Quantitative comprehensive evaluation method for underground mine solid waste filling effect

Abstract

The invention discloses an underground mine solid waste filling effect quantitative comprehensive evaluation method which comprises the following steps: S1, constructing a three-level underground mine solid waste filling effect comprehensive evaluation system, and establishing an evaluation index set; s2, determining the index weight of each level of the filling effect evaluation system by adopting a subjective weighting method and an objective weighting method, and respectively establishing a weight set; s3, establishing an evaluation value set and a comment set of the filling effect quantitative comprehensive evaluation system; and S4, scoring each index of the evaluation subject, and determining an evaluation grade and a filling effect. According to the method, the filling effect evaluation system and content are enriched, evaluation of the mine filling effect is more scientific, objective, standardized and processized, subjective weighting and objective weighting are adopted, the analytic hierarchy process and the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method theory are combined, the advantages of the two methods are complementary, the advantages are enhanced, the disadvantages are avoided, the complex mathematical calculation is simplified, and the evaluation efficiency is improved. And the evaluation of the mine solid waste filling effect is more practical.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention belongs to the field of mining solid waste treatment technology, specifically relating to a quantitative and comprehensive evaluation method for the filling effect of underground mine solid waste. Background Technology

[0002] Numerous research papers and application cases exist regarding mine solid waste backfilling technology, making it a crucial technology for green mining. Its application has flourished in my country, achieving significant results in reclaiming resources, extending service life, and large-scale solid waste disposal. However, currently, both coal mine workers and university researchers often use single indicators to evaluate the effectiveness of mine solid waste backfilling, such as surface subsidence and deformation parameters, building (structure) damage levels, and the economic benefits of backfilling mining. This single evaluation method considers few factors, the indicators are independent, the method is simplistic, the indicators are singular, the parameters are vague, it is highly subjective, the evaluation process lacks scientific standardization, the evaluation results are not sufficiently quantifiable, and the assessment of the environmental impact both underground and aboveground is inadequate. It fails to comprehensively quantify the effectiveness of mine backfilling from multiple levels and parameters. Therefore, in response to the aforementioned problems in mine backfilling at present, it is urgent to construct a multi-level, multi-indicator, and multi-factor evaluation system for the effectiveness of mine solid waste backfilling based on the analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method. In other words, it is necessary to develop a more comprehensive and integrated quantitative evaluation method for the backfilling effect applicable to mine solid waste backfilling. Summary of the Invention

[0003] To address the problems of overly simplistic evaluation methods, overly singular evaluation indicators, and lack of environmental impact assessment both above and below ground in mines, and to achieve a comprehensive quantitative evaluation involving multiple levels, indicators, and factors, this invention provides a scientific, objective, standardized, and highly accurate quantitative comprehensive evaluation method for the effect of underground mine solid waste backfilling.

[0004] To solve the above-mentioned technical problems, the present invention adopts the following technical solution: a method for quantitative and comprehensive evaluation of the effect of underground mine solid waste backfilling, specifically including the following steps:

[0005] S1. Construct a three-tiered comprehensive evaluation system for the effectiveness of underground mine solid waste backfilling, and establish a set of evaluation indicators;

[0006] S2. The subjective weighting method and the objective weighting method are used to determine the index weights of each level of the filling effect evaluation system, and their weight sets are established respectively;

[0007] S3. Establish a set of evaluation values ​​and comments for a quantitative comprehensive evaluation system of filling effect;

[0008] S4. The evaluation subject uses the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method to score each indicator in the indicator layer of the comprehensive evaluation system for filling effect. Then, it uses a progressive method to calculate the evaluation results of the criteria layer and the target layer indicators. Based on the evaluation results within the evaluation value set and the comment set, the evaluation level and filling effect are determined.

