Blasting effect evaluation method based on multi-dimensional evaluation indexes

Abstract

The invention relates to a blasting effect evaluation method based on multi-dimensional evaluation indexes. The blasting effect evaluation method comprises five steps of constructing a blasting result matrix, generating a blasting effect evaluation grading matrix, constructing a performance matrix, generating an evaluation matrix and classifying evaluation values. Compared with a blasting effect evaluation method in the prior art, the blasting effect evaluation method does not consider the relative importance of each blasting in overall optimization evaluation, does not consider the blasting operation efficiency, and is not comprehensive and accurate in blasting effect evaluation. According to the blasting effect evaluation method, the relative importance of each time of blasting in overall optimization evaluation and the relative operation efficiency of each time of blasting are considered, the blasting effect evaluation is more comprehensive and accurate, and more reliable optimization suggestions can be given.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the technical field of blasting construction, and in particular to a blasting effect evaluation method based on multi-dimensional evaluation indicators. Background Art

[0002] Blasting is an important step in the process of open-pit mining to reduce the ore body to a transportable size. Its effect directly affects the efficiency of ore mining, subsequent processing costs and the safe operation of equipment. Therefore, evaluating and optimizing the blasting effect is crucial to improving the overall economy and safety of the mine. Blasting construction will inevitably cause harmful effects such as vibration, flying rocks, air shock waves, toxic gases, noise, and dust. Accurately and objectively evaluating these effects is an important part of modern blasting technology research.

[0003] Open-pit mining usually requires multiple blasting operations. Existing blasting effect evaluation methods usually only consider a single or a few indicators such as large block rate or block size distribution, and use these indicators to evaluate the results of each blasting, and then consider how to optimize the blasting results with lower evaluations. However, due to the complexity of blasting operations and the variability of geological conditions, it is difficult for a single or a few indicators to fully reflect the blasting effect. In addition, the relative importance of each blasting in the overall optimization evaluation is different, and the blasting operations that need to be optimized should receive higher attention. However, the existing blasting effect evaluation methods do not consider this. In addition, the operating efficiency of each blasting is also very important and can have a direct impact on the blasting cost. The existing blasting effect evaluation methods do not consider this either. Therefore, the existing blasting effect evaluation methods have limitations, and the evaluation of blasting effects is not comprehensive and accurate enough, making it difficult to give reliable optimization suggestions. Summary of the invention

[0004] The purpose of the present invention is to provide a blasting effect evaluation method based on multi-dimensional evaluation indicators to address the problems that the blasting effect evaluation method in the prior art does not take into account the relative importance of each blasting in the overall optimization evaluation, nor does it take into account the blasting operation efficiency, and the evaluation of the blasting effect is not comprehensive and accurate.

[0005] In order to achieve the above object, the technical solution adopted by the present invention is:

[0006] A blasting effect evaluation method based on multi-dimensional evaluation indicators, characterized in that it comprises the following steps:

[0007] S1, constructing the blasting result matrix: after m blastings, collect multiple blasting result data of each blasting, and evaluate and value each blasting result data, add up the evaluation values ​​of multiple blasting result data of each blasting to obtain the evaluation value of each blasting ζ j , j = 1, 2, ..., m; and then through ζ jConstruct a blasting result matrix ζ; ζ is a row matrix or a column matrix;

[0008] S2, generate a blasting effect evaluation grading matrix: according to the relative importance of each blasting in the overall optimization evaluation, for each item ζ in the blasting result matrix ζ j Multiply by the weighting factor B Nj , j = 1, 2, ..., m; obtain the blasting effect evaluation classification matrix X;

[0009] S3, build performance matrix: according to the parameters related to the working efficiency of each blasting, calculate the performance index Y used to reflect the relative working efficiency of each blasting j , j = 1, 2, ..., m; and then through Y j Construct a performance matrix Y; and, when ζ is a row matrix, Y is a column matrix; when ζ is a column matrix, Y is a row matrix;

[0010] S4, generate evaluation matrix: calculate the m×m evaluation matrix Z=XY or YX, the elements Z on the main diagonal of Z jj =B Nj ζ j Y j ,j=1,2,...,m;Define Z jj BME is the final evaluation value of each blast j ;

[0011] S5: Evaluation value classification: set several evaluation levels and divide the range of each evaluation level, each evaluation level corresponds to an evaluation; according to the final evaluation value BME of each blasting j The range it falls into determines its evaluation level and evaluation.

