Method and device for evaluating control state of pipeline overturning lining repairing system

Abstract

The invention provides a method and device for evaluating the control state of a pipeline overturning lining repairing system. The method comprises the steps that m evaluation indexes collected at n different moments are acquired respectively, the jth index at the ith moment is marked as # imgabs0 #, the weight of each evaluation index is calculated based on # imgabs1 #, and the weight of the jth evaluation index is wj; and calculating an evaluation result of the control state at each moment based on # imgabs2 # wj, and sorting the evaluation results according to a sequence from large to small. By adopting the improved linear normalization method, the problem of low accuracy of evaluation index standardization can be avoided, and the evaluation index value which is more practical can be obtained; the objective weight method is introduced, and weighting is performed according to the variation degree of the evaluation index, so that low accuracy of subjective weighting can be avoided, and a more objective and accurate complex system evaluation result can be obtained.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention belongs to the technical field of state assessment, and in particular relates to a method and a device for assessing the control state of a pipeline turnover lining repair system. Background Art

[0002] With the development and construction of various urban infrastructure, most of the old gas pipelines are located under the existing roads in the city. The amount of work required to fully excavate and dismantle the old pipes and replace them with new ones is huge, and it is obviously impossible to solve the problem in a short period of time. In particular, the damage to the roadbed of urban roads, the impact on the aesthetics of the road surface, the demolition and restoration of ground objects such as gardens and greening, environmental pollution, and traffic congestion caused by open excavation are all difficult for government management departments and all aspects of society to accept. At the same time, due to the dense distribution of various professional pipelines underground, underground resources are very tight, and there is even a situation where pipelines occupy each other. It has become increasingly difficult to solve pipeline repairs through open excavation, and it is not advocated by various government management departments. With the continuous innovation and improvement of trenchless technology, domestic and foreign pipeline trenchless lining technology and pipeline flip lining repair technology have gradually matured and have been widely used.

[0003] Pipeline relining repair system Figure 2 As shown in the figure, the repair process includes: using a composite fiber reinforced hose with an impermeable and corrosion-resistant protective film as an inner lining body, impregnating epoxy or unsaturated resin, and then using water or gas as a power to tightly fit the hose inside the old pipe. After curing, a lining layer with strong integrity is formed inside the old pipe. It can effectively prevent the corrosion of the inner wall of the pipeline and achieve the purpose of protecting the pipeline. When performing internal repair operations on old pipelines, it is necessary to control the repair speed and the pressure of the flipping chamber. For example, when the internal repair is in a suspended state, it may be that the pressure is too low or the temperature is too low, resulting in the inability to advance the repair material and the repair speed is 0; it may also be that the speed is adjusted to 0 by manual operation through the control system. For the evaluation of the control state of the flip lining repair system of the gas pipeline, the existing technology mainly adopts a complex system multi-index evaluation method. The general evaluation process is to first construct a complex system control state evaluation index system, then standardize the evaluation of each index, and determine the weight of each index, and finally aggregate the evaluation of each index to obtain a comprehensive evaluation result of the control state of the complex system. The existing evaluation method has problems such as strong subjectivity and low accuracy. Summary of the invention

[0004] In order to solve the above problems existing in the prior art, the present invention provides a method and device for evaluating the control state of a pipeline turnover lining repair system.

[0005] In order to achieve the above object, the present invention adopts the following technical solutions.

[0006] In a first aspect, the present invention provides a method for evaluating the control state of a pipeline turnover lining repair system, comprising the following steps:

[0007] Get m evaluation indicators collected at n different times respectively, and the jth indicator at the i-th time is Where, i = 1, 2, ..., n, j = 1, 2, ..., m;

[0008] based on Calculate the weight of each evaluation indicator, the weight of the jth evaluation indicator is w j ;

[0009] based on w j The evaluation results of the control state at each moment are calculated, and the evaluation results are sorted in descending order.

[0010] Furthermore, w j The calculation methods include:

[0011] Will Normalized to θ ij , where 1≤θ ij ≤2;

[0012] Calculate w j , the formula is as follows:

[0013]

[0014] g j =1-e j (2)

[0015]

[0016] In the formula, g j is the coefficient of variation of the jth evaluation indicator, e j is the entropy value of the jth evaluation index, p ij is the weight of the jth evaluation index at the i-th moment, where i = 1, 2, ..., n and j = 1, 2, ..., m.

