Comprehensive evaluation method for constructing pumped storage power station by transforming abandoned strip mine pit
By using the AHP-TOPSIS comprehensive evaluation method, an evaluation index system for the construction of pumped storage power stations in the transformation of abandoned open-pit mines was established. This solved the problem of inaccurate evaluation in existing technologies, achieved scientific and objective evaluation results, and provided an adaptability analysis for the construction of transformed mines.
Patent Information
- Application Number
- CN202511688373.7
- Authority / Receiving Office
- CN · China
- Patent Type
- Applications(China)
- Current Assignee / Owner
- Filing Date
- 2025-11-18
- Publication Date
- 2026-02-27
AI Technical Summary
Existing technologies lack specificity in assessing whether abandoned open-pit mines are suitable for pumped-storage power plants. Their reliance on human experience leads to inconsistent evaluation criteria and insufficient accuracy. Existing methods fail to fully consider the unique problems of abandoned mines.
The AHP-TOPSIS comprehensive evaluation method was adopted to establish a comprehensive evaluation index system for the transformation of abandoned open-pit mines into pumped storage power stations. The weights of the indicators were determined by the analytic hierarchy process, the evaluation sample matrix was constructed and standardized, the relative closeness was calculated, and the evaluation level was obtained.
It achieves a scientific, objective, and systematic evaluation of the construction of pumped storage power stations in the transformation of abandoned open-pit mines. Combining expert experience and objective ranking, it provides quantitative evaluation results and analyzes the adaptability of the transformation of mines from multiple perspectives.
Smart Images
Figure CN121581386A_ABST
Abstract
Description
TECHNICAL FIELD
[0001] The present application relates to the technical field of comprehensive evaluation of pumped storage power stations, and particularly relates to a comprehensive evaluation method for reconstructing abandoned open-pit mines to build pumped storage power stations. BACKGROUND
[0002] Reconstructing pumped storage power stations by using abandoned open-pit mines can not only effectively solve the problem of comprehensive treatment of abandoned mines, but also fully tap the space value of the abandoned mines and turn waste into treasure. At present, there are abundant resources of abandoned open-pit mines to be treated in China, and the number of the abandoned open-pit mines is large, which contains considerable development potential of pumped storage. However, in the preliminary screening of specific projects, a core bottleneck is how to scientifically judge whether the mine has the conditions for building a power station. At present, the preliminary evaluation generally relies on artificial experience, and the subjectivity leads to different evaluation standards and insufficient precision. In addition, although there is an adaptability evaluation method system for the site of conventional topography pumped storage, the evaluation index, weight and core model are mainly based on natural site conditions, and the specific problems of abandoned mines are not fully considered, and there is a lack of pertinence.
[0003] Therefore, it is urgent to provide a comprehensive evaluation method for reconstructing abandoned open-pit mines to build pumped storage power stations, which is targeted for comprehensive evaluation compared with the prior art. SUMMARY
[0004] The present application solves the technical problems existing in the prior art, and provides a comprehensive evaluation method for reconstructing abandoned open-pit mines to build pumped storage power stations.
[0005] To achieve the above-mentioned purpose, the technical scheme adopted by the present application is as follows: A comprehensive evaluation method for reconstructing abandoned open-pit mines to build pumped storage power stations, comprising the following steps: S1, an AHP-TOPSIS comprehensive evaluation method is used to establish a comprehensive evaluation index system for reconstructing abandoned open-pit mines to build pumped storage power stations; the comprehensive evaluation index system comprises a target layer, a first-level evaluation index and a second-level evaluation index; S2, the weight of the second-level evaluation index is determined by using an analytic hierarchy process; S3, an evaluation sample matrix is constructed, and the original data is standardized to obtain a standardized matrix; S4, a weighted standardized decision matrix is established, and a positive ideal solution set and a negative ideal solution set are determined; S5, the relative closeness of each second-level evaluation index to the positive ideal solution and the negative ideal solution is calculated, and the corresponding evaluation grade of the reconstruction of the abandoned open-pit mine to build the pumped storage power station is obtained.
