Comprehensive evaluation method for distributed common grounding electrode topological structure

Abstract

The invention discloses a comprehensive evaluation method for a distributed common grounding electrode topological structure. Comprising the following steps that evaluation indexes are determined, and the evaluation indexes comprise the maximum bearable current of the topological structure, the survivability of the topological structure and the line investment cost of the topological structure; scoring each evaluation index to obtain each scored evaluation index, and performing subjective weighting on each scored evaluation index through an AHP method to obtain a subjective weight of each evaluation index; obtaining an original data matrix of each evaluation index, and calculating the objective weight of each evaluation index by combining the original data matrix of each evaluation index through a CRITIC method to obtain the objective weight of each evaluation index; the subjective weight of each evaluation index and the objective weight of each evaluation index are synthesized, and the combined weight of each evaluation index is calculated; and calculating the comprehensive score of each topological structure by adopting a TOPSIS comprehensive evaluation model to obtain a comprehensive evaluation result of the distributed common grounding electrode topological structure.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The invention belongs to the field of comprehensive evaluation of distributed common grounding electrode topology structure, and in particular relates to a comprehensive evaluation method of distributed common grounding electrode topology structure. Background Art

[0002] Distributed common grounding electrode is a new type of grounding electrode. Its main feature is that it is composed of two or more sub-grounding electrodes distributed at different locations to form a grounding electrode system, which jointly bears the ground current of multiple DC transmission projects. Distributed common grounding electrodes can reduce the ground current of a single grounding electrode, reduce the difficulty of DC grounding electrode site selection and construction, and reduce the problem of over-concentration of DC current distribution in the ground.

[0003] Scholars such as Zhou Youbin and Quan Jiangtao studied the modeling and analysis methods of distributed shared grounding electrodes, and gave examples of the application scenarios of distributed shared grounding electrodes, proving that distributed shared grounding electrodes can improve the performance of grounding electrodes and balance DC currents; Huang Yilong, Zhang Bo and others took the existing DC grounding electrodes as an example, assuming that four of the grounding electrodes were interconnected to form a distributed shared grounding electrode, and analyzed the characteristics and feasibility of distributed shared grounding electrodes under different interconnection schemes.

[0004] At present, most of the research on distributed common grounding electrodes is to model and calculate them, and to obtain their advantages over conventional grounding electrodes through calculation results to verify their feasibility. There are few studies on the influence of the connection method between the sub-poles of distributed common grounding electrodes on the grounding performance, and there is a lack of relevant research on the comprehensive performance evaluation method of the grounding sub-pole topology structure under different connection methods. Summary of the invention

[0005] The purpose of the present invention is to overcome the problem that it is impossible to evaluate the comprehensive grounding performance of the sub-pole topology structure under different connection methods, and propose a comprehensive evaluation method for a distributed common grounding electrode topology structure to provide a reference for the selection and design of the connection method between the distributed common grounding electrodes.

[0006] In order to achieve the above object, the present invention adopts the following technical scheme:

[0007] A comprehensive evaluation method for a distributed common grounding electrode topology structure comprises the following steps:

[0008] Establish evaluation indicators, including the maximum tolerable current of the topology structure, the damage resistance of the topology structure and the investment cost of the topology structure line;

[0009] Each evaluation index is scored to obtain the scored evaluation index, and each scored evaluation index is subjectively weighted by the AHP method to obtain the subjective weight of each evaluation index;

[0010] Obtain the original data matrix of each evaluation index, calculate the objective weight of each evaluation index by combining the original data matrix of each evaluation index through the CRITIC method, and obtain the objective weight of each evaluation index;

[0011] The subjective weight of each evaluation index and the objective weight of each evaluation index are combined to calculate the combined weight of each evaluation index;

[0012] Based on the original data matrix of each evaluation index and the combined weight of each evaluation index, the TOPSIS comprehensive evaluation model is used to calculate the comprehensive score of each topology structure, and the comprehensive evaluation result of the distributed common grounding electrode topology structure is obtained.

[0013] Furthermore, the calculation method of subjectively weighting each scored evaluation index by AHP method includes the following steps:

[0014] Step 2.1: According to the evaluation indicators, several experts score the importance of several evaluation indicators to obtain several judgment matrices, and the number of judgment matrices is equal to the number of experts;

[0015] Step 2.2: Calculate the maximum eigenvalue and eigenvector of several judgment matrices respectively, and perform consistency check on each judgment matrix.

