Shield soil treatment full-period evaluation method

Abstract

The invention discloses a shield soil treatment full-cycle evaluation method, and belongs to the technical field of shield soil evaluation, and the method comprises the steps: constructing a resource-environment-economic evaluation index system for shield soil treatment and safe utilization of a full life cycle; constructing a judgment matrix by using an AHP method, and determining the weight of each index in the evaluation system; a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method is adopted, and a fuzzy evaluation matrix is calculated based on the constructed evaluation index system; the weight determined by the weight matrix is multiplied by the matrix of the evaluation matrix to obtain a three-level comprehensive evaluation result; and substituting the three-level comprehensive evaluation result into a preset formula to obtain a final evaluation score. According to the method, the prejudice possibly generated when the AHP is independently applied is effectively avoided, the limitation of fuzzy comprehensive evaluation in processing a complex hierarchical structure is also overcome, advantage complementation of the two methods is realized, and it is ensured that the evaluation result has scientificity and objectivity at the same time.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The invention relates to the technical field of shield soil evaluation, and more particularly to a full-cycle evaluation method for shield soil treatment. Background Art

[0002] As the pace of urbanization continues to accelerate, the effective use of underground space has become an important way to alleviate the shortage of urban land resources. In this context, shield tunnel construction technology has been widely used due to its high efficiency and small construction impact. However, the treatment and safe use of a large amount of excavated soil generated during shield construction has increasingly attracted the attention of the engineering and academic communities. The treatment and disposal of excavated soil is not only related to the effective use of resources and environmental protection, but also has a more direct impact on the economic benefits of construction.

[0003] In recent years, a lot of progress has been made in the research of shield soil treatment technology and its evaluation methods at home and abroad. The research content mainly focuses on the physical and chemical treatment methods of excavated soil and its reuse methods, such as using excavated soil as building materials, land reclamation materials, etc. However, most of the existing research focuses on the development and application of a single aspect of technology, lacking a systematic full life cycle assessment. In addition, the existing evaluation methods are single, the evaluation indicators are not systematic, and the evaluation results are inaccurate.

[0004] When faced with complex multi-dimensional problems, traditional evaluation methods often face challenges of uncertainty and ambiguity, and the credibility and practicality of evaluation results are often restricted, making it difficult to achieve an ideal state. Therefore, there is an urgent need for an evaluation method that can comprehensively consider resource, environmental and economic factors and can handle complex uncertainty data. Summary of the invention

[0005] In view of this, the present invention provides a full-cycle evaluation method for shield soil treatment, aiming to solve the evaluation problems of resource waste, environmental pollution and economic cost in the process of shield soil treatment, disposal and safe utilization.

[0006] In order to achieve the above object, the present invention adopts the following technical solution:

[0007] A full-cycle evaluation method for shield soil treatment comprises the following steps:

[0008] S10. Construct a resource-environment-economy evaluation index system for the whole life cycle of shield soil treatment, disposal and safe utilization; it includes three layers, namely, the target layer, the criterion layer and the indicator layer; the criterion layer has n indicators and the indicator layer has m indicators;

[0009] S20, construct a judgment matrix using the AHP method and determine the weight W of each indicator in the evaluation system;

[0010] S30, using the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method, based on the constructed evaluation index system, calculate the fuzzy evaluation matrix R;

[0011] S40, using the matrix multiplication of the weight W determined by the weight matrix and the evaluation matrix R to obtain the three-level comprehensive evaluation result B;

[0012] S50, substituting the three-level comprehensive evaluation result B into a preset formula to obtain a final evaluation score.

[0013] It can be seen from the above technical solutions that compared with the prior art, the present invention has the following technical advantages:

[0014] The present invention is based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation and AHP hierarchical analysis method to achieve in-depth evaluation of the resource, environmental and economic effects of the entire shield soil treatment cycle. This method effectively avoids the bias that may be generated when AHP is used alone, and overcomes the limitations of fuzzy comprehensive evaluation when dealing with complex hierarchical structures, achieving the complementary advantages of the two methods and ensuring that the evaluation results are both scientific and objective. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0015] In order to more clearly illustrate the embodiments of the present invention or the technical solutions in the prior art, the drawings required for use in the embodiments or the description of the prior art will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings described below are only embodiments of the present invention. For ordinary technicians in this field, other drawings can be obtained based on the provided drawings without paying creative work.

