CN115112860B - Method for evaluating compatibility of earthen archaeological site crack grouting material and earthen archaeological site soil - Google Patents

Method for evaluating compatibility of earthen archaeological site crack grouting material and earthen archaeological site soil Download PDF

Info

Publication number
CN115112860B
CN115112860B CN202210742732.2A CN202210742732A CN115112860B CN 115112860 B CN115112860 B CN 115112860B CN 202210742732 A CN202210742732 A CN 202210742732A CN 115112860 B CN115112860 B CN 115112860B
Authority
CN
China
Prior art keywords
index
weight
evaluation
subjective weight
site
Prior art date
Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
Active
Application number
CN202210742732.2A
Other languages
Chinese (zh)
Other versions
CN115112860A (en
Inventor
于翔鹏
崔凯
王东华
马俊宁
刘辉
李淑桓
Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.)
Lanzhou University of Technology
Original Assignee
Lanzhou University of Technology
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by Lanzhou University of Technology filed Critical Lanzhou University of Technology
Priority to CN202210742732.2A priority Critical patent/CN115112860B/en
Publication of CN115112860A publication Critical patent/CN115112860A/en
Application granted granted Critical
Publication of CN115112860B publication Critical patent/CN115112860B/en
Active legal-status Critical Current
Anticipated expiration legal-status Critical

Links

Images

Classifications

    • G—PHYSICS
    • G01—MEASURING; TESTING
    • G01N—INVESTIGATING OR ANALYSING MATERIALS BY DETERMINING THEIR CHEMICAL OR PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
    • G01N33/00—Investigating or analysing materials by specific methods not covered by groups G01N1/00 - G01N31/00
    • G01N33/24—Earth materials
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
    • G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
    • G06Q10/063—Operations research, analysis or management
    • G06Q10/0639—Performance analysis of employees; Performance analysis of enterprise or organisation operations
    • G06Q10/06393—Score-carding, benchmarking or key performance indicator [KPI] analysis
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q50/00—Information and communication technology [ICT] specially adapted for implementation of business processes of specific business sectors, e.g. utilities or tourism
    • G06Q50/08—Construction
    • Y—GENERAL TAGGING OF NEW TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS; GENERAL TAGGING OF CROSS-SECTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES SPANNING OVER SEVERAL SECTIONS OF THE IPC; TECHNICAL SUBJECTS COVERED BY FORMER USPC CROSS-REFERENCE ART COLLECTIONS [XRACs] AND DIGESTS
    • Y02—TECHNOLOGIES OR APPLICATIONS FOR MITIGATION OR ADAPTATION AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE
    • Y02A—TECHNOLOGIES FOR ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE
    • Y02A90/00—Technologies having an indirect contribution to adaptation to climate change
    • Y02A90/10—Information and communication technologies [ICT] supporting adaptation to climate change, e.g. for weather forecasting or climate simulation

Landscapes

  • Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • Human Resources & Organizations (AREA)
  • Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
  • Economics (AREA)
  • Life Sciences & Earth Sciences (AREA)
  • Strategic Management (AREA)
  • General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Entrepreneurship & Innovation (AREA)
  • General Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
  • Tourism & Hospitality (AREA)
  • Chemical & Material Sciences (AREA)
  • Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
  • Development Economics (AREA)
  • Educational Administration (AREA)
  • Marketing (AREA)
  • General Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • Remote Sensing (AREA)
  • Food Science & Technology (AREA)
  • Game Theory and Decision Science (AREA)
  • Environmental & Geological Engineering (AREA)
  • General Life Sciences & Earth Sciences (AREA)
  • Geology (AREA)
  • Quality & Reliability (AREA)
  • Primary Health Care (AREA)
  • Operations Research (AREA)
  • Medicinal Chemistry (AREA)
  • Analytical Chemistry (AREA)
  • Biochemistry (AREA)
  • Immunology (AREA)
  • Pathology (AREA)
  • Management, Administration, Business Operations System, And Electronic Commerce (AREA)

Abstract

The invention provides a method for evaluating compatibility of a fracture grouting material of an earthen site and an earthen body of the site, which comprises the following steps: calculating a drought index of a site soil body, determining a weather grade according to the drought index, and determining an evaluation index according to the weather grade; assigning subjective weight to each evaluation index, calculating objective weight by using test values, and averaging the subjective weight and the objective weight to obtain combined weight; processing the test values of each evaluation index of grouting slurry and site soil by using a TOPSIS method to calculate relative sticking progress; determining the improvement direction of compatibility evaluation grading and grouting slurry performance: and determining compatibility evaluation grading according to the relative sticking progress, and giving an improvement direction of the grouting slurry material according to weighted sorting and unweighted sorting of performance difference. The method comprehensively considers the common evaluation indexes of different climate grades of the earthen site, gives the weight to the earthen site subjectively and objectively respectively, provides the improvement direction of the material, and provides good reference value for compatibility evaluation.