[0016] Step 2.3: If the judgment matrix passes the consistency test, the eigenvector of the judgment matrix is ​​used instead of the weight vector as the weight to obtain a weight matrix of the number of experts × the number of evaluation indicators; if the judgment matrix does not pass the consistency test, the judgment matrix is ​​modified and step 2.2 is repeated;

[0017] Step 2.4: Calculate the average weight of each indicator as the final weight based on the weight matrix. The specific calculation process is shown in the following formula:

[0018]

[0019] Among them, X i (i=1,2,…,m) is the indicator weight assignment scheme of the i-th expert, ω ij Assign the weight of the i-th expert to the j-th indicator, is the weighted average value of the j-th indicator.

[0020] Furthermore, a method for calculating the objective weight of each evaluation indicator by combining the original data matrix of each evaluation indicator through the CRITIC method includes the following steps:

[0021] The original data matrix is ​​composed of the object to be evaluated and the evaluation index. The original data matrix is ​​standardized to obtain a standardized original data matrix;

[0022] The data average of each evaluation index is obtained by standardizing the original data matrix, the standard deviation of each evaluation index and the correlation coefficient between each evaluation index are calculated using the data average of each evaluation index, the conflict of each evaluation index is calculated using the correlation coefficient between each evaluation index, and the information carrying capacity of each evaluation index is calculated through the standard deviation of each evaluation index and the conflict of each evaluation index;

[0023] The objective weight of each evaluation indicator is calculated using the information carrying capacity of each evaluation indicator.

[0024] Furthermore, the standardization process includes standardizing extremely large indices and extremely small indices on the original data matrix;

[0025] The standardized calculation formula for extremely large indicators is as follows:

[0026]

[0027] The standardized calculation formula for the very small index is as follows:

[0028]

[0029] Among them, x ij is the data of the jth evaluation index of the i-th object to be evaluated, max(x j )、min(x j ) are the maximum and minimum values ​​of the data in the jth index respectively;

[0030] The specific calculation formula for the standard deviation of each evaluation index is as follows:

[0031]

[0032] Among them, S j is the standard deviation of the j-th indicator data, is the data average of the jth indicator;

[0033] The specific calculation process of the correlation coefficient between each evaluation index is shown in the following formula:

[0034]

[0035] In the formula, r jk is the correlation coefficient between the jth indicator and the kth indicator, x ik is the data of the kth indicator of the i-th object to be evaluated, is the data average of the kth indicator;

[0036] The specific calculation formula of the conflict of each evaluation index is as follows:

[0037]

[0038] In the formula, A j Indicates the conflict of the jth indicator, r ij is the correlation coefficient between the i-th indicator and the j-th indicator;

[0039] The specific formula for the information carrying capacity of each evaluation indicator is as follows:

[0040] C j =S j ×A j

[0041] In the formula, C j is the information carrying capacity of the jth indicator, S j is the standard deviation of the jth indicator, A j is the conflict of the jth indicator;

[0042] The specific calculation formula of the objective weight of each evaluation index is as follows:

[0043]

[0044] Among them, W j is the weight of the jth indicator.

[0045] Furthermore, the calculation method of the combined weight of each evaluation index is as follows:

[0046]

[0047] Among them, w final，i is the combined weight of the i-th indicator, w AHP，i is the subjective weight of the ith indicator obtained by AHP method, w CRI，i is the objective weight of the ith indicator obtained using the CRITIC method.

[0048] Furthermore, the specific process of the TOPSIS comprehensive evaluation model is as follows:

[0049] The standardized original data matrix is ​​used to determine the positive and negative ideal solutions in the scheme to be evaluated. The Euclidean distance from the scheme to be evaluated to the positive and negative ideal solutions is calculated according to the combined weights of each evaluation index and the positive and negative ideal solutions in the scheme to be evaluated. The relative proximity is calculated through the Euclidean distance from the scheme to be evaluated to the positive and negative ideal solutions, and the comprehensive evaluation score is obtained. The larger the value of the relative proximity, the higher the comprehensive evaluation score.