[0012] In the present invention adopting the above-mentioned technical solution, in S1, a plurality of blasting results of each blasting are collected, and the blasting results are evaluated and digitized to construct a blasting result matrix; in S2, a weighting coefficient is assigned to each item in the blasting result matrix to reflect the relative importance of each blasting in the overall optimization evaluation, in order to give higher attention to the blasting operation that needs to be optimized; in S3, a performance matrix is ​​calculated to reflect the relative operating efficiency of each blasting; in S4, the final evaluation value of each blasting is obtained by calculating the evaluation matrix, and this final evaluation value BME j Compared with the evaluation value ζ in step S1 jThe relative importance of each blasting and the relative operating efficiency of each blasting are taken into consideration, which is more comprehensive and accurate; finally, the blasting effect of each blasting is evaluated through S5; compared with the blasting effect evaluation method in the prior art which does not consider the relative importance of each blasting in the overall optimization evaluation, nor the operating efficiency of blasting, and the evaluation of blasting effect is not comprehensive and accurate, the blasting effect evaluation method of the present invention takes into consideration the relative importance of each blasting in the overall optimization evaluation and the relative operating efficiency of each blasting, and the evaluation of blasting effect is more comprehensive and accurate, and can give more reliable optimization suggestions.

[0013] Furthermore, in step S1, the multiple blasting result data include rock mass fragmentation degree data, blast pile morphology data, over-fragmentation data, blasting foundation data, blasting bulk rate data, blasting environment negative impact data and blind shot phenomenon data, and their evaluation values ​​are ζ FR , MU , OV , Toe , BO , EN and MF ; It considers multiple blasting result indicators including the degree of rock fragmentation, blast pile morphology, over-fragmentation, blasting foundation, blasting large block rate, negative impact of blasting environment and blind shot accidents in a multi-dimensional way, which can reflect the blasting effect more comprehensively.

[0014] Furthermore, in step S2, B Nj is the total evaluation parameter of the jth blasting, and each blasting is evaluated with safety, rationality and economy as constraints; it includes three general items: rationality, safety and economy, and these three general items are respectively provided with l, m and n sub-items; weights are assigned to each item according to the importance of the three general items and each sub-item; the superiority or inferiority of the blasting results in each sub-item is corresponded to the degree of membership; then

[0015]

[0016] Among them: A T , A R 、M f E represents the comprehensive evaluation of safety, rationality and economy, b i and a i Respectively represent the degree of membership and weight of each sub-item;

[0017] B Nj =αA T +βA R +γM f E;

[0018] Among them, α, β, and γ represent the weights of safety, rationality, and economy, respectively;

[0019] Through the above evaluation system, B Nj The larger the value of , the worse the j-th blasting effect under the above evaluation system is, and the blasting is relatively more important in the overall optimization evaluation, that is, the blasting needs to be optimized more. j Multiply by B Nj , the purpose of giving higher attention to blasting operations that need to be optimized is achieved.

[0020] Furthermore, in step S2, l=m=n=4, and the evaluation system table is as follows:

[0021] ;

[0022] The membership coefficient table is as follows:

[0023]

[0024] Furthermore, in step S3, the parameters related to the operation efficiency include the explosive consumption C of each blasting. zyj , Total number of drilling meters C zkj and digging time C wzj , the performance index of each blast Among them C Zj =C zyj C zkj C wzj ; Explosive consumption C zyj , Total number of drilling meters C zkj and digging time C wzj It is also related to the direct costs incurred in mining operations. The performance index calculated with these three parameters can evaluate the blasting effect more comprehensively and accurately.

[0025] Further, in step S5, there are N evaluation levels, N≥3; define H=Max{BME 1 ,BME 2 ,...,BME m}, L = Min {BME 1 ,BME 2 ,...,BME m}, The evaluation levels are as follows:

[0026]

[0027] Furthermore, there are 5 evaluation levels: The evaluation levels are as follows:

[0028]

[0029] Compared with the prior art, the beneficial effects of the present invention are as follows: the blasting effect evaluation method of the present invention takes into account the relative importance of each blasting in the overall optimization evaluation and the relative operating efficiency of each blasting, and the evaluation of the blasting effect is more comprehensive and accurate, and more reliable optimization suggestions can be given; it considers multiple blasting result indicators including the degree of rock fragmentation, blasting pile morphology, over-fragmentation, blasting foundation, blasting large block rate, negative impact of blasting environment and blind shot accidents in multiple dimensions, and can reflect the blasting effect more comprehensively. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0030] Figure 1 It is a step diagram of the present invention;

[0031] Figure 2 It is a decomposition diagram of the steps of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0032] The present invention will be described in detail below in conjunction with the accompanying drawings.

