Quantitative evaluation method for tunnel slag production line

Abstract

The invention relates to a tunnel hole slag production line quantitative evaluation method, which comprises the steps of obtaining a plurality of first evaluation factors and a plurality of second evaluation factors of a plurality of tunnel hole slag production line schemes, and determining weight coefficients and score values of the plurality of first evaluation factors and the plurality of second evaluation factors of each tunnel hole slag production line scheme, according to the weight coefficients and the score values of the plurality of first evaluation factors and the plurality of second evaluation factors of each tunnel hole slag production line scheme, a production line comprehensive score of each tunnel hole slag production line scheme is obtained through calculation, so that an optimal tunnel hole slag production line scheme is determined; according to the tunnel hole slag production line quantitative evaluation method, the production line quantitative evaluation model covering natural conditions and various factors of production organizations is established, so that production line design and construction are effectively evaluated, high-quality utilization of railway tunnel hole slag is achieved, the problem that normal production and supply of gravel aggregate are often affected by the production line is solved, and the production efficiency is improved. And the machine-made product production line is difficult to plan and design, and the site selection and layout are difficult.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present application relates to the technical field of tunnel engineering, and in particular to a quantitative evaluation method for a tunnel slag production line. Background Art

[0002] During the construction of railways, tunnel excavation is carried out, and tunnel excavation will produce tunnel slag. In order to effectively alleviate the shortage of raw materials and the storage and treatment of tunnel slag in railway construction, in related technologies, it is usually chosen to build a tunnel slag production line while building the railway, so as to prepare the tunnel slag into sand and gravel aggregate and use it on-site for railway construction.

[0003] However, during construction, tunnel slag production lines need to face complex and dangerous natural environmental conditions in mountainous areas, as well as risks such as complex terrain, inconvenient transportation, and environmental safety. In addition, the production of mechanical products using tunnel slag as raw materials also faces risk factors in terms of raw materials. As a result, the constructed tunnel slag production lines often have problems such as insufficient raw material supply, over-designed production capacity, and inconvenient production operations, which affect the normal production and supply of sand and gravel aggregates. Summary of the invention

[0004] Based on this, it is necessary to provide a quantitative evaluation method for tunnel slag production lines in view of the problems that often exist in the above-mentioned tunnel slag production lines that affect the normal production and supply of sand and gravel aggregates.

[0005] A method for quantitatively evaluating a tunnel slag production line, comprising:

[0006] Acquire a plurality of first evaluation factors and a plurality of second evaluation factors of a plurality of tunnel slag production line solutions;

[0007] Determine the weight coefficients of a plurality of first evaluation factors and a plurality of second evaluation factors of each tunnel slag production line plan;

[0008] Determine the score values ​​of a plurality of first evaluation factors and a plurality of second evaluation factors of each tunnel slag production line plan;

[0009] According to the weight coefficients and scoring values ​​of the multiple first evaluation factors and the multiple second evaluation factors of each tunnel slag production line plan, the comprehensive production line score of each tunnel slag production line plan is calculated;

[0010] The optimal tunnel slag production line solution is determined based on the comprehensive scores of multiple tunnel slag production line solutions.

[0011] In one embodiment, the multiple first evaluation factors and multiple second evaluation factors for obtaining multiple tunnel slag production line solutions include:

[0012] A multi-level structural model is established using the analytic hierarchy process theory, with the quantitative optimal solution for the tunnel slag production line as the target layer, the first evaluation aspect and the second evaluation aspect as the first criterion layer, multiple first evaluation factors and multiple second evaluation factors as the second criterion layer, multiple first evaluation factors as the upper layer of the first evaluation aspect, and multiple second evaluation factors as the upper layer of the second evaluation aspect.

[0013] In one embodiment, the first evaluation aspect is natural conditions, and the second evaluation aspect is production organization; the multiple first evaluation factors include slag raw materials, topography, material transportation, and safety and environmental protection; the multiple second evaluation factors include finished product supply and demand, comprehensive cost, and production operations.

[0014] In one embodiment, the weight coefficients of the multiple first evaluation factors and the multiple second evaluation factors for determining each tunnel slag production line solution include:

[0015] According to the multi-level structural model, the factors at the same level in the multi-level structural model are compared with each other, and the optimal judgment matrix ratio scale is selected to evaluate the relative importance of each factor. A judgment matrix A is established for the first evaluation aspect and the second evaluation aspect, a judgment matrix B1 is established for multiple first evaluation factors, and a judgment matrix B2 is established for multiple second evaluation factors;

[0016] The weight coefficients of the plurality of first evaluation factors and the plurality of second evaluation factors are calculated according to the judgment matrix A, the judgment matrix B1 and the judgment matrix B2.

[0017] In one embodiment, determining the score values ​​of the multiple first evaluation factors and the multiple second evaluation factors of each tunnel slag production line solution includes:

[0018] Scoring criteria for the plurality of first evaluation factors and the plurality of second evaluation factors are established, and scoring values ​​of the plurality of first evaluation factors and the plurality of second evaluation factors in different schemes are obtained according to the scoring criteria.

