Decision-making method suitable for hydraulic tunnel construction method

Abstract

The invention discloses a decision-making method suitable for a hydraulic tunnel construction method, and the method comprises the steps: obtaining the evaluation index data corresponding to each evaluation dimension, and the evaluation dimensions comprise the economical efficiency, the construction period saving performance, the lithologic adaptability, the environmental disturbance performance, the process complexity, and the risk management and control performance; inputting the evaluation index data to a corresponding preset evaluation model, the evaluation model outputting a corresponding evaluation value, the evaluation model including an economic rationality model, a construction period saving model, a lithology adaptability model, an environmental disturbance coefficient model, a process convenience model and a risk management and control model; obtaining objective weights and comprehensive fuzzy evaluation values corresponding to the evaluation dimensions; and outputting a comprehensive score of each construction method according to the comprehensive fuzzy evaluation value and the objective weight, and determining an optimal construction method according to the comprehensive score pair. By adopting the method, a more scientific and reliable basis can be provided for engineering decision making.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of hydraulic tunnel construction, and in particular to a decision-making method applicable to hydraulic tunnel construction methods. Background Technology

[0002] With the continuous advancement of water conservancy and hydropower engineering construction in my country, hydraulic tunnels, as key underground structures, are playing an increasingly important role in water diversion, power generation, flood control, and disaster reduction. The selection of construction methods is one of the core decisions in engineering construction, directly affecting construction safety, economic costs, construction period, environmental protection effectiveness, and overall risk control level.

[0003] Currently, the selection of construction methods for hydraulic tunnels in engineering practice still largely relies on the traditional experience and judgment of engineers and qualitative assessments by experts. While these methods can reflect practical experience to some extent, they generally suffer from insufficient comprehensiveness and objectivity, as well as low quantification. When facing actual projects with complex geological conditions, high environmental sensitivity, and numerous construction constraints, the adaptability and reliability of traditional qualitative methods decrease significantly, easily leading to a degree of blindness and uncertainty in scheme comparison and selection, making it difficult to scientifically support the decision-making of the optimal construction scheme.

[0004] While existing research has contributed to the evaluation of construction methods to some extent, it still has significant limitations. Firstly, the evaluation dimensions are often relatively singular, focusing primarily on individual indicators such as cost or schedule, making it difficult to systematically integrate the comprehensive requirements of multiple objectives and attributes, including economic efficiency, schedule efficiency, rock and geological adaptability, environmental disturbance control, and construction risk management. Secondly, the evaluation process relies heavily on qualitative indicators with insufficient quantification, and extensively on subjective expert scoring, resulting in poor traceability, stability, and comparability of the evaluation results. Furthermore, in determining weights, the method of integrating fuzzy evaluation values ​​with objective weights is not effective enough, and the decision-making results still overly depend on expert experience, lacking a solid data-driven foundation. Particularly under the condition of joint construction of multiple tunnels in parallel or overlapping areas, existing methods lack the ability to comprehensively compare and quantify systematic factors such as resource sharing of construction equipment, overall schedule coordination and optimization, and collaborative control of cumulative environmental disturbances.

[0005] Therefore, for large-scale hydraulic tunnel projects with complex construction processes, significant environmental impacts, and vastly different on-site construction conditions, traditional experience-based and qualitative decision-making models are no longer sufficient to meet the urgent needs of modern engineering management for scientific rigor, precision, and reliability. There is an urgent need to construct a systematic, objective, and quantitative comprehensive evaluation and selection system for construction methods to compensate for the shortcomings of existing methods and provide a more scientific and reliable basis for engineering decisions. Summary of the Invention

[0006] To address the aforementioned problems, the purpose of this invention is to provide a decision-making method applicable to hydraulic tunnel construction, which can provide a more scientific and reliable basis for engineering decisions.

[0007] Based on this, the present invention provides a decision-making method applicable to hydraulic tunnel construction methods, including: Obtain the evaluation index data corresponding to each evaluation dimension, which includes: economy, construction period saving, lithological adaptability, environmental disturbance, process complexity and risk management; The evaluation index data are input into the corresponding preset evaluation model, and the evaluation model outputs the corresponding evaluation value. The evaluation model includes an economic rationality model, a construction period saving model, a lithological adaptability model, an environmental disturbance coefficient model, a process convenience model, and a risk control model. Obtain the objective weights and comprehensive fuzzy evaluation values ​​corresponding to each of the evaluation dimensions; The comprehensive fuzzy evaluation value and the objective weight output are used to give a comprehensive score to each construction method, and the optimal construction method is determined based on the comprehensive score.

