A method, apparatus, computer equipment, and storage medium for evaluating the compatibility of graphene copper with transformer oil.

Abstract

This application provides a method, apparatus, computer equipment, and storage medium for evaluating the compatibility of graphene copper with transformer oil. This method, through the acquisition of multi-dimensional parameters, can comprehensively and accurately evaluate the compatibility of graphene copper with transformer oil, avoiding the limitations of single-parameter evaluation. Dimensionless processing allows different parameters to be compared and calculated on the same scale, improving the reliability and accuracy of the evaluation. Using weighting factors, the importance of different parameters in the evaluation can be flexibly adjusted to adapt to different application scenarios. Determining the compatibility level provides a clear basis for selecting appropriate conductor and transformer oil combinations, helping to improve the reliability and stability of transformer systems and reduce potential failure risks.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This application relates to the field of transformer technology, and in particular to a method, apparatus, computer equipment, and storage medium for evaluating the compatibility of graphene copper with transformer oil. Background Technology

[0002] Graphene copper electromagnetic wire possesses excellent conductivity, mechanical strength, and thermal stability, showing broad application prospects in the manufacture of novel windings for power transformers. Transformer oil is a key material for the oil-paper insulation of power transformers, playing a crucial role in maintaining the insulation performance of transformer windings and extending the transformer's service life. The compatibility index between graphene copper electromagnetic wire and transformer oil is a key indicator for evaluating the application of graphene conductors in windings. Traditional technologies lack research on the compatibility performance of graphene copper composite materials with transformer oil, making quantitative description impossible. Summary of the Invention

[0003] The purpose of this application is to at least address one of the aforementioned technical deficiencies, and in particular to provide a scheme for quantitatively evaluating the compatibility of graphene copper with transformer oil.

[0004] In a first aspect, this application provides a method for evaluating the compatibility of graphene copper with transformer oil, including:

[0005] The first performance parameters of the target conductor under the conductor surface performance dimension, the second performance parameters of the target oil under the oil viscosity performance dimension, and the third performance parameters of the target oil under the oil electrical and mechanical performance dimension are obtained respectively.

[0006] Each of the first, second, and third performance parameters is dimensionless.

[0007] Based on the dimensionless processing of each first performance parameter, second performance parameter, and third performance parameter and their corresponding weighting factors, the compatibility score between the target guide and the target oil body is obtained.

[0008] Based on the compatibility score and the preset mapping relationship, the compatibility level between the target guide wire and the target oil body is obtained.

[0009] In one embodiment, the weighting factors include subjective weighting factors and objective weighting factors. Based on the dimensionless processing of each first performance parameter, second performance parameter, and third performance parameter and their corresponding weighting factors, a compatibility score between the target guideline and the target oil body is obtained, including:

[0010] Based on the dimensionless processing of the first, second, and third performance parameters and the first expression, the compatibility score is obtained; the first expression is:

[0011]

[0012] Among them, Y m For compatibility scoring; 'a' is the moderating coefficient of the subjective weighting factor, and 'b' is the moderating coefficient of the objective weighting factor, satisfying a+b=1, 0 <a<1,0<b<1;X i and X j Each represents the first, second, or third performance parameter; w si Represents the subjective weighting factor, and satisfies -1 <w si <1; w oj Represents an objective weighting factor, and satisfies -1 <w oj <1.

[0013] In one embodiment, the process of generating the subjective weighting factor includes:

[0014] Set up multiple different combinations of test leads and test oil;

[0015] Performance tests were conducted on each combination to obtain the corresponding compatibility characterization parameters;

[0016] For any combination, the test compatibility score between the test lead and the test oil body within that combination is determined based on the current subjective weighting factor.

[0017] Based on the compatibility characterization parameters and test compatibility scores corresponding to each combination, a curve for the change of scoring parameters is generated;

[0018] If the curve of the scoring parameter change does not conform to the ideal trend, the current subjective weight factor is adjusted, and the process is returned to the step of determining the test compatibility score of the test lead and test oil body in any combination based on the current subjective weight factor, until the curve of the scoring parameter change conforms to the ideal trend, and the current subjective weight factor is determined as the final subjective weight factor.

[0019] In one embodiment, the dimensionless processing of each first performance parameter or each second performance parameter includes:

[0020] For any first or second performance parameter, perform dimensionless processing according to the second expression; the second expression is:

[0021]

[0022] in, X1 is the first or second performance parameter after dimensionless processing, and X2 is the first or second performance parameter before dimensionless processing. 1min X is the lower limit of the corresponding first or second performance parameter. 1maxThis represents the upper limit value of the corresponding first or second performance parameter.

