双基点迭代赋权法在桥梁工程中的应用

doi:10.12068/j.issn.1005-3026.2019.05.025

东北大学学报:自然科学版 ›› 2019, Vol. 40 ›› Issue (5): 740-744.DOI: 10.12068/j.issn.1005-3026.2019.05.025

双基点迭代赋权法在桥梁工程中的应用

梁力¹，邢观华¹，吴凤元²

(1. 东北大学资源与土木工程学院，辽宁沈阳110819; 2. 沈阳建筑大学土木工程学院，辽宁沈阳110168)

收稿日期:2018-03-03 修回日期:2018-03-03 出版日期:2019-05-15 发布日期:2019-05-17
通讯作者: 梁力
作者简介:梁力(1955-)，男，辽宁丹东人，东北大学教授，博士生导师.
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金资助项目(51474048).

Application of Double Base Point Iterative Weighting Method in Bridge Engineering

LIANG Li¹， XING Guan-hua¹， WU Feng-yuan²

1. School of Resources & Civil Engineering， Northeastern University， Shenyang 110819， China; 2. School of Civil Engineering， Shenyang Jianzhu University， Shenyang 110168， China.

Received:2018-03-03 Revised:2018-03-03 Online:2019-05-15 Published:2019-05-17
Contact: XING Guan-hua
About author:-
Supported by:
-

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 指标权重的准确与否是解决评估问题的关键因素之一，但主、客观赋权法存在各自弊病.因此，提出一种基于双基点分析的群决策赋权法.通过层次分析采集专家主观权重，并以其均值作为初始正基点，将各权重序列相对于正基点标准化后构造最小欧式距离的优化问题，解得专家可信度并修正主观权重.将修正后的权重作为正基点多次迭代，直到结果收敛于最优权重.通过引入实例验证了权重的迭代削弱了偏差过大的权重对最终赋权结果的影响，将可信度与主观权重融合的过程兼顾了主、客观赋权法各自的优点，提高了赋权结果的科学性.

关键词: 双基点分析, 指标权重, 群决策, 层次分析, 桥梁工程

Abstract: Accuracy of the indicator weight is one of the keys to the assessment problem and the subjective and objective weighting methods have their own drawbacks. Thus， a group decision-making weighting method based on double base point analysis is proposed. The subjective weights of experts are collected by AHP. Taking the subjective weighted average as the initial positive and negative basis， the weight sequence is normalized relative to the positive base. The minimum Euclidean distance is constructed to solve the expert credibility and correct the subjective weights. The revised weight is repeated as a positive basis point until the result converges to the optimal weight. A case study verifies that the iteration of weight weakens the influence of over-ambiguous weight on the final weighting result. The process of merging credibility and subjective weight takes into account the respective advantages of the subjective and objective weighting methods， and it improves the scientificity of the empowerment results.

Key words: double base point analysis, index weight, group decision making, level analysis, bridge engineering

中图分类号:

U448.1

梁力，邢观华，吴凤元. 双基点迭代赋权法在桥梁工程中的应用[J]. 东北大学学报:自然科学版, 2019, 40(5): 740-744.

LIANG Li， XING Guan-hua， WU Feng-yuan. Application of Double Base Point Iterative Weighting Method in Bridge Engineering[J]. Journal of Northeastern University Natural Science, 2019, 40(5): 740-744.

