Green support system evaluation method considering carbon emission

Abstract

The invention discloses a green support system evaluation method considering carbon emission, and the method comprises the following steps: S1, carrying out the pre-construction pre-evaluation in a support scheme type selection and demonstration stage, so as to determine a preferable scheme of a support type selection scheme; s2, establishing an industrial green support evaluation benchmark; s3, after the structure is constructed to positive and negative zero or above and the fertilizer groove backfilling is completed, post-construction re-evaluation is carried out to determine the green rating of the specific engineering support system; the pre-construction pre-evaluation comprises the following steps: establishing a multi-evaluation index optimization model by adopting a rank sum ratio comprehensive evaluation method, and calculating a green index Gi of the pre-construction pre-evaluation by adopting a carbon emission rough calculation value obtained based on a support design drawing and a scheme; the post-construction re-evaluation comprises the steps that the green rating of the specific support project is determined, the evaluation index is the green index Gs of the specific project, and the carbon emission final settlement value obtained through monitoring of the whole-process support instrument is calculated according to the green index Gs of the specific project subjected to post-construction re-evaluation.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the technical field of green support systems, and in particular to a green support system evaluation method taking carbon emissions into consideration. Background Art

[0002] At present, in order to control deformation, ultra-deep foundation pits often use support piles, ground-connected walls, and double-row piles as retaining components, and reinforced concrete internal supports and anchor cables as support and anchor components. The amount of steel bars and concrete used in foundation pit projects is very large. However, as a temporary project, the service life of foundation pit projects is only 1 to 2 years. After the basement construction is completed, the support piles, ground-connected walls, and anchor cables are abandoned underground. The temporary horizontal supports need to be removed by cutting or blasting, generating a large amount of construction waste. From a time scale, the average annual carbon emissions of foundation pit projects are extremely high.

[0003] In line with the needs of the times, green support design and construction is the future development trend. However, there are currently no standards and methods for evaluating green support systems. The selection of support schemes only considers safety, economy and applicability, and the carbon reduction effects of emerging green support forms and green construction technologies cannot be quantified. This is not conducive to the promotion and application of emerging green support selection and green support construction technology, and is not conducive to the green carbon reduction development of the geotechnical industry. Summary of the invention

[0004] The purpose of the present invention is to provide a green support system evaluation method taking carbon emissions into consideration to solve the problems raised in the above-mentioned background technology.

[0005] To achieve the above-mentioned purpose, the present invention provides a green support system evaluation method considering carbon emissions, comprising the following steps: step S1, in the support scheme selection and demonstration stage, pre-construction pre-evaluation is carried out to determine the preferred scheme of the support selection scheme; step S2, establishing an industry green support evaluation benchmark; and step S3, after the structure is constructed to zero or above and the fertilizer tank is backfilled, a post-construction re-evaluation is carried out to determine the green rating of the specific engineering support system; wherein, in step S1, the pre-construction pre-evaluation includes: using the rank sum ratio comprehensive evaluation method to establish a multi-evaluation index optimization model, and the evaluation index includes the safety index S i , Economic index E i and green index G i , green index G of pre-assessment before construction i The calculation adopts the estimated value of carbon emissions based on the support design drawings and schemes; in step S3, the post-construction evaluation includes: determining the green rating of the specific support project, and the evaluation index is the green index G of the specific project. s , Green index G of specific projects for post-construction re-evaluation s The final value of carbon emissions is calculated using instrument monitoring throughout the support process.

[0006] In a preferred embodiment, in step S2, before the pre-construction evaluation, an industry green support evaluation benchmark is established, including the following steps:

[0007] S21. Select multiple support projects with different depths and support forms in different regions and calculate the green index Gi;

[0008] S22. The selected support projects are grouped according to the foundation pit depth and region. The principle of foundation pit depth grouping is h<5m, 5≤h≤10m, h>10m. The principle of regional grouping is hard soil area, general soft soil area, and deep silt area.