[0006] Further, the relative closeness in the step S5 is calculated by the following formula: ; In the above formula, C represents the relative closeness, represents the Euclidean distance between the secondary evaluation index and the positive ideal solution, represents the Euclidean distance between the secondary evaluation index and the negative ideal solution.
[0007] Further, is calculated by the following formula: ; In the above formula, represents the weighted normalized value of the qth secondary evaluation index in the lth primary evaluation index, F represents the total number of all secondary evaluation indexes included in the lth primary evaluation index, represents the lth positive ideal solution, l takes 1 to L.
[0008] Further, is calculated by the following formula: ; In the above formula, represents the lth negative ideal solution.
[0009] Further, is taken from the positive ideal solution set, which is the lth positive ideal solution in the positive ideal solution set, and the positive ideal solution set is represented by the following formula: ; In the above formula, represents the positive ideal solution set, , , respectively represent the 1st positive ideal solution, the 2nd positive ideal solution, and the Lth positive ideal solution, represents the maximum value of the weighted normalized values of all secondary evaluation indexes in the lth primary evaluation index.
[0010] Further, is taken from the negative ideal solution set, which is the lth negative ideal solution in the negative ideal solution set, and the negative ideal solution set is represented by the following formula: ; In the above formula, represents the positive ideal solution set, , , respectively represent the 1st negative ideal solution, the 2nd negative ideal solution, and the Lth negative ideal solution, represents the minimum value of the weighted normalized values of all secondary evaluation indexes in the lth primary evaluation index.
[0011] Further, the weighted normalized decision matrix in the S4 step is calculated by the following formula: ; In the above formula, represents the weighted normalized value of the qth secondary evaluation index in the lth primary evaluation index, represents the weight value of the qth secondary evaluation index in the lth primary evaluation index.
[0012] Further, the normalized matrix in S3 step is represented as: The evaluation sample matrix is constructed, represented as: ; In the above formula, represents the score value of the qth secondary evaluation index in the lth primary evaluation index, and Q represents the number of all secondary evaluation indexes; When is a positive index (benefit type), its corresponding normalized value is: ; When is a negative index (cost type), its corresponding normalized value is: ; Thus, the normalized matrix R is obtained, represented as: ; In the above formula, represents the corresponding normalized value, represents the maximum value in the score values of all secondary evaluation indexes corresponding to the lth primary evaluation index, represents the minimum value in the score values of all secondary evaluation indexes corresponding to the lth primary evaluation index.
[0013] Further, the weight of the secondary evaluation index in S2 step is obtained by: comparing the evaluation indexes of each level two by two according to the 1-9 scale method, and constructing the judgment matrix A: ; Wherein, represents the importance degree of the ith evaluation index relative to the jth evaluation index, satisfying , , , and m represents the number of evaluation indexes; The maximum eigenvalue and the corresponding eigenvector W of the judgment matrix A are calculated, and consistency check is performed, when the judgment matrix has satisfactory consistency, the normalized characteristic vector W is the weight vector Ws, and is the weight of the secondary evaluation index.
[0014] Further, in the S5 step, when the close fitting degree is greater than 0.8, it is an excellent evaluation grade, when the close fitting degree is greater than 0.6 and less than 0.8, it is a good evaluation grade, when the close fitting degree is greater than 0.4 and less than 0.6, it is a medium evaluation grade, and when the close fitting degree is greater than 0 and less than 0.4, it is a poor evaluation grade.
[0015] Compared with the prior art, the present application has the following beneficial effects: (1) The AHP-TOPSIS comprehensive evaluation method adopted in the present application combines subjective weight determination with objective ordering comparison, retains the rationality of expert experience judgment, and realizes intuitive quantization of evaluation results through relative close fitting degree calculation. The method provides a certain reference for adaptability evaluation of reconstruction of abandoned open-pit mines for construction of pumped storage power stations.