[0009] Furthermore, the three levels mentioned in step S1 are the target layer, the criterion layer, and the indicator layer. Specifically, the target layer is the solid waste backfilling effect evaluation U; the criterion layer includes backfilling quality U1, surface monitoring results U2, backfilling cost U3, backfilling benefits U4, and environmental impact U5; and the indicator layer includes the injection-production ratio U for the backfilling quality U1. 11 Sinking reduction rate U 12 Roadway deformation U 13 Working face pressure U 14 Compressibility U of the filling material 15 U-shaped fissures developed in the overlying rock 16 Top slab subsidence U 17 The surface monitoring results show that the U2 index layer has building (structure) damage. 21 Settlement U 22 Inclined deformation U 23 Horizontal deformation U 24 curvature U 25 and horizontal movement U 26 The index layer of filling cost U3 includes land acquisition fee U. 31 Construction costs U 32 Material cost U 33 Operating costs U 34 and labor costs U 35 The indicator layer for filling efficiency U4 includes coal sales revenue U. 41 Financial subsidies U 42 Resource tax reduction and exemption 43 Solid waste disposal fee reduction and exemption U 44 and related rewards U 45 The environmental impact index layer U5 includes surface vegetation. 51 Surface soil U 52 Surface water U 53 Groundwater U 54 and downhole air U 55 .

[0010] Furthermore, the evaluation index sets are as follows: U = [U1, U2, U3, U4, U5], U1 = [U 11 U 12 U 13 U 14 U 15 ], U2=[U 21 U 22 U23 U 24 U 25 ], U3 = [U 31 U 32 U 33 U 34 U 35 ], U4 = [U 41 U 42 U 43 U 44 U 45 ], U5 = [U 51 U 52 U 53 U 54 U 55 ];

[0011] The values ​​of each indicator at the indicator level can be obtained through on-site testing, observation, monitoring, research and consultation, laboratory simulation, or theoretical calculation.

[0012] Furthermore, the weight set obtained by the subjective weighting method described in step S2 is: P = [P1, P2, P3, P4, P5], P1 = [P 11 P 12 P 13 P 14 P 15 ], P2 = [P 21 P 22 P 23 P 24 P 25 ], P3 = [P 31 P 32 P 33 P 34 P 35 ], P4 = [P 41 P 42 P 43 P 44 P 45 ], P5 = [P 51 P 52 P 53 P 54 P 55 ];

[0013] The weight set obtained by the objective weighting method is: P' = [P'1, P'2, P'3, P'4, P'5], P'1 = [P' 11 , P' 12 , P' 13 , P' 14 , P' 15 ], P'2=[P' 21 , P'22 , P' 23 , P' 24 , P' 25 ], P'3=[P' 31 , P' 32 , P' 33 , P' 34 , P' 35 ], P'4 = [P' 41 , P' 42 , P' 43 , P' 44 , P' 45 ], P'5 = [P' 51 , P' 52 , P' 53 , P' 54 , P' 55 ];

[0014] The letters in the weight set represent the following: P1 and P'1 are the weights for infill quality; P2 and P'2 are the weights for surface monitoring results; P3 and P'3 are the weights for infill cost; P4 and P'4 are the weights for infill benefits; and P5 and P'5 are the weights for environmental impact. 11 、P' 11 For the injection-production ratio weight, P 12 、P' 12 As the weight for the reduction rate, P 13 、P' 13 P is the weight of the roadway deformation. 14 、P' 14 P represents the working face pressure weight. 15 、P' 15 P is the weight of the roof subsidence. 21 、P' 21 P is the weight for damage to building facilities. 22 、P' 22 As the weight of settlement, P 23 、P' 23 For the tilt deformation weight, P 24 、P' 24 For horizontal deformation weights, P 25 、P' 25 For curvature weights, P 31 、P' 31 Assigning weights to land acquisition and remediation costs, P 32 、P' 32 As a weight for construction costs, P 33 、P' 33 As a weighted average of material costs, P 34 、P' 34 As a weighted average of operating costs, P 35 、P' 35 As the weight of labor costs, P41 、P' 41 As a weighting factor for coal sales revenue, P 42 、P' 42 As the weight of fiscal subsidy costs, P 43 、P' 43 For the weighting of resource tax reduction and exemption fees, P 44 、P' 44 Weighting for reducing or waiving fees for solid waste disposal, P 45 、P' 45 For other relevant reward weights, P 51 、P' 51 P represents the weight of surface vegetation. 52 、P' 52 P represents the weight of surface soil. 53 、P' 53 As the weight of surface water, P 54 、P' 54 P represents the groundwater weight. 55 、P' 55 This represents the downhole air weight.