[0019] In one embodiment, the scoring criteria include scoring criteria for adaptability of slag raw materials, scoring criteria for adaptability to terrain, scoring criteria for material transportation economy, scoring criteria for environmental safety coordination, scoring criteria for matching supply and demand of finished products, scoring criteria for comprehensive cost economy, and scoring criteria for suitability of production operations.

[0020] In one embodiment, the scoring criteria for adaptability of the slag raw materials include a slag quality scoring item, a production line capacity and slag quantity matching scoring item, and a production line process equipment adaptability scoring item to parent rock characteristics.

[0021] In one embodiment, the slag quality scoring items include the first slag quality level, the second slag quality level, the third slag quality level and the fourth slag quality level; wherein, the scoring value of the first slag quality level is greater than the scoring value of the second slag quality level, the scoring value of the second slag quality level is greater than the scoring value of the third slag quality level, and the scoring value of the third slag quality level is greater than the scoring value of the fourth slag quality level.

[0022] In one embodiment, the comprehensive score of the production line of each tunnel slag production line scheme is calculated based on the weight coefficients and score values ​​of the multiple first evaluation factors and the multiple second evaluation factors of each tunnel slag production line scheme, including:

[0023] The comprehensive scores of production lines of different schemes are calculated by using the weight coefficients of the multiple first evaluation factors and the multiple second evaluation factors and the score values ​​of the multiple first evaluation factors and the multiple second evaluation factors.

[0024] In one embodiment, the comprehensive score of the production line is the sum of the products of multiple first evaluation factor coefficients and the corresponding score values ​​of the first evaluation factors, and the sum of the products of multiple second evaluation factor coefficients and the corresponding score values ​​of the second evaluation factors.

[0025] The above-mentioned quantitative evaluation method for tunnel slag production line is based on the influencing factors of production line design, and uses the hierarchical analysis method to establish a multi-level structural model with the first evaluation aspect and the second evaluation aspect as the first criterion layer, multiple first evaluation factors and multiple second evaluation factors as the second criterion layer, and multiple first evaluation factors as the upper layer of the first evaluation aspect, and multiple second evaluation factors as the upper layer of the second evaluation aspect. Combined with the actual construction of the railway, the weight coefficients of the multiple first evaluation factors and the multiple second evaluation factors are determined, and according to the scoring criteria for the multiple first evaluation factors and the multiple second evaluation factors, a production line quantitative evaluation model covering various factors of natural conditions and production organization is established to effectively evaluate the design and construction of the production line, thereby realizing the high-quality utilization of railway tunnel slag, and solving the problems that often exist in the production line that affect the normal production and supply of sand and gravel aggregates, as well as the difficulties in planning and designing the production line of mechanical products and the difficulty in site selection and layout. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0026] FIG1 is a schematic flow chart of a method for quantitatively evaluating a tunnel slag production line according to some embodiments of the present application.

[0027] FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram of a multi-level structural model of a quantitative evaluation method for a tunnel slag production line according to some embodiments of the present application. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0028] In order to make the above-mentioned purposes, features and advantages of the present application more obvious and easy to understand, the specific implementation methods of the present application are described in detail below in conjunction with the accompanying drawings. In the following description, many specific details are set forth to facilitate a full understanding of the present application. However, the present application can be implemented in many other ways different from those described herein, and those skilled in the art can make similar improvements without violating the connotation of the present application, so the present application is not limited by the specific embodiments disclosed below.

[0029] In the description of the present application, it should be understood that if the terms "center", "longitudinal", "lateral", "length", "width", "thickness", "up", "down", "front", "back", "left", "right", "vertical", "horizontal", "top", "bottom", "inside", "outside", "clockwise", "counterclockwise", "axial", "radial", "circumferential", etc. appear, the orientation or position relationship indicated by these terms is based on the orientation or position relationship shown in the accompanying drawings, which is only for the convenience of describing the present application and simplifying the description, and does not indicate or imply that the device or element referred to must have a specific orientation, be constructed and operated in a specific orientation, and therefore cannot be understood as a limitation on the present application.

[0030] In addition, if the terms "first" or "second" appear, these terms are used for descriptive purposes only and should not be understood as indicating or implying relative importance or implicitly indicating the number of technical features indicated. Therefore, a feature defined as "first" or "second" may explicitly or implicitly include at least one of the features. In the description of this application, if the term "plurality" appears, the meaning of "plurality" is at least two, such as two, three, etc., unless otherwise clearly and specifically defined.

[0031] In this application, unless otherwise clearly specified and limited, if the terms "installed", "connected", "connected", "fixed" and the like appear, these terms should be understood in a broad sense. For example, it can be a fixed connection, a detachable connection, or an integrated connection; it can be a mechanical connection or an electrical connection; it can be a direct connection or an indirect connection through an intermediate medium, it can be the internal connection of two elements or the interaction relationship between two elements, unless otherwise clearly defined. For ordinary technicians in this field, the specific meanings of the above terms in this application can be understood according to the specific circumstances.