[0009] S23. Calculate the green index G in each group using the comprehensive rank sum method i The distribution of corrected RSR values, and the greenness index G corresponding to 80%, 65%, and 50% corrected RSR values ​​are selected. i It serves as the benchmark value for one-star, two-star and three-star green support systems, and forms an evaluation index table for the green support system for foundation pit projects.

[0010] In a preferred embodiment, the safety index S i is the stability safety factor of the support scheme; economic index E i is the ratio of the carbon emission of the support project over its entire life cycle C to the total cost of the support solution W; the green index G i is the carbon emission per unit sidewall area of ​​the foundation pit, and the green index G i The calculation formula is as follows:

[0011] G i =C / A 侧 =C / [2×(L+B)×h], where C is the carbon emission of the support project over its entire life cycle, A 侧 is the total supporting side wall area of ​​the project, L, B, and h are the length, width, and depth of the foundation pit respectively.

[0012] In a preferred embodiment, the carbon emissions C of the support engineering over its entire life cycle include the carbon emissions of the support material production and transportation stage (P&T), the carbon emissions of the support construction and demolition (including fertilizer trough backfilling) stage (C&D), and the carbon emissions of the support use stage (U). The calculation formula for the carbon emissions C of the support engineering over its entire life cycle is as follows: C = C PT +C CD +C U -C O , where C PT is the carbon emissions from the material production and transportation stage, carbon emissions from the material production and transportation stage (P&T) C PT The calculation formula is:

[0013] C PT =C P+C T ,

[0014]

[0015] Among them, C P is the carbon emission in the material production stage; C T M is the carbon emission in the material transportation stage; i is the consumption of the i-th main material, determined by consulting the design drawings and related technical data; F i is the carbon emission factor of the i-th main material; δ i is the turnover coefficient of the i-th material, which is related to the material service life, support cycle, and loss rate. The turnover coefficient of non-turnover materials is 1.0; D i is the average transportation distance of the i-th material, including the material entering and leaving the site; T i It is the carbon emission factor per unit weight and transportation distance under the transportation mode of the i-th material.

[0016] In a preferred embodiment, the carbon emissions during the support construction and demolition (including fertilizer tank backfilling) stage (C&D) are C CD The calculation formula is:

[0017]

[0018] Among them, E CD ,i is the total consumption of the i-th energy in the support construction and demolition stage; EF i is the carbon emission factor of the i-th energy source;

[0019] Carbon emissions during support use phase (U) C U The calculation formula is:

[0020]

[0021] Among them, E U ,i is the total consumption of the i-th energy in the support use stage. The support use stage mainly refers to the energy consumed by the operation of precipitation equipment and monitoring equipment;

[0022] Carbon Offset O The calculation formula is:

[0023] C O =C KZS +C QT ;

[0024] Among them, C KZS Carbon reduction for renewable energy, C QT Reduce carbon emissions in other ways.

[0025] In a preferred embodiment, in step S1, the pre-work evaluation includes the following steps:

[0026] S11, the safety index of n support schemes is S 1 , S 2 , S 3 ..., the economic index is E 1 、E 2 、E 3 ..., the green index is G 1 , G 2 , G 3 …, among which, safety index is a positive index, sorted from small to large; economic index and green index are negative indexes, sorted from large to small;

[0027] S12. Pre-judge the safety index. If the stability safety factor of the support scheme meets the requirements of relevant specifications and local documents, the original value is used. If not, 0 is used.

[0028] S13, arrange the three evaluation indicators of n support schemes into a data table with n rows and 3 columns, compile the rank of each evaluation object of each indicator, and compile the average rank of the same indicator data to obtain the rank matrix R = (R ij ) 3×n ;

[0029] S14. Calculate the comprehensive evaluation score RSR of each support scheme:

[0030]

[0031] Among them, i represents a certain support scheme, j represents the sequence number of each indicator, ω j is the weight of a certain index, n is the number of support schemes, and according to the statistical method, the safety index is 0.2, the economic index is 0.3, and the green index is 0.5;

[0032] S15, determine the RSR distribution using the cumulative frequency of the probability unit Probit expression value and calculate the regression equation;

[0033] S16. Calculate the corrected RSR value, sort the corrected RSR values ​​from small to large, and determine the support scheme with the largest corrected RSR value as the preferred scheme of the support selection scheme.