[0023] In one embodiment, the third performance parameters are dimensionless, including:

[0024] For any third performance parameter, it is dimensionless according to the third expression; the third expression is:

[0025]

[0026] in, X1 is the third performance parameter after dimensionless processing, and X2 is the third performance parameter before dimensionless processing. 2min X is the lower limit of the corresponding third performance parameter. 2max This represents the upper limit value of the corresponding third performance parameter.

[0027] In one embodiment, the compatibility level between the target guide wire and the target oil body is obtained based on the compatibility score and a preset mapping relationship, including:

[0028] In the preset mapping relationship, determine the preset value interval to which the compatibility score belongs; wherein, the preset value interval corresponds one-to-one with the preset level, and the larger the value in the preset value interval, the higher the preset level corresponding to the preset value interval.

[0029] The preset level corresponding to the preset value range to which the compatibility score belongs is determined as the compatibility level between the target guide wire and the target oil body.

[0030] In one embodiment, the first performance parameter includes surface roughness, wire resistivity, and wire tensile strength; the second performance parameter includes viscosity and surface tension; and the third performance parameter includes breakdown voltage, dielectric loss, and dielectric constant.

[0031] Secondly, this application provides a device for evaluating the compatibility of graphene copper with transformer oil, comprising:

[0032] The data acquisition module is used to acquire the first performance parameters of the target conductor in the dimension of conductor surface performance, the second performance parameters of the target oil in the dimension of oil viscosity performance, and the third performance parameters of the target oil in the dimension of oil electrical performance.

[0033] Each of the first performance parameter, the second performance parameter, and the third performance parameter is dimensionless.

[0034] Based on the dimensionless processing of each of the first performance parameters, the second performance parameters, and the third performance parameters and their corresponding weighting factors, the compatibility score between the target guide wire and the target oil body is obtained.

[0035] Based on the compatibility score and the preset mapping relationship, the compatibility level between the target guide wire and the target oil body is obtained.

[0036] Thirdly, this application provides a computer device including one or more processors and a memory storing computer-readable instructions. When executed by one or more processors, the computer-readable instructions perform the steps of the graphene copper and transformer oil compatibility assessment method in any of the above embodiments.

[0037] Fourthly, this application provides a storage medium storing computer-readable instructions, which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the steps of the graphene copper and transformer oil compatibility assessment method in any of the above embodiments.

[0038] As can be seen from the above technical solutions, the embodiments of this application have the following advantages:

[0039] Based on the graphene copper and transformer oil compatibility assessment method in this embodiment, the following steps are taken: First, the target conductor's surface performance parameters, second performance parameters of the target oil, and third performance parameters of the target oil, are obtained. These parameters cover multiple key performance aspects of the conductor and oil, providing a data foundation for comprehensive compatibility assessment. Next, each performance parameter is dimensionless to eliminate unit and dimension differences for comprehensive calculation. Then, the compatibility score between the target conductor and the target oil is obtained based on the dimensionless parameters and their corresponding weighting factors. The weighting factors can be adjusted according to the actual situation to determine the importance of different parameters. Finally, the compatibility level between the target conductor and the target oil is obtained based on the compatibility score and a preset mapping relationship, providing clear guidance for practical applications. This method, through the acquisition of multi-dimensional parameters, can comprehensively and accurately assess the compatibility between graphene copper and transformer oil, avoiding the one-sidedness of single-parameter assessment. Dimensionless processing allows different parameters to be compared and calculated on the same scale, improving the reliability and accuracy of the assessment. By utilizing weighting factors, the importance of different parameters in the evaluation can be flexibly adjusted to adapt to the needs of different application scenarios. Determining the compatibility level provides a clear basis for selecting appropriate conductor and transformer oil combinations, helping to improve the reliability and stability of the transformer system and reduce potential failure risks. Attached Figure Description

[0040] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments of this application 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 this application. For those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without creative effort.

[0041] Figure 1 This is a flowchart illustrating a method for evaluating the compatibility of graphene copper with transformer oil in one embodiment of this application.

[0042] Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of the process for generating subjective weight factors in one embodiment of this application;

[0043] Figure 3 This is an internal structural diagram of a computer device provided in one embodiment of this application. Detailed Implementation

[0044] The technical solutions of the embodiments of this application will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of this application, and not all embodiments. Based on the embodiments of this application, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of this application.

[0045] This application provides a method for evaluating the compatibility of graphene copper with transformer oil. Here, compatibility refers to the degree to which graphene copper electromagnetic wires with different properties and transformer oils with different properties are mutually adapted and coordinated in terms of physical and chemical properties. From a physical perspective, compatibility manifests as the interaction between the wire and the oil during contact. From a chemical perspective, compatibility reflects whether a chemical reaction or interaction will occur between the wire material and the transformer oil during long-term contact, thereby affecting their respective properties. For details, please refer to... Figure 1 The compatibility assessment method includes steps S102 to S108.