[0033] In order to make the purpose, technical solution and advantages of the present invention more clearly understood, the present invention is further described in detail below in conjunction with the accompanying drawings and embodiments. It should be understood that the specific embodiments described herein are only used to explain the present invention and are not used to limit the present invention.

[0034] This embodiment provides a blasting effect evaluation method based on multi-dimensional evaluation indicators, such as Figure 1-Figure 2 As shown, the following steps are included:

[0035] S1, constructing the blasting result matrix: after m blastings, collect multiple blasting result data of each blasting, and evaluate and value each blasting result data, add up the evaluation values ​​of multiple blasting result data of each blasting to obtain the evaluation value of each blasting ζ j , j = 1, 2, ..., m; and then through ζ j Construct a blasting result matrix ζ; ζ is a row matrix or a column matrix;

[0036] The m explosions are denoted as S 1 , S 2 , ..., S m In this embodiment, a total of 9 blastings were carried out; multiple blasting result data include rock mass fragmentation degree data, blast pile morphology data, over-fragmentation data, blasting foundation data, blasting large block rate data, blasting environment negative impact data and blind shot phenomenon data, and their evaluation values ​​are ζ FR , MU , OV , Toe , BO , ENand MF ; Evaluation criteria are shown in Table 1:

[0037] Table 1: Evaluation criteria table

[0038]

[0039]

[0040] ζ is a column matrix, specifically,

[0041]

[0042] According to the actual blasting conditions, specific values ​​are input.

[0043]

[0044] It should be noted that the multiple blasting result data are not limited to the seven items of rock mass fragmentation degree data, blast pile morphology data, over-fragmentation data, blasting foundation data, blasting large block rate data, blasting environment negative impact data and blind shot phenomenon data, and several of the seven items may be selected, such as five or six items; the more data items, the more comprehensive the evaluation; in this embodiment, the above seven blasting result data of each blasting are collected;

[0045] S2, generate a blasting effect evaluation grading matrix: according to the relative importance of each blasting in the overall optimization evaluation, for each item ζ in the blasting result matrix ζ j Multiply by the weighting factor B Nj , j = 1, 2, ..., m; obtain the blasting effect evaluation classification matrix X;

[0046] S2 introduces the overall evaluation parameter to comprehensively evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the blasting parameter system from three aspects: rationality, safety and economy. Here, the importance of each item is determined in the form of weighting. In the actual evaluation, safety, technical feasibility and economy are taken as constraints, and blasting effect is taken as the evaluation target. Based on this, the evaluation system is proposed, as shown in Table 2.

[0047] Table 2: Evaluation system

[0048]

[0049] The constraints and objective functions are described by linguistic variables, and based on actual experience and reasoning, and the principle of highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of the solutions, the linguistic variables are converted into corresponding membership degrees, as shown in Table 3.

[0050] Table 3: Membership coefficient table

[0051]

[0052] The evaluation of the parameter system is a multi-objective, multi-level, and multi-constrained decision-making problem. The convex fuzzy programming principle is used to calculate the evaluation value of each test. There is an expression:

[0053] Among them: A T , A R 、M f E represents the comprehensive evaluation of safety, rationality and economy, b i and a i are the membership degree and weight of each sub-item respectively. According to fuzzy judgment:

[0054] B Nj =αA T +βA R +γM f E;

[0055] Among them B Nj represents the total evaluation parameter of the jth blasting, which determines the relative influence of each blasting in the overall optimization; α, β, and γ represent the weights of safety, rationality, and economy, respectively.

[0056] B Nj The larger the value of , the worse the j-th blasting effect under the above evaluation system is, and the blasting is relatively more important in the overall optimization evaluation, that is, the blasting needs to be optimized more. j Multiply by B Nj , the purpose of giving higher attention to blasting operations that need to be optimized is achieved.