[0016] Figure 1 The present invention provides a flow chart of the full-cycle evaluation method for shield soil treatment based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation and AHP. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0017] The following will be combined with the drawings in the embodiments of the present invention to clearly and completely describe the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention. 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 creative work are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0018] The shield soil treatment and disposal life cycle assessment is a systematic analysis tool that can comprehensively evaluate the shield soil treatment process from three dimensions: resources, environment, and economy. The resource dimension focuses on the recycling and reuse efficiency of excavated soil to reduce resource waste; the environmental dimension focuses on the pollution that may be generated during the treatment process and the impact on the ecological environment; the economic dimension analyzes the cost-effectiveness of the treatment and reuse stages. Through the comprehensive evaluation of these factors, engineering decisions can be optimized based on scientific analysis, and then the treatment plan can be adjusted to effectively improve economic benefits.

[0019] Therefore, the embodiment of the present invention discloses a shield soil treatment full cycle evaluation method, referring to Figure 1 As shown, it includes the following steps:

[0020] S10. Construct a resource-environment-economy evaluation index system for the whole life cycle of shield soil treatment, disposal and safe utilization; it includes three layers, namely, the target layer, the criterion layer and the indicator layer; the criterion layer has n indicators and the indicator layer has m indicators;

[0021] S20, construct a judgment matrix using the AHP method and determine the weight W of each indicator in the evaluation system;

[0022] S30, using the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method, based on the constructed evaluation index system, calculate the fuzzy evaluation matrix R;

[0023] S40, using the matrix multiplication of the weight W determined by the weight matrix and the evaluation matrix R to obtain the three-level comprehensive evaluation result B;

[0024] S50, substituting the three-level comprehensive evaluation result B into a preset formula to obtain a final evaluation score.

[0025] This method comprehensively considers the three dimensions of resources, environment and economy, constructs an evaluation index system, and determines the index weights and membership. Finally, the total score of the system is calculated through the fuzzy evaluation matrix, which provides a scientific basis and reference for shield soil treatment.

[0026] The following is a detailed description through specific embodiments:

[0027] Step S10: Construction of the full life cycle system evaluation indicator system

[0028] According to comprehensive influencing factors, for example, the resource-environment-economic assessment of shield soil treatment and safe utilization throughout the life cycle can be divided into five categories (criteria layer); after comprehensive analysis, the criterion layer is refined into multiple specific indicator layers (15 indicators). Therefore, the resource, environmental and economic indicators of the life cycle are divided into three levels, and a three-level indicator structure (target layer, standard layer, indicator layer) of the full life cycle system evaluation indicator system is constructed. See Table 1.

[0029] Table 1. System evaluation indicator system for the entire life cycle

[0030]

[0031]

[0032] Step S20: Determination of index weights

[0033] S201. Constructing a judgment matrix

[0034] The AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process) is the core method for determining the weights of various indicators in the evaluation system. This method first breaks down complex problems into a multi-level indicator system, then analyzes the importance differences of indicators at each level, and uses a scaling system to convert qualitative evaluations into precise quantitative values ​​to construct a judgment matrix. Subsequently, the relative weights of indicators at each level are clearly defined by calculating the matrix eigenvectors and the maximum eigenroot, thereby conducting a quantitative analysis of the importance of various factors in complex problems.

[0035] Using the AHP method, by comparing the indicators at each level in the indicator system one by one in pairs, the corresponding judgment matrix B is constructed: its specific form is as follows:

[0036]

[0037] Where: The matrix dimension is n×n, where b ij Represents the element in the i-th row and j-th column, and represents the relative importance score between the i-th indicator and the j-th indicator, and the score follows the preset scale value table; this embodiment uses a proportional scale of 1 to 9 to assign importance, and the meaning of the numerical value is: 1 means that compared with the two elements, B1 and B2 have the same importance; 3 means that compared with the two elements, B1 is slightly more important than B2; 5 means that compared with the two elements, B1 is obviously more important than B2; 7 means that compared with the two elements, B1 is strongly more important than B2; 9 means that compared with the two elements, B1 is extremely more important than B2; the numbers 2, 4, 6, and 8 between them represent the median of the above adjacent judgments.