[0046] S102, respectively obtain the first performance parameters of the target conductor in the conductor surface performance dimension, the second performance parameters of the target oil in the oil viscosity and tension performance dimension, and the third performance parameters of the target oil in the oil electrical and electronic performance dimension.

[0047] It is understood that the target conductor refers to the specific conductor required for compatibility evaluation with transformer oil in this assessment method, and it is made of graphene copper material. The conductor surface performance dimension refers to the assessment dimension comprised of a series of performance indicators related to the target conductor surface. These performance parameters reflect the impact of the conductor surface's physical and chemical properties on transformer oil compatibility. The first performance parameter is the specific performance value measured or obtained under the conductor surface performance dimension, such as the conductor's surface roughness, resistivity, and tensile strength.

[0048] The target oil refers to a specific transformer oil that requires compatibility evaluation with the target conductor, and its performance plays a crucial role in the normal operation of the transformer. The oil viscosity-tensile performance dimension comprises performance indicators related to the viscosity and tension of the transformer oil. Viscosity reflects the oil's flow characteristics, while tension is related to surface properties. The second performance parameter is the specific performance value under the oil viscosity-tensile performance dimension, such as viscosity and surface tension. The oil electrical performance dimension involves the electrical performance indicators of the transformer oil. The third performance parameter is the specific performance value under the oil electrical performance dimension, such as breakdown voltage, dielectric loss, and dielectric constant.

[0049] When evaluating the compatibility of graphene copper with transformer oil, it is necessary to comprehensively examine the performance of the target conductor and the target oil from multiple dimensions. For the target conductor, its surface properties directly affect its contact and interaction with the transformer oil. For example, the surface roughness of the conductor may affect the adhesion of the oil to its surface; when the roughness is large, the oil may more easily form an uneven distribution on the surface, thus affecting compatibility. The tensile strength of the conductor may affect the deformation of the conductor during use, thereby affecting the contact state with the oil. For the target oil, the parameters in the viscosity-tensile properties dimension reflect the physical characteristics of the oil. Viscosity determines the ease of oil flow; when the viscosity is high, the oil has poor flowability, which may affect the cooling effect on the conductor and the uniformity of contact with the conductor. Surface tension affects the surface state of the oil and has an important impact on the interfacial interaction with the conductor. In the electrical performance dimension, these parameters determine the role of the transformer oil in the electrical system. Breakdown voltage is one of the key performance characteristics of transformer oil; good insulation performance can prevent electrical faults. The dielectric constant affects the distribution of the electric field in the oil and interacts with the electrical performance of the conductor. By acquiring performance parameters across these different dimensions, a comprehensive data foundation can be provided for subsequent compatibility assessments. Furthermore, the performance parameters within the three dimensions mentioned above can be added to or removed based on engineering application needs.

[0050] S104, dimensionless processing is performed on each of the first performance parameter, the second performance parameter and the third performance parameter respectively.

[0051] Dimensionless processing is a method of converting performance parameters with different units and dimensions into dimensionless values, enabling comparison and comprehensive calculation between different parameters. In compatibility assessments, different performance parameters often have different units and dimensions, making direct comprehensive calculations difficult. For example, the surface roughness of a wire might be measured in micrometers, while the viscosity of oil might be measured in Pascal-seconds. Dimensionless processing eliminates these differences in units and dimensions, allowing different parameters to be compared and calculated on the same scale. This more accurately reflects the influence of each parameter on compatibility, improving the reliability and accuracy of the assessment.

[0052] S106. Based on the dimensionless processing of each first performance parameter, second performance parameter, and third performance parameter and their corresponding weighting factors, the compatibility score between the target guide wire and the target oil body is obtained.

[0053] As we can understand it, a weighting factor is a coefficient used to measure the importance of different performance parameters in compatibility assessment. The compatibility score, on the other hand, is a numerical index that comprehensively reflects the degree of compatibility between the target guideline and the target oil body. After obtaining the dimensionless performance parameters, these parameters need to be comprehensively calculated to obtain the compatibility score. The role of the weighting factor is to determine the degree of contribution of different performance parameters to compatibility. Different performance parameters have different degrees of influence on compatibility. By assigning a weighting factor to each performance parameter, the importance of different parameters in the assessment can be adjusted according to the actual situation. The compatibility score can be calculated by weighted summation. Multiply each dimensionless performance parameter by its corresponding weighting factor, and then sum them to obtain the compatibility score. This score value can intuitively reflect the degree of compatibility between the target guideline and the target oil body; the higher the score, the better the compatibility.