[0016] (2) The present application comprehensively considers factors of reconstruction of mines for construction of pumped storage power stations from four aspects of planning conditions, topographic and geological conditions, engineering layout conditions and social environment conditions, proposes 18 evaluation indexes, and constructs an evaluation system of adaptability of reconstruction of mines for construction of pumped storage power stations. It is not limited to a single influencing factor, and analyzes from various aspects and multiple angles, so that the influence of planning conditions, topographic and geological conditions, engineering layout conditions and social environment conditions on adaptability of reconstruction of abandoned mines for construction of pumped storage power stations can be described more systematically, scientifically, objectively and comprehensively. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS
[0017] Figure 1 is a flowchart of the present application. DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0018] The technical solutions of the present application will be described clearly below in combination with the description of the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are not all embodiments of the present application, and all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative labor fall within the protection scope of the present application.
[0019] As shown in the accompanying drawings, Figure 1 the present application provides a comprehensive evaluation method for reconstruction of abandoned open-pit mines for construction of pumped storage power stations, comprising the following steps: S1, based on the principle of system engineering, an AHP-TOPSIS comprehensive evaluation method is adopted to establish a comprehensive evaluation index system for reconstruction of abandoned open-pit mines for construction of pumped storage power stations; the comprehensive evaluation index system comprises a target layer, a first-level evaluation index and a second-level evaluation index.
[0020] The target layer is adaptability evaluation target U of reconstruction of abandoned open-pit mines for construction of pumped storage power stations.
[0021] The first-level evaluation indexes include: planning condition U1, topographic and geological condition U2, engineering layout condition U3, and social environment condition U4.
[0022] The second-level evaluation indexes include: The planning condition U1 includes five second-level indexes: water head scale U11, reservoir capacity condition U12, water source condition U13, distance from load center U14, and power grid demand U15.
[0023] The topographic and geological condition U2 includes five second-level indexes: regional geological structure stability U21, geological condition U22, hydrogeological condition U23, natural building material U24, and geological disaster U25.
[0024] The engineering layout condition U3 includes five second-level indexes: distance from high ratio U31, high slope influence U32, goaf influence U33, reservoir leakage condition U34, and residual coal spontaneous combustion influence U35.
[0025] The social environment condition U4 includes three second-level indexes: ecological environment U41, resettlement U42, and construction land acquisition U43.
[0026] S2, the weights of the first-level evaluation indexes and the second-level evaluation indexes are determined by using the analytic hierarchy process; specifically: According to the 1-9 scale method, each pair of evaluation indexes in each level is compared to construct a judgment matrix A: ; wherein, represents the importance degree of the ith evaluation index relative to the jth evaluation index, and satisfies , , , and m represents the number of evaluation indexes.
[0027] The maximum eigenvalue and the corresponding eigenvector W of the judgment matrix A are calculated, and consistency check is performed: The consistency index is calculated: ; The random consistency ratio is calculated: ; When CR<0.1, it is considered that the judgment matrix has satisfactory consistency, and the weight vector Ws after normalization of the eigenvector W is the weight vector Ws.
[0028] After the above processing, the is obtained, which is the weight of the first-level evaluation index, denoted as After the above processing, the is obtained, which is the weight of the second-level evaluation index, denoted as .
[0029] S3. Construct the evaluation sample matrix and standardize the original data; specifically: A machine learning model is set up, and the scores of each secondary evaluation indicator in the past are input into the machine learning model for learning and training to obtain the evaluation indicator scoring model. Then, each secondary evaluation indicator is input into the evaluation indicator scoring model to obtain the evaluation sample matrix. The scores of each secondary evaluation indicator in the past are obtained by evaluation experts. The evaluation sample matrix is represented as follows: ; In the above formula, Let Q represent the score of the q-th secondary evaluation indicator in the l-th primary evaluation indicator, where Q represents the total number of secondary evaluation indicators.
[0030] Standardize the raw data to eliminate the influence of dimensions: when When it is a positive indicator (profit-generating), its standardized value is: ; when When it is a negative indicator (cost-type), its standardized value is: ; Thus, the standardized matrix R is obtained, expressed as: ; In the above formula, express The corresponding standardized value, This represents the maximum score among all secondary evaluation indicators corresponding to the l-th primary evaluation indicator. This represents the minimum score among all secondary evaluation indicators corresponding to the l-th primary evaluation indicator.