[0032] In the present application, unless otherwise clearly specified and limited, if there is a description that a first feature is "above" or "below" a second feature, etc., or similar descriptions appear, it may mean that the first and second features are in direct contact, or that the first and second features are in indirect contact through an intermediate medium. Moreover, the first feature being "above", "above" and "above" the second feature may mean that the first feature is directly above or obliquely above the second feature, or simply means that the first feature is higher in level than the second feature. The first feature being "below", "below" and "below" the second feature may mean that the first feature is directly below or obliquely below the second feature, or simply means that the first feature is lower in level than the second feature.

[0033] It should be noted that if an element is referred to as being "fixed to" or "disposed on" another element, it may be directly on the other element or there may be a central element. If an element is considered to be "connected to" another element, it may be directly connected to the other element or there may be a central element at the same time. If any, the terms "vertical", "horizontal", "upper", "lower", "left", "right" and similar expressions used in this application are for illustrative purposes only and do not represent the only implementation method.

[0034] During the construction of railways, tunnel excavation will be carried out, and tunnel excavation will produce tunnel slag. In order to effectively alleviate the problems of raw material shortage and tunnel slag storage and treatment in railway construction, most companies currently choose to build tunnel slag production lines while building railways, so as to prepare the tunnel slag into sand and gravel aggregate and use it on-site for railway construction.

[0035] However, due to the complex and dangerous mountain terrain, environment, transportation and other factors of the railway, the tunnel slag preparation mechanism product production line has problems such as insufficient overall planning, difficult production line site selection, and chaotic factory layout. At present, there is no design and evaluation method to guide the design and construction of production lines or evaluate production line plans. The completed production lines often have insufficient raw material supply, overcapacity design, and inconvenient production operations, which affect the normal production and supply of mechanism sand and gravel aggregates.

[0036] For example, the Ya'an to Linzhi section of the Sichuan-Tibet Railway is 1,018 kilometers long, of which 841 kilometers are tunnels, accounting for as high as 82.6%. Tunnel excavation produces 150 million cubic meters of tunnel slag. The storage and treatment of tunnel slag not only occupies a large amount of land resources, but also damages the sensitive ecological environment along the line, and is prone to induce secondary disasters such as landslides. At the same time, the demand for sand and gravel for the Sichuan-Tibet Railway project is as high as 100 million cubic meters. Due to the restrictions of river sand mining restrictions and prohibitions and the difficulty of transporting raw materials, the Sichuan-Tibet Railway faces a severe shortage of concrete raw materials. If tunnel slag is prepared into sand and gravel aggregate and used on-site in the construction of the Sichuan-Tibet Railway, the problem of raw material shortage can be effectively alleviated. However, due to the complex and dangerous mountainous terrain, environment, transportation and other factors of the Sichuan-Tibet Railway, the tunnel tunnel slag preparation mechanism product production line has problems such as insufficient overall planning, difficult site selection of production lines, and chaotic layout in the factory. At present, there is no design and evaluation method for guiding the design and construction of production lines or evaluating production line plans. The completed production lines often have insufficient raw material supply, overcapacity design, inconvenience in production operation, and other situations that affect the normal production and supply of mechanism sand and gravel aggregates. Faced with the difficulties in planning, designing and evaluating the effects of tunnel slag production lines in complex and dangerous mountainous areas, relevant research is urgently needed.

[0037] To solve the above problems, this application first analyzes the influencing factors of production line design from the two aspects of natural conditions and production organization, and lists 7 major influencing factors in production line design, including slag raw materials, topography, material transportation, environmental safety, finished product supply and demand, comprehensive cost, and production operation. Each influencing factor is further subdivided and its influence is studied and analyzed to provide a theoretical basis for further formulating production line design principles. Then, based on the influencing factors of production line design, combined with the actual design and construction process of the production line, design principles suitable for tunnel slag preparation mechanism product production lines are formulated from overall design, plant site selection, production capacity configuration, process equipment, plant layout and other aspects. Based on the influencing factors of production line design and combined with the actual design process, this study has formulated design principles suitable for tunnel slag preparation mechanism product production lines, which can provide theoretical reference and technical support for the design and construction of supporting production lines for machine-made sand and gravel aggregates in plateau environment railway construction.

[0038] Referring to FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 , an embodiment of the present application provides a method for quantitatively evaluating a tunnel slag production line, including:

[0039] S1. Obtain multiple first evaluation factors and multiple second evaluation factors of multiple tunnel slag production line solutions. Specifically, use the hierarchical analysis theory to establish a multi-level structural model with the optimal quantified solution of the tunnel slag production line as the target layer, the first evaluation aspect and the second evaluation aspect as the first criterion layer, the multiple first evaluation factors and the multiple second evaluation factors as the second criterion layer, and the multiple first evaluation factors as the upper layer of the first evaluation aspect, and the multiple second evaluation factors as the upper layer of the second evaluation aspect.

[0040] More specifically, in the embodiment of the present application, the first evaluation aspect is natural conditions, and the second evaluation aspect is production organization. The first evaluation factors include slag raw materials, topography, material transportation, and safety and environmental protection. The second evaluation factors include finished product supply and demand, comprehensive cost, and production operation.