[0054] S108. Based on the compatibility score and the preset mapping relationship, the compatibility level between the target guide wire and the target oil body is obtained.

[0055] Compatibility ratings are categorized into different levels based on the compatibility between a target conductor and a target oil. A preset mapping relationship is a pre-defined correspondence between compatibility scores and compatibility ratings. To more intuitively represent the compatibility between the target conductor and the target oil, the compatibility score needs to be converted into a compatibility rating. The preset mapping relationship can be set according to actual needs and experience. For example, the compatibility score can be divided into several intervals, each interval corresponding to a compatibility rating. High score intervals correspond to high compatibility ratings, and low score intervals correspond to low compatibility ratings. In this way, the compatibility level between the target conductor and the target oil can be quickly determined, providing clearer guidance for practical applications. For example, when selecting conductors and transformer oil, compatibility ratings can be used to determine suitability. For applications requiring high compatibility, combinations with higher compatibility ratings can be selected. This improves system reliability and stability and reduces potential failure risks.

[0056] Based on the graphene copper and transformer oil compatibility assessment method in this embodiment, the following steps are taken: First, the target conductor's surface performance parameters, second performance parameters of the target oil, and third performance parameters of the target oil, are obtained. These parameters cover multiple key performance aspects of the conductor and oil, providing a data foundation for comprehensive compatibility assessment. Next, each performance parameter is dimensionless to eliminate unit and dimension differences for comprehensive calculation. Then, the compatibility score between the target conductor and the target oil is obtained based on the dimensionless parameters and their corresponding weighting factors. The weighting factors can be adjusted according to the actual situation to determine the importance of different parameters. Finally, the compatibility level between the target conductor and the target oil is obtained based on the compatibility score and a preset mapping relationship, providing clear guidance for practical applications. This method, through the acquisition of multi-dimensional parameters, can comprehensively and accurately assess the compatibility between graphene copper and transformer oil, avoiding the one-sidedness of single-parameter assessment. Dimensionless processing allows different parameters to be compared and calculated on the same scale, improving the reliability and accuracy of the assessment. By utilizing weighting factors, the importance of different parameters in the evaluation can be flexibly adjusted to adapt to the needs of different application scenarios. Determining the compatibility level provides a clear basis for selecting appropriate conductor and transformer oil combinations, helping to improve the reliability and stability of the transformer system and reduce potential failure risks.

[0057] In one embodiment, the weighting factors include subjective weighting factors and objective weighting factors. Subjective weighting factors are weighting coefficients determined based on subjective judgment or experience during the evaluation process. They reflect the evaluator's subjective understanding of the importance of different performance parameters in the compatibility assessment. Generally, they can be obtained through expert consultation, expert ranking, etc. For example, in some cases, experts may believe, based on past experience, that a certain performance parameter of the conductor surface has a greater impact on compatibility, thus assigning that parameter a higher subjective weighting factor. Objective weighting factors, on the other hand, are weighting coefficients determined through objective data analysis methods. Unlike subjective weighting factors, objective weighting factors are usually derived based on extensive data statistics, mathematical models, etc., aiming to minimize the influence of subjective factors and more objectively reflect the actual importance of each performance parameter. Generally, they can be obtained through component analysis, coefficient of variation, etc. The weighting factors in this embodiment combine expert experience and objective facts, which can better integrate the importance of different performance parameters. Based on this, in this embodiment, according to the dimensionless processing of each first, second, and third performance parameter and their corresponding weighting factors, the compatibility score between the target conductor and the target oil body is obtained, including:

[0058] Based on the dimensionless processing of the first, second, and third performance parameters and the first expression, the compatibility score is obtained. The first expression is:

[0059]

[0060] Among them, Y m For compatibility scoring, 'a' is the moderating coefficient of the subjective weighting factor, and 'b' is the moderating coefficient of the objective weighting factor, satisfying a + b = 1, 0. <a<1,0<b<1。X i and X j Each represents the first, second, or third performance parameter. si Represents the subjective weighting factor, and satisfies -1 <w si <1. w oj Represents an objective weighting factor, and satisfies -1 <w oj <1.

[0061] When assessing the compatibility of graphene copper with transformer oil, relying solely on a single weighting method may have limitations. Introducing subjective weighting factors can fully consider the assessor's experience and expertise. For example, in practical applications, engineers may, based on long-term practical experience, believe that the conductivity of the conductor plays a crucial role in compatibility with transformer oil in specific application scenarios, and therefore assign a high subjective weighting factor to conductivity-related performance parameters. However, subjective judgment may be influenced by limitations of personal experience and subjective biases. To overcome this problem, objective weighting factors are also introduced. The adjustment coefficients 'a' and 'b' serve to balance the contributions of subjective and objective weighting factors. A larger value for 'a' indicates a relatively larger influence of subjective weighting factors in calculating the compatibility score; conversely, a larger value for 'b' indicates a more significant influence of objective weighting factors. By adjusting the values ​​of 'a' and 'b', the proportion of subjective and objective factors in the compatibility assessment can be flexibly adjusted according to specific assessment needs and actual circumstances.