[0050] Furthermore, the Euclidean distance from the scheme to be evaluated to the positive and negative ideal solutions is calculated as follows:

[0051]

[0052] In the formula, Indicates the distance from the i-th evaluated solution to the positive and negative ideal solutions, X′ +，j , X′ -，j represents the positive and negative ideal solutions of the jth index; w final，i is the combined weight of the jth indicator;

[0053] The calculation formula of relative proximity is as follows:

[0054]

[0055] In the formula, Z i It is expressed as the relative proximity of the i-th object to be evaluated, Represents the distance from the i-th scheme to be evaluated to the positive and negative ideal solutions.

[0056] A comprehensive evaluation system for a distributed common grounding electrode topology structure includes an evaluation index establishment module for establishing evaluation indicators, wherein the evaluation indicators include a maximum tolerable current of the topology structure, a topology structure anti-destruction degree, and a topology structure line investment cost;

[0057] The subjective weight calculation module is used to score each evaluation index to obtain the scored evaluation index, and to subjectively weight each scored evaluation index through the AHP method to obtain the subjective weight of each evaluation index;

[0058] The objective weight calculation module is used to obtain the original data matrix of each evaluation indicator, calculate the objective weight of each evaluation indicator by combining the original data matrix of each evaluation indicator through the CRITIC method, and obtain the objective weight of each evaluation indicator;

[0059] The combined weight calculation module is used to combine the subjective weight of each evaluation index and the objective weight of each evaluation index to calculate the combined weight of each evaluation index;

[0060] The comprehensive evaluation calculation module is used to calculate the comprehensive score of each topological structure based on the original data matrix of each evaluation index and the combined weight of each evaluation index using the TOPSIS comprehensive evaluation model to obtain the comprehensive evaluation result of the distributed common grounding electrode topological structure.

[0061] An electronic device comprises a memory, a processor and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor. When the processor executes the computer program, the comprehensive evaluation method for a distributed common grounding electrode topology structure is implemented.

[0062] A computer-readable storage medium stores a computer program, and when the computer program is executed by a processor, the comprehensive evaluation method for a distributed common grounding electrode topology structure is implemented.

[0063] Compared with the prior art, the present invention has the following beneficial technical effects:

[0064] A comprehensive evaluation method for the topological structure of distributed common grounding electrodes is proposed. The evaluation index of the topological structure of distributed common grounding electrodes is established. The weight of each index is calculated by the CRITIC (objective weighting method) + AHP (hierarchy analysis method) comprehensive weight method. The topological structure of distributed common grounding electrodes is evaluated by the TOPSIS (multi-attribute decision analysis method) comprehensive evaluation model. It is conducive to the comprehensive evaluation of various topological structures of distributed common grounding electrodes and provides a reference for the selection and design of the connection method between distributed common grounding electrodes.

[0065] Furthermore, the performance of the distributed common grounding electrode topology is evaluated by comprehensively considering multiple indicators, and the comprehensive evaluation results can provide a reference for the engineering design of the distributed common grounding electrode topology.

[0066] Furthermore, the CRITIC+AHP combined weight method is used to obtain the weight of each evaluation index, and the subjective weighting method is combined with the objective weighting method to make the index weight more in line with reality and the evaluation result more reasonable. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0067] The drawings in the specification are used to provide further understanding of the present invention and constitute a part of the present invention. The schematic embodiments of the present invention and their descriptions are used to explain the present invention and do not constitute improper limitations on the present invention.

[0068] Figure 1 It is a flow chart of a comprehensive evaluation method for a distributed common grounding electrode topology structure of the present invention;

[0069] Figure 2 It is a structural schematic diagram of a comprehensive evaluation system of a distributed common grounding electrode topology structure of the present invention;

[0070] Figure 3 It is a schematic diagram of the electronic device structure of a comprehensive evaluation method of a distributed common grounding electrode topology structure of the present invention;

[0071] Figure 4 It is a schematic diagram of a flow chart of a method for comprehensive evaluation of a distributed common ground electrode topology structure in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0072] Figure 5 Schematic diagram of a circuit model of a distributed common grounding electrode in an embodiment of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0073] The present invention will be described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings and in combination with embodiments. It should be noted that the embodiments and features in the embodiments of the present application can be combined with each other without conflict.

[0074] The following detailed description is an exemplary description, which is intended to provide further detailed description of the present invention. Unless otherwise specified, all technical terms used in the present invention have the same meaning as those generally understood by those skilled in the art to which the present application belongs. The terms used in the present invention are only for describing specific embodiments, and are not intended to limit exemplary embodiments according to the present invention.