[0015] Furthermore, the subjective weighting method described above determines the weight of the evaluation indicators by using a 1-9 scale to assess the importance of each indicator based on the actual situation on site, expert opinions, and the importance of the evaluation indicators. This process constructs a comparison and judgment matrix of the indicator weights for the indicator layer and the criterion layer of the evaluation system, thereby determining the weights of the evaluation indicators.

[0016] The 1-9 scale uses numbers 1-9 and their reciprocals as a scale to represent the importance of pairs of indicators. The scale definition is as follows:

[0017] 1-- indicates that the two indicators are equally important.

[0018] 3 indicates that, compared to the other indicator, the former is slightly more important.

[0019] 5 indicates that, compared to the other indicator, the former is significantly more important.

[0020] 7 indicates that, compared to the two indicators, the former is significantly more important than the latter.

[0021] 9 indicates that, compared to the other indicator, the former is extremely more important.

[0022] 2, 4, 6, 8 -- represent the intermediate values ​​of the above adjacent judgments.

[0023] Reciprocal -- If the ratio of the importance of the former to the importance of the latter is a, then the ratio of the importance of the latter to the importance of the former is 1 / a.

[0024] Furthermore, the judgment matrix must satisfy a consistency test, and the formula for the consistency index (CI) of the judgment matrix is ​​as follows:

[0025] CI=(λ max -n) / (n-1)

[0026] In the formula λ max To determine the largest eigenvalue of a matrix, it can be obtained using MATLAB software, where n is the order of the matrix.

[0027] The formula for calculating the conformity ratio (CR) is as follows:

[0028] CR = CI / RI

[0029] The RI can be obtained from the random consistency index table. The judgment matrix is ​​considered appropriate only when CR < 0.1; otherwise, it is appropriately modified.

[0030] The random consistency index is as follows: the RI for orders 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are 0, 0, 0.58, 0.9, 1.12, 1.24, 1.32, 1.41, 1.45, and 1.49, respectively.

[0031] The judgment matrix is ​​in the form of equation (1), and usually a ii Set to 1;

[0032]

[0033] The weight vector is obtained by using the summation method and matrix normalization, as shown in equation (2):

[0034]

[0035] The weight vector is ultimately represented as:

[0036] w = [w1 w2 … w] i ]

[0037] In the formula, w i w represents the weight of the i-th evaluation indicator. i ≥0 and

[0038] Furthermore, the process of determining the weights of evaluation indicators using the objective weighting method is as follows: an initial evaluation matrix is ​​established based on the number of evaluation objects and evaluation indicators; the initial evaluation matrix is ​​then standardized according to the type of different indicators.

[0039] The indicators are categorized into two types: larger is better and smaller is better. The formulas for calculating the matrix values ​​of different types of indicators are as follows.

[0040] Larger is better:

[0041]

[0042] Smaller is better:

[0043]

[0044] Establish the standardized evaluation matrix R using formula (5) ij ,Right now:

[0045]

[0046] In the formula, r ij x represents an element in the normalized matrix R; ij Let represent the initial value of the i-th parameter of evaluation index j, where i = 1, 2, ..., m; j = 1, 2, ..., n;

[0047] The elements of the standardized matrix are solved using the following formula:

[0048]

[0049] In the formula, k = 1 / lnm, satisfying 0 ≤ E j ≤1;

[0050] Based on the principle of objective evaluation, the weight of any j-th indicator among the n indicator values ​​in the evaluation matrix X is:

[0051]

[0052] Furthermore, the evaluation set uses "A, B, C, D, E" or other codes to divide the evaluation level, and the evaluation effect is ranked from high to low, corresponding to the meanings of [excellent effect, good effect, good effect, average effect and poor effect];

[0053] The evaluation levels represented by “A, B, C, D, E” or other codes correspond to the following sets of evaluation values ​​from high to low: [full score - 0.8 times full score (inclusive), 0.8 times full score - 0.6 times full score (inclusive), 0.6 times full score - 0.4 times full score (inclusive), 0.4 times full score - 0.2 times full score (inclusive), < 0.2 times full score].