[0041] It can be understood that in the embodiments of the present application, the optimal solution for the quantitative optimization of the tunnel slag production line is set as the overall goal, that is, as the target layer A. The two aspects of natural conditions and production organization are taken as the first criterion layer, that is, the criterion layer B. The slag raw materials, topography, material transportation and safety and environmental protection factors in the natural conditions, and the finished product supply and demand, comprehensive cost and production operation factors in the production organization are taken as the second criterion layer, that is, the criterion layer C. In this way, a multi-level structural model of factors affecting the optimization of production line design is formed.

[0042] S2. Determine the weight coefficients of multiple first evaluation factors and multiple second evaluation factors of each tunnel slag production line plan. Specifically, according to the multi-level structural model, compare the factors of the same level in the multi-level structural model in pairs, select the optimal judgment matrix ratio scale to evaluate the relative importance of each factor, establish a judgment matrix A for the first evaluation aspect and the second evaluation aspect, establish a judgment matrix B1 for multiple first evaluation factors, and establish a judgment matrix B2 for multiple second evaluation factors.

[0043] It is understandable that when determining the weights between factors at each level, if only qualitative results are obtained, they are often not easily accepted. Therefore, it is proposed that all factors should not be compared together, but should be compared with each other in pairs. In addition, relative scales should be used to minimize the difficulty of comparing factors of different natures, so as to improve accuracy. The weights of each criterion (scheme) for the target (criterion) are determined by mutual comparison, that is, the judgment matrix A = (aij)n×n is constructed. In the hierarchical analysis method, in order to quantitatively display the importance of each element in the matrix, the matrix judgment scale (1-9 scale method) is introduced. For the factors to be compared, if they are equally important, they are considered to be 1:1, and if they are strongly important, they are 9:1. You can also take an intermediate value, compare the values ​​two by two, and construct a judgment matrix.

[0044] First, construct the second-level factor judgment matrix. For the goal of optimizing the design of the first-level production line, the production line is extremely important in both natural conditions and production organization. Both aspects are slightly more important than natural conditions. The comparison scale of the two factors in the second level is 2, and the judgment matrix is ​​obtained. :

[0045]

[0046] The third-level natural condition factor judgment matrix is ​​constructed. For the second-level natural condition target, the importance of the four factors of slag raw material adaptability, terrain adaptability, material transportation distance, environmental protection and safety is not consistent. The order of importance should be: safety and environmental protection > slag raw material > terrain > material transportation. Further comparison of importance is made to form the judgment result:

[0047] Comparing the slag raw materials with the topographic factors, taking C1 : C2 = 2, then C2 : C1 = 1 / 2;

[0048] Comparing the factors of slag raw materials and material transportation, taking C1 : C3 = 3, then C3 : C1 = 1 / 3;

[0049] Comparing the slag raw materials and environmental safety factors, take C1 : C4 = 1 / 2, then C4 : C1 = 2;

[0050] Comparing the topography and material transportation factors, taking C2: C3=2, then C3: C2=1 / 2;

[0051] Comparing the topography and environmental safety factors, take C2: C4=1 / 3, then C4: C2=3;

[0052] Comparing material transportation with safety and environmental protection factors, take C3: C4=1 / 4, then C4: C3=4.

[0053] In summary, we get the judgment matrix B1:

[0054]

[0055] Construct the third-level production organization factor judgment matrix. For the second-level production organization condition objectives, the importance of the three factors of finished product supply and demand matching, comprehensive cost economy, and production operation suitability is also inconsistent. The order of importance should be: finished product supply and demand > comprehensive cost > production operation. Further comparison between the two factors will form the judgment result:

[0056] Comparing the supply and demand of finished products with the comprehensive cost factors, taking C5: C6=2, then C6: C5=1 / 2;

[0057] Comparing the supply and demand of finished products with the production operation factors, taking C5: C7=5, then C7: C5=1 / 5;

[0058] Comparing the comprehensive cost and production operation factors, taking C6: C7=3, then C7: C6=1 / 3.

[0059] In summary, we get the judgment matrix B2:

[0060]

[0061] The weight coefficients of the multiple first evaluation factors and the multiple second evaluation factors are calculated according to the judgment matrix A, the judgment matrix B1 and the judgment matrix B2. If the judgment matrix B1 and / or the judgment matrix B2 fail to pass the consistency test, the judgment matrix B1 and / or the judgment matrix B2 that failed the test are re-established. If both the judgment matrix B1 and the judgment matrix B2 pass the consistency test, the total sorting vector of the target layer is calculated to obtain the weight coefficients of the multiple first evaluation factors and the multiple second evaluation factors.

[0062] Specifically, the eigenvectors and the maximum eigenroots of the judgment matrix B1 and the judgment matrix B2 are calculated, and the judgment matrix B1 and the judgment matrix B2 are subjected to a consistency check based on the calculation results. If the judgment matrix B1 and / or the judgment matrix B2 fail the consistency check, the judgment matrix B1 and / or the judgment matrix B2 that fail the test are re-established. If both the judgment matrix B1 and the judgment matrix B2 pass the consistency check, the total ranking vector of the target layer is calculated to obtain the weight coefficients of the multiple first evaluation factors and the multiple second evaluation factors.