[0075] Embodiment 1

[0076] See also Figure 1 , a comprehensive evaluation method for a distributed common grounding electrode topology structure, comprising the following steps:

[0077] Establish evaluation indicators, including the maximum tolerable current of the topology structure, the damage resistance of the topology structure and the investment cost of the topology structure line;

[0078] Each evaluation index is scored to obtain the scored evaluation index, and each scored evaluation index is subjectively weighted by the AHP method to obtain the subjective weight of each evaluation index;

[0079] Obtain the original data matrix of each evaluation index, calculate the objective weight of each evaluation index by combining the original data matrix of each evaluation index through the CRITIC method, and obtain the objective weight of each evaluation index;

[0080] The subjective weight of each evaluation index and the objective weight of each evaluation index are combined to calculate the combined weight of each evaluation index;

[0081] Based on the original data matrix of each evaluation index and the combined weight of each evaluation index, the TOPSIS comprehensive evaluation model is used to calculate the comprehensive score of each topology structure, and the comprehensive evaluation result of the distributed common grounding electrode topology structure is obtained.

[0082] Preferably, the calculation method of subjectively weighting each scored evaluation index by AHP method comprises the following steps:

[0083] Step 2.1: According to the evaluation indicators, several experts score the importance of several evaluation indicators to obtain several judgment matrices, and the number of judgment matrices is equal to the number of experts;

[0084] Step 2.2: Calculate the maximum eigenvalue and eigenvector of several judgment matrices respectively, and perform consistency check on each judgment matrix.

[0085] Step 2.3: If the judgment matrix passes the consistency test, the eigenvector of the judgment matrix is ​​used instead of the weight vector as the weight to obtain a weight matrix of the number of experts × the number of evaluation indicators; if the judgment matrix does not pass the consistency test, the judgment matrix is ​​modified and step 2.2 is repeated;

[0086] Step 2.4: Calculate the average weight of each indicator as the final weight based on the weight matrix. The specific calculation process is shown in the following formula:

[0087]

[0088] Among them, X i (i=1,2,…,m) is the indicator weight assignment scheme of the i-th expert, ω ij Assign the weight of the i-th expert to the j-th indicator, is the weighted average value of the j-th indicator.

[0089] Preferably, the calculation method for calculating the objective weight of each evaluation indicator by combining the original data matrix of each evaluation indicator through the CRITIC method comprises the following steps:

[0090] The original data matrix is ​​composed of the object to be evaluated and the evaluation index. The original data matrix is ​​standardized to obtain a standardized original data matrix;

[0091] The data average of each evaluation index is obtained by standardizing the original data matrix, the standard deviation of each evaluation index and the correlation coefficient between each evaluation index are calculated using the data average of each evaluation index, the conflict of each evaluation index is calculated using the correlation coefficient between each evaluation index, and the information carrying capacity of each evaluation index is calculated through the standard deviation of each evaluation index and the conflict of each evaluation index;

[0092] The objective weight of each evaluation indicator is calculated using the information carrying capacity of each evaluation indicator.

[0093] Preferably, the standardization process includes standardizing extremely large indices and extremely small indices on the original data matrix;

[0094] The standardized calculation formula for extremely large indicators is as follows:

[0095]

[0096] The standardized calculation formula for the very small index is as follows:

[0097]

[0098] Among them, x ij is the data of the jth evaluation index of the i-th object to be evaluated, max(x j )、min(x j ) are the maximum and minimum values ​​of the data in the jth index respectively;

[0099] The specific calculation formula for the standard deviation of each evaluation index is as follows:

[0100]

[0101] Among them, S j is the standard deviation of the j-th indicator data, is the data average of the jth indicator;

[0102] The specific calculation process of the correlation coefficient between each evaluation index is shown in the following formula:

[0103]

[0104] In the formula, r jk is the correlation coefficient between the jth indicator and the kth indicator, x ik is the data of the kth indicator of the i-th object to be evaluated, is the data average of the kth indicator;

[0105] The specific calculation formula of the conflict of each evaluation index is as follows:

[0106]

[0107] In the formula, A j Indicates the conflict of the jth indicator, r ij is the correlation coefficient between the i-th indicator and the j-th indicator;

[0108] The specific formula for the information carrying capacity of each evaluation indicator is as follows:

[0109] C j =S j ×A j

[0110] In the formula, C j is the information carrying capacity of the jth indicator, S j is the standard deviation of the jth index, A j is the conflict of the jth indicator;

[0111] The specific calculation formula of the objective weight of each evaluation index is as follows:

[0112]

[0113] Among them, W j is the weight of the jth indicator.