[0054] Furthermore, the scoring process for each indicator is as follows: invite at least three experts from different units as evaluation subjects, and score each evaluation indicator according to the priority, importance, effect or satisfaction of the evaluation indicator by assigning a value of 1-10 or other methods. The weighted score of each evaluation indicator is obtained by calculating and summarizing the scoring results of the evaluation subjects and the corresponding scoring weights of each evaluation subject.

[0055] The formula for calculating the weighted sum of scores for each evaluation indicator is as follows:

[0056] U ij =W1×A1+W2×A2+…+W n ×A n (8)

[0057] In the formula, W1, W2, ..., W n These are the weights of the 1st to nth evaluation subjects, A1, A2, ..., A... n These are the rating results for the 1st to the nth evaluators, U ij This is a comprehensive score for a single indicator at the indicator layer;

[0058] The evaluation results of the criteria layer and the target layer indicators are calculated using equations (9) and (10), respectively.

[0059] U i =0.5(P) ij +P' ij )×U ij (9)

[0060] U = 0.5(P) i +P' i )×U i (10).

[0061] Compared with the prior art, the present invention has the following advantages by adopting the above technical solution:

[0062] This invention improves upon the past methods and results of evaluating the effectiveness of mine solid waste backfilling by using a multi-indicator, multi-factor, multi-dimensional, and multi-level quantitative evaluation approach. This approach addresses the shortcomings of traditional methods, which often suffer from single indicators, simplistic approaches, strong subjectivity, superficiality, lack of specificity, and inconsistent evaluation. Furthermore, it incorporates environmental impact assessment content for mine solid waste backfilling, enriching the evaluation system and content. This approach contributes to a more scientific, objective, standardized, and procedural evaluation of mine backfilling effectiveness. It also combines subjective and objective weighting, as well as the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation methods. These two approaches complement each other, maximizing their strengths and minimizing their weaknesses, simplifying complex mathematical calculations and making the evaluation of mine solid waste backfilling effectiveness more practical. Attached Figure Description

[0063] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention or the prior art, the drawings used in the description of the embodiments or the prior art will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings described below are only some embodiments of the present invention. For those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without creative effort.

[0064] Figure 1 A flowchart for a comprehensive evaluation system for the quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of solid waste backfilling in underground mines;

[0065] Figure 2 Flowchart for quantitative comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of solid waste backfilling in underground mines. Detailed Implementation

[0066] The technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention will now be clearly and completely described with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are merely some embodiments of the present invention, and not all embodiments. All other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art based on the embodiments of the present invention without creative effort are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0067] Taking the overburden separation grouting and backfilling project of the 3501 working face of the Huorxinhe Coal Mine in Changzhi, Shanxi Province as an example, this paper explores the application of a quantitative comprehensive evaluation method for solid waste backfilling effect.

[0068] like Figure 1 and Figure 2 As shown, the quantitative comprehensive evaluation method for the effectiveness of underground mine solid waste backfilling is implemented through the following steps:

[0069] S1. Construct a three-level evaluation index system for the grouting and filling project of the overburden separation layer in the 3501 working face of the Shanxi Huoshenghe Coal Mine, including the target layer, the criterion layer, and the index layer, and establish an evaluation index set.

[0070] The target layer is the solid waste backfilling effect evaluation U;

[0071] The criteria layer consists of infill quality U1, surface monitoring results U2, infill cost U3, infill benefits U4, and environmental impact U5;

[0072] The index layers are the filling quality U1 and the injection-production ratio U1. 11 Sinking reduction rate U 12 Roadway deformation U 13 Working face pressure U 14 Compressibility U of the filling material 15 U-shaped fissures developed in the overlying rock 16 Top slab subsidence U 17 The surface monitoring results show that the U2 index layer has building (structure) damage. 21 Settlement U 22 Inclined deformation U 23 Horizontal deformation U 24 curvature U 25 and horizontal movement U 26 The index layer of filling cost U3 includes land acquisition fee U. 31 Construction costs U 32 Material cost U 33 Operating costs U 34 and labor costs U 35The indicator layer for filling efficiency U4 includes coal sales revenue U. 41 Financial subsidies U 42 Resource tax reduction and exemption 43 Solid waste disposal fee reduction and exemption U 44 and related rewards U 45 The environmental impact index layer U5 includes surface vegetation. 51 Surface soil U 52 Surface water U 53 Groundwater U 54 and downhole air U 55 ;

[0073] The evaluation index set for each level is U = [U1, U2, U3, U4, U5], where U1 = [U 11 U 12 U 13 U 14 U 15 ], U2=[U 21 U 22 U 23 U 24 U 25 ], U3 = [U 31 U 32 U 33 U 34 U 35 ], U4 = [U 41 U 42 U 43 U 44 U 45 ], U5 = [U 51 U 52 U 53 U 54 U 55 ].