[0062] When calculating the compatibility score, each dimensionless performance parameter (including the first, second, and third performance parameters) is first multiplied by its corresponding subjective and objective weighting factors. For each performance parameter, they are multiplied by the subjective weighting factor w. si and objective weighting factor w oj Multiply the results and then sum them. Next, multiply the sum of the subjective weight factors by an adjustment coefficient 'a', and multiply the sum of the objective weight factors by an adjustment coefficient 'b'. Finally, add these two products together to obtain the compatibility score Y. m This calculation process comprehensively considers the influence of both subjective and objective factors on compatibility, making the evaluation results more comprehensive and accurate. The compatibility score calculated in this way can more realistically reflect the actual degree of compatibility between the target conductor and the target oil, providing a scientific basis for selecting a suitable conductor and transformer oil combination.

[0063] In one embodiment, please refer to Figure 2 The process of generating subjective weight factors includes steps S202 to S210.

[0064] S202 allows for the setting of multiple different combinations of test leads and test oil.

[0065] It is understandable that, to ensure the rationality of subjective weighting factors, multiple combinations of different test leads and test oils need to be set up when generating them. The actual performance of each combination is used to determine whether the subjective weighting factors need adjustment. By setting multiple combinations, various possible practical application scenarios can be covered, thereby more accurately assessing the range and trend of compatibility. For example, one combination could be a graphene copper lead of a specific material with a high-viscosity transformer oil, while another combination could be a lead of a different material with a low-viscosity transformer oil. This allows for a comprehensive examination of the interaction between leads and oils with different properties, providing a rich data foundation for subsequent performance testing and evaluation.

[0066] S204. Performance tests were conducted on each combination to obtain the corresponding compatibility characterization parameters.

[0067] Performance testing refers to the experiments and measurements conducted on the combination of test leads and test oil to obtain direct standard parameters that reflect their compatibility, i.e., compatibility characterization parameters. Specifically, these parameters can be the breakdown voltage or conductivity of the transformer oil under that combination. Higher breakdown voltage and lower conductivity indicate better compatibility. Performance testing of each combination of test leads and test oil is conducted to obtain specific parameters that accurately reflect their compatibility. These performance tests yield compatibility characterization parameters, which provide concrete data support for subsequent evaluation and analysis.

[0068] S206. For any combination, determine the test compatibility score between the test lead and the test oil body within that combination based on the current subjective weighting factor.

[0069] It is understood that the test compatibility score refers to the compatibility score obtained during the debugging of subjective weighting factors, and its accuracy has not yet reached its optimal level. The process of determining the test compatibility score is similar to that in the previous embodiment, except that the subjective weighting factors used in the previous embodiment had already been debugged, while the subjective weighting factors in this step are still being debugged.

[0070] S208: Based on the compatibility characterization parameters and test compatibility scores corresponding to each combination, generate a curve showing the change of scoring parameters.

[0071] It's understandable that each combination has corresponding compatibility characterization parameters and test compatibility scores. The score parameter change curve is plotted by correlating the compatibility characterization parameters of each combination with their corresponding test compatibility scores, reflecting the relationship between the two. In this step, the compatibility characterization parameters are a concrete quantitative representation of the actual compatibility of the guide wire and oil body combination. Generating curves based on these parameters and their corresponding test compatibility scores allows us to intuitively understand how different levels of compatibility characteristics affect the overall score. For example, if the compatibility characterization parameters of a combination indicate poor compatibility, but the test compatibility score of that combination is high, this anomaly can be seen in the curve, indicating that the current subjective weighting factor needs adjustment.

[0072] In the specific plotting process, the compatibility characterization parameters can be used as the horizontal axis and the test compatibility score as the vertical axis. The data corresponding to each combination can be plotted as data points on the coordinate axis, and then the data points can be connected to obtain the curve of the score parameter change.

[0073] S210, if the curve of the change of the scoring parameters does not conform to the ideal trend, the current subjective weight factor is adjusted, and the process of determining the test compatibility score of the test lead and the test oil body in any combination based on the current subjective weight factor is returned until the curve of the change of the scoring parameters conforms to the ideal trend, and the current subjective weight factor is determined as the final subjective weight factor.