[0063] It can be understood that in the embodiment of the present application, for the judgment matrix , the calculation satisfies The characteristic roots and eigenvectors of for The largest characteristic root of For the corresponding The normalized eigenvector of The amount That is, the weight of the corresponding element in a single order.

[0064] For the judgment matrix B1, calculate its maximum characteristic root: , the normalized feature vector (weight coefficient): .

[0065] The consistency of judgment matrix B1 and judgment matrix B2 is tested according to the consistency ratio formula and the following random consistency index table.

[0066]

[0067] Among them, the consistency index of the calculation judgment matrix B1 is: ,

[0068] Take 0.89 and calculate the consistency ratio of judgment matrix B1: ,

[0069] The consistency test result of judgment matrix B1 is passed, indicating that the judgment matrix The settings are reasonable.

[0070] The consistency index of the calculation judgment matrix B2 is: ,

[0071] Take 0.52 and calculate the consistency ratio of the judgment matrix B2: ,

[0072] Judgment Matrix The consistency test result is passed, indicating that the judgment matrix The settings are reasonable. (In addition, since the above calculation method is a common calculation formula in this field, the calculation formula and calculation process will not be described in detail.)

[0073] S3. Determine the score values ​​of multiple first evaluation factors and multiple second evaluation factors of each tunnel slag production line plan. S4. Calculate the comprehensive production line score of each tunnel slag production line plan based on the weight coefficients and score values ​​of multiple first evaluation factors and multiple second evaluation factors of each tunnel slag production line plan. S5. Determine the optimal tunnel slag production line plan based on the comprehensive production line scores of multiple tunnel slag production line plans.

[0074] Specifically, detailed scoring criteria for the multiple first evaluation factors and the multiple second evaluation factors are established, and the scoring values ​​of the multiple first evaluation factors and the multiple second evaluation factors in different schemes are obtained according to the scoring criteria. The comprehensive scores of the production lines of different schemes are calculated by using the weight coefficients of the multiple first evaluation factors and the multiple second evaluation factors and the scoring values ​​of the multiple first evaluation factors and the multiple second evaluation factors. The comprehensive scores of the production lines obtained from different schemes are compared to select the optimal scheme.

[0075] More specifically, according to the seven important evaluation factors of slag raw materials, topography, material transportation, safety and environmental protection, finished product supply and demand, comprehensive cost and production operation, the evaluation items of each factor are subdivided, and all situations of each evaluation item are classified, and the corresponding score range is set to form scoring rules. It can be understood that the scoring rules include scoring rules for the adaptability of slag raw materials, scoring rules for the adaptability of topography, scoring rules for the economic efficiency of material transportation, scoring rules for environmental safety coordination, scoring rules for the matching of finished product supply and demand, scoring rules for the economic efficiency of comprehensive cost and scoring rules for the suitability of production operations. When evaluating the production line, score each evaluation item according to the actual situation of the production line and the scoring rules. Set negative items for important evaluation items that affect the rationality of production line construction. When the production line evaluation does not meet the requirements of the negative items, the design or construction of the production line is directly denied.

[0076] In summary, the quantitative evaluation method for tunnel slag production line of the present application is based on the influencing factors of production line design, and uses the hierarchical analysis method to establish a multi-level structural model with the first evaluation aspect and the second evaluation aspect as the first criterion layer, and multiple first evaluation factors and multiple second evaluation factors as the second criterion layer, and multiple first evaluation factors are the upper layer of the first evaluation aspect, and multiple second evaluation factors are the upper layer of the second evaluation aspect. Combined with the actual construction situation of the railway, the weight coefficients of the multiple first evaluation factors and the multiple second evaluation factors are determined, and according to the scoring criteria for the multiple first evaluation factors and the multiple second evaluation factors, a production line quantitative evaluation model covering various factors of natural conditions and production organization is established to effectively evaluate the design and construction of the production line, thereby realizing the high-quality utilization of railway tunnel slag, and solving the problems that often exist in the production line that affect the normal production and supply of sand and gravel aggregates, as well as the difficulties in planning and designing the production line of mechanical products and the difficulty in site selection and layout.

[0077] In one embodiment, the total ranking vector of the target layer is calculated to obtain weight coefficients of a plurality of first evaluation factors and a plurality of second evaluation factors, including:

[0078] The weight vector of the first criterion layer is calculated according to the judgment matrix A;

[0079] The second criterion layer matrix is ​​formed by using the eigenvectors of the judgment matrix B1 and the judgment matrix B2 as column vectors;

[0080] The total ranking vector is calculated based on the weight vector of the first criterion layer and the matrix of the second criterion layer, and then the weight coefficients of the plurality of first evaluation factors and the plurality of second evaluation factors are obtained.