[0114] Preferably, the calculation method of the combined weight of each evaluation index is as shown in the following formula:

[0115]

[0116] Among them, w final，iis the combined weight of the i-th indicator, w AHP，i is the subjective weight of the ith indicator obtained by AHP method, w CRI，i is the objective weight of the ith indicator obtained using the CRITIC method.

[0117] Preferably, the specific process of the TOPSIS comprehensive evaluation model is:

[0118] The standardized original data matrix is ​​used to determine the positive and negative ideal solutions in the scheme to be evaluated. The Euclidean distance from the scheme to be evaluated to the positive and negative ideal solutions is calculated according to the combined weights of each evaluation index and the positive and negative ideal solutions in the scheme to be evaluated. The relative proximity is calculated through the Euclidean distance from the scheme to be evaluated to the positive and negative ideal solutions, and the comprehensive evaluation score is obtained. The larger the value of the relative proximity, the higher the comprehensive evaluation score.

[0119] Preferably, the Euclidean distance from the scheme to be evaluated to the positive and negative ideal solutions is calculated as follows:

[0120]

[0121] In the formula, Indicates the distance from the i-th evaluated solution to the positive and negative ideal solutions, X′ +，j , X′ -，j represents the positive and negative ideal solutions of the jth index; w final，i is the combined weight of the jth indicator;

[0122] The calculation formula of relative proximity is as follows:

[0123]

[0124] In the formula, Z i It is expressed as the relative proximity of the i-th object to be evaluated, Represents the distance from the i-th scheme to be evaluated to the positive and negative ideal solutions.

[0125] Embodiment 2

[0126] See also Figure 2 , a comprehensive evaluation system for a distributed common grounding electrode topology structure, including an evaluation index establishment module for establishing evaluation indicators, the evaluation indicators including a maximum tolerable current of the topology structure, a topology structure anti-destruction degree and a topology structure line investment cost;

[0127] The subjective weight calculation module is used to score each evaluation index to obtain the scored evaluation index, and to subjectively weight each scored evaluation index through the AHP method to obtain the subjective weight of each evaluation index;

[0128] The objective weight calculation module is used to obtain the original data matrix of each evaluation indicator, calculate the objective weight of each evaluation indicator by combining the original data matrix of each evaluation indicator through the CRITIC method, and obtain the objective weight of each evaluation indicator;

[0129] The combined weight calculation module is used to combine the subjective weight of each evaluation index and the objective weight of each evaluation index to calculate the combined weight of each evaluation index;

[0130] The comprehensive evaluation calculation module is used to calculate the comprehensive score of each topological structure based on the original data matrix of each evaluation index and the combined weight of each evaluation index using the TOPSIS comprehensive evaluation model to obtain the comprehensive evaluation result of the distributed common grounding electrode topological structure.

[0131] Embodiment 3

[0132] See also Figure 3 , an electronic device, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein when the processor executes the computer program, the comprehensive evaluation method for a distributed common grounding electrode topology structure is implemented.

[0133] Embodiment 4

[0134] A computer-readable storage medium stores a computer program, and when the computer program is executed by a processor, the comprehensive evaluation method for a distributed common grounding electrode topology structure is implemented.

[0135] Embodiment 5

[0136] like Figure 4 As shown, a comprehensive evaluation method for a distributed common grounding electrode topology structure includes the following steps:

[0137] Step 1, establish evaluation indicators: select the maximum tolerable current of the topology structure, the topology structure anti-destruction degree, and the topology structure line investment cost as evaluation indicators;

[0138] Step 2: Calculate the index weights using the AHP method: Experts score the evaluation indicators selected in step 1 and subjectively weight each indicator using the AHP method;

[0139] Step 3: Calculate the indicator weights using the CRITIC method: Obtain the original data matrix of the evaluation indicators selected in step 1, and calculate the objective weights of each evaluation indicator using the CRITIC method;

[0140] Step 4: Combining the weights obtained in step 2 and step 3, output the combined weights of each evaluation index;

[0141] Step 5, calculate the comprehensive evaluation score: Based on the original data matrix in step 3 and the combined weights of each indicator obtained in step 4, the TOPSIS comprehensive evaluation model is used to calculate the comprehensive score of each topological structure to obtain the comprehensive evaluation result of the distributed common grounding electrode topological structure.