[0017] Furthermore, Normalized to θ ij The methods include:

[0018] like is a benefit-based evaluation indicator that is positively correlated with the evaluation result, then θ ij for:

[0019]

[0020] like is a cost-type evaluation indicator that is negatively correlated with the evaluation result, then θ ij for:

[0021]

[0022] Where k ≥ 1, are the two dividing points of the piecewise function, where

[0023] Furthermore, the calculation formula of the evaluation result is:

[0024]

[0025] In the formula, Q i is the evaluation result of the control state at the i-th moment, is θ ij The logarithm of the proportion, ξ ij For Weighted values, where i=1,2,...,n and j=1,2,...,m.

[0026] Furthermore, n=8, m=3, and the three evaluation indicators are respectively the turning bin pressure, the turning speed, and the ambient temperature.

[0027] In a second aspect, the present invention provides an evaluation device for a control state of a pipeline turnover lining repair system, comprising:

[0028] The data acquisition module is used to obtain m evaluation indicators collected at n different moments. The jth indicator at the i-th moment is Where, i = 1, 2, ..., n, j = 1, 2, ..., m;

[0029] Weight calculation module, used based on Calculate the weight of each evaluation indicator, the weight of the jth evaluation indicator is w j ;

[0030] Status assessment module for w j The evaluation results of the control state at each moment are calculated, and the evaluation results are sorted in descending order.

[0031] Furthermore, w j The calculation methods include:

[0032] Will Normalized to θ ij , where 1≤θ ij ≤2;

[0033] Calculate w j, the formula is as follows:

[0034]

[0035] g j =1-e j (2)

[0036]

[0037] In the formula, g j is the coefficient of variation of the jth evaluation indicator, e j is the entropy value of the jth evaluation index, p ij is the weight of the jth evaluation index at the i-th moment, where i = 1, 2, ..., n and j = 1, 2, ..., m.

[0038] Furthermore, Normalized to θ ij The methods include:

[0039] like is a benefit-based evaluation indicator that is positively correlated with the evaluation result, then θ ij for:

[0040]

[0041] like is a cost-type evaluation indicator that is negatively correlated with the evaluation result, then θ ij for:

[0042]

[0043] Where k ≥ 1, are the two dividing points of the piecewise function, where

[0044] Furthermore, the calculation formula of the evaluation result is:

[0045]

[0046] In the formula, Q i is the evaluation result of the control state at the i-th moment, is θ ij The logarithm of the proportion, ξ ij For Weighted values, where i=1,2,...,n and j=1,2,...,m.

[0047] Furthermore, n=8, m=3, and the three evaluation indicators are respectively the turning bin pressure, the turning speed, and the ambient temperature.

[0048] Compared with the prior art, the present invention has the following beneficial effects.

[0049] The present invention achieves a quantitative evaluation of the control state of the pipeline flip lining repair system by determining the evaluation indicators collected at different times, calculating the weight of each evaluation indicator based on the evaluation indicators collected at different times, calculating the evaluation result of the control state at each time based on the evaluation indicators collected at different times and the weight of each evaluation indicator, and sorting the evaluation results in order from large to small. The present invention can avoid the low accuracy problem of evaluation indicator standardization by adopting an improved linear normalization method and obtain evaluation indicator values ​​that are more in line with reality; by introducing an objective weighting method and assigning weights according to the degree of variation of the evaluation indicators, the low accuracy of subjective weighting can be avoided, thereby obtaining more objective and accurate complex system evaluation results. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0050] Figure 1 The present invention is a flowchart of a method for evaluating the control status of a pipeline inversion lining repair system according to an embodiment of the present invention.

[0051] Figure 2 Schematic diagram of the pipeline flip lining repair system.

[0052] Figure 3 Schematic diagram of the piecewise function curve for standardizing the evaluation index values.