[0081] Specifically, the third-layer weight vector Form a matrix for column vectors , then the total ranking vector of each solution for the total goal A is: ,

[0082] Where: It is the ranking vector of each plan for the overall goal, and the one with the highest value is the optimal plan to achieve the overall goal under the influence of various factors.

[0083] According to the judgment matrix A, the second layer weight vector is obtained: ,

[0084] The matrix is ​​constructed with the characteristic vectors of each factor in the third layer as column vectors: ,

[0085] Compute the total sort vector: ,

[0086] According to the total sorting vector, the weight coefficients of seven evaluation factors, including slag raw materials, topography, material transportation, safety and environmental protection, finished product supply and demand, comprehensive cost and production operation, can be obtained. The specific weight coefficients of the evaluation factors are shown in the following table:

[0087]

[0088] In summary, according to the comprehensive score of production line evaluation, the weight coefficients of the seven evaluation factors are as follows: natural conditions: slag raw material factors account for 19%, topography factors account for 11%, material transportation factors account for 6%, environmental protection and safety factors account for 31%. Production factors: finished product supply and demand factors account for 19%, comprehensive cost factors account for 10%, and production operation factors account for 4%.

[0089] In one of the embodiments, the scoring criteria for adaptability of slag raw materials include slag quality scoring items, production line capacity and slag quantity matching scoring items, and production line process equipment adaptability to parent rock characteristics scoring items.

[0090] Specifically, the evaluation items of slag raw material factors are subdivided, and the slag raw material factors are evaluated and scored from three points: slag quality, matching degree between production line capacity and slag quantity, and adaptability of production line process equipment to parent rock characteristics.

[0091] More specifically, the slag quality scoring items include the first slag quality level, the second slag quality level, the third slag quality level and the fourth slag quality level. Among them, the score value of the first slag quality level is greater than the score value of the second slag quality level, the score value of the second slag quality level is greater than the score value of the third slag quality level, and the score value of the third slag quality level is greater than the score value of the fourth slag quality level.

[0092] The first level of slag quality is that all indicators of the parent rock inspection meet the standard requirements, and the machine-made products produced are qualified through experience; the second level of slag quality is that all indicators of the parent rock inspection meet the standard requirements, and the indicators of the machine-made products produced are occasionally unqualified, which can be improved by adjusting equipment production; the third level of slag quality is that all indicators of the parent rock inspection meet the standard requirements, but the indicators of the machine-made products produced are unqualified, and the improvement effect cannot be achieved by any means; the fourth level of slag quality is that the parent rock inspection fails, and it cannot be used to produce machine-made products.

[0093] Among them, the scoring criteria for the adaptability of slag raw materials can be referred to the following table:

[0094]

[0095] It is worth noting that the above scores are based on a percentage system, but in actual operation, a ten-point system or a five-point system can also be used. However, no matter how many points are used, the scoring rules for the adaptability of slag raw materials, the terrain adaptability scoring rules, the material transportation economy scoring rules, the environmental safety coordination scoring rules, the finished product supply and demand matching scoring rules, the comprehensive cost economy scoring rules, and the production and operation suitability scoring rules are unified. That is, if the slag raw material adaptability scoring rules are based on a percentage system, then the terrain adaptability scoring rules, the material transportation economy scoring rules, the environmental safety coordination scoring rules, the finished product supply and demand matching scoring rules, the comprehensive cost economy scoring rules, and the production and operation suitability scoring rules are also based on a percentage system.

[0096] In one embodiment, the terrain adaptability scoring criteria include the production line land utilization scoring item, the factory layout rationality scoring item, and the surrounding traffic condition scoring item. Among them, the production line land utilization scoring item can evaluate the production line from the production line land utilization and is divided into 3 scoring levels. The factory layout rationality scoring item can be combined with the production line process design to evaluate the production line from the rationality of the production line layout and is divided into three scoring levels. The surrounding traffic condition scoring item can evaluate the production line from the surrounding traffic conditions and is divided into three scoring levels.

[0097] The material transportation economic scoring criteria include raw material transportation distance scoring items, finished product transportation distance scoring items, and waste slag transportation distance scoring items. Among them, the raw material transportation distance scoring item can evaluate the production line based on the distance from the tunnel entrance or raw material yard to the production line. The finished product transportation distance scoring item can evaluate the production line based on the distance from the finished product to the mixing plant. The waste slag transportation distance scoring item can evaluate the production line based on the distance from the waste slag to the waste slag yard.

[0098] The environmental safety coordination scoring criteria include geological conditions safety scoring items, climate conditions safety scoring items, production line construction environmental protection scoring items, and production emission environmental protection scoring items. Among them, the geological conditions safety scoring items can be combined with the geological conditions around the production line to evaluate the production line from the perspective of geological conditions safety. The climate conditions safety scoring items can be combined with the climate conditions around the production line to evaluate the production line from the perspective of climate conditions safety. The production line construction environmental protection scoring items can be combined with the production line construction, production technology, and processing equipment to evaluate the production line from the perspective of the environmental protection of the production line construction. The production emission environmental protection scoring items can be combined with the production line environmental conditions, production technology, and processing equipment to evaluate the production line from the perspective of the adaptability of the process equipment.