[0142] In step 1, the specific calculation method for obtaining the maximum tolerable current of the topology structure is as follows:

[0143] Step 1.1.1, assuming that a distributed common grounding electrode is composed of k sub-grounding electrodes, establish its circuit model. The circuit model diagram is as follows: Figure 5 shown.

[0144] In the figure, R L1 , R L2 …R Ln is the equivalent resistance of the overhead line from the converter station to each sub-pole or between each sub-pole, R Z1 , R Z2 …R Zn is the grounding resistance of each sub-pole, V1, V2…V n is the coupling potential generated by the mutual conductance between the sub-poles, I Z1 ,I Z2 …I Zn is the ground current of each sub-pole, I s It is the total current flowing into the distributed common grounding electrode of the DC transmission system.

[0145] Step 1.1.2, find the grounding electrode with the smallest rated grounding current among the k sub-grounding electrodes, and set its grounding current as the rated grounding current:

[0146]

[0147] In the formula, I Z min Indicates the ground current flowing through the sub-grounding electrode with the smallest rated ground current, I N min It represents the minimum rated ground current among the k sub-grounding electrodes.

[0148] Step 1.1.3: According to the circuit model in step 1.1.1, calculate the ground current in other sub-ground electrodes at this time by Kirchhoff's law and node voltage method:

[0149] Step 1.1.4. Sum the ground currents in all sub-ground electrodes to obtain the maximum tolerable current:

[0150]

[0151] In the formula, I max，All is the maximum tolerable current, I Zi is the ground current of the ith sub-pole obtained in step 1.1.3.

[0152] In step 1, the specific calculation method of the topological structure's invulnerability is as follows:

[0153] Step 1.2.1, assuming that each sub-electrode in the distributed common grounding electrode composed of k sub-electrodes is shut down, establish a circuit model composed of the remaining sub-electrodes, and calculate the maximum tolerable current of the remaining sub-electrodes at this time:

[0154] I′ max = {I′ max,1 ,…,I′ max，i ,…,I′ max,k}

[0155] In the formula, I′ max，i represents the maximum tolerable current of the remaining sub-poles after the i-th sub-pole is shut down. For the specific calculation method, see steps 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, and 1.1.4;

[0156] Step 1.2.2: Calculate the topological structure invulnerability:

[0157]

[0158] In the formula, e i is the maximum tolerable current ratio before and after the ith sub-pole is shut down, I max，All I′ is the maximum tolerable current of the original topology when no sub-pole is shut down. max，i It is the maximum tolerable current of the remaining sub-poles after the i-th sub-pole stops operating.

[0159]

[0160] Where E is the invulnerability of the topological structure.

[0161] In step 1, the specific calculation method of the total investment cost of the line of the topology structure is as follows:

[0162]

[0163] Where W is the total investment cost of the line, is the investment cost per kilometer of the line, and L is the total line length of the distributed common grounding electrode topology.

[0164] In step 2, the specific calculation method of the AHP method is as follows:

[0165] Step 2.1: Based on the evaluation indicators established in step 1, m experts score the importance of n evaluation indicators to obtain m judgment matrices;

[0166] Step 2.2: Calculate the maximum eigenvalue and eigenvector of the m judgment matrices respectively, and perform consistency check on each judgment matrix.

[0167] Step 2.3: If the judgment matrix passes the consistency test, the eigenvector of the judgment matrix is ​​used instead of the weight vector as the weight; if the judgment matrix does not pass the consistency test, the judgment matrix needs to be modified and step 2.2 is repeated;

[0168] Step 2.4: From step 2.3, we get the m×n weight matrix. According to this matrix, we find the average weight of each indicator and use it as the final weight. The specific calculation process is as follows:

[0169]

[0170] In the above formula, X i (i=1,2,…,m) is the indicator weight assignment scheme of the i-th expert, ω ij Assign the weight of the i-th expert to the j-th indicator, is the weighted average value of the j-th indicator.