Description

Method for evaluating compatibility of earthen archaeological site crack grouting material and earthen archaeological site soil
Technical Field
The invention relates to the technical field of earthen site reinforcing materials, in particular to a method for evaluating compatibility of earthen site crack grouting materials and earthen sites, which carries out quantitative evaluation on compatibility between the existing reinforcing materials and the existing earthen sites and can also be popularized to other related fields needing to evaluate compatibility.
Background
In the northwest of arid and semi-arid environment of China, a large number of ancient earthen sites are left, such as the human residential site in the gulf of Qin' an county, gansu, the city of the river of Turpan, the Yinchuan Xixia Ling, the great wall with wide distribution, etc. Under the influence of building technology and natural environment, the earthen site develops large and small cracks. At present, grouting reinforcement is mainly used for repairing cracks, and the performance of grouting slurry is directly related to the reinforcement effect. As the crack grouting of the earthen archaeological site belongs to the work of cultural relic protection and must follow the basic principle of 'maximum compatibility' in the cultural relic protection, the compatibility evaluation between the crack grouting slurry and the earthen archaeological site is an indispensable step.
In the field of cultural relic protection, compatibility concepts are wide but no general definition exists, compatibility in the aspects of physics, mechanics, thermology, water, environment, humanity, construction and the like is considered generally for specific cultural relic protection practices, further specific indexes are given for different aspects, and then all indexes are comprehensively evaluated to give compatibility evaluation.
At present, the evaluation work of the compatibility between the soil ruins crack grouting slurry and the ruins soil is only a preliminary exploration stage. The experts think that the slurry and the soil body should have similar physical and mechanical properties, the experts think that the slurry should have better air permeability, water permeability and mechanical strength than the soil body of the site, and the experts think that the slurry and the soil body should have consistent performance in the aspect of heat, so as to prevent overlarge temperature difference and uncoordinated deformation under long-term sunshine.
The above description shows that the evaluation of the compatibility between the soil ruins crack grouting slurry and the ruins soil has the following two defects: (1) The compatibility is not considered completely, only the compatibility of a certain aspect is considered, and the indexes of the compatibility of the aspect are not selected; (2) Most of the evaluation methods are qualitative evaluation, descriptions such as 'more compatible' and 'incompatible' are given, visual and quantitative evaluation is not available, compatibility evaluation results cannot be explained, and beneficial support cannot be provided for the improvement direction and the applicability of materials.
Disclosure of Invention
Aiming at the technical problems that the evaluation indexes of the existing compatibility evaluation method are incomplete and visual quantitative evaluation is lacked, the invention provides a method for evaluating the compatibility of an earthen site crack grouting material and an earthen site soil body.
In order to achieve the purpose, the technical scheme of the invention is realized as follows: a method for evaluating compatibility of a fracture grouting material of an earthen site and an earthen body of the site comprises the following steps:
step S1: calculating a drought index of a soil body of the site according to the climate condition of the region where the site is located, determining a climate grade according to the drought index, and determining an evaluation index according to the climate grade; respectively testing the numerical values of the evaluation indexes of the grouting slurry and the ancient site soil body;
step S2: determining the combined weight of each evaluation index: assigning subjective weight to each evaluation index, calculating objective weight by using the test value of each evaluation index of grouting slurry, and then averaging the subjective weight and the objective weight to obtain the combined weight of each evaluation index;
and step S3: the TOPSIS method is used for processing the test values of the evaluation indexes of the grouting slurry and the earthen site to calculate the relative sticking progress: determining a positive ideal solution and a negative ideal solution of each grouting slurry by using the principle of performance similarity as compatibility, and calculating relative sticking progress;
and step S4: determining the improvement direction of compatibility evaluation grading and grouting slurry performance: and determining compatibility evaluation grading according to the relative pasting degree, and then giving an improvement direction of the grouting slurry material according to weighted sorting and unweighted sorting of performance difference.
The method for determining the evaluation index according to the climate grade comprises the following steps: the evaluation indexes selected from the extreme arid climate grade and the arid climate grade are 8 indexes in total, namely density, specific gravity, compressive strength, cohesive force, internal friction angle, heat conductivity coefficient, specific heat capacity and thermal expansion coefficient, and the evaluation indexes selected from the semi-arid climate grade and the semi-arid semi-humid climate grade are 11 indexes in total, namely density, specific gravity, porosity, compressive strength, cohesive force, internal friction angle, heat conductivity coefficient, specific heat capacity, thermal expansion coefficient, permeability coefficient and disintegration rate.
The method for determining the climate grade according to the drought index comprises the following steps: the grading standard is that the range of the drought index is 0-0.05 and is the extreme arid climate grade; the range of the drought index is 0.05-0.2 which is the drought climate grade; the range of the drought index is 0.2-0.5, and the range of the drought index is semi-arid climate grade, and the range of the drought index is 0.5-1, and the semi-arid climate grade is semi-humid climate grade;
the method for calculating the drought index of the site soil comprises the following steps: and calculating the drought index by using the information of the annual average rainfall, the annual average temperature, the average annual radiant quantity and the altitude of the area where the soil body of the site of the earthen archaeological site is located, wherein the result of the drought index is between 0 and 1.
The drought index calculation method comprises the following steps: i = P/ET 0 Wherein I is drought index, P is annual average rainfall, ET 0 Represents the average potential evaporation per year and
Figure GDA0004071791150000021
wherein Δ represents the slope of the saturated water vapor pressure curve at a certain temperature and->
Figure GDA0004071791150000022
γ denotes the psychrometric constant and->
Figure GDA0004071791150000023
Wherein Rs is annual radiant quantity, a and b are condition parameters, T is annual average temperature, and z is altitude.
The method for determining the subjective weight of each evaluation index by using the AHP method comprises the following steps: p1.1, constructing a hierarchical model: constructing a hierarchical model by taking compatibility evaluation as a target layer, categories as a criterion layer and specific evaluation indexes as an index layer; p1.2 determining a judgment matrix: the judgment matrix comprises a judgment matrix of a criterion layer and a judgment matrix of an index layer, and the criterion layer weight and the index layer weight are respectively determined after consistency check; the P1.3 index layer weight multiplied by the criterion layer weight is the subjective weight.
The subjective weight is as follows: in the extreme drought climate grade, the subjective weight of density is 0.0349, the subjective weight of specific gravity is 0.0698, the subjective weight of compressive strength is 0.0517, the subjective weight of cohesive force is 0.1033, the subjective weight of internal friction angle is 0.1033, the subjective weight of thermal conductivity coefficient is 0.1274, the subjective weight of specific heat capacity is 0.1274 and the subjective weight of thermal expansion coefficient is 0.3822; in the drought climate grade, the subjective weight of density is 0.0667, the subjective weight of specific gravity is 0.1333, the subjective weight of compressive strength is 0.08, the subjective weight of cohesive force is 0.16, the subjective weight of internal friction angle is 0.16, the subjective weight of thermal conductivity coefficient is 0.1, the subjective weight of specific heat capacity is 0.1 and the subjective weight of thermal expansion coefficient is 0.2; in the semiarid climate grade, the subjective weight of density is 0.0417, the subjective weight of specific gravity is 0.0834, the subjective weight of porosity is 0.0417, the subjective weight of compressive strength is 0.0667, the subjective weight of cohesive force is 0.1333, the subjective weight of internal friction angle is 0.1333, the subjective weight of thermal conductivity is 0.0667, the subjective weight of specific heat capacity is 0.0667, the weight of thermal expansion coefficient is 0.2, the subjective weight of permeability coefficient is 0.0556 and the subjective weight of disintegration rate is 0.1111; in the semiarid semihumid climate grade, the subjective weight of density is 0.0357, the subjective weight of specific gravity is 0.0715, the subjective weight of porosity is 0.0357, the subjective weight of compressive strength is 0.0571, the subjective weight of cohesive force is 0.1143, the subjective weight of internal friction angle is 0.1143, the subjective weight of thermal conductivity coefficient is 0.0714, the subjective weight of specific heat capacity is 0.0714, the subjective weight of thermal expansion coefficient is 0.1429, the subjective weight of permeability coefficient is 0.0952, and the subjective weight of disintegration rate is 0.1905.
In step S2, objective weights of the evaluation indexes are calculated by using a CRITIC method, and the CRITIC method includes: p2.1, carrying out max-min standardization treatment on the test value of the same evaluation index of the grouting slurry; p2.2, calculating a standard deviation and a correlation coefficient of each evaluation index, wherein the standard deviation is used as index variability, and the correlation coefficient is used as index conflict; p2.3, calculating the information quantity of each evaluation index, wherein the information quantity is obtained by multiplying index variability by index conflict, and normalizing the information quantity is the objective weight of each evaluation index.
The method for calculating the relative closeness by using the TOPSIS method comprises the following specific steps:
s3.1, calculating the absolute value of the performance difference value of each grouting slurry and the earthen site according to the test numerical value of each evaluation index of each grouting slurry and the earthen site;
s3.2, performing max-min standardization treatment on the absolute value of the performance difference value;
s3.3, weighting the normalized values by using the combined weight;
s3.4, calculating Euclidean distances between the weighted result and the positive ideal solution and between the weighted result and the negative ideal solution respectively;
and S3.5, calculating the relative sticking progress of grouting slurry according to the Euclidean distance.
The calculation method of the relative pasting progress comprises the following steps:
Figure GDA0004071791150000031
wherein E is i The relative sticking degree of the No. i grouting slurry,
Figure GDA0004071791150000032
the Euclidean distance between the No. i grouting slurry and the positive ideal solution; />
Figure GDA0004071791150000033
The Euclidean distance between the No. i grouting slurry and the negative ideal solution; and is
Figure GDA0004071791150000041
Figure GDA0004071791150000042
Wherein j =1, 2.. And n, n is the total number of evaluation indexes; d ij The values of the ith row and the jth column in the weighting matrix D are obtained;
Figure GDA0004071791150000043
for a positive ideal solution of the jth evaluation index, is>
Figure GDA0004071791150000044
The positive ideal solution is a slurry performance index set which is a negative ideal solution of the jth evaluation index and is a set formed by multiplying 1 by the corresponding weight in the aspect of numerical value; the negative ideal solution is the set of values furthest from the slurry parameters, being a set consisting of 0 numerically;
the describedWeighting matrix D = CW, where C is an absolute matrix and weighting matrix W is a combination weight W of the j-th evaluation index j Constructing a diagonal matrix;
element C in the absolute matrix C ij Performing max-min standardization on the absolute value of the performance difference to obtain a result, and
Figure GDA0004071791150000045
wherein, b ij B is the absolute value of the performance difference of the j th evaluation index of the i th grouting slurry ij ＝|a ij -a .j |；a ij A measured value of the j-th evaluation index of the i-th grouting slurry, a 0j The measured value is the j-th evaluation index of the site soil body.
The specific steps for determining the improvement direction of compatibility evaluation grading and grouting slurry performance are as follows:
s4.1, according to the calculation result of the relative closeness degree, giving out compatibility evaluation grading according to the conditions that the compatibility is extremely low when 0-0.2, the compatibility is low when 0.2-0.4, the compatibility is medium when 0.4-0.6, the compatibility is high when 0.6-0.8 and the compatibility is extremely high when 0.8-1;
s4.2 in the calculation process of the TOPSIS method, selecting an absolute value of a performance difference value and a weighted absolute value, and sequencing all evaluation indexes of each grouting slurry from small to large to obtain the sequence of absolute value data and weighted absolute value data;
s4.3, selecting a preferential improvement direction: and combining the absolute value data and the weighted absolute value data, and selecting the evaluation index with the earliest occurrence sequence and the largest frequency as a priority improvement direction.
Compared with the existing compatibility evaluation scheme, the method has the following advantages: (1) Multiple performance indexes necessary in engineering practice of different weather grades are comprehensively considered, and compatibility evaluation is more comprehensive; (2) The subjectivity of people and the objectivity of index data are considered comprehensively, and the difference between the performance of grouting slurry and the performance of the site soil body is also considered; (3) The expansibility of the evaluation method can be realized, if new evaluation indexes are added subsequently, the weight determination can still be realized according to the method, and the original evaluation system of the method is not changed. The method comprehensively considers the common performance indexes of different weather grades in the field of cultural relic protection, gives subjective and objective weights respectively, and finally provides the improvement direction of the material, thereby providing a model with good reference value for compatibility evaluation.
Drawings
In order to more clearly illustrate the embodiments of the present invention or the technical solutions in the prior art, the drawings used in the description of the embodiments or the prior art will be briefly described below, it is obvious that the drawings in the following description are only some embodiments of the present invention, and for those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained according to the drawings without creative efforts.
FIG. 1 is a schematic flow chart of the present invention.
Fig. 2 is a schematic diagram of an AHP hierarchical model according to embodiments 2 and 3 of the present invention.
Fig. 3 is a schematic diagram of an AHP hierarchical model according to embodiments 4 and 5 of the present invention.
Detailed Description
The technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the drawings in the embodiments of the present invention, and it is obvious that the described embodiments are only a part of the embodiments of the present invention, and not all of the embodiments. All other embodiments, which can be obtained by a person skilled in the art without inventive effort based on the embodiments of the present invention, are within the scope of the present invention.
Example 1
As shown in fig. 1, a method for evaluating compatibility of a soil ruins crack grouting material and an ruins soil body comprises the following steps:
step S1: and (3) calculating a drought index of the site soil body according to the climate condition of the region where the site is located, determining a climate grade according to the drought index, determining evaluation indexes according to the climate grade, and testing the numerical values of the evaluation indexes of the grouting slurry and the site soil body respectively.
The method for calculating the drought index of the site soil comprises the following steps: and calculating the drought index by using the information of the annual average rainfall, the annual average temperature, the average annual radiant quantity, the altitude and the like of the region where the earthen site is located, wherein the result of the drought index is between 0 and 1. The method of calculating the drought index integrates rainfall, temperature, solar radiation and altitude. The drought index is determined by the relative ratio of the rainfall to the evaporation capacity, the rainfall is obtained by meteorological data statistics, the evaporation capacity is determined by the temperature, solar radiation and the altitude of the area, and the smaller the rainfall of one area is, the drier the drought is, the smaller the drought index is. The parameters are selected completely, and the calculation result can be obtained more accurately.
The method for determining the climate grade according to the drought index comprises the following steps: the grading standard is that the range of the drought index is 0-0.05 and is the extreme arid climate grade; the range of the drought index is 0.05-0.2 which is the drought climate grade; the range of the drought index is 0.2-0.5, and the range of the drought index is semi-arid climate grade, and the range of the drought index is 0.5-1, and the semi-arid climate grade is semi-humid climate grade. The condition that the rammed earth in the same climate grade area bears similar climate environments is indicated, the requirements on grouting materials are similar, and the requirements on the grouting materials cannot be the same when the rammed earth in different climate grades bears more different climate environments. For example, in an extremely arid region, due to less rainfall and enhanced solar radiation and temperature, the requirement on the water quality of a grouting material is not high, but the requirement on the thermal property is high; in semiarid and semihumid areas, the opposite is true, and the water physical properties must be considered heavily, which is also reflected in the subjective weight of each evaluation index determined by the AHP method.
The method for determining the evaluation index according to the climate grade comprises the following steps: the evaluation indexes selected from the extreme arid climate grade and the arid climate grade are 8 indexes in total, namely density, specific gravity, compressive strength, cohesive force, internal friction angle, heat conductivity coefficient, specific heat capacity and thermal expansion coefficient, and the evaluation indexes selected from the semi-arid climate grade and the semi-arid semi-humid climate grade are 11 indexes in total, namely density, specific gravity, porosity, compressive strength, cohesive force, internal friction angle, heat conductivity coefficient, specific heat capacity, thermal expansion coefficient, permeability coefficient and disintegration rate. Because of the low rainfall in extremely arid and arid regions, the consideration of the water texture may be reduced or eliminated, but in semi-arid and semi-arid semi-humid regions the water texture must be considered due to the high rainfall. The same 8 indexes are shared by the extremely arid area and the arid area because the climate environments represented by the two climate levels are still very similar, the 8 indexes are very important and necessary for two areas, and the same 11 indexes are also very important and necessary for the other two climate areas. The selected evaluation index is the minimum index capable of completely reflecting the requirement of the weather grade on the grouting material, the increase of the evaluation index is repeated with the existing index, and the decrease of the index lacks the description of related properties. And testing and selecting data of the evaluation index to perform subsequent calculation.
Step S2: determining the combined weight of each evaluation index: and giving subjective weight to each evaluation index, calculating objective weight by using the test data of each evaluation index of the grouting slurry, and then averaging the subjective weight and the objective weight to obtain the combined weight of each evaluation index.
The specific steps for determining the weight of each index are as follows:
s2.1, determining subjective weights of the evaluation indexes by using an AHP method.
The method for determining the subjective weight of each evaluation index by using the AHP method comprises the following specific steps:
p1.1, constructing a hierarchical model: constructing a hierarchical model by taking compatibility evaluation as a target layer, categories as a criterion layer and specific evaluation indexes as an index layer; p1.2 determining a judgment matrix: the judgment matrix comprises a judgment matrix of a criterion layer and an index layer, and the in-layer weights of the criterion layer and the index layer are determined after consistency check; and multiplying the P1.3 index layer weight by the weight of the general category of the criterion layer, wherein the calculation result is the final value of the subjective weight.
The weighting results of different climate grades in the AHP method are fixed and different. The fixed weight result shows that the requirements of the same weather grade on grouting materials are determined and consistent; the weight results are different, which indicates that the requirements of different weather grades on grouting materials are different. Therefore, the suitability of the grouting material in different climatic regions can be accurately determined.