[0074] The ideal trend refers to the ideal state or trend that the curve of the scoring parameters should exhibit. Generally, the better the compatibility reflected by the compatibility standard parameters, the higher the corresponding compatibility score should be. If the curve does not conform to the ideal trend, it means that the test compatibility score determined by the current subjective weighting factor cannot accurately reflect the actual compatibility situation. At this time, the subjective weighting factor needs to be adjusted. After adjustment, the test compatibility score of each combination is recalculated based on the new subjective weighting factor, and the curve of the scoring parameters is generated again. This process is repeated continuously until the curve of the scoring parameters conforms to the ideal trend. At this point, the determined subjective weighting factor can better balance the role of each compatibility characterization parameter in the scoring, making the test compatibility score more accurately reflect the actual compatibility degree between the conductor and the oil, thus providing a reliable basis for the compatibility assessment of graphene copper and transformer oil.

[0075] In one embodiment, the dimensionless processing of each first performance parameter or each second performance parameter includes:

[0076] For any first or second performance parameter, perform dimensionless processing according to the second expression. The second expression is:

[0077]

[0078] in, X1 is the first or second performance parameter after dimensionless processing, and X2 is the first or second performance parameter before dimensionless processing. 1min X is the lower limit of the corresponding first or second performance parameter. 1max This represents the upper limit of the corresponding first or second performance parameter. Both the first and second performance parameters can be linearized and dimensionlessly processed. The lower and upper limits can be understood as the minimum and maximum values ​​specified in the regulations for the corresponding performance parameter. After dimensionless processing, when the actual value equals the lower limit, the parameter value is 0. When the actual value equals the upper limit, the parameter value is 1. For the actual roughness value between the lower and upper limits, a dimensionless value between 0 and 1 is calculated using a formula, exhibiting an overall linear relationship. This method maps the actual performance parameter values ​​to a specific interval, ensuring that different performance parameters have the same numerical range, facilitating comprehensive analysis and comparison.

[0079] In one embodiment, the third performance parameters are dimensionless, including:

[0080] For any third performance parameter, it is dimensionless according to the third expression. The third expression is:

[0081]

[0082] in, X1 is the third performance parameter after dimensionless processing, and X2 is the third performance parameter before dimensionless processing. 2min X is the lower limit of the corresponding third performance parameter. 2max This represents the upper limit of the corresponding third performance parameter. For the third performance parameter, a non-linear, dimensionless processing method is required. The lower and upper limits here can be understood as the minimum and maximum values ​​specified in the regulations for the corresponding performance parameter. The third expression calculates a dimensionless value that varies non-linearly with the actual value, mapping the actual performance parameter value to a specific interval. This ensures that different performance parameters have the same numerical range, facilitating comprehensive analysis and comparison.

[0083] In one embodiment, the compatibility level between the target guide wire and the target oil body is obtained based on a compatibility score and a preset mapping relationship. This includes determining the preset value interval to which the compatibility score belongs among multiple preset value intervals in the preset mapping relationship. Each preset value interval corresponds one-to-one with a preset level; the larger the value within a preset value interval, the higher the preset level. The preset level corresponding to the preset value interval to which the compatibility score belongs is determined as the compatibility level between the target guide wire and the target oil body.

[0084] It is understandable that, to more intuitively understand the compatibility between the target guideline and the target oil body, the compatibility score needs to be converted into a compatibility grade. First, a preset mapping relationship is determined; that is, based on actual needs and experience, the range of values ​​for the compatibility score is divided into multiple preset numerical intervals. Each preset numerical interval corresponds one-to-one with a preset grade. The larger the value within a preset numerical interval, the better the compatibility, and the higher the corresponding preset grade. For example, the compatibility score can be evenly divided from 0 to 1 into multiple intervals, such as five preset grades AE. For example, 0-0.2 corresponds to grade E, 0.2-0.4 to grade D, 0.4-0.6 to grade C, 0.6-0.8 to grade B, and 0.8-1.0 to grade A. When determining the compatibility grade, the preset numerical interval to which the compatibility score belongs is first determined. For example, if the calculated compatibility score is 0.92, then it needs to be judged within the preset numerical interval to determine that 0.92 belongs to the 0.8-1.0 interval. Finally, the preset level corresponding to the preset numerical range of the compatibility score is determined as the compatibility level between the target conductor and the target oil. In this example, the preset level corresponding to the range of 0.92 is A, so the compatibility level between the target conductor and the target oil is determined to be level A. This method allows for a quick and intuitive understanding of the compatibility between the target conductor and the target oil, providing a clear basis for selection and decision-making in practical applications. For example, when selecting a combination of conductor and transformer oil, the compatibility level can be used to determine whether specific application requirements are met, thereby improving the reliability and stability of the system.