[0038] The specific meaning of the score follows the preset scale value table, as shown in Table 2:

[0039] Table 21~9 scale meaning

[0040]

[0041]

[0042] S202. Calculate the weight of each indicator

[0043] The determination of the indicator weights can be regarded as the process of solving the eigenvectors and eigenroots of the judgment matrix. Specifically, the relevant operations are performed on the provided judgment matrix B.

[0044] Find the solution that satisfies BW = λ max The solution of the characteristic equation of W, where λ max represents the maximum eigenvalue of B, and W is λ max In this framework, the components of W iThere is a direct corresponding relationship with the weight value of the evaluation index. This embodiment selects the square root method as the specific technical path for solving the characteristic root, and the implementation steps are as follows.

[0045] 1) Solve the value M of each row in the judgment matrix B i :

[0046]

[0047] 2) Calculate M i The nth root of

[0048]

[0049] 3) Vector W = (W1, W2, W3, ..., W n ) T Perform normalization:

[0050]

[0051] W i represents the weight of the i-th element;

[0052] W=(W1,W2,W3,...,W n ) T This is the desired eigenvector;

[0053] 4) Calculate the maximum eigenvalue λ of the judgment matrix max :

[0054]

[0055] 5) Consistency test, calculate the consistency index CI:

[0056]

[0057] When confirming the judgment matrix, its mean random consistency index RI needs to be verified. The values ​​of RI are shown in Table 3.

[0058] Table 3 Values ​​of RI of different orders

[0059]

[0060] Performing consistency check is a necessary step to ensure the rationality of the judgment matrix. The core is to calculate the random consistency ratio CR. CR is the ratio of the consistency index CI to the random consistency benchmark RI (CR = CI / RI). If this ratio CR does not exceed 0.10, the test passes, and the judgment matrix B meets the consistency standard; otherwise, the matrix elements need to be adjusted until the consistency condition is met.

[0061] Step S30: Establishment of fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model

[0062] S301. Evaluation indicators and weights

[0063] Based on the establishment of a three-layer evaluation index system, the first-layer index set of resource-environment-economic evaluation of shield soil treatment, disposal and safe utilization throughout the life cycle is set. The second layer contains the elements {U1, u2, ..., U i}, where the index U i {i=1,2,...,n} is the i-th index of the second layer. i It is further subdivided into m sub-indicators, forming {u i1 ,u i2 ,u i3 , ..., u im}, where index u ij (i=1, 2, ..., n; j=1, 2, ..., m) is the j-th subdivision item indicator under the i-th upper-level classification.

[0064] AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process) is an effective means to establish a multi-level index weight set. In this embodiment, the weight set of the second-level index is expressed as W = {w1, w2, w3, ..., w n}, where w i {i=1, 2, ..., n} is the weight coefficient of the ith indicator in the second layer. This value is obtained based on the relative importance of each sub-indicator in the third layer, and the sum of the weights is 1. As for the third-level indicators, their weight set is denoted as W i ={w i1 , w i2 , w i3 , ..., w im}, where element w ij , i=1,2,...,n; j=1,2,...,m is the weight value of the jth sub-indicator under the i-th indicator in the second layer, and it also follows the principle that the sum of all weights is 1. Through progressive weight analysis and calculation, the overall ranking weight of all indicators in the entire evaluation system can be finally obtained, providing scientific analysis and answers to the problem.

[0065] S302. Determine the comment set

[0066] The evaluation set is a comprehensive set that brings together all possible evaluation results options for the evaluation object, which can be expressed as

[0067] V = {v1, v2, v3, ..., v p} (6)

[0068] In the formula, vk (k=1, 2, ..., p) represents the kth possible evaluation conclusion.

[0069] According to common evaluation criteria, the evaluation set V = three levels of {excellent, average, poor}, which aims to fully demonstrate the comprehensive performance of the evaluation object.

[0070] S303. Establishing an evaluation matrix

[0071] For the third level indicator u ij , for example, to obtain the expert's judgment result v for each k The assigned membership degree is denoted as r ijk ,i=1,2,...,n;j=1,2,...m;k=1,2,...p,r ijk The value of is calculated directly based on the expert evaluation score table, reflecting the experts' quantitative evaluation of indicators at each level.