[0034] In step S15, the RSR distribution is determined by the cumulative frequency of the values expressed in probit, and the regression equation is calculated, including: compiling an RSR frequency distribution table, listing the frequency f of each group, and calculating the cumulative frequency Σf of each group; ranking the RSR of each group; calculating the cumulative frequency: average rank / n * 100%, and the last item is corrected using 1 - 1 / 4n; converting the cumulative frequency to probit; taking probit as the independent variable and the RSR value as the dependent variable, and calculating the linear regression equation: RSR = a + b × probit.

[0035] In a preferred embodiment, in step S16, the corrected RSR value is calculated, and the corrected RSR values are sorted from small to large, and the support scheme with the largest corrected RSR value is determined as the preferred scheme in the support selection scheme, including: substituting probit into the regression equation to calculate the corrected RSR value, sorting the corrected RSR values from small to large, and the support scheme with the largest corrected RSR value is the preferred scheme in the support selection scheme. If the largest corrected RSR value < 50%, then all support schemes do not meet the requirements of green support, and the support design scheme needs to be re - determined.

[0036] In a preferred embodiment, in step S3, the post - construction re - evaluation includes the following steps:

[0037] S31. After the backfilling of the foundation pit, collect and sort out the carbon emission values obtained from the instrument monitoring throughout the support process, as well as the completion drawings and relevant technical materials, and calculate the greenness index G of a specific project s ;

[0038] S32. Compare the greenness index G of a specific project s with the values in the evaluation index table of the green support system for foundation pit engineering: within the depth and area grouping that the specific project conforms to, if G s ≤ 80% of the G corresponding to the corrected RSR value i , then the support system of the specific project is one - star; if 80% of the G corresponding to the corrected RSR value i < G s ≤ 65% of the G corresponding to the corrected RSR value i , then the support system of the specific project is two - star; if 65% of the G corresponding to Gi < Gs ≤ 50% of the G corresponding to the corrected RSR value i , then the support system of the specific project is three - star.

[0039] In a preferred embodiment, it further includes: evaluating the completion effect of the green design and construction of the foundation pit according to the deviation between the post - construction re - evaluation and the pre - construction pre - evaluation results, and formulating treatment measures for projects with a result deviation greater than or equal to two levels. The treatment measures include converting the carbon emission difference into the main project.

[0040] Compared with the prior art, the present invention has the following beneficial effects: the present invention proposes indicators and methods for quantitatively evaluating the greenness of foundation pit support systems. At the same time, differentiated evaluation indicators are given for different regions and depths, and a multi-index optimization model considering carbon emissions is established in the support scheme selection and demonstration stage, which facilitates the rapid determination of green support schemes that take into account both safety and economy in the early stage, thereby avoiding repeated adjustments in the later stage. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0041] Figure 1 This is a flow chart of the green support system evaluation method considering carbon emissions of the present invention;

[0042] Figure 2 It is a schematic diagram of the foundation pit size of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0043] The technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention are described clearly and completely below. The embodiments of the present invention and all other embodiments obtained by ordinary technicians in this field without creative work are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0044] like Figure 1 As shown, the green support system evaluation method considering carbon emissions according to the preferred embodiment of the present invention comprises the following steps:

[0045] Step S1: During the support scheme selection and demonstration stage, a pre-construction evaluation is conducted to determine the preferred support selection scheme.

[0046] Step S2: Establish an industry green support evaluation benchmark.

[0047] Step S3: After the structure is constructed to zero or above and the fertilizer trough is backfilled, a post-construction evaluation is conducted to determine the green rating of the specific engineering support system.