[0053] Figure 4 The present invention is a block diagram of a device for evaluating the control state of a pipeline turnover lining repair system according to an embodiment of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0054] In order to make the purpose, technical solution and advantages of the present invention clearer and more understandable, the present invention is further described below in conjunction with the accompanying drawings and specific implementation methods. Obviously, the described embodiments are only part of the embodiments of the present invention, not all of the embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by ordinary technicians in this field without making creative work are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0055] Figure 1 This is a flow chart of a method for evaluating the control state of a pipeline turnover lining repair system according to an embodiment of the present invention, comprising the following steps:

[0056] Step 101, respectively obtain m evaluation indicators collected at n different moments, and the jth evaluation indicator at the i-th moment is represented by Where, i = 1, 2, ..., n, j = 1, 2, ..., m;

[0057] Step 102, based on Calculate the weight of each evaluation indicator, the weight of the jth evaluation indicator is wj ;

[0058] Step 103, based on w j The evaluation results of the control state at each moment are calculated, and the evaluation results are sorted in descending order.

[0059] In this embodiment, step 101 is mainly used to obtain evaluation indicators collected at different times. The control state of the flip lining repair system refers to the control of the repair speed and the flip bin pressure when the flip lining repair system performs internal repair operations on old pipes. For example, if the control state of the flip lining repair system is in a paused state, it may be due to too low pressure or too low temperature, resulting in the inability to advance the repair material and the repair speed is 0; it may also be due to manual operation through the control system to adjust the speed to 0. Therefore, to evaluate the control state of the flip lining repair system, it is necessary to determine multiple evaluation indicators (such as repair speed and flip bin pressure, etc.), and evaluate the control state based on the evaluation indicator data collected at different times. Each evaluation indicator data may be obtained by setting a corresponding sensor.

[0060] In this embodiment, step 102 is mainly used to calculate the weight of each evaluation indicator. To improve the accuracy of the evaluation, it is necessary to assign different weights to each evaluation indicator according to its importance. The more important the evaluation indicator is, the greater its weight is. The prior art generally determines the weights of different evaluation indicators based on experience, which has the problems of strong subjectivity and low accuracy. To this end, this embodiment is based on different evaluation indicators collected at different times. Use a certain algorithm to calculate the weight w of each evaluation indicator j , which can eliminate the influence of subjectivity and thus improve the accuracy of evaluation.

[0061] In this embodiment, step 103 is mainly used to calculate the evaluation result of the control state at each moment. w j Calculate the evaluation result Q of the control state at each moment i , and then sort the evaluation results in descending order, the higher the order, the better the evaluation result. w j Calculate Q i There are many methods for calculating the weighting, and this embodiment does not limit the specific calculation method. The following is a simplest weighting method, and the formula is as follows:

[0062]

[0063] It is worth noting that the evaluation method described in this embodiment can be used not only for evaluating the control status of the pipeline flip lining repair system, but also for other multi-index evaluations, but the specific evaluation indicators are different.

[0064] As an optional embodiment, w j The calculation methods include:

[0065] Will Normalized to θ ij , where 1≤θ ij ≤2;

[0066] Calculate w j , the formula is as follows:

[0067]

[0068] g j =1-e j (2)

[0069]

[0070] In the formula, g j is the coefficient of variation of the jth evaluation indicator, e j is the entropy value of the jth evaluation index, p ij is the weight of the jth evaluation index at the i-th moment, where i = 1, 2, ..., n and j = 1, 2, ..., m.

[0071] This embodiment provides a calculation weight w j A technical solution. For the problem of determining the weights of multiple indicators, commonly used methods include AHP, FCE, etc., which have problems such as strong subjectivity and low accuracy. For example, the AHP method relies on the subjective judgment of a single super decision maker, including the construction of a pairwise comparison matrix (PCMs) and the relative importance of different elements in the pairwise comparison matrix. The judgment of a single super decision maker may lead to subjectivity and uncertainty in the results, thereby reducing the accuracy of each weight. To this end, this embodiment performs weight calculation based on EWM (Entropy Weight Method). The basic principle of the entropy weight method is that according to the definition of information entropy, the smaller the information entropy value, the greater the degree of discreteness of the indicator, the greater the impact of the indicator on the comprehensive evaluation, and therefore the greater the weight. If the values ​​of a certain evaluation indicator collected at different times are all equal, the indicator does not play a role in the comprehensive evaluation and its weight is 0.