[0085] This application provides a graphene copper and transformer oil compatibility assessment device, including a data acquisition module, a dimensionless processing module, a scoring module, and a mapping module. The data acquisition module is used to acquire first performance parameters of the target conductor in the conductor surface performance dimension, second performance parameters of the target oil in the oil viscosity-tensile performance dimension, and third performance parameters of the target oil in the oil electrical performance dimension. The dimensionless processing module is used to perform dimensionless processing on each of the first, second, and third performance parameters. The scoring module is used to obtain a compatibility score between the target conductor and the target oil based on the dimensionless first, second, and third performance parameters and their corresponding weighting factors. The mapping module is used to obtain the compatibility level between the target conductor and the target oil based on the compatibility score and a preset mapping relationship.

[0086] Specific limitations regarding the graphene-copper and transformer oil compatibility assessment device can be found in the above-described limitations of the graphene-copper and transformer oil compatibility assessment method, and will not be repeated here. Each module in the aforementioned graphene-copper and transformer oil compatibility assessment device can be implemented entirely or partially through software, hardware, or a combination thereof. These modules can be embedded in or independent of the processor in a computer device in hardware form, or stored in the memory of a computer device in software form, so that the processor can call and execute the operations corresponding to each module. It should be noted that the module division in this embodiment is illustrative and only represents a logical functional division; other division methods may be used in actual implementation.

[0087] In one embodiment, the memory stores computer-readable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, perform the steps of the graphene copper and transformer oil compatibility assessment method described in any of the above embodiments.

[0088] Indicatively, such as Figure 3 As shown, Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram of the internal structure of a computer device provided in an embodiment of this application. (Refer to...) Figure 3 The computer device 300 includes a processing component 302, which further includes one or more processors, and memory resources represented by memory 301 for storing instructions, such as application programs, that can be executed by the processing component 302. The application programs stored in memory 301 may include one or more modules, each corresponding to a set of instructions. Furthermore, the processing component 302 is configured to execute instructions to perform the steps of the graphene copper and transformer oil compatibility evaluation method of any of the above embodiments.

[0089] The computer device 300 may also include a power supply component 303 configured to perform power management of the computer device 300, a wired or wireless network interface 304 configured to connect the computer device 300 to a network, and an input / output (I / O) interface 305.

[0090] In one embodiment, when computer-readable instructions are executed by one or more processors, the one or more processors cause the processors to perform the steps of the graphene copper and transformer oil compatibility assessment method in any of the above embodiments.

[0091] Finally, it should be noted that in this document, relational terms such as "first" and "second" are used only to distinguish one entity or operation from another, and do not necessarily require or imply any such actual relationship or order between these entities or operations. Furthermore, the terms "comprising," "including," or any other variations thereof are intended to cover non-exclusive inclusion, such that a process, method, article, or apparatus that comprises a list of elements includes not only those elements but also other elements not expressly listed, or elements inherent to such a process, method, article, or apparatus. Without further limitations, an element defined by the phrase "comprising one..." does not exclude the presence of other identical elements in the process, method, article, or apparatus that includes said element.

[0092] The various embodiments in this specification are described in a progressive manner. Each embodiment focuses on the differences from other embodiments. The various embodiments can be combined as needed, and the same or similar parts can be referred to each other.

[0093] The above description of the disclosed embodiments enables those skilled in the art to make or use this application. Various modifications to these embodiments will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art, and the general principles defined herein may be implemented in other embodiments without departing from the spirit or scope of this application. Therefore, this application is not to be limited to the embodiments shown herein, but is to be accorded the widest scope consistent with the principles and novel features disclosed herein.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating the compatibility of graphene copper with transformer oil, characterized in that, include: Each of the first performance parameters of the target conductor in the conductor surface performance dimension, each of the second performance parameters of the target oil in the oil viscosity performance dimension, and each of the third performance parameters of the target oil in the oil electrical and electronic performance dimension are obtained respectively. Each of the first performance parameter, the second performance parameter, and the third performance parameter is dimensionless. Based on the dimensionless processing of each of the first performance parameters, the second performance parameters, and the third performance parameters and their corresponding weighting factors, the compatibility score between the target guide and the target oil body is calculated by the first expression. The weighting factors include subjective weighting factors and objective weighting factors. The first expression is: ； Among them, Y m The compatibility score is defined as follows: 'a' is the adjustment coefficient of the subjective weighting factor, and 'b' is the adjustment coefficient of the objective weighting factor, satisfying a + b = 1, 0. <a<1,0<b<1;X i and X j Representing the first performance parameter, the second performance parameter, and the third performance parameter; w si Represents the subjective weighting factor, and satisfies -1 <w si <1; w oj Represents the objective weighting factor, and satisfies -1 <w oj <1; Based on the compatibility score and the preset mapping relationship, the compatibility level between the target guide wire and the target oil body is obtained.