[0048] In step S1, the pre-work evaluation includes: using the rank sum ratio comprehensive evaluation method to establish a multi-evaluation index optimization model, the evaluation index includes the safety index S i , Economic index E i and green index G i , safety index S i is the stability safety factor of the support scheme, and the economic index E i is the ratio of the carbon emissions of the support project over its entire life cycle, C, to the total cost of the support solution, W, that is, E i =C / W. Green index G of pre-assessment before construction i The calculation adopts the estimated value of carbon emissions based on the support design drawings and plans. i is the carbon emission per unit sidewall area of ​​the foundation pit, and the green index G i The calculation formula is as follows:

[0049] G i =C / A 侧 =C / [2×(L+B)×h], where C is the carbon emission of the support project over its entire life cycle, A 侧 is the total supporting side wall area of ​​the project, L, B, and h are the length, width, and depth of the foundation pit respectively.

[0050] The carbon emissions C of the support project over its entire life cycle include the carbon emissions of the support material production and transportation stage (P&T), the carbon emissions of the support construction and demolition (including fertilizer trough backfilling) stage (C&D), and the carbon emissions of the support use stage (U). The calculation formula for the carbon emissions C of the support project over its entire life cycle is as follows: C = C PT +C CD +C U -C O , where C PT is the carbon emissions from the material production and transportation stage, carbon emissions from the material production and transportation stage (P&T) C PT The calculation formula is:

[0051] C PT =C P +C T ,

[0052]

[0053] Among them, C P is the carbon emission in the material production stage; C T M is the carbon emission in the material transportation stage; i is the consumption of the i-th main material, determined by consulting the design drawings and related technical data; F i is the carbon emission factor of the i-th main material; δ i is the turnover coefficient of the i-th material, which is related to the material service life, support cycle, and loss rate. The turnover coefficient of non-turnover materials is 1.0; D i is the average transportation distance of the i-th material, including the material entering and leaving the site; T i is the carbon emission factor per unit weight and transportation distance under the transportation mode of the i-th material;

[0054] Carbon emissions during the support construction and demolition (including fertilizer tank backfilling) stage (C&D) C CD The calculation formula is:

[0055]

[0056] Among them, E CD ,i is the total consumption of the i-th energy in the support construction and demolition stage; EF i is the carbon emission factor of the i-th energy source;

[0057] Carbon emissions during support use phase (U) C U The calculation formula is:

[0058]

[0059] Among them, E U ,i is the total consumption of the i-th energy in the support use stage. The support use stage mainly refers to the energy consumed by the operation of precipitation equipment and monitoring equipment;

[0060] Carbon Offset O The calculation formula is:

[0061] C O =C KZS +C QT ;

[0062] Among them, C KZS Carbon reduction for renewable energy, C QT Reduce carbon emissions in other ways.

[0063] Step S2, establishing an industry green support evaluation benchmark, includes the following steps:

[0064] Step S21, select multiple support projects with different depths and different support forms in different regions, and calculate the green index Gi;

[0065] Step S22, the foundation pit depth and geological conditions are important factors affecting the support systems of different projects. The above support projects are grouped according to the foundation pit depth and region. The depth grouping principle is h<5m, 5≤h≤10m, h>10m. The regional grouping principle is hard soil areas such as Beijing and Shenzhen, general soft soil areas such as Shanghai and Tianjin, and deep silt areas such as Zhuhai and Zhongshan;

[0066] Step S23: Calculate the green index G by applying the comprehensive rank sum method in each group i The distribution of corrected RSR values, and the greenness index G corresponding to 80%, 65%, and 50% corrected RSR values ​​are selected. i As the benchmark value of one-star, two-star and three-star green support systems, an evaluation index table of green support systems for foundation pit projects is formed, as shown in the following table:

[0067]

[0068] Furthermore, in step S1, the pre-work evaluation includes the following steps:

[0069] Step S11: The safety index of n support schemes is S 1 , S 2 , S 3 ..., the economic index is E1 、E 2 、E 3 ..., the green index is G 1 , G 2 , G 3 …, among which, safety index is a positive index, sorted from small to large; economic index and green index are negative indicators, sorted from large to small; economic index and green index are negative indicators, sorted from large to small;

[0070] S12. Pre-judge the safety index. If the stability safety factor of the support scheme meets the requirements of relevant specifications and local documents, the original value is used. If not, 0 is used.

