At present, the safety assessment method of dyke engineering is qualitative, and there are many factors, both quantitative and non-quantitative, that affect the safety of dykes. Because of the uncertainty and fuzziness of the indicators, the final result of the safety assessment of dyke is uncertain and random. In order to establish a quantitative safety assessment system for dyke, we build a safety assessment model for seepage flow in dyke foundation using analytical hierarchy process (AHP) in which the main controlling indicators are given weight by subjective experiences of experts. The model is validated by using specific engineering examples. Consistency between calculation result and engineering practice demonstrates that the presented quantitative safety assessment model based on AHP is accurate and operable. It proves that the safety evaluation system of dyke engineering established by AHP is accurate and operable.
Key words
dyke /
foundation seepage /
AHP /
main controlling factor /
quantitative safety assessment system
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
References
[1] 水利部规划计划司.2017年全国水利统计公报[EB/OL]. (2018-09)[2019-05-19]. http://ghjh.mwr.gov.cn/tjgz/tjgb/201811/P020181130644856812080.pdf.
[2] 王运辉.防汛抢险技术[M].武汉: 武汉水利电力大学出版社,1999.
[3] 王 威,黄 为,冯忠民. 堤防抢险及对今后建设的建议[J].人民长江,1999, 30(2): 17-20.
[4] 姚秋玲,丁留谦,刘昌军,等. 堤基管涌破坏特性研究进展[J]. 中国水利水电科学研究院学报,2014, 12(4): 349-357.
[5] 张家发,王满星,丁金华. 典型条件下堤身堤基渗流规律分析[J]. raybet体育在线
院报, 2000, 17(5):23-27.
[6] 马贵生. 长江中下游堤防主要工程地质问题[J]. 人民长江,2001, 32(9): 3-5.
[7] 陈 红. 堤防工程安全评价方法研究[D].南京:河海大学, 2004.
[8] 张家发,朱国胜,曹敦侣. 堤基渗透变形扩展过程和悬挂式防渗墙控制作用的数值模拟研究[J]. raybet体育在线
院报, 2004, 21(6): 47-50.
[9] 赵焕巨, 徐树柏, 金 生. 层次分析法[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 1986.
[10]顾冲时,汪自力,刘成栋. 堤防工程安全评估专家赋权模型[J]. 岩土力学, 2006, 27(12): 2099-2104.