[0072] The specific calculation method is as shown in formulas (1) to (4), where e j is the entropy value of the jth evaluation index, g jis the coefficient of variation of the jth evaluation index (reflecting the degree of dispersion). When the values ​​of the jth evaluation index collected at n different times are all equal, that is, when θ 1j =θ 2j =... =θ nj When , according to formula (1) to (4), we can get: p ij =1 / n,e j =1,g j =0,w j = 0. It is worth noting that in order to improve the accuracy of weight calculation, before using formulas (1) to (4) to calculate the weight, it is necessary to first Standardize (or normalize) and convert it into a value between 1 and 2 ij This embodiment can eliminate the influence of subjectivity by performing weight calculation based on EWM.

[0073] As an alternative embodiment, Normalized to θ ij The methods include:

[0074] like is a benefit-based evaluation indicator that is positively correlated with the evaluation result, then θ ij for:

[0075]

[0076] like is a cost-type evaluation indicator that is negatively correlated with the evaluation result, then θ ij for:

[0077]

[0078] Where k ≥ 1, are the two dividing points of the piecewise function, where

[0079] This embodiment provides Normalized to θ ijA technical solution. Regarding the problem of indicator standardization, the LMAW (Logarithm Methodology of Additive Weights) method has the problem of distortion of indicator standardization. For example, the LMAW method defines the extreme value after standardization by selecting the maximum and minimum values ​​of the evaluation index of different alternatives (collected at different times), but in fact, the extreme value of each indicator should be defined according to the classification level of its actual meaning. Therefore, the LMAW method cannot accurately reflect the actual impact of each indicator on the complex system, which leads to distortion of the evaluation results of the complex system. To this end, this embodiment adopts a piecewise function and sets the demarcation point of the piecewise function based on the classification level of each evaluation indicator to achieve standardized calculation.

[0080] Evaluation indicators can be divided into two categories: benefit-based evaluation indicators and cost-based evaluation indicators. The characteristic of benefit-based evaluation indicators is that they are positively correlated with the evaluation results, that is, the larger the indicator value, the better the evaluation result; the characteristic of cost-based evaluation indicators is that they are negatively correlated with the evaluation results, that is, the larger the indicator value, the worse the evaluation result. This embodiment provides standardized formulas for benefit-based evaluation indicators and cost-based evaluation indicators, such as formula (5) and formula (6) respectively. The schematic diagram of the piecewise function curve corresponding to formula (5) and formula (6) is shown in Figure 3 As shown, are the two dividing points of the piecewise function, The piecewise function is a monotonically increasing or decreasing function. The value outside is always 1 or 2. In addition, k ≥ 1, when k = 1, the piecewise function Internal linear changes (such as Figure 3 The dotted line in ( ); when k>1, the piecewise function Internal nonlinear changes, for benefit-based evaluation indicators, the curve is concave and is located below the dotted straight line. The larger the value, the greater the growth rate (slope); for cost-based evaluation indicators, the curve is convex and is located above the dotted straight line. The larger the value is, the greater the rate of decline (slope). It is worth noting that the two dividing points between benefit-based evaluation indicators and cost-based evaluation indicators are are not equal. In order to compare the changing rules of the two curves, Figure 3 The two are drawn equal.

[0081] As an optional embodiment, the calculation formula of the evaluation result is:

[0082]

[0083] In the formula, Q i is the evaluation result of the control state at the i-th moment, is θ ijThe logarithm of the proportion, ξ ij For Weighted values, where i=1,2,...,n and j=1,2,...,m.

[0084] This embodiment provides a technical solution for calculating the evaluation result. This embodiment calculates an evaluation result for the evaluation index obtained at each moment. If the evaluation result of the control state at the i-th moment is recorded as Q i , then Q i Equal to each evaluation metric (the standardized value θ ij )The weighted value ξ ij The sum of , as shown in (7). ij The value is based on the weight w j and According to formula (8), is θ calculated according to formula (9) ij The weighted summation method of formulas (7) to (9) of this embodiment is much more complicated than the linear weighted method shown in formula (10) above, but the weighted effect is significantly improved, for example, it has better stability.

[0085] As an optional embodiment, n=8, m=3, and the three evaluation indicators are respectively the turning bin pressure, the turning speed and the ambient temperature.

[0086] This embodiment provides specific evaluation indicators and the number of acquisition moments. This embodiment limits the number of acquisition moments n to 8. Three evaluation indicators are used, namely, the turning bin pressure, the turning speed and the ambient temperature, and these three evaluation indicators are all gain-type evaluation indicators.