[0031] S4. Establish a weighted standardized decision matrix to determine the positive ideal solution set and the negative ideal solution set.
[0032] Construct a weighted normalization matrix: ; In the above formula, This represents the weighted standardized value of the q-th secondary evaluation indicator in the l-th primary evaluation indicator. This represents the weight value of the q-th secondary evaluation indicator in the l-th primary evaluation indicator.
[0033] Determine the set of positive ideal solutions and negative ideal solution set : .
[0034] ; In the above formula, Let L represent the Lth positive ideal solution, where L represents the number of primary evaluation indicators. This represents taking the maximum weighted standardized value of all secondary evaluation indicators in the l-th primary evaluation indicator. This represents taking the minimum weighted standardized value of all secondary evaluation indicators among the l-th primary evaluation indicators. Let L represent the Lth negative ideal solution.
[0035] S5. Calculate the relative closeness of each secondary evaluation index to the positive ideal solution and the negative ideal solution, and obtain the corresponding evaluation level for transforming abandoned open-pit mines into pumped storage power stations.
[0036] The relative closeness is calculated using the following formula: Calculate the Euclidean distance between each secondary evaluation index and the positive and negative ideal solutions: ; ; In the above formula, This represents the Euclidean distance between the secondary evaluation index and the positive ideal solution. Let F represent the Euclidean distance between the secondary evaluation index and the negative ideal solution, and let F represent the total number of all secondary evaluation indices included in the l-th primary evaluation index. Let l represent the l-th positive ideal solution, where l ranges from 1 to L. This represents the l-th negative ideal solution.
[0037] Calculate relative proximity: ; In the above formula, C represents the relative proximity.
[0038] The evaluation level is determined based on the degree of relative similarity:
[0039] This invention employs the AHP-TOPSIS comprehensive evaluation method, organically combining subjective weight determination with objective ranking comparison. This method retains the rationality of expert judgment while achieving intuitive quantification of evaluation results through relative proximity calculation. It provides a certain reference for the adaptability evaluation of converting abandoned open-pit mines into pumped-storage power stations.
[0040] This invention comprehensively considers four aspects—planning conditions, topographic and geological conditions, engineering layout conditions, and social environmental conditions—to evaluate the suitability of converting abandoned mines into pumped storage power stations. It proposes 18 evaluation indicators and constructs an evaluation system for the adaptability of converting abandoned mines into pumped storage power stations. Not limited to a single influencing factor, it analyzes from multiple perspectives, providing a relatively systematic, scientific, objective, and comprehensive description of the impact of planning conditions, topographic and geological conditions, engineering layout conditions, and social environmental conditions on the adaptability of converting abandoned mines into pumped storage power stations.
[0041] Finally, it should be noted that the above content is only used to illustrate the technical solution of the present invention, and is not intended to limit the scope of protection of the present invention. Simple modifications or equivalent substitutions made by those skilled in the art to the technical solution of the present invention do not depart from the essence and scope of the technical solution of the present invention.
Claims
1. A comprehensive evaluation method for reconstructing abandoned open-pit mine pits to construct pumped storage power stations, characterized by, Comprising the following steps: S1, using AHP-TOPSIS comprehensive evaluation method, the comprehensive evaluation index system of the construction of pumped storage power station in the transformation of abandoned open-pit mine is established; the comprehensive evaluation index system includes target layer, first-level evaluation index and second-level evaluation index; S2, the weight of the second-level evaluation index is determined by using the analytic hierarchy process; S3, the evaluation sample matrix is constructed, the original data is standardized, and the standardized matrix is obtained; S4, the weighted standardized decision matrix is established, and the positive ideal solution set and the negative ideal solution set are determined; S5, the relative closeness of each second-level evaluation index to the positive ideal solution and the negative ideal solution is calculated, and the corresponding evaluation grade of the construction of pumped storage power station in the transformation of abandoned open-pit mine is obtained.
2. The comprehensive evaluation method for reconstructing a waste open-pit mine to construct a pumped storage power station according to claim 1, characterized in that, The relative closeness in S5 step is calculated by the following formula: In the above formula, C represents relative closeness, denotes the Euclidean distance between the secondary evaluation index and the positive ideal solution, denotes the Euclidean distance between the secondary evaluation index and the negative ideal solution.