[0008] The economic rationality model includes: ; Wherein, C represents the cost per unit length, and the This indicates the initial equipment investment cost, the stated Indicates the cost of fixed structures, the Indicates the length of the tunnel, the The function representing the cost per unit length of excavation, the Indicates the radius of the tunnel.

[0009] The time-saving model includes: ; Among them, the The average propulsion speed is indicated by the following: This indicates the penetration rate of the equipment within its effective operating time. This indicates the equipment utilization rate.

[0010] The lithological adaptability model includes: ; Among them, the The excavation volume per unit time, the This represents the functional relationship between the preset rock strength and excavation efficiency. It represents the saturated uniaxial compressive strength of rock.

[0011] The environmental disturbance coefficient model includes: ; Among them, the Represents the environmental disturbance coefficient, the This indicates the airborne sound pressure level generated by the disturbance source device during operation. The dominant vibration frequency of the disturbance source under normal operating conditions is indicated by the following: Representing the empirical coefficient, the This indicates the distance from the disturbance source to the sensitive source.

[0012] The process convenience model includes: ; ; ; Among them, the This indicates the number of people required to complete the same amount of work. This indicates the number of technicians required for the project. The number of technical process steps in one cycle, the The average time of the process is indicated by the following: and stated These represent the weights of the automation coefficient and the process difficulty coefficient, respectively. CPC stands for process convenience coefficient.

[0013] The risk management model includes: ; Among them, the Indicates the safety factor, the The ultimate stress of the material is indicated by the following: This indicates the allowable stress in the design.

[0014] The process of obtaining the objective weights includes: ; ; Among them, the Representing the entropy value, the Indicates the first The evaluation object is in the first Normalized values ​​under a certain evaluation standard, where k represents a preset constant, and the... Indicates the number of evaluation objects, the Represents the objective weight, the Indicates the number of evaluation indicators, the first one... The evaluation object represents the first... The construction method for hydraulic tunnels, the first one The evaluation criteria are evaluation indicators used to evaluate the performance of construction methods for hydraulic tunnels.

[0015] The process of obtaining the comprehensive fuzzy evaluation value includes: ; ; ; Among them, the and stated It is the interval value of the membership function, the stated For the first The evaluation index is in the first Membership values ​​under each evaluation criterion, the aforementioned Indicates the first The weights of each evaluation criterion, the This indicates the current level number, meaning that among all levels, it is the [number]th [level]. The position of each level, the Indicates the total number of levels, the The comprehensive fuzzy evaluation value represents the value of the comprehensive fuzzy evaluation. Indicates the first The evaluation object is in the first The value under each evaluation criterion.

[0016] The process of obtaining the comprehensive score includes: ; Among them, the Indicates the first The overall score of each evaluation object, the Represents the objective weight, the The value represents the comprehensive fuzzy evaluation value. Indicates the first The evaluation object is in the first Normalized values ​​under each evaluation criterion.

[0017] This invention constructs a multi-dimensional evaluation index system based on quantitative analysis, comprehensively covering key aspects such as construction period, safety, economy, lithology, environment, and technology. This method replaces simple experience-based judgment with an engineering quantitative model, significantly improving the objectivity and repeatability of the evaluation results. By integrating fuzzy evaluation and entropy weight methods, the weights of the indicators are scientifically determined, taking into account both subjective and objective factors, thereby achieving more accurate comprehensive evaluation and selection of construction schemes. The entire selection process has good traceability, making it particularly suitable for multi-tunnel joint construction projects. Furthermore, this method supports dynamic adjustment of weights, allowing for flexible adaptation to actual project needs and enhancing its applicability in real-world engineering scenarios. Attached Figure Description

[0018] 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.