[0071] S13, arrange the three evaluation indicators of n support schemes into a data table with n rows and 3 columns, compile the rank of each evaluation object of each indicator, and compile the average rank of the same indicator data to obtain the rank matrix:

[0072] R=(R ij ) 3×n ;

[0073] S14. Calculate the comprehensive evaluation score RSR of each support scheme:

[0074]

[0075] Among them, i represents a certain support scheme, j represents the sequence number of each indicator, ω j is the weight of a certain index, n is the number of support schemes, and according to the statistical method, the safety index is 0.2, the economic index is 0.3, and the green index is 0.5;

[0076] S15, determine the RSR distribution using the cumulative frequency of the probability unit Probit expression value and calculate the regression equation;

[0077] S16. Calculate the corrected RSR value, sort the corrected RSR values ​​from small to large, and determine the support scheme with the largest corrected RSR value as the preferred scheme of the support selection scheme.

[0078] Specifically, in step S15, the cumulative frequency of the expression value of the probability unit Probit is used to determine the RSR distribution, and the regression equation is calculated, including: compiling an RSR frequency distribution table, listing the frequency f of each group, and calculating the cumulative frequency Σf of each group; ranking the RSR of each group; calculating the cumulative frequency: average rank / n*100%, and the last item is corrected using 1-1 / 4n; converting the cumulative frequency into the probability unit Probit; using the probability unit Probit as the independent variable and the RSR value as the dependent variable, calculating the linear regression equation: RSR=a+b×Probit.

[0079] In step S16, the corrected RSR value is calculated, the corrected RSR values ​​are sorted from small to large, and the support scheme with the largest corrected RSR value is determined as the preferred scheme among the support selection schemes, including: substituting Probit into the regression equation, calculating the corrected RSR value, sorting the corrected RSR values ​​from small to large, and the support scheme with the largest corrected RSR value is the preferred scheme among the support selection schemes. If the maximum corrected RSR value is <50%, all support schemes do not meet the green support requirements and the support design scheme needs to be re-determined.

[0080] In step S3, the post-construction re-evaluation includes: determining the green rating of a specific support project, and the evaluation index is the green index G of a specific project. s , Green index G of specific projects for post-construction re-evaluation s The final value of carbon emissions is used in the calculation. The carbon emission value obtained through instrument monitoring of the entire support process and the calculated value of the completion drawing and related technical data are supplemented and verified with each other, and carbon offset from renewable energy is taken into account.

[0081] Furthermore, in step S3, the post-work review includes the following steps:

[0082] Step S31: After the fertilizer tank is backfilled, collect and organize the carbon emission values ​​obtained by instrument monitoring during the entire support process, as well as the completion drawings and related technical data, and calculate the green index G of the specific project. s The carbon emission values ​​obtained through instrument monitoring of the entire support process and the calculated values ​​of the completion drawings and related technical data are supplemented and verified with each other, and carbon offset from renewable energy sources is taken into account;

[0083] Step S32: The green index G of the specific project s Compare with the values ​​in the green support system evaluation index table for foundation pit engineering: within the depth and area grouping that this particular project meets, if G s ≤80% corrected RSR value corresponding to G i , then the specific engineering support system is one star; if 80% corrected RSR value corresponds to G i <G s ≤65% corrected RSR value corresponding to G i , then the support system of this specific project is two-star; 65% corrected RSR value corresponds to G i <G s ≤50% corrected RSR value corresponding to G i , then the support system of this specific project is three-star.

[0084] Step S33: Evaluate the green design and construction completion effect of the foundation pit based on the deviation between the post-construction re-evaluation and pre-construction evaluation results, and formulate treatment measures for projects with result deviations greater than or equal to two levels, such as converting the carbon emission difference to the main project.

[0085] Although embodiments of the present invention have been shown and described, it will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that various changes, modifications, substitutions and variations may be made to the embodiments without departing from the principles and spirit of the present invention, and that the scope of the present invention is defined by the appended claims and their equivalents.