[0057] To facilitate matrix calculation, the diagonal matrix B can be N =diag(B N1 , B N2 , ..., B Nm ),

[0058] Then the blasting effect evaluation classification matrix X = B N ζ;

[0059] In this embodiment, to simplify the calculation, it is assumed that each sub-item of each blast is very bad, that is, the membership degree of each sub-item is 1, then A T =1, A R =1,M f E=1,

[0060] B Nj =0.4×1+0.4×1+0.2×1=1; B N is the unit matrix; X = ζ;

[0061] In addition, if the weighting coefficient data information in step S2 is small and difficult to calculate according to the above method, B can also be used. N is the identity matrix, that is, giving the same attention to each burst;

[0062] S3, build performance matrix: according to the parameters related to the working efficiency of each blasting, calculate the performance index Y used to reflect the relative working efficiency of each blasting j , j = 1, 2, ..., m; and then through Y j Construct a performance matrix Y; and, when ζ is a row matrix, Y is a column matrix; when ζ is a column matrix, Y is a row matrix;

[0063] Parameters related to operational efficiency include the explosive consumption per blast, C zyj , Total number of drilling meters C zkj and digging time C wzj , the performance index of each blast Among them C Zj =C zyj C zkj C wzj ;

[0064] In this embodiment, according to the actual blasting conditions, the following performance indicators are obtained:

[0065] Table 4: Performance index table

[0066]

[0067] Then the performance matrix can be obtained as:

[0068] [Y]=[0.109 0.075 0.076 0.145 0.115 0.192 0.065 0.134 0.089]

[0069] S4, generate evaluation matrix: calculate the m×m evaluation matrix Z=XY or YX, the elements Z on the main diagonal of Z jj =B Nj ζ j y j ,j=1,2,...,m;Define Z jj BME is the final evaluation value of each blast j ;

[0070] In this embodiment, Z = XY; calculated: BME 1 =5.3, BME 2 =1.7, BME 3 =3, BME 4 =10.6, BME 5 =10.1,BME 6=8.3, BME 7 =1.2,BME 8 =7.6, BME 9 =4.2;

[0071] S5: Evaluation value classification: set several evaluation levels and divide the range of each evaluation level, each evaluation level corresponds to an evaluation; according to the final evaluation value BME of each blasting j The range it falls into determines its evaluation level and assessment;

[0072] There are 5 evaluation levels, define H = Max{BME 1 ,BME 2 ,...,BME m}=10.6,L=Min{BME 1 ,BME 2 ,...,BME m}=1.2, The evaluation levels are as follows:

[0073] Table 5: Grading evaluation table

[0074]

[0075] ; BME values ​​are graded and each blasting operation is evaluated; compared with the grading evaluation method using different indicators (fragmentation rate index and overall blasting comprehensive effect index), among which the evaluation by the fragmentation rate index only considers the single indicator of fragmentation rate; the evaluation by the overall blasting comprehensive effect index does not consider the blasting operation efficiency compared with the present invention; the three evaluations of blasting results are not the same. Relatively speaking, the evaluation method of the present invention is more comprehensive and accurate, as shown in Table 6;

[0076] Table 6: Grading evaluation table for blasting operations with different indicators

[0077]

[0078]

[0079] In the present invention adopting the above-mentioned technical solution, in S1, a plurality of blasting results of each blasting are collected, and the blasting results are evaluated and digitized to construct a blasting result matrix; in S2, a weighting coefficient is assigned to each item in the blasting result matrix to reflect the relative importance of each blasting in the overall optimization evaluation, in order to give higher attention to the blasting operation that needs to be optimized; in S3, a performance matrix is ​​calculated to reflect the relative operating efficiency of each blasting; in S4, the final evaluation value of each blasting is obtained by calculating the evaluation matrix, and this final evaluation value BME jCompared with the evaluation value ζ in step S1 j The relative importance of each blasting and the relative operating efficiency of each blasting are taken into consideration, and the consideration is more comprehensive and accurate; finally, the blasting effect of each blasting is evaluated through S5; compared with the blasting effect evaluation method in the prior art, which does not consider the relative importance of each blasting in the overall optimization evaluation, nor the operating efficiency of the blasting, and the evaluation of the blasting effect is not comprehensive and accurate, the blasting effect evaluation method of the present invention takes into account the relative importance of each blasting in the overall optimization evaluation and the relative operating efficiency of each blasting, and the evaluation of the blasting effect is more comprehensive and accurate, and more reliable optimization suggestions can be given; at the same time, multiple blasting result indicators including rock fragmentation degree, blasting pile morphology, over-fragmentation, blasting foundation, blasting large block rate, negative impact of blasting environment and blind shot accidents are considered in multiple dimensions, which can reflect the blasting effect more comprehensively.