[0099] The scoring criteria for finished product supply and demand matching include scoring items for the supply mixing station and the finished product supply project construction. The scoring item for the supply mixing station can be combined with the production line supply mode, one-to-one, one-to-many or many-to-one, etc., to evaluate the matching of the finished product supply mixing station. The scoring item for the finished product supply project construction can be combined with the project construction needs to evaluate from the perspective of the matching of various finished product supplies of the production line.

[0100] The comprehensive cost-effectiveness scoring criteria include infrastructure cost scoring items, equipment cost scoring items, and operating cost scoring items. Among them, the infrastructure cost scoring item can be combined with the land utilization of the production line to evaluate the production line from the perspective of infrastructure cost. The equipment cost scoring item can be combined with the production process and equipment function to evaluate the production line from the perspective of equipment cost. The operating cost scoring item can be combined with the outsourcing cost to evaluate the production line from the perspective of operating cost.

[0101] The production operation suitability scoring criteria include production operation and maintenance scoring items, equipment failure scoring items, and production line intelligence scoring items. Among them, the production operation and maintenance scoring item can evaluate the production line from the perspectives of operability, safety, and labor intensity of production line operation and maintenance. The equipment failure scoring item can evaluate the production line from the frequency of equipment failures and the impact of the failures. The production line intelligence scoring item can evaluate the production line from the perspective of production line intelligence and information construction.

[0102] In one embodiment, the comprehensive score of the production line is the sum of the products of multiple first evaluation factor coefficients and the corresponding score values ​​of the multiple first evaluation factors, and the sum of the products of multiple second evaluation factor coefficients and the corresponding score values ​​of the multiple second evaluation factors.

[0103] Specifically, the comprehensive score of the production line evaluation can be calculated using the evaluation factor weight coefficients and factor item scores. The comprehensive score is the sum of the products of all factor weight coefficients and their corresponding scores, that is:

[0104] Comprehensive score = ∑ (factor weight coefficient × factor score)

[0105] More specifically, the weight coefficients of each production line evaluation factor calculated by the hierarchical analysis method are substituted into the formula to obtain the production line comprehensive score calculation formula:

[0106]

[0107] At this point, the comprehensive score of the production line evaluation is obtained. The comprehensive score is a percentage score, which realizes the quantitative evaluation of the production line design.

[0108] In addition, the comprehensive score of the production line can be used to achieve a quantitative evaluation of the production line design. Four scores and corresponding categories are set for production line designs with different scores, and treatment suggestions are given. For specific suggestions, please refer to the following table:

[0109]

[0110] In summary, when implementing the quantitative evaluation method for tunnel slag production lines of this application, by setting and identifying the influencing factors of natural conditions and production organization, the key factors of production line design are comprehensively determined, and the design principles of the overall production line site selection, capacity configuration, process equipment, and factory layout under the dual influence of natural conditions and production organization are analyzed. And based on the production line influencing factors, 7 scoring factors are set. Combined with the actual situation and needs of railway construction, the hierarchical analysis method is used to establish a hierarchical structure model, set up a judgment matrix, perform hierarchical single sorting and total sorting respectively, comprehensively determine the influence of each factor, and calculate the weight coefficient of each factor. For each scoring factor, set the factor scoring rules, subdivide the factor items and classify the actual production line. In the evaluation, the items are scored according to the scoring rules in combination with the actual situation of the production line. Combine the factor weight coefficient and the score of each factor to obtain the comprehensive score of the production line evaluation, and give different processing suggestions for each score range.

[0111] It can be understood that the quantitative evaluation method of the tunnel slag production line of the present application is based on the influencing factors of the production line design, and uses the hierarchical analysis method to establish a multi-level structural model with the first evaluation aspect and the second evaluation aspect as the first criterion layer, multiple first evaluation factors and multiple second evaluation factors as the second criterion layer, and multiple first evaluation factors as the upper layer of the first evaluation aspect, and multiple second evaluation factors as the upper layer of the second evaluation aspect. Combined with the actual construction of the railway, the weight coefficients of the multiple first evaluation factors and the multiple second evaluation factors are determined, and based on the scoring criteria for the multiple first evaluation factors and the multiple second evaluation factors, a production line quantitative evaluation model covering various factors of natural conditions and production organization is established to effectively evaluate the design and construction of the production line, thereby achieving high-quality utilization of railway tunnel slag, and solving the problems that often exist in the production line that affect the normal production and supply of sand and gravel aggregates, as well as the difficulties in planning and designing the production line of mechanical products and the difficulty in site selection and layout.

[0112] The technical features of the above-described embodiments may be arbitrarily combined. To make the description concise, not all possible combinations of the technical features in the above-described embodiments are described. However, as long as there is no contradiction in the combination of these technical features, they should be considered to be within the scope of this specification.

[0113] The above-described embodiments only express several implementation methods of the present application, and the descriptions thereof are relatively specific and detailed, but they cannot be construed as limiting the scope of the patent application. It should be pointed out that, for a person of ordinary skill in the art, several variations and improvements can be made without departing from the concept of the present application, and these all belong to the protection scope of the present application. Therefore, the protection scope of the patent application shall be subject to the attached claims.