Claims

1. A green support system evaluation method considering carbon emissions, characterized by: The steps include: Step S1: During the support scheme selection and demonstration stage, a pre-construction evaluation is conducted to determine the optimal support selection scheme; Step S2, establishing an industry green support evaluation benchmark; Step S3: After the structure is constructed to zero or above and the fertilizer tank is backfilled, a post-construction evaluation is conducted to determine the green rating of the specific engineering support system; Among them, in step S1, the pre-work evaluation includes: using the rank sum ratio comprehensive evaluation method to establish a multi-evaluation index optimization model, the evaluation index includes the safety index S i , Economic index E i and green index G i , green index G of pre-assessment before construction i The calculation adopts the estimated value of carbon emissions based on the support design drawings and plans; In step S3, the post-construction re-evaluation includes: conducting a green rating of a specific support project, and the evaluation index of the post-construction re-evaluation is the green index G of the specific project. s , Green index G of specific projects for post-construction re-evaluation s The final value of carbon emissions is calculated using instrument monitoring throughout the support process.

2. The green support system evaluation method considering carbon emissions according to claim 1 is characterized by: In step S2, an industry green support evaluation benchmark is established, including the following steps: S21. Select multiple support projects with different depths and support forms in different regions and calculate the green index Gi; S22. The selected support projects are grouped according to the foundation pit depth and region. The principle of foundation pit depth grouping is h<5m, 5≤h≤10m, h>10m. The principle of regional grouping is hard soil area, general soft soil area, and deep silt area. S23. Calculate the green index G in each group using the comprehensive rank sum method i The distribution of corrected RSR values, and the greenness index G corresponding to 80%, 65%, and 50% corrected RSR values ​​are selected. i It serves as the benchmark value for one-star, two-star and three-star green support systems, and forms an evaluation index table for the green support system for foundation pit projects.

3. The green support system evaluation method considering carbon emissions according to claim 1 is characterized in that: The safety index S i is the stability safety factor of the support scheme; the economic index E i is the ratio of the carbon emission C of the whole life cycle of the support project to the total cost W of the support solution; the green index G i is the carbon emission per unit sidewall area of ​​the foundation pit, and the green index G i The calculation formula is as follows: G i =C / A 侧 =C / [2×(L+B)×h], where C is the carbon emission of the support project over its entire life cycle, side A is the total support side wall area of ​​the project, and L, B, and h are the length, width, and depth of the foundation pit, respectively.

4. The green support system evaluation method considering carbon emissions according to claim 3 is characterized by: The carbon emissions C of the support project over its entire life cycle include the carbon emissions during the production and transportation of support materials, the carbon emissions during the support construction and demolition phase, and the carbon emissions during the support use phase. The calculation formula for the carbon emissions C of the support project over its entire life cycle is as follows: C = C PT +C CD +C U -C O , where C PT is the carbon emissions during the material production and transportation phase, and its calculation formula is: C PT =C P +C T , Among them, C P is the carbon emission in the material production stage; C T M is the carbon emission in the material transportation stage; i is the consumption of the i-th main material, determined by consulting the design drawings and related technical data; F i is the carbon emission factor of the i-th main material; δ i is the turnover coefficient of the i-th material, which is related to the material service life, support cycle, and loss rate. The turnover coefficient of non-turnover materials is 1.0; D i is the average transportation distance of the i-th material, including the material entering and leaving the site; T i It is the carbon emission factor per unit weight and transportation distance under the transportation mode of the i-th material.

5. The green support system evaluation method considering carbon emissions according to claim 4 is characterized in that: Carbon emissions during support construction and demolition phase CD The calculation formula is: Among them, E CD ,i is the total consumption of the i-th energy in the support construction and demolition stage; EF i is the carbon emission factor of the i-th energy source; Carbon emissions during the support use phase C U The calculation formula is: Among them, E U ,i is the total consumption of the i-th energy in the support use stage. The support use stage mainly refers to the energy consumed by the operation of precipitation equipment and monitoring equipment; Carbon Offset O The calculation formula is: C O =C KZS +C QT ; Among them, C KZS Carbon reduction for renewable energy, C QT Reduce carbon emissions in other ways.