Different judgment matrixes set by the AHP method result in different subjective weights, and more specifically: in the extreme drought climate grade, the subjective weight of density is 0.0349, the subjective weight of specific gravity is 0.0698, the subjective weight of compressive strength is 0.0517, the subjective weight of cohesive force is 0.1033, the subjective weight of internal friction angle is 0.1033, the subjective weight of thermal conductivity coefficient is 0.1274, the subjective weight of specific heat capacity is 0.1274 and the subjective weight of thermal expansion coefficient is 0.3822; in the drought climate grade, the subjective weight of density is 0.0667, the subjective weight of specific gravity is 0.1333, the subjective weight of compressive strength is 0.08, the subjective weight of cohesive force is 0.16, the subjective weight of internal friction angle is 0.16, the subjective weight of thermal conductivity coefficient is 0.1, the subjective weight of specific heat capacity is 0.1 and the subjective weight of thermal expansion coefficient is 0.2; in the semiarid climate grade, the subjective weight of density is 0.0417, the subjective weight of specific gravity is 0.0834, the subjective weight of porosity is 0.0417, the subjective weight of compressive strength is 0.0667, the subjective weight of cohesive force is 0.1333, the subjective weight of internal friction angle is 0.1333, the subjective weight of thermal conductivity is 0.0667, the subjective weight of specific heat capacity is 0.0667, the weight of thermal expansion coefficient is 0.2, the subjective weight of permeability coefficient is 0.0556 and the subjective weight of disintegration rate is 0.1111; in the semiarid semihumid climate grade, the subjective weight of density was 0.0357, the subjective weight of specific gravity was 0.0715, the subjective weight of porosity was 0.0357, the subjective weight of compressive strength was 0.0571, the subjective weight of cohesion was 0.1143, the subjective weight of internal friction angle was 0.1143, the subjective weight of thermal conductivity was 0.0714, the subjective weight of specific heat capacity was 0.0714, the subjective weight of thermal expansion coefficient was 0.1429, the subjective weight of permeability coefficient was 0.0952, and the subjective weight of disintegration rate was 0.1905.
S2.2 the objective weights of the various evaluation indices are determined using the CRITIC method.
The specific steps of determining the objective weight by using the CRITIC method are as follows: p2.1, carrying out max-min standardization treatment on the test value of the same evaluation index of the grouting slurry; p2.2, calculating a standard deviation and a correlation coefficient of each evaluation index, wherein the standard deviation is used as index variability, and the correlation coefficient is used as index conflict; p2.3, calculating the information quantity of each evaluation index, wherein the information quantity is obtained by multiplying index variability by index conflict, and normalizing the information quantity is the objective weight of each evaluation index.
And S2.3, calculating the average value of the subjective weight and the objective weight as the combined weight of each evaluation index.
And step S3: the TOPSIS method is used for processing the test values of the evaluation indexes of the grouting slurry and the site soil body to calculate the relative sticking progress: and determining a positive ideal solution and a negative ideal solution of each grouting slurry by using the principle of performance similarity as compatibility, and calculating the relative sticking progress.
The method for calculating the relative closeness by using the TOPSIS method comprises the following specific steps:
s3.1, calculating the absolute value of the performance difference value of each grouting slurry and the site soil body according to the test numerical value of each evaluation index of the grouting slurry and the site soil body;
s3.2, carrying out max-min standardization treatment on the absolute value of the performance difference; the influence of the order and unit of each evaluation index is eliminated.
S3.3, weighting the normalized values by using the combined weight; the influence of the weights on the result, i.e. the influence of the climate grade, is taken into account.
S3.4, respectively carrying out Euclidean distance between the weighted result subjected to the performance difference value standardization processing and a positive ideal solution and a negative ideal solution; and two distances are calculated simultaneously, so that the result deviation caused by over-close or far of partial indexes is avoided.
And S3.5, calculating the relative paste progress of the grouting slurry according to the Euclidean distance.
And step S4: determining the improvement direction of compatibility evaluation grading and grouting slurry performance: and determining compatibility evaluation grading according to the relative pasting degree, and then giving an improvement direction of the grouting slurry material according to weighted sorting and unweighted sorting of performance difference.
The specific steps for determining the improvement direction of compatibility evaluation grading and grouting slurry performance are as follows:
s4.1, according to the calculation result of the relative closeness degree, giving compatibility evaluation grades according to the conditions that 0-0.2 is extremely low, 0.2-0.4 is low, 0.4-0.6 is medium, 0.6-0.8 is high and 0.8-1 is extremely high; according to the calculation result of the relative closeness degree, five evaluation results of extremely low, medium, high and extremely high are given according to the division value of 0.2, the compatibility grading is the integral judgment of the compatibility of the materials, the higher the compatibility is, the higher the possibility of direct use is, and the less the grouting slurry needs to be improved. The direction of improvement of the material is then given in terms of weighted and unweighted ordering of the performance differences.
S4.2, selecting performance difference absolute value data and weighted absolute value data in the TOPSIS method calculation process, sequencing all indexes of each sample from small to large, and respectively sequencing the absolute value data and the weighted absolute value data;
s4.3, selecting a preferential improvement direction: and combining the ordering of the absolute value data and the ordering of the weighted absolute value data, and simultaneously selecting the evaluation index with the earliest occurrence sequence and the most times as a priority improvement direction.
Example 2
A method for evaluating compatibility of earthen site crack grouting slurry and an earthen site soil body is provided, in the embodiment, 15 groups of grouting slurry and 1 earthen site rammed earth are selected for compatibility evaluation, and the method comprises the following specific steps:
the compatibility evaluation of the existing 15 groups of fracture grouting slurry and the soil body of the site is carried out, the fracture grouting slurry suitable for the site of the site is preferably selected, and the following operations are carried out according to the steps of the invention:
step S1: counting the relevant climate data of the region of the earthen site, specifically, the annual average rainfall P is 50mm, the altitude z is 1130m, the annual average temperature T is 9 ℃, and the annual radiation Rs is 152.3kcal/cm 2 And calculating the drought index:
Figure GDA0004071791150000081
Figure GDA0004071791150000082
Figure GDA0004071791150000083
I＝P/ET 0
wherein, ET 0 And expressing the average potential evaporation amount per year, wherein delta is the slope of a saturated water vapor pressure curve at a certain temperature, gamma is a psychrometric constant, a and b are condition parameters, a is 0.45, and b is 0.7. Through calculation, the drought index I =0.039<0.05, belonging to the extremely arid climate grade, and selecting the following evaluation indexes: the test results of the density, the specific gravity, the compressive strength, the cohesive force, the internal friction angle, the heat conductivity coefficient, the specific heat capacity and the thermal expansion coefficient of each group of grouting slurry and each evaluation index of the soil body of the earthen site are as follows.
Figure GDA0004071791150000084
/>
Figure GDA0004071791150000091
Step S2: determining the combined weight of each evaluation index, and specifically comprising the following three steps: s2.1, determining subjective weight by using AHP; s2.2, determining objective weight by using a CRITIC method; s2.3 takes the arithmetic mean of the subjective weight and the objective weight as the combined weight.
Wherein, the subjective weight is determined by using an AHP method: and determining a judgment matrix according to the climate grade of the site soil body, and calculating the subjective weight of each evaluation index. Constructing an AHP hierarchical model shown in figure 2 by taking the compatibility evaluation as a target layer, taking the category as a criterion layer and taking the specific index as an index layer; determining each layer of judgment matrix, and calculating subjective weight:
the process of judging the subjective weight of the matrix A is as follows:
Aw＝λ max w
where w = [ w ] 1 ,w 2 ,…,w n ]Is a weight vector, λ max Is the maximum eigenvalue of the decision matrix a. The elements in the weight vector need to be normalized, i.e. the elements are normalized
Figure GDA0004071791150000092
In order to check and judge the consistency of the matrix A, the consistency ratio CR needs to be calculated, and the calculation formula is as follows:
Figure GDA0004071791150000093
if the consistency ratio CR is less than or equal to 0.1, judging that the matrix A passes the consistency test. Wherein, CI is a consistency index, and the calculation formula is as follows:
Figure GDA0004071791150000094
wherein λ is max Is the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix A, and n is the order of the judgment matrix A.
The consistency check is to check whether the importance judgment of each evaluation index is similar in the judgment matrix, namely, whether the judgment matrix is reasonable or not. The consistency ratio CR is less than or equal to 0.1, which indicates that the importance judgment among the evaluation indexes is reasonable through consistency test. RI is an average random consistency index, and its specific value is related to the order n of the decision matrix, as shown in the following table:
Figure GDA0004071791150000095
the calculated judgment matrix and weight are:
Figure GDA0004071791150000096
/>
Figure GDA0004071791150000101
the subjective weight of the evaluation index is determined as follows:
Figure GDA0004071791150000102
the specific steps for determining objective weights using the CRITIC method are as follows: p2.1 carrying out max-min standardization treatment on the same index of the original data; p2.2, calculating a standard deviation and a correlation coefficient of each evaluation index, wherein the standard deviation is used as index variability, and the correlation coefficient is used as index conflict; p2.3, calculating the information quantity of each evaluation index, wherein the information quantity is obtained by multiplying index variability by index conflict, and the information quantity is normalized to be the objective weight of each index.
When the CRITIC method is used, in order to avoid the influence of magnitude order, the min-max standardization processing is carried out on the original data of the grouting slurry, and the results are as follows:
Figure GDA0004071791150000103
/>
Figure GDA0004071791150000111
and calculating the standard deviation and the correlation coefficient of each normalized index, wherein the index variability is the standard deviation, the larger the standard deviation is, the larger the weight is, the index conflict is the correlation coefficient, the stronger the correlation is, the lower the conflict is, and the smaller the weight is.
The information content is normalized (and 1) to determine the weight according to the information content = index variability index conflict calculation, and the calculation result is shown in the following table.
Index (es) Index variability Index conflict property Information quantity Objective weight
Density of 0.275 4.609 1.266 0.09
Specific gravity of 0.318 4.723 1.503 0.107
Compressive strength 0.319 5.539 1.768 0.126
Cohesion force of adhesion 0.341 4.711 1.606 0.114
Internal friction angle 0.328 4.888 1.604 0.114
Coefficient of thermal conductivity 0.322 6.457 2.082 0.148
Specific heat capacity 0.274 7.189 1.969 0.14
Coefficient of thermal expansion 0.279 8.083 2.252 0.16