[0019] Figure 1 This is a flowchart of a decision-making method applicable to hydraulic tunnel construction methods provided in the first embodiment of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0020] The technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of the present invention, and not all embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0021] Figure 1 This is a flowchart of a decision-making method applicable to hydraulic tunnel construction methods provided in an embodiment of the present invention. The method includes: S101. Obtain the evaluation index data corresponding to each evaluation dimension, which includes: economy, construction period saving, lithological adaptability, environmental disturbance, process complexity and risk control.

[0022] The evaluation indicators for economic efficiency include: initial equipment investment costs, costs of fixed structures such as shafts and entrances / exits, tunnel length, tunnel radius, and excavation cost per unit length.

[0023] The evaluation index data corresponding to the time-saving performance include: the penetration rate of the equipment within the effective working time and the equipment utilization rate.

[0024] The evaluation index data corresponding to the lithological adaptability include: the saturated uniaxial compressive strength of the rock.

[0025] The evaluation index data corresponding to the environmental disturbance includes: the dominant vibration frequency of the disturbance source under normal operating conditions, the distance from the disturbance source to the sensitive point, and the airborne sound pressure level generated by the disturbance source equipment during operation.

[0026] The evaluation index data corresponding to the complexity of the process include: the number of people required to complete the same amount of work, the number of technicians required for the project, the number of technical steps in one cycle, and the average time (days) of the process.

[0027] The evaluation index data corresponding to the risk controllability include: the ultimate stress of the material and the design allowable stress.

[0028] S102. Input the evaluation index data into the corresponding preset evaluation model, and the evaluation model outputs the corresponding evaluation value. The evaluation model includes an economic rationality model, a construction period saving model, a lithological adaptability model, an environmental disturbance coefficient model, a process convenience model, and a risk control model.

[0029] Quantitative analysis methods were used to quantify each evaluation index, resulting in various evaluation models, including: An economically rational model based on the cost per unit length; A time-saving model based on advancement speed and equipment utilization rate; A lithological adaptability model based on the relationship between rock strength and soil yield per unit time; An environmental disturbance coefficient model based on the combined effects of noise and vibration; A process convenience or complexity model based on the degree of automation and the difficulty of the process; Risk management model based on safety factor of numerical simulation.

[0030] The economic rationality model includes: ; Wherein, C represents the cost per unit length (yuan / m), and the... This indicates the initial equipment investment cost (in yuan). This indicates the cost of fixed structures (in yuan). Indicates the tunnel length (m), the The function representing the cost per unit length of excavation, the This indicates the radius of the tunnel (m).

[0031] For the shield tunneling method ; For the drill-and-blast method ; For the pipe jacking method ; [] indicates that the number is rounded up.

[0032] It should be noted that the above figures can be set independently by the user according to their actual needs, and no restrictions are imposed here.

[0033] The smaller the value output by the economic rationality model, the better.

[0034] The time-saving model includes: ; Among them, the The average propulsion speed (m / d) is represented by the following. The penetration rate (m / h) of the equipment during its effective operating time is represented by the following. This indicates the equipment utilization rate.

[0035] The higher the value output by the time-saving model, the better.

[0036] Among them, the It is expressed as the advancing distance within the effective working time divided by the effective working time. The effective working time refers to the actual time that the equipment spends on rock / coal crushing and advancing operations, excluding: equipment downtime, waiting for support, maintenance, manual organization, etc. The It is expressed as the effective working time divided by the total time of the statistical period, and is obtained through construction records and equipment monitoring system statistics.

[0037] The equipment here can be referred to as rock or coal crushing equipment.

[0038] The lithological adaptability model includes: ; Among them, the The excavation volume per unit time (m³ / d) is represented by the following. This represents the functional relationship between the preset rock strength and excavation efficiency. It represents the saturated uniaxial compressive strength (MPa) of the rock.

[0039] The higher the value output by the lithological adaptability model, the better.

[0040] For the shield tunneling method, when k is less than 25.7 MPa, When k is greater than or equal to 25.7 MPa, .

[0041] For the drill-and-blast method .

[0042] For the pipe jacking method .

[0043] The environmental disturbance coefficient model includes: ; Among them, the Represents the environmental disturbance coefficient, the This indicates the airborne sound pressure level generated by the disturbance source device during operation. The dominant vibration frequency (Hz) of the disturbance source under normal operating conditions is represented by the following. Representing the empirical coefficient, the This indicates the distance from the disturbance source to the sensitive source.