[0074] S2. The subjective weighting method and the objective weighting method are used to determine the weights of each evaluation index of the filling effect, and their weight sets are established respectively.

[0075] The subjective weighting method for determining the evaluation indicators involves analyzing the importance of each indicator through consultation with experts, scholars, on-site technicians, and field surveys. A 1-9 scale is used to construct the injection quality U1, surface monitoring results U2, injection cost U3, injection benefit U4, and environmental impact U5 in the indicator layer, as well as the judgment matrix and calculation results in the criterion layer, and a consistency check is performed. The results are shown in Tables 1-6.

[0076] Table 1. Judgment Matrix and Calculation Results of Injection Quality

[0077]

[0078] Table 2 Judgment Matrix and Calculation Results of Surface Monitoring Results

[0079]

[0080]

[0081] Table 3. Judgment Matrix and Calculation Results of Injection Cost

[0082]

[0083] Table 4 Judgment Matrix and Calculation Results of Injection Benefits

[0084]

[0085] Table 5. Judgment Matrix and Calculation Results of Environmental Impact

[0086]

[0087] Table 6. Judgment Matrix and Calculation Results of the Criterion Layer

[0088]

[0089]

[0090] Based on the above judgment matrix values, the calculated consistency ratio (CR) of each judgment matrix is ​​less than 0.1, thus meeting the consistency requirements.

[0091] Based on the objective weighting method for determining evaluation indicators, the indicator values ​​for the Horsingh Coal Mine were established, as shown in Table 7.

[0092] Table 7. Evaluation Matrix Indicator Values

[0093]

[0094]

[0095] The weights of the evaluation indicators determined by the objective weighting method are shown in Table 8 by calculating the weights of the indicator parameters of the criterion layer and the indicator layer respectively using formulas (3)-(7).

[0096] Table 8. Indicator weights determined by the objective weighting method.

[0097]

[0098] Based on the above results, the weight set obtained by the subjective weighting method is as follows: P = [0.262, 0.416, 0.062, 0.099, 0.161], P1 = [0.262, 0.416, 0.099, 0.062, 0.161], P2 = [0.430, 0.221, 0.155, 0.113, 0.081], P3 = [0.161, 0.416, 0.099, 0.262, 0.062], P4 = [0.410, 0.12, 0.157, 0.257, 0.056], P5 = [0.161, 0.262, 0.416, 0.099, 0.062].

[0099] The weight set obtained by the objective weighting method is: P' = [0.152, 0.197, 0.216, 0.246, 0.189], P'1 = [0.278, 0.167, 0.207, 0.094, 0.254], P'2 = [0.177, 0.137, 0.205, 0.360, 0.121], P'3 = [0.328, 0.200, 0.145, 0.200, 0.127], P'4 = [0.252, 0.175, 0.269, 0.128, 0.176], P'5 = [0.219, 0.185, 0.185, 0.182, 0.229].

[0100] S3. Use English letter codes to create a set of comments V = [A, B, C, D, E]. Each evaluation code corresponds to the evaluation effect meaning of [excellent effect, good effect, good effect, average effect, and poor effect].

[0101] The evaluation set is assigned a score from 1 to 10, specifically 10-8 (inclusive) for grade A, 8-6 (inclusive) for grade B, 6-4 (inclusive) for grade C, 4-2 (inclusive) for grade D, and 2-0 (inclusive) for grade E. Therefore, the constructed evaluation value set is [10-8, 8-6 (inclusive), 6-4 (inclusive), 4-2 (inclusive), 2-0 (inclusive)].