And S2.3, taking the arithmetic mean of the subjective weight and the objective weight as a combined weight.
Index (I) Subjective weighting Objective weight Combining weight W
Density of 0.0349 0.09 0.0625
Specific gravity of 0.0698 0.107 0.0884
Compressive strength 0.0517 0.126 0.0889
Cohesion force 0.1033 0.114 0.1087
Internal friction angle 0.1033 0.114 0.1087
Coefficient of thermal conductivity 0.1274 0.148 0.1377
Specific heat capacity 0.1274 0.14 0.1337
Coefficient of thermal expansion 0.3822 0.16 0.2711
And constructing a weight diagonal matrix by the combined weight of each evaluation index so as to facilitate subsequent operation:
W＝diag(W 1 ,W 2 ,…,W 8 ) Wherein W is 1 ,W 2 ,…,W 8 The combination weights are 8 evaluation indexes.
Step S3, calculating the relative sticking progress by using a TOPSIS method, and determining quantitative evaluation of compatibility:
in terms of compatibility understanding, the closest to, i.e., most compatible with, the performance of an earthen site is. The calculation process is as follows:
s3.1, calculating the absolute value of the performance difference value between the grout performance of each grouting grout and the site soil performance:
b ij ＝|a ij -a 0j |
wherein, a ij A measured value of the j-th evaluation index of the i-th grouting slurry, a 0j Is the measurement value of the jth evaluation index of the site soil body, b ij And the absolute value of the performance difference value of the jth evaluation index of the ith grouting slurry is shown.
S3.2, carrying out min-max standardization on the absolute values according to each evaluation index, wherein the smaller the absolute value is, the closer the performance of the grouting slurry and the site soil is, the greater the compatibility is, and therefore, reverse value taking is carried out, namely, the absolute value is
Figure GDA0004071791150000121
S3.3 calculating a weighted normalization matrix D 15×8 ：
D＝CW
Wherein the element c ij Constituting an absolute matrix C.
S3.4, calculating Euclidean distances between each evaluation index and the positive and negative ideal solutions: in this case, the positive ideal solution is a set of slurry performance indicators, that is, a set formed by multiplying 1 by the corresponding weight in a numerical view, and the negative ideal solution is a set of values farthest from the slurry parameters, that is, a set formed by 0 in a numerical view; the Euclidean distances between the evaluation object and the ideal solution are respectively as follows:
Figure GDA0004071791150000122
Figure GDA0004071791150000123
wherein the content of the first and second substances,
Figure GDA0004071791150000124
represents a distance from a positive ideal solution>
Figure GDA0004071791150000125
Representing the distance from the negative ideal solution, d ij The result of the weighting process (result of S3.3) after normalization of the absolute value representing the performance difference, the element in the matrix D, whether or not it is a criterion for a performance difference>
Figure GDA0004071791150000126
Representing a negative ideal solution, i.e. d ij The minimum value of each column in->
Figure GDA0004071791150000127
Represents a positive ideal solution, i.e. d ij The maximum value of each column in (c).
S3.5, calculating according to the distance between the evaluation index and the ideal solution to obtain the relative posting progress:
Figure GDA0004071791150000128
and step S4: the compatibility evaluation rating and the improvement direction of the slurry are given:
from the above calculation results, it is understood that 15 groups of grouting slurries were divided into 5 groups of 0.8 to 1, 0.6 to 0.8, 0.4 to 0.6, 0.2 to 0.4, and 0 to 0.2, and each group was given a very high, medium, low, and very low compatibility evaluation. The evaluation results are shown in the following table.
Figure GDA0004071791150000129
/>
Figure GDA0004071791150000131
The other methods were the same as in example 1.
Example 3
In the embodiment, 15 groups of grouting slurry in the embodiment 2 and another 1-position earthen site rammed earth are selected for compatibility evaluation, and the specific steps are as follows:
the compatibility evaluation of the existing 15 groups of fracture grouting slurry and rammed earth at the site of 1 place is carried out, the fracture grouting slurry suitable for the site of the earth is preferably selected, and the following operations are carried out according to the steps of the invention:
step S1: counting the relevant climate data of the region where the earthen site is located, specifically, the annual average rainfall P is 135mm, the altitude z is 1380m, the annual average air temperature T is 7.8 ℃, and the annual radiation Rs is 146.4kcal/cm 2 And calculating the drought index:
Figure GDA0004071791150000132
Figure GDA0004071791150000133
Figure GDA0004071791150000134
I＝P/ET 0
through calculation, the drought index I =0.112 is constructed by 0.2, which belongs to the drought climate grade, and the selected evaluation indexes are as follows: the data of the density, specific gravity, compressive strength, cohesive force, internal friction angle, heat conductivity coefficient, specific heat capacity and thermal expansion coefficient of each group of grouting slurry test values are the data in the embodiment 2, and are not repeated here, and the test results of each index of the ancient site soil are as follows.
Figure GDA0004071791150000141
/>
Step S2: determining the weight of each index, which comprises the following three steps: s2.1, determining subjective weight by using AHP; s2.2, determining objective weight by using a CRITIC method; and S2.3, taking the arithmetic mean of the subjective weight and the objective weight as a combined weight.
Subjective weights were determined using AHP: and determining a judgment matrix according to the climate grade of the site soil, and calculating the weight of each index. Constructing an AHP hierarchical model shown in FIG. 2, determining a judgment matrix of each layer, and calculating the weight as follows:
Figure GDA0004071791150000142
determining AHP subjective weights
Figure GDA0004071791150000143
The specific steps for determining the objective weight by the CRITIC method are as follows: p2.1, performing max-min standardization treatment on the same evaluation index of the grouting slurry measurement value; p2.2, calculating a standard deviation and a correlation coefficient of each evaluation index, wherein the standard deviation is used as index variability, and the correlation coefficient is used as index conflict; p2.3, calculating the information quantity of each evaluation index, multiplying the index variability by the index conflict, and normalizing the information quantity to obtain the objective weight of each index.
To avoid orders of magnitude effects when using the CRITIC method, the raw data of the grouting slurry was subjected to a min-max normalization process, as shown in example 2. And calculating the standard deviation and the correlation coefficient of each index after standardization, wherein the variability is the standard deviation, the larger the standard deviation is, the larger the weight is, the higher the conflict is, the correlation coefficient is, the stronger the correlation is, the lower the conflict is, and the smaller the weight is. The objective weights were determined by normalizing (and 1) the information volumes according to the information volume = variability conflict calculation, the results of which are shown in the table below.
Index (I) Index variability Index conflict property Information volume Objective weight
Density of 0.275 4.609 1.266 0.09
Specific gravity of 0.318 4.723 1.503 0.107
Compressive strength 0.319 5.539 1.768 0.126
Cohesion force 0.341 4.711 1.606 0.114
Internal friction angle 0.328 4.888 1.604 0.114
Coefficient of thermal conductivity 0.322 6.457 2.082 0.148
Specific heat capacity 0.274 7.189 1.969 0.14
Coefficient of thermal expansion 0.279 8.083 2.252 0.16
S2.3, taking the arithmetic mean of the subjective weight and the objective weight as a combined weight, as shown in the following table:
index (es) Subjective weighting Objective weight Combining weight W
Density of 0.0667 0.09 0.0784
Specific gravity of 0.1333 0.107 0.1202
Compressive strength 0.08 0.126 0.103
Cohesion force of adhesion 0.16 0.114 0.137
Internal friction angle 0.16 0.114 0.137
Coefficient of thermal conductivity 0.1 0.148 0.124
Specific heat capacity 0.1 0.14 0.12
Coefficient of thermal expansion 0.2 0.16 0.18
And constructing a weight diagonal matrix by the combined weight of each index so as to facilitate subsequent operation:
W＝diag(W 1 ,W 2 ,…,W 8 )
step S3, determining compatibility quantitative evaluation by using a TOPSIS method:
according to the understanding of compatibility, the performance of the site soil is the closest to the performance of the site soil, namely the most compatible. The calculation process is as follows:
s3.1, calculating the absolute value of the difference value between the performance of each slurry and the performance of the site soil;
b ij ＝|a ij -a 0j |
wherein, a ij Is the j index of No. i slurry, a 0j Is the jth index of the soil body of the site.
S3.2, carrying out min-max standardization on the absolute values according to each index, wherein the smaller the absolute value is, the closer the performance of the slurry and the site soil is, the greater the compatibility is, and therefore, reverse value taking is required, namely
Figure GDA0004071791150000151
S3.3 calculating a weighted normalization matrix D 15×8 ：
D＝CW
S3.4, calculating Euclidean distances between each index and the positive and negative ideal solutions: in this case, the positive ideal solution is a set of slurry performance indicators, that is, a set formed by multiplying 1 by the corresponding weight in a numerical view, and the negative ideal solution is a set of values farthest from the slurry parameters, that is, a set formed by 0 in a numerical view; judging the distance between the object and the ideal solution:
Figure GDA0004071791150000161
/>
Figure GDA0004071791150000162
s3.5, calculating according to the distance between the evaluation object and the ideal solution to obtain the relative posting progress:
Figure GDA0004071791150000163
and step S4: the compatibility evaluation rating and the improvement direction of the slurry are given:
from the above calculation results, it was found that 15 groups of slurries were divided into 5 groups of 0.8 to 1, 0.6 to 0.8, 0.4 to 0.6, 0.2 to 0.4, and 0 to 0.2, and were subjected to extremely high, medium, low, and extremely low compatibility evaluations. The evaluation results are shown in the following table.
Figure GDA0004071791150000164
The other methods were the same as in example 1.
Example 4
In the embodiment, 15 groups of slurry and 1 site earthen site rammed earth in example 1 are selected for compatibility evaluation, and the specific steps are as follows:
the compatibility evaluation of the existing 15 groups of fracture grouting slurry and rammed earth at 1 historic site is carried out, the fracture grouting slurry suitable for the historic site is preferably selected, and the following operations are carried out according to the steps of the invention:
step S1: counting the relevant climate data of the region where the earthen site is located, specifically, the average annual rainfall P is 304mm, the altitude z is 1688m, the average annual temperature T is 8.5 ℃, and the annual radiation Rs is 153.66kcal/cm 2 And calculating the drought index:
Figure GDA0004071791150000171
Figure GDA0004071791150000172
Figure GDA0004071791150000173
I＝P/ET 0
through calculation, drought indexes I =0.233 and are all 0.5, belonging to semi-arid climate grades, and the selected evaluation indexes are as follows: the density, specific gravity, compressive strength, cohesive force, internal friction angle, heat conductivity coefficient, specific heat capacity and thermal expansion coefficient of the soil, and the test results of each index of each group of slurry and the soil of the site are as follows.
Figure GDA0004071791150000174