6. The green support system evaluation method considering carbon emissions according to claim 1 is characterized by: In step S1, the pre-job evaluation includes the following steps: S11. The safety indexes of n support schemes are S1, S2, S3…, the economic indexes are E1, E2, E3…, and the green indexes are G1, G2, G3…, among which the safety index is a positive index and is sorted from small to large; the economic index and green index are negative indicators and are sorted from large to small; S12. Pre-judge the safety index. If the stability safety factor of the support scheme meets the requirements of relevant specifications and local documents, the original value is used. If not, 0 is used. S13, arrange the three evaluation indicators of n support schemes into a data table with n rows and 3 columns, compile the rank of each evaluation object of each indicator, and compile the average rank of the same indicator data to obtain the rank matrix R = (R ij ) 3×n ; S14. Calculate the comprehensive evaluation score RSR of each support scheme: Among them, i represents a certain support scheme, j represents the sequence number of each indicator, ω j is the weight of a certain index, n is the number of support schemes, and according to the statistical method, the safety index is 0.2, the economic index is 0.3, and the green index is 0.5; S15, determine the RSR distribution using the cumulative frequency of the probability unit Probit expression value and calculate the regression equation; S16. Calculate the corrected RSR value, sort the corrected RSR values ​​from small to large, and determine the support scheme with the largest corrected RSR value as the preferred scheme of the support selection scheme.

7. The green support system evaluation method considering carbon emissions according to claim 6 is characterized by: In step S15, the cumulative frequency of the expression value of the probability unit Probit is used to determine the RSR distribution, and the regression equation is calculated, including: compiling an RSR frequency distribution table, listing the frequency f of each group, and calculating the cumulative frequency Σf of each group; ranking the RSR of each group; calculating the cumulative frequency: average rank / n*100%, and the last item is corrected using 1-1 / 4n; converting the cumulative frequency into the probability unit Probit; using the probability unit Probit as the independent variable and the RSR value as the dependent variable, calculating the linear regression equation: RSR=a+b×Probit.

8. The green support system evaluation method considering carbon emissions according to claim 6 is characterized by: In step S16, the corrected RSR value is calculated, the corrected RSR values ​​are sorted from small to large, and the support scheme with the largest corrected RSR value is determined as the preferred scheme among the support selection schemes, including: substituting Probit into the regression equation, calculating the corrected RSR value, sorting the corrected RSR values ​​from small to large, and the support scheme with the largest corrected RSR value is the preferred scheme among the support selection schemes. If the maximum corrected RSR value is <50%, all support schemes do not meet the green support requirements and the support design scheme needs to be re-determined.

9. The green support system evaluation method considering carbon emissions according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step S3, post-work review includes the following steps: S31. After the fertilizer tank is backfilled, collect and organize the carbon emission values ​​obtained by instrument monitoring during the entire support process, as well as the completion drawings and related technical data, and calculate the green index G of the specific project. s ; S32. The green index G of a specific project s Compare with the values ​​in the green support system evaluation index table for foundation pit engineering: within the depth and area grouping that this particular project meets, if G s ≤80% corrected RSR value corresponding to G i , then the specific engineering support system is one star; if 80% corrected RSR value corresponds to G i <G s ≤65% corrected RSR value corresponding to G i , then the support system of this specific project is two-star; 65% corrected RSR value corresponds to G i <G s ≤50% corrected RSR value corresponding to G i , then the support system of this specific project is three-star.

10. The green support system evaluation method considering carbon emissions according to claim 6, characterized in that: Also includes: The green design and construction completion effects of the foundation pit are evaluated based on the deviation between the post-construction re-evaluation and pre-construction evaluation results, and treatment measures are formulated for projects with result deviations greater than or equal to two levels. The treatment measures include converting the carbon emission difference to the main project.

Images