[0102] S4. Select three personnel from the filling project as the evaluation subjects, denoted as Expert A, Expert B, and Expert C, with an evaluation weight of W. r = [0.4, 0.3, 0.3]. Feedback from various evaluators on the filling effect of the project was collected through site visits, inquiries, and evaluation feedback. The fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method was used to generate the evaluation score, as shown in Table 9.

[0103] Table 9. Expert Fuzzy Evaluation Results

[0104]

[0105] Based on the scoring results, the expert scores of the criteria layer indicators were calculated using formula (8) as follows: U1 = [9.00, 9.85, 9.00, 8.35, 8.85], U2 = [9.85, 9.35, 9.35, 9.35, 9.35], U3 = [9.00, 7.85, 7.50, 7.35, 7.35], U4 = [9.00, 8.00, 8.00, 8.50, 7.85], U5 = [6.85, 6.85, 8.00, 7.35, 8.35].

[0106] Based on the expert scoring results, the target layer evaluation index set U = [9.289, 9.565, 7.839, 8.530, 7.471] was calculated using formula (9). The final evaluation score for the comprehensive effect of the overburden separation grouting filling of the 3501 working face of Shanxi Huoshenghe Coal Mine was 8.672 points, calculated using formula (10). Based on the range of the final score result in the evaluation value set and the comment set, the comprehensive evaluation effect of the overburden separation grouting filling of the 3501 working face of Shanxi Huoshenghe Coal Mine was determined to be excellent, grade A.

[0107] Finally, it should be noted that the above embodiments are only used to illustrate the technical solutions of the present invention and not to limit them. Although the present invention has been described in detail with reference to preferred embodiments, those skilled in the art should understand that modifications or equivalent substitutions can still be made to the technical solutions of the present invention, and these modifications or equivalent substitutions cannot cause the modified technical solutions to deviate from the spirit and scope of the technical solutions of the present invention.

Claims

1. A quantitative and comprehensive evaluation method for the effect of underground mine solid waste backfilling, characterized in that: Specifically, the following steps are included: S1. Construct a three-tiered comprehensive evaluation system for the effectiveness of underground mine solid waste backfilling, and establish a set of evaluation indicators; S2. The subjective weighting method and the objective weighting method are used to determine the index weights of each level of the filling effect evaluation system, and their weight sets are established respectively; S3. Establish a set of evaluation values ​​and comments for a quantitative comprehensive evaluation system of filling effect; S4. The evaluation subject uses the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method to score each indicator in the indicator layer of the comprehensive evaluation system for filling effect. Then, it uses a progressive method to calculate the evaluation results of the criteria layer and the target layer indicators. Based on the evaluation results within the evaluation value set and the comment set, the evaluation level and filling effect are determined.

2. The method for quantitative and comprehensive evaluation of the effect of underground mine solid waste backfilling according to claim 1, characterized in that: The three levels mentioned in step S1 are the target layer, the criterion layer, and the indicator layer. Specifically, the target layer is the solid waste backfilling effect evaluation U; the criterion layer includes backfilling quality U1, surface monitoring results U2, backfilling cost U3, backfilling benefits U4, and environmental impact U5; and the indicator layer includes the injection-production ratio U for backfilling quality U1. 11 Sinking reduction rate U 12 Roadway deformation U 13 Working face pressure U 14 Compressibility U of the filling material 15 U-shaped fissures developed in the overlying rock 16 Top slab subsidence U 17 The surface monitoring results show that the U2 index layer has building (structure) damage. 21 Settlement U 22 Inclined deformation U 23 Horizontal deformation U 24 curvature U 25 and horizontal movement U 26 The index layer of filling cost U3 includes land acquisition fee U. 31 Construction costs U 32 Material cost U 33 Operating costs U 34 and labor costs U 35 The indicator layer for filling efficiency U4 includes coal sales revenue U. 41 Financial subsidies U 42 Resource tax reduction and exemption 43 Solid waste disposal fee reduction and exemption U 44 and related rewards U 45 The environmental impact index layer U5 includes surface vegetation. 51 Surface soil U 52 Surface water U 53 Groundwater U 54 and downhole air U 55 .

