[1]雷晓锋,杨少文,王 磊.基于改进型拉开档次法的滑坡治理方案优选[J].西安建筑科技大学学报(自然科学版),2020,(02):213-221.[doi:10.15986/j.1006-7930.2020.02.009]
 LEI Xiaofeng,YANG Shaowen,WANG Lei.Optimization of landslide control scheme based on improved scatter-degree approach[J].J. Xi’an Univ. of Arch. & Tech.(Natural Science Edition),2020,(02):213-221.[doi:10.15986/j.1006-7930.2020.02.009]
点击复制

基于改进型拉开档次法的滑坡治理方案优选()
分享到:

西安建筑科技大学学报(自然科学版)[ISSN:1006-7930/CN:61-1295/TU]

卷:
期数:
2020年02期
页码:
213-221
栏目:
出版日期:
2020-04-25

文章信息/Info

Title:
Optimization of landslide control scheme based on improved scatter-degree approach
文章编号:
1006-7930(2020)02-0213-09
作者:
雷晓锋杨少文王 磊
(西安公路研究院,陕西 西安 710065)
Author(s):
LEI XiaofengYANG ShaowenWANG Lei
(Xi’an Highway Institute, Xi’an 710065,China)
关键词:
滑坡方案优选 特征值法 拉开档次法 风险态度因子
Keywords:
Landslide scheme optimization eigenvalue method scatter degree method risk attitude factor
分类号:
TU 457; P 642
DOI:
10.15986/j.1006-7930.2020.02.009
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
滑坡是工程建设中常见的地质灾害,安全又经济的治理方案可以降低滑坡发生的概率,减轻对工程建设的影响,如何从系统工程的角度对方案进行排序是近年来的研究热点.以延安某滑坡的治理工程为例,在初步设计阶段提出的四种滑坡治理方案的基础上,结合同类工程经验,构建了滑坡方案优选的层次模型; 并采用特征值法求出各评价指标的主观权重系数,对评价指标进行“权化处理”; 再采用拉开档次法对权化处理后的数据进行客观赋权,突出各评价对象间的整体差异; 最后采用加权集结模型对各滑坡治理方案进行综合评价,确定出最优方案.同时引入风险态度因子的概念,分析了不同风险态度因子对方案排序的影响,研究了滑坡治理方案排序结果对风险态度因子的敏感性.结果表明:当风险态度因子ε∈[-0.5,-0.2]时,决策者倾向于接受风险,方案四的综合属性效用值明显高于其他三个方案,方案四为优选方案; 当风险态度因子ε∈[-0.1, 0.5]时,决策者倾向于规避风险,方案一的综合属性效用值最大,方案一为最佳方案; 一般工程治理时决策者所持的风险态度均为规避风险,所以推荐方案1作为该滑坡治理的首选方案.该方法弥补了单独使用主观或者客观赋权法的不足,使评价结果更为准确,为该类方案优选设计提供了有效的思路及参考
Abstract:
Landslide is a common geological hazard in engineering construction. Safe and economical treatment schemes can lower the occurrence probability of landslides and reduce the impact on engineering construction. How to rank the schemes from the perspective of system engineering is a research hotspot in recent years. Taking the landslide control project in Yan’an as an example, on the basis of four landslide control schemes proposed in the preliminary design stage and in combination with the experience of similar projects, an optimized hierarchical model for landslide schemes is constructed. The subjective weight coefficients of each evaluation index are obtained with eigenvalue method, and the evaluation indexes are “weighted”. The weighted data are empowered objectively with scatter-degree approach to highlight the overall differences among the evaluation objects. Finally, the weighted aggregate model is adopted to evaluate the landslide control schemes comprehensively and determine the optimal scheme. At the same time, the concept of risk attitude factor is introduced to analyze the impact of different risk attitude factors on the scheme sequencing and to research the sensitivity of the sequencing results to risk attitude factors in landslide control schemes. Results show that when the risk attitude factor is ε∈[-0.5,-0.2], decision makers tend to accept the risks, and the comprehensive attribute utility value of scheme 4 is significantly higher than that of the other three schemes, and scheme 4 is an optimal scheme. When the risk attitude factor is ε∈[-0.1, 0.5], decision makers tend to avoid risks. Scheme 1 with the biggest comprehensive attribute utility value should be the optimal scheme. Generally, in engineering management, decision makers are to avoid the risk, so scheme 1 is recommended as the preferred scheme for the landslide control. This method compensates for the shortcomings in independent use of subjective or objective weighting method, makes the evaluation results more accurate, and provides an effective thought and reference for optimal design of such schemes

参考文献/References:

[1] 王恭先. 滑坡防治方案的选择与优化[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报. 2006, 25(S2): 3867-3873.
WANG Gongxian. Choic and optimization of landslide control plan [J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering. 2006, 25(S2): 3867-3873.
[2] 贾俊妮, 叶少有, 余振华. 城市桥梁设计方案的模糊综合评判[J]. 合肥工业大学学报(自然科学版), 2008, 31(2): 233-236.
JIA Junni, YE Shaoyou, YU ZhenHua.Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation applied in city bridge scheme design[J]. Journal of Hefei University of Technology(Natural Science), 2008, 31(2): 233-236.
[3] 王新民, 赵彬, 张钦礼. 基于层次分析和模糊数学的采矿方法选择[J]. 中南大学学报: 自然科学版, 2008, 39(5): 875-880.
WANG Xinmin, ZHAO Bin, ZHANG Qinli. Mining method choice based on AHP and fuzzy mathematics[J]. J. Cent. South Univ.(Science and Technology), 2008, 39(5): 875-880.
[4] 陈永贵, 邹银生, 张可能. 坝基防渗治理的多目标模糊决策方法[J]. 湖南大学学报(自然科学版), 2008, 35(3): 15-18.
CHEN Yonggui, ZOU Yinsheng, ZHANG Keneng. Multi-objectives fuzzy decision-making method for dam foundation seepage control engineering [J]. Journal of Hunan University(Natural Sciences), 2008, 35(3): 15-18.
[5] 李远富, 薛波, 邓域才. 铁路选线设计方案多目标决策模糊优选模型及其应用研究[J].西南交通大学学报, 2000, 35(5): 465-470.
LI Yuanfu, XUE Bo, DENG Yucai. A fuzzy optimal selection model and its application in multi-objective decision making of variant projects in railway loading[J]. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 2000, 35(5):465-470.
[6] 田成祥,付成群,吴海鹏,等.基于GA-BP网络的工程兵桥梁爆破方案评估模型[J].计算机技术与发展,2012,22(8):229-232.
TIAN Chengxiang, FU Chengqun, WU Haipeng, et al. Application of GA-BP arithmetic in evaluation model of bridge blasting program[J]. Computer Technology and Development, 2012, 22(8):229-232.
[7] 梅年峰,罗学东,蒋楠,等.基坑支护方案灰色多目标决策优选模型的建立与应用[J].中南大学学报(自然科学版),2013,44(5):1982-1987.
MEI Nianfeng, LUO Xuedong, JIANG Nan, et al. Establishment and application of grey multi-objective decision-making optimization model for foundation pit supporting schemes[J]. Journal of Central South University(Science and Technology), 2013,44(5):1982-1987.
[8] 曹文贵, 张永杰, 赵明华. 基坑支护方案确定的区间关联模糊优化方法研究[J]. 岩土工程学报, 2008, 30(1): 66-71.
CAO Wengui, ZHANG Yongjie, ZHAO Minghua. Study on interval relative fuzzy optimization method to determine support schemes for foundation pits[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2008, 30(1): 66-71.
[9] 张浩, 裘乐淼,张树有. 基于集对分析的可重构机床模块配置设计方案评价方法及应用[J]. 浙江大学学报(工学版), 2015, 49(7): 1232-1241.
ZHANG Hao, QIU Lemiao, ZHANG Shuyou. Evaluation method based on set pair analysis for configuration scheme of reconfigurable machine tool[J]. Journal of Zhejiang University(Engineering Science), 2015, 49(7): 1232-1241.
[10]谢全敏,夏元友.边坡治理多层次多目标优化决策方法研究[J]. 武汉理工大学学报, 2002(10): 21-24.
XIE Quanmin, XIA Yuanyou. Multihierarchy & multiobjective optimization decision methods of slope treatment schemes and its application[J]. Journal of Wuhan University of Technology, 2002(10): 21-24.
[11]王念秦,姚勇,罗东海.滑坡综合治理方案比选评价模型[J].水土保持通报,2009,29(1): 111-114.
WANG Nianqin, YAO Yong, LUO Donghai. Comparison and choice of integrated control schemes for landslide[J]. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 2009,29(1): 111-114.
[12]李葛. 基于多属性决策的滑坡治理方案优选与监测分析研究[D].西安:长安大学,2017.
LI Ge. Study on optimization of landslide treatment plan based on multiple attribute decision making and landslide monitoring analysis [D]. Xi’an: Chang’an University, 2017.
[13]李寻昌, 叶君文, 李葛, 等.基于风险态度因子的某滑坡治理方案优选研究[J].路基工程,2018(5):17-23.
LI Xunchang,YE Junwen,LI Ge,et al. Study on the optimal choice of landslide treatment based on risk attitude factor[J]. Subgrade Engineering,2018(5):17-23.
[14]李寻昌, 叶君文, 李葛. 基于AOWEA算子的滑坡治理方案优选[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2018, 25(3): 27-33.
LI Xunchang, YE Junwen, LI Ge. Optimization of landslide treatment scheme based on AOWEA operator [J]. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 2018, 25(3): 27-33.
[15]WANG ZhouJing. A note on “A group decision making model based on a generalized ordered weighted geometric average operator with interval preference matrices” [J]. Science Direct, 2017(4): 1-9.
[16]XU Z S, DA Q L. The ordered weighted geometric averaging operators [J]. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 2002, 17: 569-579.
[17]SABATINO Samantha, FRANGOPOL Dan M, DONG You. Sustainability-informed maintenance optimization ofhighway bridges considering multi-attribute utility and risk attitude [J]. Engineering Structures, 2015,(102): 310-321.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
收稿日期:2019-09-03 修改稿日期:2020-03-20
基金项目:陕西省交通运输厅基金资助项目(14-07K); 中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助项目(300102268209)
第一作者:雷晓锋(1974-),男,高级工程师,主要从事公路边坡、路基灾害的检测与安全评价.E-mail: leixf312@163.com
更新日期/Last Update: 2020-04-25