[0171] In step 3, the specific calculation method of the CRITIC method is as follows:

[0172] Step 3.1: Standardization of the original data matrix: Assume that there are m objects to be evaluated and n evaluation indicators, forming the original data matrix X:

[0173]

[0174] For very large indicators, the standardized calculation formula is:

[0175]

[0176] For very small indicators, the standardized calculation formula is:

[0177]

[0178] In the above formula, x ij is the data of the jth evaluation index of the i-th object to be evaluated, max(x j )、min(x j ) are the maximum and minimum values ​​of the data in the jth indicator respectively.

[0179] Step 3.2, calculate the information carrying capacity: the information carrying capacity is represented by the contrast intensity and conflict of the data. The contrast intensity is represented by the standard deviation, and the conflict is related to the correlation coefficient.

[0180] The specific calculation formula for standard deviation is as follows:

[0181]

[0182] In the formula, S jis the standard deviation of the j-th indicator data, is the data average of the jth indicator.

[0183] The specific calculation process of the correlation coefficient is as follows:

[0184]

[0185] In the formula, r jk is the correlation coefficient between the jth indicator and the kth indicator, x ik is the data of the kth indicator of the i-th object to be evaluated, is the data average of the kth indicator.

[0186] The specific calculation formula for conflict is as follows:

[0187]

[0188] In the formula, A j Indicates the conflict of the jth indicator, r ij is the correlation coefficient between the i-th indicator and the j-th indicator.

[0189] Finally, the specific formula for calculating information carrying capacity is as follows:

[0190] C j =S j ×A j

[0191] In the formula, C j is the information carrying capacity of the jth indicator, S j is the standard deviation of the jth index, A j is the conflict of the jth indicator.

[0192] Step 3.3, calculate the weight, the specific calculation formula is as follows:

[0193]

[0194] Where W j is the weight of the jth indicator.

[0195] In step 4, the specific calculation method of the combined weight is as follows:

[0196] Step 4.1: Use the average method to combine weights and calculate the combined weights:

[0197]

[0198] In the formula, w final，i is the combined weight, w AHP，i is the weight of the ith indicator obtained by AHP method, w CRI，iis the weight value of the i-th indicator obtained using the CRITIC method.

[0199] In step 5, the specific calculation process of the TOPSIS evaluation model is as follows:

[0200] Step 5.1: Unify the indicator types of the original data matrix, eliminate the dimension effect, and perform standardization:

[0201] Assume that there are m objects to be evaluated and n evaluation indicators, forming the original data matrix X:

[0202]

[0203] For very large indicators, the standardized calculation formula is:

[0204]

[0205] For very small indicators, the standardized calculation formula is:

[0206]

[0207] In the above formula, x ij is the data of the jth evaluation index of the i-th object to be evaluated, max(x j )、min(x j ) are the maximum and minimum values ​​of the data in the j-th indicator respectively.

[0208] Step 5.2: Determine the positive and negative ideal solutions in the scheme to be evaluated, and calculate the Euclidean distance between each scheme and the positive and negative ideal solutions:

[0209] Define a positive ideal solution:

[0210] X′ + =(max{x′ 11 , x′ 21 ,…,x′ m1},max{x′ 12 , x′ 22 , …, x m2 ′},…,max{x′ 1n , x′ 2n ,…,x′ mn})

[0211] Define negative ideal solution:

[0212] X′ - =(min{x′ 11 , x′ 21 ,…,x′ m1},min{x′ 12 , x′ 22 , …, x m2′},…,min{x′ 1n , x′ 2n ,…,x′ mn}) Calculate the Euclidean distance:

[0213]

[0214] In the formula, Indicates the distance from the i-th evaluated solution to the positive and negative ideal solutions, X′ +，j , X′ -，j Represents the positive and negative ideal solutions of the j-th index.

[0215] Step 5.3: Calculate the relative degree of closeness and obtain the comprehensive evaluation score:

[0216]

[0217] In the formula, Z i It is expressed as the relative proximity of the i-th object to be evaluated. The larger its value is, the better the performance of the topological structure of the distributed common grounding electrode is.