[0087] In order to facilitate understanding of the technical solution of the embodiment of the present invention, a specific calculation example is given below.

[0088] Assume that the values ​​of the three evaluation indicators collected at eight different times are expressed as matrices Specifically:

[0089]

[0090] The three evaluation indicators are all benefit-based evaluation indicators. The standardized values ​​calculated according to formula (5) are set with k = 1 to simplify the calculation. The two dividing points of the piecewise function According to the classification level of specific evaluation indicators, for example, the ambient temperature is generally between 0℃ and 35℃, so the two cutoff points are set to 0℃ and 35℃ respectively. The two cutoff points of the remaining evaluation indicators are determined by expert consultation. Finally, the smaller cutoff point of the three evaluation indicators is [0,0,0], and the larger cutoff point is [0.59,2.5,35]. The standardized matrix of the evaluation indicators [θ ij] 8×3 , specifically:

[0091]

[0092] Based on [θ ij ] 8×3 , calculate the weight w according to equations (1) to (4) respectively j , and the weights of the three evaluation indicators are obtained as w = [0.0963, 0.9035, 0.0002].

[0093] Based on w j , calculate the evaluation results Q according to equations (7) to (9) respectively i , we get Q = [0.1064, 0.0000, 0.1457, 0.0000, 0.1362, 0.1824, 0.0000, 0.2409]. The evaluation results show that the control status at the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 6th, and 8th acquisition moments is normal, and the evaluation results at the 2nd, 4th, and 7th acquisition moments are all zero, indicating that the current moment of the flip lining repair operation is in an abnormal state. The cause of the abnormality is from the matrix It can be found that the flipping speed of the 2nd, 4th and 7th data sets are all 0, indicating that the flipping lining repair operation has stopped. These three data sets are because the operator took the initiative to suspend the flipping lining operation, communicated with the staff about the relevant matters, and then started the flipping lining repair operation again.

[0094] The above calculation examples show that the evaluation method of the present invention is effective, provides a better method for obtaining objective and accurate evaluation results of the complex system of the flip liner, and has certain practicality.

[0095] Figure 4 The present invention is a schematic diagram of a device for evaluating the control state of a pipeline turnover lining repair system according to an embodiment of the present invention, wherein the device comprises:

[0096] The data acquisition module 11 is used to obtain m evaluation indicators collected at n different moments, and the jth indicator at the i-th moment is represented by Where, i = 1, 2, ..., n, j = 1, 2, ..., m;

[0097] The weight calculation module 12 is used to calculate the weight of Calculate the weight of each evaluation indicator, the weight of the jth evaluation indicator is w j ;

[0098] The status assessment module 13 is used to w j The evaluation results of the control state at each moment are calculated, and the evaluation results are sorted in descending order.

[0099] The device of this embodiment can be used to perform Figure 1 The technical solution of the method embodiment shown has similar implementation principles and technical effects, which will not be described in detail here. The same is true for the following embodiments, which will not be described in detail.

[0100] As an optional embodiment, w j The calculation methods include:

[0101] Will Normalized to θ ij , where 1≤θ ij ≤2;

[0102] Calculate w j , the formula is as follows:

[0103]

[0104] g j =1-e j (2)

[0105]

[0106] In the formula, g j is the coefficient of variation of the jth evaluation indicator, e j is the entropy value of the jth evaluation index, p ij is the weight of the jth evaluation index at the i-th moment, where i = 1, 2, ..., n and j = 1, 2, ..., m.

[0107] As an alternative embodiment, Normalized to θ ij The methods include:

[0108] like is a benefit-based evaluation indicator that is positively correlated with the evaluation result, then θ ij for:

[0109]

[0110] like is a cost-type evaluation indicator that is negatively correlated with the evaluation result, then θ ij for:

[0111]

[0112] Where k ≥ 1, are the two dividing points of the piecewise function, where j=1,2,...,m.

[0113] As an optional embodiment, the calculation formula of the evaluation result is:

[0114]

[0115]

[0116] In the formula, Q i is the evaluation result of the control state at the i-th moment, is θ ij The logarithm of the proportion, ξ ij For Weighted values, where i=1,2,...,n and j=1,2,...,m.

