A novel framework for void detection and health evaluation of cold-region diversion tunnels using GPR and multiattribute modeling
Source abstract
Abstract
Voids in diversion tunnel linings can induce cracking and leakage, compromising structural integrity. To assess the health condition of a cold-region diversion tunnel lining in China, ground penetrating radar (GPR) was employed for void detection, supplemented by statistical data on voids, cracks, and leakage. A multi-attribute evaluation model was developed by integrating dynamic, subjective, and objective indicator weights using game theory, implemented via improved cloud-evidence theory. The model’s effectiveness was validated against alternative methods. GPR identified 127 lining voids, with drilling verification confirming high reliability; however, detecting ice-filled voids remained challenging. Evaluation results indicate the lining is in a slightly deteriorated condition, adversely affecting operational safety. The proposed improved cloud-evidence theory method effectively addresses randomness, ambiguity, and conflicting evidence in indicator assessment. This study provides substantial guidance for maintenance decision-making in cold-region diversion tunnels.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Geophysical Methods and Applications · Geophysical and Geoelectrical Methods · Rock Mechanics and Modeling
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Xi’an University of Technology
YRCC, Henan Engineering Research Center of Hydropower Engineering Abrasion Test and Protection
Sinohydro Bureau 7 Co. Ltd
Funding
National Natural Science Foundation of China · Doctoral Dissertation Innovation Fund of Xi'an University of Technology
References (38)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.tust.2020.10347210.1016/j.tust.2020.103472 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.tust.2022.10447210.1016/j.tust.2022.104472 ↗
3. 10.1617/s11527-015-0705-410.1617/s11527-015-0705-4 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.autcon.2018.07.00610.1016/j.autcon.2018.07.006 ↗
5. 10.3390/ma1612424810.3390/ma16124248 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.tust.2017.12.00910.1016/j.tust.2017.12.009 ↗
7. 10.3390/s2306318910.3390/s23063189 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.tust.2021.10381210.1016/j.tust.2021.103812 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2022.10675810.1016/j.engfailanal.2022.106758 ↗
10. 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.000103210.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001032 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.tust.2023.10526510.1016/j.tust.2023.105265 ↗
12. 10.1111/mice.1304210.1111/mice.13042 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.measurement.2023.11390310.1016/j.measurement.2023.113903 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.tust.2024.10599810.1016/j.tust.2024.105998 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.12565810.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125658 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.measurement.2023.11265210.1016/j.measurement.2023.112652 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.12870010.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128700 ↗
18. 10.1061/(ASCE)AS.1943-5525.000088310.1061/(ASCE)AS.1943-5525.0000883 ↗
19. 10.3390/su15141132610.3390/su151411326 ↗
20. 10.1111/mice.1209110.1111/mice.12091 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.tust.2019.05.00510.1016/j.tust.2019.05.005 ↗
22. 10.3934/mbe.202120210.3934/mbe.2021202 ↗
23. 10.1155/2019/439852410.1155/2019/4398524 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.12443710.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124437 ↗
25. 10.1093/jge/gxad04110.1093/jge/gxad041 ↗
26. 10.1007/s12205-020-1530-z10.1007/s12205-020-1530-z ↗
27. 10.1016/j.ins.2014.04.05110.1016/j.ins.2014.04.051 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.12698010.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126980 ↗
29. 10.1007/s10489-015-0661-210.1007/s10489-015-0661-2 ↗
30. 10.3390/su14191180110.3390/su141911801 ↗
31. 10.1007/s00603-013-0507-310.1007/s00603-013-0507-3 ↗
32. 10.1007/s00500-022-07615-610.1007/s00500-022-07615-6 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.inffus.2023.01.00910.1016/j.inffus.2023.01.009 ↗
34. 10.1007/s11269-020-02495-710.1007/s11269-020-02495-7 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.compgeo.2023.10588210.1016/j.compgeo.2023.105882 ↗
36. 10.1007/s11770-010-0234-410.1007/s11770-010-0234-4 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.undsp.2022.03.00610.1016/j.undsp.2022.03.006 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.eswa.2023.12105710.1016/j.eswa.2023.121057 ↗