参考文献

[1]Sadeghi M，Ameli A.An AHP decision making method for optimal allocation of energy subsidy among socio-economic subsectors in Iran［J］.Energy Policy，2012，45(6):24-32.
[2]Sironen S，Leskinen P，Kangas A，et al.Variation of preference inconsistency when applying ratio and interval scale pairwise comparison［J］.Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis，2014，21(3/4):183-195.
[3]Diakoulaki D，Mavrotas G，Papayannakis L.Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems:the CRITIC method［J］.Computers & Operations Research，1995，22(7):763-770.
[4]Zou Z H，Yun Y，Sun J N.Entropy method for determination of weight of evaluation indicators in fuzzy synthetic evaluation for water quality assessment［J］.Journal of Environmental Sciences，2006，18(5):1020-1023.
[5]屈兵，肖汝诚，仲健，等.基于群决策的改进AHP法在桥梁评估中的应用［J］.中南大学学报(自然科学版)，2015，46(11): 4204-4210.(Qu Bing，Xiao Ru-cheng，Zhong Jian，et al.Application of improved AHP and group decision theory in bridge assessment［J］.Journal of Central South University(Science and Technology)，2015，46(11): 4204-4210.)
[6]Ishizaka A，Balkenborg D，Kaplan T.Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP［J］.Journal of the Operational Research Society，2011，62(4):700-710.
[7]Dong Y C，Zhang G Q，Hong W C，et al.Consensus models for AHP group decision making under row geometric mean prioritization method［J］.Decision Support Systems，2010，49(3):281-289.
[8]Pedrycz W，Song M.Analytic hierarchy process in group decision making and its optimization with an allocation of information granularity［J］.IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems，2011，19(3):527-539.
[9]Alam S，Ghosh S.Ranking by AHP:a rough approach［C］//ISIF.Annapolis，2002:185-190.
[10]Lin L，Wang C.On consistent and ranking of alternatives in uncertain AHP［J］.Nature Science，2012，4(5):9-10.
[11]Bai H B，Wang N C.Research on the selection of scale in AHP［C］// The 3rd International Conference on Advanced Computer Theory and Engineering(ICACTE).Chengdu:IEEE，2010:108-111.
[12]汪送，王瑛，战仁军，等.航空装备研制风险的综合赋权-双基点法评估［J］.中国安全科学学报，2010，20(11):124-129.(Wang Song，Wang Ying，Zhan Ren-jun，et al.Risk assessment of aviation equipment development based on combination weighting and double base points method［J］.China Safety Science Journal，2010，20(11):124-129.)
[13]Liu X L，Huang Q，Ren Y，et al.Extraction of cable forces due to dead load in cable-stayed bridges under random vehicle loads［J］.Journal of Southeast University(English Edition)，2015，31(3):407-411.
[14]刘小玲，黄侨，任远，等.基于群组AHP的斜拉桥评估指标权重研究［J］.公路交通科技，2017，34(6):79-84.(Liu Xiao-ling，Huang Qiao，Ren Yuan，et al.Study on index weight in cable-stayed bridge evaluation based on group-AHP［J］.Journal of Highway and Transportation Research and Development，2017，34(6):79-84.)
[15]崔龙.基于甬江特大桥的桥梁健康状态模糊综合评估［D］.哈尔滨:哈尔滨工业大学，2013:16-22.(Cui Long.Research on the fuzz assessment of bridge based on the Yongjiang bridge［D］.Harbin:Harbin Institute of Technology，2013:16-22.)
[16]中华人民共和国交通运输部.JTG/T H21—2011公路桥梁技术状况评定标准［S］.北京:人民交通出版社，2011.(Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China.JTG/T H21—2011 standards for technical condition evaluation of highway bridges［S］.Beijing:China Communication Press，2011.)

双基点迭代赋权法在桥梁工程中的应用

Application of Double Base Point Iterative Weighting Method in Bridge Engineering

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	王述红，朱宝强，张泽. 基于改进理想点模型的岩体结构面分级方法[J]. 东北大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 42(1): 117-123.
[2]	齐锡晶，唐梁，康伟鑫，秦娇娇. 高速公路桥梁桥面板养护方案多目标决策方法[J]. 东北大学学报:自然科学版, 2020, 41(7): 1033-1040.
[3]	刘宇，王鹏宇，王述红，凌爽. 隧道结构病害机理及理论量化方法[J]. 东北大学学报:自然科学版, 2019, 40(8): 1185-1190.
[4]	梁力，孙爽，李明，李鑫. 基于变权重和D-S证据理论的桥梁安全评估[J]. 东北大学学报:自然科学版, 2019, 40(1): 99-103.
[5]	张紫杉，王述红，王斐笠. 基于空间块体表征的岩质边坡稳定性综合评价[J]. 东北大学学报:自然科学版, 2018, 39(6): 896-901.
[6]	梁力，季贵斌，赵颖. 高速公路边坡暖季型草本植物生态适应性评价[J]. 东北大学学报:自然科学版, 2018, 39(1): 128-132.
[7]	朱俊樸，戴公连，苏海霆，梁金宝. 基于高阶矩法的梁-轨系统温度作用代表值[J]. 东北大学学报:自然科学版, 2017, 38(8): 1195-1200.
[8]	任松，李振元，陈钒，姜德义. 石膏围岩隧道衬砌结构腐蚀模型研究[J]. 东北大学学报:自然科学版, 2017, 38(7): 1049-1054.
[9]	宋晓莹，温涛，孙伟，张启龙. 基于多准则决策方法的WSNs不等簇数据收集算法[J]. 东北大学学报:自然科学版, 2017, 38(4): 476-480.
[10]	梁力，刘奇，李明. 基于变权综合层次分析法的尾矿库溃坝风险模型[J]. 东北大学学报:自然科学版, 2017, 38(12): 1790-1794.
[11]	王训洪，顾晓薇，胥孝川，王青. 基于GA-AHP和云物元模型的尾矿库溃坝风险评估[J]. 东北大学学报:自然科学版, 2017, 38(10): 1464-1467.
[12]	陈曦，刘云志，樊治平. 考虑指标关联的直觉不确定语言型多指标群决策方法[J]. 东北大学学报:自然科学版, 2016, 37(2): 285-290.
[13]	曹琛，陈剑平，宋盛渊，郑莲婧. 煤矿采空塌陷区山洪危险性评价[J]. 东北大学学报:自然科学版, 2016, 37(11): 1620-1624.
[14]	薛希龙，王新民，胡勇，杨力. 基于FAHP与可变模糊集的矿山生态安全效应评估[J]. 东北大学学报:自然科学版, 2016, 37(1): 94-99.
[15]	王连广，万江. 钢与混凝土组合箱梁剪力滞效应分析[J]. 东北大学学报:自然科学版, 2015, 36(8): 1204-1208.