layer | Index Layer Combination Weights |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
BHM system evaluation | BHM system design | 0.4515 | Monitoring project | 0.2080 | 0.0939 |
Layout of measurement point | 0.2080 | 0.0939 | |||
Monitoring methods | 0.0719 | 0.0325 | |||
Data acquisition and transmission software | 0.1699 | 0.0767 | |||
Data processing and management software | 0.1699 | 0.0767 | |||
0.1848 | 0.0834 | ||||
BHM system construction | 0.2257 | 0.5559 | 0.1255 | ||
Installation of the collection station and the computer room | 0.3537 | 0.0798 | |||
Integrated wiring | 0.0904 | 0.0204 | |||
BHM system operation | 0.2507 | 0.1033 | 0.0259 | ||
0.2179 | 0.0887 | ||||
Mean time between failures | 0.2179 | 0.0546 | |||
Structural status alerts | 0.4609 | 0.1155 | |||
BHM system maintenance | 0.1007 | Hardware maintenance | 0.2500 | 0.0258 | |
Software maintenance | 0.2500 | 0.0258 | |||
Monitoring data management | 0.5000 | 0.0517 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Xin, J.; Wang, C.; Tang, Q.; Zhang, R.; Yang, T. An Evaluation Framework for Construction Quality of Bridge Monitoring System Using the DHGF Method. Sensors 2023, 23, 7139. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23167139
Xin J, Wang C, Tang Q, Zhang R, Yang T. An Evaluation Framework for Construction Quality of Bridge Monitoring System Using the DHGF Method. Sensors. 2023; 23(16):7139. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23167139
Chicago/Turabian StyleXin, Jingzhou, Chen Wang, Qizhi Tang, Renli Zhang, and Tao Yang. 2023. "An Evaluation Framework for Construction Quality of Bridge Monitoring System Using the DHGF Method" Sensors 23, no. 16: 7139. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23167139
APA StyleXin, J., Wang, C., Tang, Q., Zhang, R., & Yang, T. (2023). An Evaluation Framework for Construction Quality of Bridge Monitoring System Using the DHGF Method. Sensors, 23(16), 7139. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23167139