[0117] As an optional embodiment, n=8, m=3, and the three evaluation indicators are respectively the turning bin pressure, the turning speed and the ambient temperature.

[0118] The above is only a specific embodiment of the present invention, but the protection scope of the present invention is not limited thereto. Any changes or substitutions that can be easily thought of by a person skilled in the art within the technical scope disclosed by the present invention should be included in the protection scope of the present invention. Therefore, the protection scope of the present invention shall be subject to the protection scope of the claims.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating the control status of a pipeline turnover lining repair system, characterized in that: The following steps are involved: Get m evaluation indicators collected at n different times respectively, and the jth indicator at the i-th time is Where, i = 1, 2, ..., n, j = 1, 2, ..., m; based on Calculate the weight of each evaluation indicator, and the weight of the jth evaluation indicator is recorded as w j ; based on w j The evaluation results of the control state at each moment are calculated, and the evaluation results are sorted in descending order.

2. The method for evaluating the control status of a pipeline turnover lining repair system according to claim 1 is characterized in that: w j The calculation methods include: Will Normalized to θ ij , where 1≤θ ij ≤2; Calculate w j , the formula is as follows: g j =1-e j (2) In the formula, g j is the coefficient of variation of the jth evaluation indicator, e j is the entropy value of the jth evaluation index, p ij is the weight of the jth evaluation index at the i-th moment, where i = 1, 2, ..., n and j = 1, 2, ..., m.

3. The method for evaluating the control status of a pipeline turnover lining repair system according to claim 2 is characterized in that: Will Normalized to θ ij The methods include: like is a benefit-based evaluation indicator that is positively correlated with the evaluation result, then θ ij for: like is a cost-type evaluation indicator that is negatively correlated with the evaluation result, then θ ij for: Where k ≥ 1, are the two dividing points of the piecewise function, where 4. The method for evaluating the control status of a pipeline turnover lining repair system according to claim 3 is characterized in that: The calculation formula for the evaluation result is: In the formula, Q i is the evaluation result of the control state at the i-th moment, is θ ij The logarithm of the proportion, ξ ij For Weighted values, where i=1,2,...,n and j=1,2,...,m.

5. The method for evaluating the control status of a pipeline turnover lining repair system according to claim 4 is characterized in that: n=8, m=3, and the three evaluation indicators are respectively the overturning bin pressure, the overturning speed and the ambient temperature.

6. A device for evaluating the control status of a pipeline turnover lining repair system, characterized in that: include: The data acquisition module is used to obtain m evaluation indicators collected at n different moments. The jth indicator at the i-th moment is Where, i = 1, 2, ..., n, j = 1, 2, ..., m; Weight calculation module, used based on Calculate the weight of each evaluation indicator, the weight of the jth evaluation indicator is w j ; Status assessment module for w j The evaluation results of the control state at each moment are calculated, and the evaluation results are sorted in descending order.

7. The device for evaluating the control state of a pipeline turnover lining repair system according to claim 6, characterized in that: w j The calculation methods include: Will Normalized to θ ij , where 1≤θ ij ≤2; Calculate w j , the formula is as follows: g j =1-e j (2) In the formula, g j is the coefficient of variation of the jth evaluation indicator, e j is the entropy value of the jth evaluation index, p ij is the weight of the jth evaluation index at the i-th moment, where i = 1, 2, ..., n and j = 1, 2, ..., m.

8. The device for evaluating the control state of a pipeline turnover lining repair system according to claim 7, characterized in that: Will Normalized to θ ij The methods include: like is a benefit-based evaluation indicator that is positively correlated with the evaluation result, then θ ij for: like is a cost-type evaluation indicator that is negatively correlated with the evaluation result, then θ ij for: Where k ≥ 1, are the two dividing points of the piecewise function, where 9. The device for evaluating the control state of a pipeline turnover lining repair system according to claim 8, characterized in that: The calculation formula for the evaluation result is: In the formula, Q i is the evaluation result of the control state at the i-th moment, is θ ij The logarithm of the proportion, ξ ij For Weighted values, where i=1,2,...,n and j=1,2,...,m.

10. The device for evaluating the control state of a pipeline turnover lining repair system according to claim 9, characterized in that: n=8, m=3, and the three evaluation indicators are respectively the overturning bin pressure, the overturning speed and the ambient temperature.

Images