Claims

1. A method for quantitative evaluation of a tunnel slag production line, characterized in that: include: Acquire a plurality of first evaluation factors and a plurality of second evaluation factors of a plurality of tunnel slag production line solutions; Determine the weight coefficients of a plurality of first evaluation factors and a plurality of second evaluation factors of each tunnel slag production line plan; Determine the score values ​​of a plurality of first evaluation factors and a plurality of second evaluation factors of each tunnel slag production line plan; According to the weight coefficients and scoring values ​​of the multiple first evaluation factors and the multiple second evaluation factors of each tunnel slag production line plan, the comprehensive production line score of each tunnel slag production line plan is calculated; The optimal tunnel slag production line solution is determined based on the comprehensive scores of multiple tunnel slag production line solutions.

2. The method for quantitative evaluation of tunnel slag production line according to claim 1, characterized in that: The multiple first evaluation factors and multiple second evaluation factors for obtaining multiple tunnel slag production line solutions include: A multi-level structural model is established using the analytic hierarchy process theory, with the quantitative optimal solution for the tunnel slag production line as the target layer, the first evaluation aspect and the second evaluation aspect as the first criterion layer, multiple first evaluation factors and multiple second evaluation factors as the second criterion layer, multiple first evaluation factors as the upper layer of the first evaluation aspect, and multiple second evaluation factors as the upper layer of the second evaluation aspect.

3. The method for quantitative evaluation of tunnel slag production line according to claim 2, characterized in that: The first evaluation aspect is natural conditions, and the second evaluation aspect is production organization; the multiple first evaluation factors include slag raw materials, topography, material transportation, and safety and environmental protection; the multiple second evaluation factors include finished product supply and demand, comprehensive cost, and production operations.

4. The method for quantitative evaluation of tunnel slag production line according to claim 1, characterized in that: The weight coefficients of the multiple first evaluation factors and the multiple second evaluation factors for determining each tunnel slag production line solution include: According to the multi-level structural model, the factors at the same level in the multi-level structural model are compared with each other, and the optimal judgment matrix ratio scale is selected to evaluate the relative importance of each factor. A judgment matrix A is established for the first evaluation aspect and the second evaluation aspect, a judgment matrix B1 is established for multiple first evaluation factors, and a judgment matrix B2 is established for multiple second evaluation factors; The weight coefficients of the plurality of first evaluation factors and the plurality of second evaluation factors are calculated according to the judgment matrix A, the judgment matrix B1 and the judgment matrix B2.

5. The method for quantitative evaluation of tunnel slag production line according to claim 1, characterized in that: The step of determining the score values ​​of the multiple first evaluation factors and the multiple second evaluation factors of each tunnel slag production line solution includes: Scoring criteria for the plurality of first evaluation factors and the plurality of second evaluation factors are established, and scoring values ​​of the plurality of first evaluation factors and the plurality of second evaluation factors in different schemes are obtained according to the scoring criteria.

6. The method for quantitative evaluation of tunnel slag production line according to claim 5, characterized in that: The scoring criteria include scoring criteria for adaptability of slag raw materials, scoring criteria for adaptability to terrain, scoring criteria for material transportation economy, scoring criteria for environmental safety coordination, scoring criteria for matching supply and demand of finished products, scoring criteria for comprehensive cost economy and scoring criteria for suitability of production operations.

7. The method for quantitative evaluation of tunnel slag production line according to claim 6, characterized in that: The scoring criteria for the adaptability of slag raw materials include the slag quality scoring item, the production line capacity and slag quantity matching scoring item, and the production line process equipment adaptability to the parent rock characteristics scoring item.

8. The method for quantitative evaluation of tunnel slag production line according to claim 7, characterized in that: The slag quality scoring items include the first slag quality level, the second slag quality level, the third slag quality level and the fourth slag quality level; among them, the scoring value of the first slag quality level is greater than the scoring value of the second slag quality level, the scoring value of the second slag quality level is greater than the scoring value of the third slag quality level, and the scoring value of the third slag quality level is greater than the scoring value of the fourth slag quality level.

9. The method for quantitative evaluation of tunnel slag production line according to claim 1, characterized in that: The comprehensive score of the production line of each tunnel slag production line scheme is calculated based on the weight coefficients and scoring values ​​of the multiple first evaluation factors and the multiple second evaluation factors of each tunnel slag production line scheme, including: The comprehensive scores of production lines of different schemes are calculated by using the weight coefficients of the multiple first evaluation factors and the multiple second evaluation factors and the score values ​​of the multiple first evaluation factors and the multiple second evaluation factors.

10. The method for quantitative evaluation of tunnel slag production line according to claim 9, characterized in that: The comprehensive score of the production line is the sum of the products of multiple first evaluation factor coefficients and the corresponding score values ​​of multiple first evaluation factors, and the sum of the products of multiple second evaluation factor coefficients and the corresponding score values ​​of multiple second evaluation factors.

Images