Step S2: determining the weight of each index, which comprises the following three steps: s2.1, determining subjective weight by using AHP; s2.2, determining objective weight by using a CRITIC method; and S2.3, taking the arithmetic mean of the subjective weight and the objective weight as a combined weight.
Subjective weights were determined using AHP: and determining a judgment matrix according to the climate grade of the site soil, and calculating the weight of each index. An AHP hierarchical model is constructed as shown in figure 3. Determining each layer judgment matrix, and calculating the weight as follows:
Figure GDA0004071791150000181
determining AHP subjective weights
Figure GDA0004071791150000182
The specific steps for determining the objective weight by the CRITIC method are as follows: p2.1 carrying out max-min standardization treatment on the same evaluation index of the test value; p2.2, calculating a standard deviation and a correlation coefficient of each evaluation index, wherein the standard deviation is used as index variability, and the correlation coefficient is used as index conflict; p2.3, calculating the information quantity of each index, multiplying the index variability by the index conflict, and normalizing the information quantity to obtain the objective weight of each index. When the CRITIC method is used, in order to avoid the influence of magnitude order, the data of the original test value of grouting slurry is subjected to min-max standardization, and the results are as follows:
Figure GDA0004071791150000191
calculating standard deviation and correlation coefficient of each index after standardization, wherein variability is standard deviation, the larger the standard deviation is, the larger the weight is, the higher the conflict is, the correlation coefficient is, the stronger the correlation is, the lower the conflict is, and the smaller the weight is; the information volumes were normalized (and 1) to determine the weights according to the information volume = variability collision calculation, the calculation results are given in the following table:
index (I) Index variability Index conflict property Information volume Objective weight
Density of 0.275 9.676 2.658 0.079
Specific gravity of 0.318 8.995 2.862 0.085
Porosity of the material 0.274 12.209 3.339 0.099
Compressive strength 0.319 9.647 3.079 0.091
Cohesion force 0.341 9.28 3.164 0.094
Internal angle of friction 0.328 8.829 2.897 0.086
Coefficient of thermal conductivity 0.322 9.837 3.172 0.094
Specific heat capacity 0.274 10.72 2.936 0.087
Coefficient of thermal expansion 0.279 10.829 3.017 0.089
Coefficient of permeability 0.322 11.036 3.554 0.105
Rate of disintegration 0.274 11.451 3.141 0.093
Taking the arithmetic mean of the subjective weight and the objective weight as a combined weight:
Figure GDA0004071791150000192
Figure GDA0004071791150000201
/>
and constructing a weight diagonal matrix by the combined weight of each index so as to facilitate subsequent operation:
W＝diag(W 1 ,W 2 ,…,W 11 )
step S3, determining quantitative evaluation of compatibility by using a TOPSIS method:
according to the understanding of compatibility, the soil property of the ancient ruined site is the closest to the ancient ruined site, namely the most compatible. The calculation process is as follows:
s3.1, calculating the absolute value of the difference value between the performance of each slurry and the performance of the site soil;
b ij ＝|a ij -a 0j |
a ij is the j index of No. i slurry, a 0j Is the jth index of the soil body of the site.
S3.2, carrying out min-max standardization on the absolute values according to each index, wherein the smaller the absolute value is, the closer the performance of the slurry and the site soil is, the greater the compatibility is, and therefore, reverse value taking is carried out, namely, the absolute value is
Figure GDA0004071791150000202
S3.3 calculating a weighted normalization matrix D 15×11 ：
D＝CW
S3.4, calculating Euclidean distances between each index and the positive and negative ideal solutions: in this case, the positive ideal solution is a set of slurry performance indicators, that is, a set formed by multiplying 1 by the corresponding weight in a numerical view, and the negative ideal solution is a set of values farthest from the slurry parameters, that is, a set formed by 0 in a numerical view; judging the distance between the object and the ideal solution:
Figure GDA0004071791150000203
Figure GDA0004071791150000204
s3.5, calculating according to the distance between the evaluation object and the ideal solution to obtain the relative posting progress:
Figure GDA0004071791150000205
and step S4: the compatibility evaluation rating and the improvement direction of the slurry are given:
from the above calculation results, 15 groups of slurries were classified into 5 groups of 0.8 to 1, 0.6 to 0.8, 0.4 to 0.6, 0.2 to 0.4, and 0 to 0.2, and provided extremely high, medium, low, and extremely low compatibility evaluations, respectively. The evaluation results are shown in the following table:
Figure GDA0004071791150000206
/>
Figure GDA0004071791150000211
the other methods were the same as in example 1.
Example 5
In the embodiment, 15 groups of slurry and 1 site earthen site rammed earth in example 1 are selected for compatibility evaluation, and the specific steps are as follows:
the compatibility evaluation of the existing 15 groups of fracture grouting slurry and rammed earth at 1 historic site is carried out, the fracture grouting slurry suitable for the historic site is preferably selected, and the following operations are carried out according to the steps of the invention:
step S1: counting the relevant climate data of the region where the earthen site is located, specifically, the annual average rainfall P is 860mm, the altitude z is 1635m, the annual average air temperature T is 8.5 ℃, and the annual radiation Rs is 156.98kcal/cm 2 And calculating a drought index:
Figure GDA0004071791150000212
Figure GDA0004071791150000213
Figure GDA0004071791150000214
I＝P/ET 0
through calculation, the drought index I =0.62 >: the test indexes of the slurry are shown in example 3, and the test results of the indexes of the site soil are shown in the following table:
Figure GDA0004071791150000221
step S2: determining the combined weight of each evaluation index, and specifically comprising the following three steps: s2.1, determining subjective weight by using an AHP method; s2.2, determining objective weight by using a CRITIC method; and S2.3, taking the arithmetic mean of the subjective weight and the objective weight as a combined weight.
Subjective weights were determined using AHP: and determining a judgment matrix according to the weather grade of the rammed soil, and calculating the weight of each index. Constructing an AHP hierarchical model shown in FIG. 3, determining each layer of judgment matrix according to the hierarchical model, and calculating the weights as follows:
Figure GDA0004071791150000222
Figure GDA0004071791150000231
/>
determining AHP subjective weights
Figure GDA0004071791150000232
The specific steps for determining objective weights using the CRITIC method are as follows: p2.1 carrying out max-min standardization treatment on the same evaluation index of the test data; p2.2, calculating a standard deviation and a correlation coefficient of each evaluation index, wherein the standard deviation is used as index variability, and the correlation coefficient is used as index conflict; p2.3, calculating the information quantity of each bias index, multiplying the index variability by the index conflict, and normalizing the information quantity to obtain the objective weight of each index.
To avoid orders of magnitude effects when using the CRITIC method, the raw data of the slurry was subjected to min-max normalization, and the results are shown in example 4.
Calculating standard deviation and correlation coefficient of each index after standardization, wherein variability is standard deviation, the larger the standard deviation is, the larger the weight is, the higher the conflict is, the correlation coefficient is, the stronger the correlation is, the lower the conflict is, and the smaller the weight is;
the information volumes were normalized (and 1) to determine the weights according to the information volume = variability collision calculation, the calculation results are shown in the following table:
index (I) Index variability Index conflict property Information quantity Objective weight
Density of 0.275 9.676 2.658 0.079
Specific gravity of 0.318 8.995 2.862 0.085
Porosity of the material 0.274 12.209 3.339 0.099
Compressive strength 0.319 9.647 3.079 0.091
Cohesion force of adhesion 0.341 9.28 3.164 0.094
Internal angle of friction 0.328 8.829 2.897 0.086
Coefficient of thermal conductivity 0.322 9.837 3.172 0.094
Specific heat capacity 0.274 10.72 2.936 0.087
Coefficient of thermal expansion 0.279 10.829 3.017 0.089
Coefficient of permeability 0.322 11.036 3.554 0.105
Rate of disintegration 0.274 11.451 3.141 0.093
S2.3 takes the arithmetic mean of the subjective weight and the objective weight as the combined weight.
Figure GDA0004071791150000233
/>
Figure GDA0004071791150000241
And constructing a weight diagonal matrix by the combined weight of each evaluation index so as to facilitate subsequent operation:
W＝diag(W 1 ,W 2 ,…,W 11 )
step S3, determining quantitative evaluation of compatibility by using a TOPSIS method:
according to the understanding of compatibility, the performance of the site soil is the closest to the performance of the site soil, namely the compatibility is the most compatible, and the calculation process is as follows:
s3.1, calculating the absolute value of the difference value between the performance of each slurry and the performance of the site soil;
b ij ＝|a ij -a 0j |
wherein, a ij Is the j index of No. i slurry, a 0j Is the jth index of the soil body of the site.
The absolute value is subjected to min-max standardization according to each index, and the smaller the absolute value is, the closer the performance of the slurry and the site soil is, the greater the compatibility is, so the reverse value is required, namely the value is
Figure GDA0004071791150000242
S3.2 calculating a weighted normalization matrix D 15×11 ：
D＝CW
S3.3, calculating Euclidean distances between each index and the positive and negative ideal solutions: in this case, the positive ideal solution is a set of slurry performance indicators, that is, a set formed by multiplying 1 by the corresponding weight in a numerical view, and the negative ideal solution is a set of values farthest from the slurry parameters, that is, a set formed by 0 in a numerical view; judging the distance between the object and the ideal solution:
Figure GDA0004071791150000243
Figure GDA0004071791150000244
s3.4, calculating according to the distance between the evaluation object and the ideal solution to obtain the relative posting progress:
Figure GDA0004071791150000245
and step S4: the compatibility evaluation rating and the improvement direction of the slurry are given:
from the above calculation results, 15 groups of slurries were classified into 5 groups of 0.8 to 1, 0.6 to 0.8, 0.4 to 0.6, 0.2 to 0.4, and 0 to 0.2, and provided extremely high, medium, low, and extremely low compatibility evaluations, respectively. The evaluation results are shown in the following table:
Figure GDA0004071791150000251
according to the specific examples of the examples 2 to 5, the soil property of the earthen site is different corresponding to the same 15 groups of slurry in four weather grades, the calculation processes are basically the same, and the results are different due to different values of drought indexes and subjective weights.
The above description is only for the purpose of illustrating the preferred embodiments of the present invention and is not to be construed as limiting the invention, and any modifications, equivalents, improvements and the like that fall within the spirit and principle of the present invention are intended to be included therein.