3. The method for quantitative and comprehensive evaluation of the effect of underground mine solid waste backfilling according to claim 2, characterized in that: Each reference index collection division: U = [U1, U2, U3, U4, U5], U1 = [U 11 , U 12 , U 13 , U 14 , U 15 ], U2=[U 21 , U 22 , U 23 , U 24 , U 25 ], U3 = [U 31 , U 32 , U 33 , U 34 , U 35 ], U4 = [U 41 , U 42 , U 43 , U 44 , U 45 ], U5 = [U 51 , U 52 , U 53 , U 54 , U 55 ]; The values ​​of each indicator at the indicator level can be obtained through on-site testing, observation, monitoring, research and consultation, laboratory simulation, or theoretical calculation.

4. The method for quantitative and comprehensive evaluation of the effect of underground mine solid waste backfilling according to claim 1, characterized in that: The weight set obtained by the subjective weighting method described in step S2 is: P = [P1, P2, P3, P4, P5], P1 = [P 11 P 12 P 13 P 14 P 15 ], P2 = [P 21 P 22 P 23 P 24 P 25 ], P3 = [P 31 P 32 P 33 P 34 P 35 ], P4 = [P 41 P 42 P 43 P 44 P 45 ], P5 = [P 51 P 52 P 53 P 54 P 55 ]; The weight set obtained by the objective weighting method is: P' = [P'1, P'2, P'3, P'4, P'5], P'1 = [P' 11 , P' 12 , P' 13 , P' 14 , P' 15 ], P'2=[P' 21 , P' 22 , P' 23 , P' 24 , P' 25 ], P'3=[P' 31 , P' 32 , P' 33 , P' 34 , P' 35 ], P'4 = [P' 41 , P' 42 , P' 43 , P' 44 , P' 45 ], P'5 = [P' 51 , P' 52 , P' 53 , P' 54 , P' 55 ]; The letters in the weight set represent the following: P1 and P'1 are the weights for infill quality; P2 and P'2 are the weights for surface monitoring results; P3 and P'3 are the weights for infill cost; P4 and P'4 are the weights for infill benefits; and P5 and P'5 are the weights for environmental impact. 11 、P' 11 For the injection-production ratio weight, P 12 、P' 12 As the weight for the reduction rate, P 13 、P' 13 P is the weight of the roadway deformation. 14 、P' 14 P represents the working face pressure weight. 15 、P' 15 P is the weight of the roof subsidence. 21 、P' 21 P is the weight for damage to building facilities. 22 、P' 22 As the weight of settlement, P 23 、P' 23 For the tilt deformation weight, P 24 、P' 24 For horizontal deformation weights, P 25 、P' 25 For curvature weights, P 31 、P' 31 Assigning weights to land acquisition and remediation costs, P 32 、P' 32 As a weight for construction costs, P 33 、P' 33 As a weighted average of material costs, P 34 、P' 34 As a weighted average of operating costs, P 35 、P' 35 As the weight of labor costs, P 41 、P' 41 As a weighting factor for coal sales revenue, P 42 、P' 42 As the weight of fiscal subsidy costs, P 43 、P' 43 For the weighting of resource tax reduction and exemption fees, P 44 、P' 44 Weighting for reducing or waiving fees for solid waste disposal, P 45 、P' 45 For other relevant reward weights, P 51 、P' 51 P represents the weight of surface vegetation. 52 、P' 52 P represents the weight of surface soil. 53 、P' 53 As the weight of surface water, P 54 、P' 54 P represents the groundwater weight. 55 、P' 55 This represents the downhole air weight.

5. The method for quantitative and comprehensive evaluation of the effect of underground mine solid waste backfilling according to claim 4, characterized in that: The subjective weighting method described above determines the weights of evaluation indicators by using a 1-9 scale to assess the importance of each indicator based on the actual situation on site, expert opinions, and the importance of the evaluation indicators. This process constructs a comparison and judgment matrix of the indicator weights for the indicator layer and the criterion layer of the evaluation system, thereby determining the weights of the evaluation indicators. The 1-9 scale uses numbers 1-9 and their reciprocals as a scale to represent the importance of pairs of indicators. The scale definition is as follows: 1-- indicates that the two indicators are equally important. 3 indicates that, compared to the other indicator, the former is slightly more important. 5 indicates that, compared to the other indicator, the former is significantly more important. 7 indicates that, compared to the two indicators, the former is significantly more important than the latter. 9 indicates that, compared to the other indicator, the former is extremely more important. 2, 4, 6, 8 -- represent the intermediate values ​​of the above adjacent judgments. Reciprocal -- If the ratio of the importance of the former to the importance of the latter is a, then the ratio of the importance of the latter to the importance of the former is 1 / a.