[0044] The smaller the value output by the environmental disturbance coefficient model, the better.

[0045] The air pressure level generated by the disturbance source equipment during operation is the equivalent continuous sound pressure level measured at the disturbance source location or its near-field standard measuring point under the working conditions of the construction equipment (such as tunneling, rock breaking, cutting, etc.).

[0046] Specific forms of disturbance sources: tunneling equipment (such as tunnel boring machines, tunneling and anchoring machines), drilling equipment, blasting operations (if applicable), high-power machinery (crushers, cutting heads).

[0047] Disturbance sources refer to the construction equipment or work locations that generate the main noise and vibration (tunneling machine cutterhead location, drilling work point, blasting source point); Sensitive sources refer to objects that may be affected by construction disturbances, including surrounding buildings, underground structures, important equipment, densely populated areas, and ecological or environmental protection targets.

[0048] Both the disturbance source and the sensitive source can be set manually, and no restrictions are imposed here.

[0049] The The value can be set according to user needs; no limit is set here, but 0.5 is preferred.

[0050] The process convenience model includes: ; ; ; Among them, the This indicates the number of people required to complete the same amount of work. This indicates the number of technicians required for the project. The number of technical process steps in one cycle, the The average time of the process is indicated by the following: and stated These represent the weights of the automation coefficient and the process difficulty coefficient, respectively. CPC stands for process convenience coefficient.

[0051] Due to automation coefficient It is a single-factor parameter, while the process difficulty coefficient Three influencing factors were considered, and both had the same level of importance in the process complexity assessment. Therefore, in the comprehensive evaluation, they were assigned the following importance: higher weight =0.999, and weight =0.001.

[0052] The higher the value output by the process convenience model, the better.

[0053] The and the The values ​​can be set independently by the user according to their needs, and are not limited here.

[0054] The risk management model includes: ; Among them, the Indicates the safety factor, the The ultimate stress of the material is indicated by the following: This indicates the allowable stress in the design.

[0055] The material is a pre-designed material.

[0056] The ultimate stress of the material is determined based on the segments, pipes, and linings used, and needs to be determined according to the actual project.

[0057] The higher the value output by the risk management model, the better.

[0058] S103. Obtain the objective weights and comprehensive fuzzy evaluation values ​​corresponding to each of the evaluation dimensions.

[0059] Single-factor fuzzy comprehensive evaluation focuses on the impact of a single risk factor on the target, highlighting the importance of that single factor. However, single-factor evaluation results are often too one-sided, lacking a comprehensive consideration of multi-dimensional factors. A better optimization effect must be achieved through multi-dimensional comprehensive comparison. At this point, the weight allocation of evaluation indicators is particularly important. Traditional comparison methods rely heavily on qualitative analysis, using scoring methods for weight allocation. While this method is simple, it lacks sufficient scientific rigor and objectivity. This invention introduces a comprehensive fuzzy weighted method, combining subjective and objective weights, to provide a more accurate and objective evaluation method. Based on the absolute objectivity of quantitative data, it can dynamically adjust according to engineering requirements and conditions, enabling better comprehensive comparative analysis.

[0060] First, economic factors were calculated, and the economic components were divided. The Delphi method was used to determine the evaluation factors. Then, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was used to establish the hierarchy, ensuring that all evaluation indicators were at the same level during multi-dimensional evaluation. After quantifying and normalizing the single-factor evaluation indicators, the factors were compared on the same scale. The entropy weight method was applied to determine the objective weights. The specific process is as follows: Each evaluation indicator is normalized to obtain the normalized evaluation matrix. , wherein Indicates the first The evaluation object is in the first Normalized values ​​under each evaluation criterion.

[0061] Entropy The calculation formula is: ; Among them, the Indicates the first The evaluation object is in the first The normalized value under each evaluation criterion, where m is the number of evaluation objects and k is a constant, usually taken as... ; Objective weight for: ; The objective weights of each evaluation criterion were obtained by using the entropy weight method. Then, the subjective weights were determined by using the optimized fuzzy evaluation method combined with the actual engineering situation. Finally, the subjective and objective weights were combined and the weights were allocated to make a comprehensive score to achieve the goal of finding the best.