Claims (10)

1. A method for evaluating compatibility of a fracture grouting material of an earthen site and an earthen body of the earthen site is characterized by comprising the following steps:
step S1: calculating a drought index of a soil body of the site according to the climate condition of the region where the site is located, determining a climate grade according to the drought index, and determining an evaluation index according to the climate grade; respectively testing the numerical values of the evaluation indexes of the grouting slurry and the ancient site soil body;
step S2: determining the combined weight of each evaluation index: giving subjective weight to each evaluation index, calculating objective weight by using the test value of each evaluation index of grouting slurry, and then averaging the subjective weight and the objective weight to obtain the combined weight of each evaluation index; determining subjective weight of each evaluation index by using an AHP method, and calculating objective weight of each evaluation index by using a CRITIC method;
and step S3: the TOPSIS method is used for processing the test values of the evaluation indexes of the grouting slurry and the earthen site to calculate the relative sticking progress: determining a positive ideal solution and a negative ideal solution of each grouting slurry by using the principle of performance similarity as compatibility, and calculating relative sticking progress;
and step S4: determining the improvement direction of compatibility evaluation grading and grouting slurry performance: and determining compatibility evaluation grading according to the relative sticking progress, and then giving an improvement direction of the grouting slurry material according to weighted sorting and unweighted sorting of the performance difference.
2. The method for evaluating compatibility of the earthen archaeological site crack grouting material and the earthen archaeological site according to claim 1, wherein the method for determining the evaluation index according to the weather grade comprises the following steps: the evaluation indexes selected from the extreme arid climate grade and the arid climate grade are 8 indexes in total, namely density, specific gravity, compressive strength, cohesive force, internal friction angle, heat conductivity coefficient, specific heat capacity and thermal expansion coefficient, and the evaluation indexes selected from the semi-arid climate grade and the semi-arid semi-humid climate grade are 11 indexes in total, namely density, specific gravity, porosity, compressive strength, cohesive force, internal friction angle, heat conductivity coefficient, specific heat capacity, thermal expansion coefficient, permeability coefficient and disintegration rate.
3. The method for evaluating compatibility of the earthen archaeological site fracture grouting material and the earthen archaeological site of claim 2, wherein the method for determining the climate grade according to the drought index comprises the following steps: the grading standard is that the range of the drought index is 0-0.05 and is the extreme arid climate grade; the range of the drought index is 0.05-0.2 which is the drought climate grade; the range of the drought index is 0.2-0.5, and the range of the drought index is a semi-arid climate grade, and the range of the drought index is 0.5-1, and the range of the drought index is a semi-arid climate grade;
the method for calculating the drought index of the site soil comprises the following steps: and calculating the drought index by using the information of the annual average rainfall, the annual average temperature, the average annual radiation quantity and the altitude of the region where the soil body of the historic site is located, wherein the result of the drought index is between 0 and 1.
4. The method for evaluating compatibility of the earthen archaeological site crack grouting material and the earthen archaeological site soil according to claim 3, wherein the method for calculating the drought index comprises the following steps: i = P/ET 0 Wherein I is drought index, P is annual average rainfall, ET 0 Represents the average potential evaporation per year and
Figure FDA0004071791130000011
wherein Δ represents the slope of the saturated water vapor pressure curve at a certain temperature and->
Figure FDA0004071791130000012
γ denotes the psychrometric Table constant and >>
Figure FDA0004071791130000013
Wherein Rs is annual radiant quantity, a and b are condition parameters, T is annual average temperature, and z is altitude.
5. The method for evaluating compatibility of the earthen archaeological site fracture grouting material and the earthen archaeological site soil according to any one of claims 1 to 4, wherein the method for determining the subjective weight of each evaluation index by using the AHP method is implemented by: p1.1, constructing a hierarchical model: constructing a hierarchical model by taking compatibility evaluation as a target layer, categories as a criterion layer and specific evaluation indexes as an index layer; p1.2 determining a judgment matrix: the judgment matrix comprises a judgment matrix of a criterion layer and a judgment matrix of an index layer, and the criterion layer weight and the index layer weight are respectively determined after consistency check; the P1.3 index layer weight multiplied by the criterion layer weight is the subjective weight.
6. The method for evaluating compatibility of earthen archaeological site fracture grouting material and archaeological site soil according to claim 5, wherein the subjective weight is: in the extreme drought climate grade, the subjective weight of density is 0.0349, the subjective weight of specific gravity is 0.0698, the subjective weight of compressive strength is 0.0517, the subjective weight of cohesive force is 0.1033, the subjective weight of internal friction angle is 0.1033, the subjective weight of thermal conductivity coefficient is 0.1274, the subjective weight of specific heat capacity is 0.1274 and the subjective weight of thermal expansion coefficient is 0.3822; in the drought climate grade, the subjective weight of density is 0.0667, the subjective weight of specific gravity is 0.1333, the subjective weight of compressive strength is 0.08, the subjective weight of cohesive force is 0.16, the subjective weight of internal friction angle is 0.16, the subjective weight of thermal conductivity coefficient is 0.1, the subjective weight of specific heat capacity is 0.1 and the subjective weight of thermal expansion coefficient is 0.2; in the semiarid climate grade, the subjective weight of density is 0.0417, the subjective weight of specific gravity is 0.0834, the subjective weight of porosity is 0.0417, the subjective weight of compressive strength is 0.0667, the subjective weight of cohesive force is 0.1333, the subjective weight of internal friction angle is 0.1333, the subjective weight of thermal conductivity is 0.0667, the subjective weight of specific heat capacity is 0.0667, the weight of thermal expansion coefficient is 0.2, the subjective weight of permeability coefficient is 0.0556 and the subjective weight of disintegration rate is 0.1111; in the semiarid semihumid climate grade, the subjective weight of density was 0.0357, the subjective weight of specific gravity was 0.0715, the subjective weight of porosity was 0.0357, the subjective weight of compressive strength was 0.0571, the subjective weight of cohesion was 0.1143, the subjective weight of internal friction angle was 0.1143, the subjective weight of thermal conductivity was 0.0714, the subjective weight of specific heat capacity was 0.0714, the subjective weight of thermal expansion coefficient was 0.1429, the subjective weight of permeability coefficient was 0.0952, and the subjective weight of disintegration rate was 0.1905.
7. The method for evaluating compatibility of the earthen archaeological site crack grouting material and the earthen archaeological site soil according to any one of claims 1 to 3 or 6, wherein the CRITIC method in the step S2 is as follows: p2.1, performing max-min standardization treatment on the test value of the same evaluation index of the grouting slurry; p2.2, calculating a standard deviation and a correlation coefficient of each evaluation index, wherein the standard deviation is used as index variability, and the correlation coefficient is used as index conflict; p2.3, calculating the information quantity of each evaluation index, wherein the information quantity is obtained by multiplying index variability by index conflict, and normalizing the information quantity is the objective weight of each evaluation index.
8. The method for evaluating compatibility of the earthen archaeological site fracture grouting material and the earthen archaeological site soil mass according to claim 7, wherein the specific steps of calculating the relative closeness by using the TOPSIS method are as follows:
s3.1, calculating the absolute value of the performance difference value of each grouting slurry and the earthen site according to the test numerical value of each evaluation index of each grouting slurry and the earthen site;
s3.2, carrying out max-min standardization treatment on the absolute value of the performance difference;
s3.3, weighting the normalized values by using the combined weight;
s3.4, calculating Euclidean distances between the weighted result and the positive ideal solution and between the weighted result and the negative ideal solution respectively;
and S3.5, calculating the relative paste progress of the grouting slurry according to the Euclidean distance.
9. The method for evaluating compatibility of the earthen archaeological site crack grouting material and the earthen archaeological site according to claim 8, wherein the calculation method of the relative sticking progress is as follows:
Figure FDA0004071791130000031
wherein E is i The relative sticking degree of the No. i grouting slurry,
Figure FDA0004071791130000032
the Euclidean distance between the No. i grouting slurry and the positive ideal is calculated;
Figure FDA0004071791130000033
the Euclidean distance between the No. i grouting slurry and the negative ideal solution; and is
Figure FDA0004071791130000034
/>
Figure FDA0004071791130000035
Wherein j =1, 2.. And n, n is the total number of evaluation indexes; d ij The values of the ith row and the jth column in the weighting matrix D are obtained;
Figure FDA0004071791130000036
for a positive ideal solution of the jth evaluation index, is>
Figure FDA0004071791130000037
The positive ideal solution is a slurry performance index set which is a negative ideal solution of the jth evaluation index and is a set formed by multiplying 1 by the corresponding weight in the aspect of numerical value; the negative ideal solution is the set of values furthest from the slurry parameters, being a set consisting of 0 numerically;
the weighting matrix D = CW, where C is an absolute matrix and W is a combination weight W of the jth evaluation index j Constructing a diagonal matrix;
element C in the absolute matrix C ij Performing max-min standardization on the absolute value of the performance difference to obtain a result, and
Figure FDA0004071791130000038
wherein, b ij Is the absolute value of the performance difference of the jth evaluation index of the ith grouting slurry and b ij ＝|a ij -a 0j |；a ij A measured value of the j-th evaluation index of the i-th grouting slurry, a 0j The measured value is the j-th evaluation index of the site soil body.
10. The method for evaluating the compatibility of the earthen archaeological site crack grouting material and the earthen archaeological site as claimed in claim 8 or 9, wherein the specific steps of determining the compatibility evaluation grading and the improvement direction of the grouting grout performance are as follows:
s4.1, according to a calculation result of the relative sticking degree, giving out compatibility evaluation grades according to the conditions that the compatibility is extremely low when the value is 0-0.2, the compatibility is low when the value is 0.2-0.4, the compatibility is medium when the value is 0.4-0.6, the compatibility is high when the value is 0.6-0.8 and the compatibility is extremely high when the value is 0.8-1;
s4.2 in the calculation process of the TOPSIS method, selecting an absolute value of the performance difference value and a weighted absolute value, and sequencing all evaluation indexes of each grouting slurry from small to large to obtain the sequence of absolute value data and weighted absolute value data;
s4.3, selecting a preferential improvement direction: and combining the sequence of the absolute value data and the weighted absolute value data, and selecting the evaluation index with the earliest occurrence sequence and the most frequency as a priority improvement direction.
CN202210742732.2A 2022-06-27 2022-06-27 Method for evaluating compatibility of earthen archaeological site crack grouting material and earthen archaeological site soil Active CN115112860B (en)

