Table 1. Analysis of scoring criteria...

Table 1.

Analysis of scoring criteria for flood control capacity

Indicator name	Quantification basis	Scoring criteria	Data source
Design flood frequency	Scientific basis of flood frequency selection:	Scoring criteria based on the scientific basis, alignment and compliance of design flood frequency:	• Project design documents and basis for flood frequency selection
	• Whether the design flood frequency (e.g. 10-year, 50-year, 100-year recurrence intervals) is rationally determined based on local historical flood data and watershed characteristics	• 2 points: no clearly defined design flood frequency or significant deviation from regulatory requirements	• Historical flood data and watershed analysis reports
	Alignment between frequency and project significance:	• 4 points: partial deviation in design flood frequency or mismatch with project significance	• National and local flood control design standards
	• Whether the design flood frequency matches the functional requirements, scale, and socioeconomic importance of the project	• 6 points: relatively reasonable design flood frequency, generally compliant with regulations
	Compliance with regulatory standards	• 8 points: reasonable design flood frequency, fully compliant with regulations and well-matched to project significance
		• 10 points: scientifically precise design flood frequency, fully compliant with regulations and highly aligned with project requirements
Bridge/culvert clearance and foundation embedment depth	Hydraulic capacity compliance	Scoring criteria based on hydraulic capacity, foundation depth and code compliance:	• Bridge and culvert design drawings and technical specifications
	• Whether the bridge/culvert opening size adequately accommodates the design discharge capacity without compromising flood conveyance efficiency	• 2 Points (noncompliant): inadequate opening dimensions (hydraulic deficiency), improper foundation embedment depth, nonconformance with design codes	• Discharge calculation and geological survey reports
	Foundation embedment rationality	• 4 Points (marginally compliant): partial match between opening size and design discharge, suboptimal foundation depth, basic compliance with major code requirements	• Construction and acceptance records
	• Whether foundation depth satisfies geotechnical requirements and meets antiscour/settlement prevention design criteria	• 6 Points (acceptable): generally adequate hydraulic capacity, reasonable foundation design, compliance with essential code provisions
	Regulatory conformance	• 8 Points (good): well-matched opening dimensions to flow requirements, code-compliant foundation depth, meets all standard design criteria
	• Compliance with relevant standards including:	• 10 Points (excellent): optimal hydraulic performance, scientifically determined foundation parameters, full compliance with all technical specifications, exceeds standard design requirements
	Railway bridge and culvert design specifications
Embankment slope stability	• Slope design rationality: whether the slope gradient and soil reinforcement measures meet stability requirements, and whether the design is appropriately tailored to the slope type	Slope stability performance scoring system	• Slope design drawings and stability analysis report
	• Effectiveness of drainage system: whether slope drainage facilities have been designed and implemented to mitigate the effects of rainwater infiltration and surface runoff	• 2 Points (critical deficiency): noncompliant slope design parameters, absence of functional drainage infrastructure, failure to meet minimum stability requirements	• Drainage system design and implementation records
	• Slope stability evaluation: whether the reliability of the slope design has been verified through stability analysis (e.g. calculation of slope safety factors)	• 4 Points (marginal performance): partially adequate slope geometry, basic but insufficient drainage provisions, meets minimum stability thresholds	• On-site monitoring and slope sliding risk assessment report
		• 6 Points (Standard Compliance): properly engineered slope configuration, complete drainage system installation, satisfies all regulatory stability criteria
		• 8 Points (enhanced performance): optimized slope design parameters, effective drainage system operation, demonstrates above-average stability factors
		• 10 Points (exemplary design): scientifically validated slope geometry, high-efficiency drainage solutions, exceeds all stability performance benchmarks

Indicator name	Quantification basis	Scoring criteria	Data source
Design flood frequency	Scientific basis of flood frequency selection:	Scoring criteria based on the scientific basis, alignment and compliance of design flood frequency:	• Project design documents and basis for flood frequency selection
	• Whether the design flood frequency (e.g. 10-year, 50-year, 100-year recurrence intervals) is rationally determined based on local historical flood data and watershed characteristics	• 2 points: no clearly defined design flood frequency or significant deviation from regulatory requirements	• Historical flood data and watershed analysis reports
	Alignment between frequency and project significance:	• 4 points: partial deviation in design flood frequency or mismatch with project significance	• National and local flood control design standards
	• Whether the design flood frequency matches the functional requirements, scale, and socioeconomic importance of the project	• 6 points: relatively reasonable design flood frequency, generally compliant with regulations
	Compliance with regulatory standards	• 8 points: reasonable design flood frequency, fully compliant with regulations and well-matched to project significance
		• 10 points: scientifically precise design flood frequency, fully compliant with regulations and highly aligned with project requirements
Bridge/culvert clearance and foundation embedment depth	Hydraulic capacity compliance	Scoring criteria based on hydraulic capacity, foundation depth and code compliance:	• Bridge and culvert design drawings and technical specifications
	• Whether the bridge/culvert opening size adequately accommodates the design discharge capacity without compromising flood conveyance efficiency	• 2 Points (noncompliant): inadequate opening dimensions (hydraulic deficiency), improper foundation embedment depth, nonconformance with design codes	• Discharge calculation and geological survey reports
	Foundation embedment rationality	• 4 Points (marginally compliant): partial match between opening size and design discharge, suboptimal foundation depth, basic compliance with major code requirements	• Construction and acceptance records
	• Whether foundation depth satisfies geotechnical requirements and meets antiscour/settlement prevention design criteria	• 6 Points (acceptable): generally adequate hydraulic capacity, reasonable foundation design, compliance with essential code provisions
	Regulatory conformance	• 8 Points (good): well-matched opening dimensions to flow requirements, code-compliant foundation depth, meets all standard design criteria
	• Compliance with relevant standards including:	• 10 Points (excellent): optimal hydraulic performance, scientifically determined foundation parameters, full compliance with all technical specifications, exceeds standard design requirements
	Railway bridge and culvert design specifications
Embankment slope stability	• Slope design rationality: whether the slope gradient and soil reinforcement measures meet stability requirements, and whether the design is appropriately tailored to the slope type	Slope stability performance scoring system	• Slope design drawings and stability analysis report
	• Effectiveness of drainage system: whether slope drainage facilities have been designed and implemented to mitigate the effects of rainwater infiltration and surface runoff	• 2 Points (critical deficiency): noncompliant slope design parameters, absence of functional drainage infrastructure, failure to meet minimum stability requirements	• Drainage system design and implementation records
	• Slope stability evaluation: whether the reliability of the slope design has been verified through stability analysis (e.g. calculation of slope safety factors)	• 4 Points (marginal performance): partially adequate slope geometry, basic but insufficient drainage provisions, meets minimum stability thresholds	• On-site monitoring and slope sliding risk assessment report
		• 6 Points (Standard Compliance): properly engineered slope configuration, complete drainage system installation, satisfies all regulatory stability criteria
		• 8 Points (enhanced performance): optimized slope design parameters, effective drainage system operation, demonstrates above-average stability factors
		• 10 Points (exemplary design): scientifically validated slope geometry, high-efficiency drainage solutions, exceeds all stability performance benchmarks

Source(s): Developed by the authors through integration of the literature applied in Figure 1. Indicator levels and definitions were formulated with reference to the risk classification descriptions in GB/T 24353-2022 (General Principles of Risk Classification and Control for Production Safety), to ensure consistency and scientific validity

[ViewLarge]

Sharing Unavailable