[0072]

[0073] Where, 0≤r ijk ≤1 for u i Corresponding to v k The degree of membership.

[0074] Step S40: Calculate the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation set

[0075] The secondary fuzzy comprehensive evaluation set is:

[0076] B i =W i R i , i = 1, 2, ..., n (8)

[0077] The three-level fuzzy comprehensive evaluation focuses on the second-level indicators u i , i = 1, 2, ..., n, the overall evaluation. In this framework, the second-level fuzzy comprehensive evaluation set B i It directly forms the evaluation matrix R required for the three-level evaluation, which is a nested construction method of R. Specifically, R consists of multiple B i It is composed of specific operations and shows the dependency between the levels. Finally, the matrix multiplication of the weight matrix W and the evaluation matrix R is used to obtain the secondary comprehensive evaluation result B, that is, B = WR. This process realizes the integration from multiple segmented evaluations to the overall evaluation.

[0078] Step S50: Obtain evaluation results

[0079] Define S as the final evaluation grade value based on the comment set V, and F is the percentile quantitative transformation matrix of the evaluation set. By performing matrix multiplication operations:

[0080] S=B i F T (9)

[0081] Calculate the comprehensive evaluation score S and use it as the basis to determine the final evaluation result.

[0082] The following is a detailed description of the calculation through a specific example:

[0083] Example:

[0084] 1. Construct a three-level judgment matrix to calculate the eigenvector

[0085] According to the constructed shield soil treatment and safe utilization full life cycle resource-environment-economy assessment index system, the expert consultation method is used to construct the judgment matrix of the five secondary indicators of the second layer (criteria layer), as shown in Table 4. The eigenvector of the judgment matrix obtained by the above method is the weight of the second layer indicator.

[0086] Table 4 Second level judgment matrix

[0087] <![CDATA[U1]]> <![CDATA[U2]]> <![CDATA[U3]]> <![CDATA[U4]]> <![CDATA[U5]]> <![CDATA[W i ]]> <![CDATA[U1]]> 1 1 / 2 1 / 3 4 6 0.1790 <![CDATA[U2]]> 2 1 3 6 8 0.4324 <![CDATA[U3]]> 3 1 / 3 1 5 7 0.2866 <![CDATA[U4]]> 1 / 4 1 / 6 1 / 5 1 4 0.0694 <![CDATA[U5]]> 1 / 6 1 / 8 1 / 7 1 / 4 1 0.0325

[0088] λ max =5.3801, CI=0.0950, RI=1.12 (fifth-order matrix), CR=0.0848≤0.10, so it meets the consistency requirements.

[0089] Therefore, the indicator weight set of the second layer

[0090] W=(0.1790, 0.4324, 0.2866, 0.0694, 0.0325)

[0091] Similarly, for each indicator of the third level, five evaluation matrices are constructed to determine the weight distribution set of the third-level sub-indicators under U1, U2, U3, U4 and U5. See Tables 5 to 9 respectively:

[0092] Table 5 The third-layer judgment matrix to which U1 belongs

[0093] <![CDATA[U1]]> <![CDATA[u1]]> <![CDATA[u2]]> <![CDATA[u3]]> <![CDATA[W i ]]> <![CDATA[u1]]> 1 4 1 / 3 0.2628 <![CDATA[u2]]> 1 / 4 1 1 / 7 0.0786 <![CDATA[u3]]> 3 7 1 0.6586

[0094] Table 6 The third layer judgment matrix to which U2 belongs

[0095] <![CDATA[U2]]> <![CDATA[u4]]> <![CDATA[u5]]> <![CDATA[u6]]> <![CDATA[W i ]]> <![CDATA[u4]]> 1 3 5 0.6483 <![CDATA[u5]]> 1 / 3 1 2 0.2297 <![CDATA[u6]]> 1 / 5 1 / 2 1 O.1220

[0096] Table 7 The third-layer judgment matrix to which U3 belongs

[0097]

[0098]

[0099] Table 8 The third layer judgment matrix of U4

[0100] <![CDATA[U4]]> <![CDATA[u 10 ]]> <![CDATA[u 11 ]]> <![CDATA[u 12 ]]> <![CDATA[W i ]]> <![CDATA[u 10 ]]> 1 4 7 O.7153 <![CDATA[u 11 ]]> 1 / 4 1 2 0.1870 <![CDATA[u 12 ]]> 1 / 7 1 / 2 1 0.0977