Priority Applications (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
CN202210742732.2A CN115112860B (en) 2022-06-27 2022-06-27 Method for evaluating compatibility of earthen archaeological site crack grouting material and earthen archaeological site soil

Applications Claiming Priority (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
CN202210742732.2A CN115112860B (en) 2022-06-27 2022-06-27 Method for evaluating compatibility of earthen archaeological site crack grouting material and earthen archaeological site soil

Publications (2)

Publication Number Publication Date
CN115112860A CN115112860A (en) 2022-09-27
CN115112860B true CN115112860B (en) 2023-04-07

Family

ID=83330409

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
CN202210742732.2A Active CN115112860B (en) 2022-06-27 2022-06-27 Method for evaluating compatibility of earthen archaeological site crack grouting material and earthen archaeological site soil

Country Status (1)

Country Link
CN (1) CN115112860B (en)

Family Cites Families (5)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
KR101082373B1 (en) * 2011-03-21 2011-11-10 (주)다인건설 Apparatus for injecting crack-mending material and method of repairing using the same
CN107067176A (en) * 2017-04-17 2017-08-18 安徽理工大学 A kind of multifactor AHP integrated evaluating methods of tomography slip casting effect
CN109781536A (en) * 2017-11-10 2019-05-21 敦煌研究院 A kind of earthen ruins fissure grouting slurries workability evaluating apparatus
CN112884377A (en) * 2021-03-30 2021-06-01 中煤能源研究院有限责任公司 Slurry filling system optimal selection model and construction method
CN114280234B (en) * 2021-12-08 2023-09-26 兰州大学 Device and method for quality control and effect evaluation test in earthen site anchoring and reinforcement process

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date
CN115112860A (en) 2022-09-27

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
Senarath et al. On the calibration and verification of two‐dimensional, distributed, Hortonian, continuous watershed models
Silva et al. Application of the factor method to maintenance decision support for stone cladding
CN111414991B (en) Meteorological frontal surface automatic identification method based on multiple regression
Gazela et al. A new method for typical weather data selection to evaluate long-term performance of solar energy systems
CN107230021B (en) Method for screening leakage area of water supply pipe network
CN111639810B (en) Rainfall forecast precision assessment method based on flood prevention requirements
CN111881581B (en) Method and system for establishing three-dimensional water vapor grid model
CN111080356A (en) Method for calculating residence price influence factors by using machine learning regression model
CN101582154A (en) Method and device for evaluating greenness of construction parts
Magos et al. Application of the factor method to the prediction of the service life of external paint finishes on façades
CN112348264A (en) Carbon steel corrosion rate prediction method based on random forest algorithm
CN110299192A (en) A kind of environmental suitability evaluation method of firearm components and its composite material, high molecular material
CN112926893A (en) Horizontal well profile control effect evaluation method based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation and hierarchical analysis
CN114997514A (en) Evaluation and prediction method for development degree of rammed earth site crack diseases
CN111027881B (en) Transmission tower natural disaster loss evaluation method based on improved grey correlation degree
CN114418446A (en) Quantitative assessment method for water resource shortage
CN115545387A (en) Method for evaluating fragility of immovable cultural relics
CN115112860B (en) Method for evaluating compatibility of earthen archaeological site crack grouting material and earthen archaeological site soil
Xu et al. Evaluation method and empirical application of human activity suitability of land resources in Qinghai-Tibet Plateau
CN116681205A (en) Method for evaluating and predicting development degree of rammed earth site gully disease
CN112633991A (en) Rental index analysis method and device
NASCIMENTO et al. Hygrothermal simulation: Use for service life prediction and maintenance of façades
CN115203643A (en) Hydrologic and ecological factor fused water source conservation function quantitative diagnosis method and system
Liu et al. Comprehensive evaluation of urban livability
Aggarwal Development of climate-based indices for assessing the hygrothermal performance of wood frame walls under historical and future climates

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
PB01 Publication
PB01 Publication
SE01 Entry into force of request for substantive examination
SE01 Entry into force of request for substantive examination
GR01 Patent grant
GR01 Patent grant