6. The method for quantitative and comprehensive evaluation of the effect of underground mine solid waste backfilling according to claim 5, characterized in that: The judgment matrix must satisfy a consistency test. The formula for the consistency index (CI) of the judgment matrix is ​​as follows: CI=(λ max -n) / (n-1) In the formula λ max To determine the largest eigenvalue of a matrix, it can be obtained using MATLAB software, where n is the order of the matrix. The formula for calculating the conformity ratio (CR) is as follows: CR = CI / RI The RI can be obtained from the random consistency index table. The judgment matrix is ​​considered appropriate only when CR < 0.1; otherwise, it is appropriately modified. The random consistency index is as follows: the RI for orders 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are 0, 0, 0.58, and 0.58, respectively. 0.9、1.12、1.24、1.32、1.41、1.45、1.49； The judgment matrix is ​​in the form of equation (1), and usually a ii Set to 1; The weight vector is obtained by using the summation method and matrix normalization, as shown in equation (2): The weight vector is ultimately represented as: in=[in1 in2 … in i ] In the formula, w i w represents the weight of the i-th evaluation indicator. i ≥0 and 7. The method for quantitative and comprehensive evaluation of the effect of underground mine solid waste backfilling according to claim 6, characterized in that: The objective weighting method for determining the weights of evaluation indicators involves establishing an initial evaluation matrix based on the number of evaluation objects and indicators; and standardizing the initial evaluation matrix according to the different types of indicators. The indicators are categorized into two types: larger is better and smaller is better. The formulas for calculating the matrix values ​​of different types of indicators are as follows. Larger is better: Smaller is better: Establish the standardized evaluation matrix R using formula (5) ij ,Right now: In the formula, r ij x represents an element in the normalized matrix R; ij Let represent the initial value of the i-th parameter of evaluation index j, where i = 1, 2, ..., m; j = 1, 2, ..., n; The elements of the standardized matrix are solved using the following formula: In the formula, k = 1 / lnm, satisfying 0 ≤ E j ≤1; Based on the principle of objective evaluation, the weight of any j-th indicator among the n indicator values ​​in the evaluation matrix X is:

8. The method for quantitative comprehensive evaluation of the effect of underground mine solid waste backfilling according to claim 1, characterized in that: The evaluation criteria are divided into evaluation levels using "A, B, C, D, E" or other codes, with the evaluation results ranging from high to low, corresponding to [excellent effect, good effect, good effect, average effect, and poor effect]. The evaluation levels represented by "A, B, C, D, E" or other codes correspond to the following evaluation value sets from high to low: [full score - 0.8 times full score (inclusive), 0.8 times full score - 0.6 times full score (inclusive), 0.6 times full score - 0.4 times full score (inclusive), 0.4 times full score - 0.2 times full score (inclusive), < 0.2 times full score].

9. The method for quantitative and comprehensive evaluation of the effect of underground mine solid waste backfilling according to claim 1, characterized in that: The scoring process for each indicator is as follows: invite at least three experts from different units as the evaluation subjects. Based on the priority, importance, effect, or satisfaction of the evaluation indicators, score each evaluation indicator using a value of 1-10 or other methods. The weighted score of each evaluation indicator is obtained by summarizing the scoring results of the evaluation subjects and the corresponding scoring weights of each evaluation subject. The formula for calculating the weighted sum of scores for each evaluation indicator is as follows: U ij =W1×A1+W2×A2+…+W n ×A n (8) In the formula, W1, W2, ..., W n These are the weights of the 1st to nth evaluation subjects, A1, A2, ..., A... n These are the rating results for the 1st to the nth evaluators, U ij This is a comprehensive score for a single indicator at the indicator layer; The evaluation results of the criteria layer and the target layer indicators are calculated using equations (9) and (10), respectively. U i =0.5(P ij +P' ij )×U ij (9) U=0.5(P i +P' i )×U i (10).

Images