3. The comprehensive evaluation method for reconstructing a waste open-pit mine to construct a pumped storage power station according to claim 2, characterized in that, The calculation is made by the following formula: In the above formula, represents the weighted normalized value of the qth secondary evaluation index in the lth primary evaluation index, F represents the total number of all secondary evaluation indices included in the lth primary evaluation index, represents the lth positive ideal solution, and l takes 1 to L.
4. The comprehensive evaluation method for reconstructing a waste open-pit mine to construct a pumped storage power station according to claim 3, characterized in that, The calculation is made by the following formula: In the above formulae, denotes the l-th negative ideal solution.
5. The comprehensive evaluation method for reconstructing a waste open-pit mine to construct a pumped storage power station according to claim 4, characterized in that, taken from the set of positive ideal solutions, the l-th positive ideal solution in the set of positive ideal solutions, the set of positive ideal solutions being represented by the following equation: In the above formulae, denotes the positive ideal solution set, , , denote the 1st positive ideal solution, the 2nd positive ideal solution, the Lth positive ideal solution, respectively, denotes the maximum value of the weighted normalized values of all the secondary evaluation indexes in the lth primary evaluation index.
6. The comprehensive evaluation method for reconstructing a waste open-pit mine to construct a pumped storage power station according to claim 5, characterized in that, taken from the set of negative ideal solutions, the l-th negative ideal solution in the set of negative ideal solutions, the set of negative ideal solutions being represented by the following equation: In the above formulae, denotes the positive ideal solution set, , , denote the 1st negative ideal solution, the 2nd negative ideal solution, the Lth negative ideal solution, respectively, denotes the minimum value of the weighted normalized values of all the secondary evaluation indexes in the lth primary evaluation index.
7. The comprehensive evaluation method for reconstructing a waste open-pit mine to construct a pumped storage power station according to claim 3, characterized in that, The weighted standardized decision matrix in S4 step is calculated by the following formula: In the above formula, Wqil represents the weighted normalized value of the qth secondary evaluation index in the lth primary evaluation index, Wqil represents the weight value of the qth secondary evaluation index in the lth primary evaluation index.
8. The comprehensive evaluation method for reconstructing a waste open-pit mine to construct a pumped storage power station according to claim 1, characterized in that, The standardized matrix in S3 step is represented as: The evaluation sample matrix is constructed and represented as: In the above formula, represents the score value of the qth secondary evaluation index in the lth primary evaluation index, and Q represents the number of all secondary evaluation indexes. When For positive indicators (gain type), the corresponding normalized value is: When For negative indicators (cost type), the corresponding normalized value is: The standardized matrix R is obtained, represented as: In the above formula, denotes the corresponding normalized value, denotes the maximum value among the score values of all the second evaluation indexes corresponding to the lth first evaluation index, denotes the minimum value among the score values of all the second evaluation indexes corresponding to the lth first evaluation index.
9. The comprehensive evaluation method for reconstructing a waste open-pit mine to construct a pumped storage power station according to claim 1, characterized in that, The weight of the second-level evaluation index in S2 step is obtained by: according to the 1~9 scale method, the evaluation indexes of each level are compared with each other, and the judgment matrix A is constructed: wherein, represents the importance degree of the i-th evaluation index with respect to the j-th evaluation index, satisfying , , , m represents the number of evaluation indexes; The maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix A is calculated and the corresponding eigenvector W, consistency check is performed, when the judgment matrix has satisfactory consistency, the eigenvector W is normalized to be the weight vector Ws, and the two-level evaluation indexes obtained after the above processing are the weights of the two-level evaluation indexes.
10. The comprehensive evaluation method for reconstructing a waste open-pit mine to construct a pumped storage power station according to claim 1, characterized in that, In the S5 step, when the close adhesion degree is , it is an excellent evaluation grade, when the close adhesion degree is , it is a good evaluation grade, when the close adhesion degree is , it is a middle evaluation grade, and when the close adhesion degree is , it is a poor evaluation grade.