[0080] The above description is only a preferred embodiment of the present invention and is not intended to limit the present invention. Any modifications, equivalent substitutions and improvements made within the spirit and principles of the present invention should be included in the protection scope of the present invention.

Claims

1. A blasting effect evaluation method based on multi-dimensional evaluation indicators, characterized in that: The following steps are involved: S1, constructing the blasting result matrix: after m blastings, collect multiple blasting result data of each blasting, and evaluate and value each blasting result data, add up the evaluation values ​​of multiple blasting result data of each blasting to obtain the evaluation value of each blasting ζ j , j = 1, 2, ..., m; and then through ζ j Construct a blasting result matrix ζ; ζ is a row matrix or a column matrix; S2, generate a blasting effect evaluation grading matrix: according to the relative importance of each blasting in the overall optimization evaluation, for each item ζ in the blasting result matrix ζ j Multiply by the weighting factor BN j , j = 1, 2, ..., m; obtain the blasting effect evaluation classification matrix X; S3, build performance matrix: according to the parameters related to the working efficiency of each blasting, calculate the performance index Y used to reflect the relative working efficiency of each blasting j , j = 1, 2, ..., m; and then through Y j Construct a performance matrix Y; and, when ζ is a row matrix, Y is a column matrix; when ζ is a column matrix, Y is a row matrix; S4, generate evaluation matrix: calculate the m×m evaluation matrix Z=XY or YX, the elements Z on the main diagonal of Z jj =B Nj ζ j Y j ,j=1,2,...,m;Define Z jj BME is the final evaluation value of each blast j ; S5: Evaluation value classification: set several evaluation levels and divide the range of each evaluation level, each evaluation level corresponds to an evaluation; according to the final evaluation value BME of each blasting j The range it falls into determines its evaluation level and assessment.

2. The blasting effect evaluation method based on multi-dimensional evaluation indicators according to claim 1 is characterized in that: In step S1, the multiple blasting result data include rock mass fragmentation degree data, blast pile morphology data, over-fragmentation data, blasting foundation data, blasting large block rate data, blasting environment negative impact data and blind shot phenomenon data, and their evaluation values ​​are ζ FR , MU , OV , Toe , BO , EN and MF ; 3. The blasting effect evaluation method based on multi-dimensional evaluation indicators according to claim 1 is characterized in that: In step S2, B Nj is the total evaluation parameter of the jth blasting, and each blasting is evaluated with safety, rationality and economy as constraints; it includes three general items: rationality, safety and economy, and these three general items are respectively provided with l, m and n sub-items; weights are assigned to each item according to the importance of the three general items and each sub-item; the superiority or inferiority of the blasting results in each sub-item is corresponded to the degree of membership; then Among them: A T , A R 、M f E represents the comprehensive evaluation of safety, rationality and economy, b i and a i Respectively represent the degree of membership and weight of each sub-item; B Nj =αA T +βA R +γM f AND; Among them, α, β, and γ represent the weights of safety, rationality, and economy, respectively.

4. The blasting effect evaluation method based on multi-dimensional evaluation indicators according to claim 3 is characterized in that: In step S2, l=m=n=4, and the evaluation system table is as follows: ； The membership coefficient table is as follows:

5. The blasting effect evaluation method based on multi-dimensional evaluation indicators according to claim 1 is characterized in that: In step S3, the parameters related to the operation efficiency include the explosive consumption C of each blasting zyj 、Total number of drilling meters C zjk and digging time C wzj , the performance index of each blast Among them C Zj =C zyj C zkj C wzj .

6. The blasting effect evaluation method based on multi-dimensional evaluation indicators according to claim 1 is characterized in that: In step S5, there are N evaluation levels, N≥3; define H=Max{BME1,BME2,...,BME m }, L = Min{BME1, BME2, ..., BME m }, The evaluation levels are as follows:

7. The blasting effect evaluation method based on multi-dimensional evaluation indicators according to claim 6 is characterized in that: There are 5 rating levels. The evaluation levels are as follows:

Images