[0062] The fuzzy evaluation method uses evaluation indicators and their objective weights instead of comments in the comment set. The factor set is ranked from 1 to 6 according to importance, with weights assigned incrementally, as shown in Table 1. An importance evaluation table is constructed, and a preset number (e.g., 25 actual engineering decision-makers) is selected for importance evaluation, as shown in Table 2. The data is normalized and the weights of the factor set and comment set are filled in to construct the membership matrix R, as shown in Table 3. Fuzzy membership functions are used to describe the fuzziness of each evaluation criterion. Assume the evaluation indicators... Representing the The evaluation object is in the first The fuzzy membership function can be described by a linear function under a given evaluation criterion. ; in, and It represents the interval value of the membership function. (Comprehensive fuzzy evaluation value) The calculation formula is: ; ; in: For the first The factor in the first Membership degree under each evaluation criterion For the first Each standard weight; This indicates the current level number, that is, the number of levels among all levels. Positions at each level. It is the total number of grades, that is, the number of factor sets involved in the evaluation.

[0063] Based on this, the optimal solution can be selected by comparing the comprehensive scores of different solutions.

[0064] The process of obtaining the comprehensive score includes: ; Among them, the Indicates the first The overall score of each evaluation object, the Represents the objective weight, the The value represents the comprehensive fuzzy evaluation value. Indicates the first The evaluation object is in the first Normalized values ​​under each evaluation criterion.

[0065] The higher the overall score, the better. In the calculation of the overall score, the... The above and the All values ​​are dimensionless.

[0066] For the tunnel construction method in this invention, the advantages and disadvantages of each scheme are finally ranked by a comprehensive evaluation of six dimensions: economic rationality (i.e., economy, construction period saving, rock adaptability, environmental disturbance, process complexity and risk control).

[0067]

[0068]

[0069]

[0070] Based on the evaluation indicators and criteria determined by the Delphi method, and combined with the results of single-factor comparison, a correspondence was established between the evaluation criteria and the corresponding evaluation indicators to obtain the objective weights and related parameters of the three construction methods under three working conditions, as shown in Table 4. On this basis, each evaluation indicator was divided into positive and negative indicators and standardized, the results of which are shown in Table 5. As can be seen from Table 5, from the perspective of indicator differences, lithological adaptability has the largest weight, while environmental disturbance has the smallest weight. The weights of the six indicators, from largest to smallest, are: lithological adaptability, risk control, economic rationality, technological complexity, construction period savings, and environmental disturbance.

[0071]

[0072]

[0073] Based on the aforementioned objective weights, a comprehensive comparison of the three construction methods reveals that the shield tunneling method, drill-and-blast method, and pipe jacking method have relative advantages in terms of rock adaptability, economic rationality, and risk control, respectively. Furthermore, an importance evaluation table was compiled based on the results of the importance evaluation survey, and a comprehensive membership matrix was constructed to calculate the comprehensive weights of each evaluation indicator (Table 6). The comprehensive scoring results show that the shield tunneling method scored 0.28, higher than the pipe jacking method's 0.26 and the drill-and-blast method's 0.20. Therefore, the shield tunneling method is comprehensively determined to be the preferred construction method under the conditions of this project.

[0074]

[0075] This invention constructs a multi-dimensional evaluation index system based on quantitative analysis, comprehensively covering key aspects such as construction period, safety, economy, lithology, environment, and technology. This method replaces simple experience-based judgment with an engineering quantitative model, significantly improving the objectivity and repeatability of the evaluation results. By integrating fuzzy evaluation and entropy weight methods, the weights of the indicators are scientifically determined, taking into account both subjective and objective factors, thereby achieving more accurate comprehensive evaluation and selection of construction schemes. The entire selection process has good traceability, making it particularly suitable for multi-tunnel joint construction projects. Furthermore, this method supports dynamic adjustment of weights, allowing for flexible adaptation to actual project needs and enhancing its applicability in real-world engineering scenarios.

[0076] The above description is only a preferred embodiment of the present invention. It should be noted that for those skilled in the art, several improvements and substitutions can be made without departing from the technical principles of the present invention, and these improvements and substitutions should also be considered within the scope of protection of the present invention.