2. The method for evaluating the compatibility of graphene copper with transformer oil according to claim 1, characterized in that, The process of generating the subjective weighting factor includes: Set up multiple different combinations of test leads and test oil; Performance tests were conducted on each combination to obtain the corresponding compatibility characterization parameters; For any of the combinations, the test compatibility score between the test lead and the test oil in that combination is determined based on the current subjective weighting factor. Based on the compatibility characterization parameters and the test compatibility score corresponding to each of the aforementioned combinations, a score parameter change curve is generated; If the change curve of the scoring parameter does not conform to the ideal trend, the current subjective weight factor is adjusted, and the process returns to the step of determining the test compatibility score of the test lead and the test oil body in any combination based on the current subjective weight factor, until the change curve of the scoring parameter conforms to the ideal trend, and the current subjective weight factor is determined as the final subjective weight factor.

3. The method for evaluating the compatibility of graphene copper with transformer oil according to claim 1, characterized in that, Dimensionless processing is performed on each of the first performance parameters or each of the second performance parameters, including: For any one of the first performance parameter or the second performance parameter, dimensionless processing is performed according to the second expression; the second expression is: ； in, X1 is the first or second performance parameter after dimensionless processing, and X2 is the first or second performance parameter before dimensionless processing. 1min X is the lower limit value of the corresponding first performance parameter or second performance parameter. 1max This refers to the upper limit value of the corresponding first performance parameter or the second performance parameter.

4. The method for evaluating the compatibility of graphene copper with transformer oil according to claim 1, characterized in that, The third performance parameters are dimensionless, including: For any one of the third performance parameters, it is dimensionless according to the third expression; the third expression is: ； in, X1 is the third performance parameter after dimensionless processing, and X2 is the third performance parameter before dimensionless processing. 2min X is the lower limit value of the corresponding third performance parameter. 2max This is the upper limit value of the corresponding third performance parameter.

5. The method for evaluating the compatibility of graphene copper with transformer oil according to claim 1, characterized in that, The step of obtaining the compatibility level between the target guide wire and the target oil body based on the compatibility score and the preset mapping relationship includes: In the preset mapping relationship, determine the preset numerical interval to which the compatibility score belongs; wherein, the preset numerical interval corresponds one-to-one with the preset level, and the larger the value in the preset numerical interval, the higher the preset level corresponding to the preset numerical interval; The preset level corresponding to the preset numerical range to which the compatibility score belongs is determined as the compatibility level between the target guide wire and the target oil body.

6. The method for evaluating the compatibility of graphene copper with transformer oil according to any one of claims 1-5, characterized in that, The first performance parameter includes surface roughness, conductor resistivity, and conductor tensile strength; the second performance parameter includes viscosity and surface tension; and the third performance parameter includes breakdown voltage, dielectric loss, and dielectric constant.

7. A device for evaluating the compatibility of graphene copper with transformer oil, characterized in that, include: The data acquisition module is used to acquire the first performance parameters of the target conductor in the dimension of conductor surface performance, the second performance parameters of the target oil in the dimension of oil viscosity performance, and the third performance parameters of the target oil in the dimension of oil electrical performance. Each of the first performance parameter, the second performance parameter, and the third performance parameter is dimensionless. Based on the dimensionless processing of each of the first performance parameters, the second performance parameters, and the third performance parameters and their corresponding weighting factors, the compatibility score between the target guide and the target oil body is calculated by the first expression. The weighting factors include subjective weighting factors and objective weighting factors. The first expression is: ； Among them, Y m The compatibility score is defined as follows: 'a' is the adjustment coefficient of the subjective weighting factor, and 'b' is the adjustment coefficient of the objective weighting factor, satisfying a + b = 1, 0. <a<1,0<b<1;X i and X j Representing the first performance parameter, the second performance parameter, and the third performance parameter; w si Represents the subjective weighting factor, and satisfies -1 <w si <1; w oj Represents the objective weighting factor, and satisfies -1 <w oj <1; Based on the compatibility score and the preset mapping relationship, the compatibility level between the target guide wire and the target oil body is obtained.

8. A computer device, characterized in that, The method includes one or more processors and a memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, perform the steps of the graphene copper and transformer oil compatibility assessment method according to any one of claims 1-6.

9. A storage medium, characterized in that, The storage medium stores computer-readable instructions, which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the steps of the graphene copper and transformer oil compatibility assessment method according to any one of claims 1-6.

Images