[0101] Table 9 The third-level judgment matrix to which U5 belongs

[0102] <![CDATA[U5]]> <![CDATA[u 13 ]]> <![CDATA[u 14 ]]> <![CDATA[u 16 ]]> <![CDATA[W i ]]> <![CDATA[u 13 ]]> 1 6 9 0.7626 <![CDATA[u 14 ]]> 1 / 6 1 4 0.1763 <![CDATA[u 15 ]]> 1 / 9 1 / 4 1 0.0611

[0103] Similarly, five judgment matrices are constructed according to the three-layer indicators, and the weight sets corresponding to the three-layer sub-indicators of U1, U2, U3, U4, and U5 can be obtained:

[0104] W U1 =(0.2628, 0.0786, 0.6586)

[0105] W U2 =(0.6483, 0.2297, 0.1220)

[0106] W U3 =(0.6694, 0.2426, 0.0879)

[0107] W U4 =(0.7153, 0.1870, 0.0977)

[0108] W U5 =(0.7626, 0.1763, 0.0611)

[0109] 2. Calculate the membership vector

[0110] For example, an evaluation team consisting of ten senior experts in the field of shield soil treatment, disposal and safe utilization was established to conduct an in-depth qualitative evaluation of the indicators of the system. The experts independently selected all relevant values ​​based on their respective professional knowledge. Subsequently, the expert voting data was obtained, summarized and analyzed, and the evaluation table shown in Table 10 was completed based on these data. On this basis, the degree of affiliation of each third-level sub-indicator at different evaluation levels was further determined. The specific calculation method is: divide the number of experts obtained by each third-level sub-indicator at each evaluation level by the total number of experts participating in the evaluation.

[0111] Table 10 Expert voting and evaluation statistics for the full life cycle system assessment

[0112]

[0113]

[0114] 3. Calculate the fuzzy evaluation matrix

[0115] (1) Secondary Comprehensive Evaluation

[0116] The membership vector of each three-level indicator is derived by applying the formula B=WR.

[0117]

[0118] Using the same method, the values ​​of B2, B3, B4, and B5 can be obtained, thereby constructing the membership matrix of each secondary indicator for the full-cycle evaluation of shield soil treatment.

[0119]

[0120] (2) Three-level comprehensive evaluation

[0121] By applying the formula B=WR, the specific evaluation vector for the full cycle evaluation of shield soil treatment can be calculated.

[0122]

[0123] 4. Calculate the fuzzy evaluation matrix

[0124] According to the established evaluation criteria, the evaluation set is converted into a percentage system, specifically: "Excellent" is assigned 90 points, "Medium" is assigned 80 points, and "Poor" is assigned 60 points. The quantitative evaluation matrix F is set to [90, 80, 60], and the formula S = BF T The calculated total system score is 83.44, indicating that the overall performance has reached a "medium" evaluation level.

[0125] By evaluating the three dimensions of resources, environment and economy in the whole life cycle of shield soil treatment and safe utilization, this embodiment uses a comprehensive evaluation method based on the combination of fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method and hierarchy analysis process (AHP).

[0126] This method has been verified by research and has shown significant effectiveness in dealing with the challenges of uncertainty and ambiguity in the evaluation process. It has strong applicability and reliability. The results of the evaluation system establishment show that it can comprehensively measure the resource utilization efficiency, environmental impact and economic benefits in the shield soil treatment process, providing a scientific basis for the efficient and safe treatment of tunnel boring machine excavation soil; and by calculating the fuzzy evaluation matrix, the total system score is 83.44, and the overall performance is a "medium" evaluation level. This method effectively transforms the subjective judgment in the evaluation process into quantitative analysis, and the fairness and objectivity of the evaluation results are significantly enhanced.

[0127] The embodiment of the present invention can more scientifically and objectively evaluate the resource utilization efficiency, environmental impact and economic cost in the shield soil treatment process by constructing a comprehensive evaluation index system and integrating fuzzy comprehensive evaluation and AHP methods, thus overcoming the subjectivity and limitations of traditional evaluation methods. The evaluation results can provide a scientific basis for engineering decision-making, help optimize the shield soil treatment plan, select the most appropriate treatment technology, achieve efficient resource utilization, reduce environmental pollution and improve economic benefits.