Claims

1. A decision making method suitable for a construction method of a hydraulic tunnel, characterized in that, The method comprises the following steps: obtaining evaluation index data corresponding to each evaluation dimension, wherein the evaluation dimensions include economy, construction period saving, lithology adaptability, environmental disturbance, process complexity and risk control; inputting the evaluation index data into a corresponding preset evaluation model, wherein the evaluation model outputs a corresponding evaluation value, and the evaluation model includes an economic rationality model, a construction period saving model, a lithology adaptability model, an environmental disturbance coefficient model, a process convenience model and a risk control model; obtaining objective weights corresponding to each evaluation dimension and a comprehensive fuzzy evaluation value; outputting a comprehensive score of each construction method according to the comprehensive fuzzy evaluation value and the objective weights, and determining an optimal construction method according to the comprehensive score.

2. The decision making method suitable for the construction method of the hydraulic tunnel according to claim 1, characterized in that, The economic rationality model comprises: ； wherein the C represents a unit length cost, the represents an initial equipment investment cost, the represents a fixed structure cost, the represents a tunnel length, the represents a unit length excavation cost function, the represents a tunnel radius.

3. The decision making method suitable for the construction method of the hydraulic tunnel according to claim 1, characterized in that, The construction period saving model comprises: ; wherein the represents the average push speed, the represents the penetration rate of the device in the effective working time, the represents the device utilization rate.

4. The decision making method suitable for the construction method of the hydraulic tunnel according to claim 1, characterized in that, The lithology adaptability model comprises: ; Wherein, the Indicates the excavation volume per unit time, and the Indicates the function relationship between the preset rock strength and the excavation efficiency, and the Indicates the saturated uniaxial compressive strength of the rock.

5. The decision making method suitable for the construction method of the hydraulic tunnel according to claim 1, characterized in that, The environmental disturbance coefficient model comprises: ; wherein the represents an environmental disturbance coefficient, the represents an air sound pressure level generated by the disturbance source device during operation, the represents a dominant vibration frequency of the disturbance source in a normal operating state, the represents an empirical coefficient, the represents a distance from the disturbance source to the sensitive source.

6. The decision making method suitable for the construction method of the hydraulic tunnel according to claim 1, characterized in that, The process convenience model comprises: ; ; ; wherein said represents the number of people required to complete the same amount of work, said represents the number of technicians required for the project, said represents the number of technical process steps in a cycle, said represents the average time of the process, said and said respectively represent the weight of the automation coefficient and the process difficulty coefficient, and said CPC represents the process convenience coefficient.

7. The decision making method suitable for the construction method of the hydraulic tunnel according to claim 1, characterized in that, The risk control model comprises: ; wherein the represents a safety factor, the represents the ultimate stress of the material, the represents the design allowable stress.

8. The decision making method suitable for the construction method of the hydraulic tunnel according to claim 1, characterized in that, The process of obtaining the objective weights comprises: ; ; Among them, the Representing the entropy value, the Indicates the first The evaluation object is in the first Normalized values ​​under a certain evaluation standard, where k represents a preset constant, and the... Indicates the number of evaluation objects, the Represents the objective weight, the Indicates the number of evaluation indicators, the first one... The evaluation object represents the first... The construction method for hydraulic tunnels, the first one The evaluation criteria are evaluation indicators used to evaluate the performance of construction methods for hydraulic tunnels.

9. The decision making method suitable for the construction method of the hydraulic tunnel according to claim 1, characterized in that, The process of obtaining the comprehensive fuzzy evaluation value comprises: ; ; ; Wherein, the and the are interval values of the membership function, the is the membership value of the first evaluation index under the first evaluation criterion, the represents the weight of the first evaluation criterion, the represents the current grade number, i.e., represents the position of the first grade in all grades, the represents the total number of grades, the represents the comprehensive fuzzy evaluation value, and the represents the value representing the first evaluation object under the first evaluation criterion.

10. The decision making method suitable for the construction method of the hydraulic tunnel according to claim 1, characterized in that, The process of obtaining the comprehensive score comprises: ; Wherein, the represents the comprehensive score of the evaluation object, the represents the subjective weight, the represents the comprehensive fuzzy evaluation value, the represents the normalized value of the evaluation object under the evaluation criterion.

Images