[0128] In this specification, each embodiment is described in a progressive manner, and each embodiment focuses on the differences from other embodiments. The same or similar parts between the embodiments can be referred to each other. For the device disclosed in the embodiment, since it corresponds to the method disclosed in the embodiment, the description is relatively simple, and the relevant parts can be referred to the method part.

[0129] The above description of the disclosed embodiments enables one skilled in the art to implement or use the present invention. Various modifications to these embodiments will be apparent to one skilled in the art, and the general principles defined herein may be implemented in other embodiments without departing from the spirit or scope of the present invention. Therefore, the present invention will not be limited to the embodiments shown herein, but rather to the widest scope consistent with the principles and novel features disclosed herein.

Claims

1. A full-cycle evaluation method for shield soil treatment, characterized in that: The following steps are involved: S10. Construct a resource-environment-economy evaluation index system for the whole life cycle of shield soil treatment, disposal and safe utilization; it includes three layers, namely, the target layer, the criterion layer and the indicator layer; the criterion layer has n indicators and the indicator layer has m indicators; S20, construct a judgment matrix using the AHP method and determine the weight W of each indicator in the evaluation system; S30, using the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method, based on the constructed evaluation index system, calculate the fuzzy evaluation matrix R; S40, using the matrix multiplication of the weight W determined by the weight matrix and the evaluation matrix R to obtain the three-level comprehensive evaluation result B; S50, substituting the three-level comprehensive evaluation result B into a preset formula to obtain a final evaluation score.

2. A shield soil treatment full cycle evaluation method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The step S20 comprises: S201. Use the AHP method to compare the indicators at each level in the indicator system one by one in pairs and construct the corresponding judgment matrix B: The matrix dimension is n×n, where element b ij It represents the relative importance score between the ith indicator and the jth indicator, which follows the preset scale value table; S202, perform relevant operations on the judgment matrix B to find a matrix that satisfies BW=λ max The solution of the characteristic equation of W, where λ max represents the maximum eigenvalue of B, and W is λ max The corresponding sub-elements of the matched standardized feature vector are the weights of each indicator in the evaluation system.

3. A shield soil treatment full cycle evaluation method according to claim 2, characterized in that: The step S202 includes: 1) Solve the value M of each row in the judgment matrix B i : 2) Calculate M i The nth root of 3) For vector W = (W1, W2, W3, ..., W n ) T Perform normalization: W i represents the weight of the i-th element; W=(W1,W2,W3,...,W n ) T This is the desired eigenvector; 4) Calculate the maximum eigenvalue λ of the judgment matrix max : 5) Consistency test, calculate the consistency index CI: According to the calculation of CR=CI / RI, if CR is less than or equal to the threshold, the test is passed and the judgment matrix does not need to be adjusted; RI is the random consistency benchmark.

4. A shield soil treatment full cycle evaluation method according to claim 3, characterized in that: The step S30 comprises: S301, determine a comment set; the comment set is a collection of all possible evaluation results of each evaluation object, expressed as V={v1,v2,v3,...,v p } (6) In the formula, v k , k = 1, 2, ..., p, is the k possible evaluation results; S302, construct a membership matrix; determine the third-level index u according to the evaluation index system st The judgment results k The corresponding membership degree is r ijk ,i=1,2,...,n;j=1,2,...m;k=1,2,...p,r ijk The values ​​were obtained through expert evaluation sub-table; Where, 0≤r ijk ≤1 for u i Corresponding to v k The degree of membership.

5. A shield soil treatment full cycle evaluation method according to claim 4, characterized in that: The step S40 comprises: The weight W determined by the weight matrix i and the judgment matrix R i Matrix multiplication of , we get the secondary fuzzy comprehensive evaluation set: B i =W i R i ,i=1,2,···,n (8) The three-level fuzzy comprehensive evaluation is for all indicators u at the second level i , comprehensive evaluation of i=1,2,...,n.

6. A shield soil treatment full cycle evaluation method according to claim 5, characterized in that: The step S50 comprises: The three-level comprehensive evaluation results B i Substitute: S=B i F T (9) In the formula, S represents the final evaluation score, and F is the percentile quantization matrix for the evaluation set.

Images