[0218] Those skilled in the art will appreciate that embodiments of the present invention may be provided as methods, systems, or computer program products. Therefore, the present invention may take the form of a complete hardware embodiment, a complete software embodiment, or an embodiment combining software and hardware. Moreover, the present invention may take the form of a computer program product implemented on one or more computer-usable storage media (including but not limited to disk storage, CD-ROM, optical storage, etc.) containing computer-usable program code.

[0219] The present invention is described with reference to flowcharts and / or block diagrams of methods, devices (systems), and computer program products according to embodiments of the present invention. It should be understood that each process and / or block in the flowchart and / or block diagram, as well as the combination of processes and / or blocks in the flowchart and / or block diagram, can be implemented by computer program instructions. These computer program instructions can be provided to a processor of a general-purpose computer, a special-purpose computer, an embedded processor, or other programmable data processing device to produce a machine, so that the instructions executed by the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing device generate instructions for implementing the processes in the flowchart and / or block diagram. Figure 1 A process or multiple processes and / or boxes Figure 1 A device that provides the functions specified in a block or multiple blocks.

[0220] These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer-readable memory capable of directing a computer or other programmable data processing device to operate in a specific manner, so that the instructions stored in the computer-readable memory produce an article of manufacture comprising an instruction device, which implements the process Figure 1A process or multiple processes and / or boxes Figure 1 A function specified in one or more boxes.

[0221] These computer program instructions can also be loaded onto a computer or other programmable data processing device so that a series of operating steps are executed on the computer or other programmable device to produce a computer-implemented process, thereby providing instructions for implementing the process. Figure 1 A process or multiple processes and / or boxes Figure 1 The steps for the functions specified in one or more boxes.

[0222] Finally, it should be noted that the above embodiments are only used to illustrate the technical solutions of the present invention rather than to limit it. Although the present invention has been described in detail with reference to the above embodiments, ordinary technicians in the relevant field should understand that the specific implementation methods of the present invention can still be modified or replaced by equivalents. Any modification or equivalent replacement that does not depart from the spirit and scope of the present invention should be covered within the scope of protection of the claims of the present invention.

Claims

1. A comprehensive evaluation method for a distributed common grounding electrode topology structure, characterized in that: The following steps are involved: Establish evaluation indicators, including the maximum tolerable current of the topology structure, the damage resistance of the topology structure and the investment cost of the topology structure line; Each evaluation index is scored to obtain the scored evaluation index, and each scored evaluation index is subjectively weighted by the AHP method to obtain the subjective weight of each evaluation index; Obtain the original data matrix of each evaluation index, calculate the objective weight of each evaluation index by combining the original data matrix of each evaluation index through the CRITIC method, and obtain the objective weight of each evaluation index; The subjective weight of each evaluation index and the objective weight of each evaluation index are combined to calculate the combined weight of each evaluation index; Based on the original data matrix of each evaluation index and the combined weight of each evaluation index, the TOPSIS comprehensive evaluation model is used to calculate the comprehensive score of each topological structure, and the comprehensive evaluation result of the distributed common grounding electrode topological structure is obtained.

2. A comprehensive evaluation method for a distributed common ground electrode topology structure according to claim 1, characterized in that: The calculation method of subjectively weighting each scored evaluation index by AHP method includes the following steps: Step 2.1: According to the evaluation indicators, several experts score the importance of several evaluation indicators to obtain several judgment matrices, and the number of judgment matrices is equal to the number of experts; Step 2.2: Calculate the maximum eigenvalue and eigenvector of several judgment matrices respectively, and perform consistency check on each judgment matrix. Step 2.3: If the judgment matrix passes the consistency test, the eigenvector of the judgment matrix is ​​used instead of the weight vector as the weight to obtain a weight matrix of the number of experts × the number of evaluation indicators; if the judgment matrix does not pass the consistency test, the judgment matrix is ​​modified and step 2.2 is repeated; Step 2.4: Calculate the average weight of each indicator as the final weight based on the weight matrix. The specific calculation process is shown in the following formula: Among them, X i (i=1,2,…,m) is the indicator weight assignment scheme of the i-th expert, ω ij Assign the weight of the i-th expert to the j-th indicator, is the weighted average value of the jth indicator.

3. The comprehensive evaluation method of a distributed common grounding electrode topology structure according to claim 1 is characterized in that: The calculation method for calculating the objective weight of each evaluation indicator by combining the original data matrix of each evaluation indicator through the CRITIC method includes the following steps: The original data matrix is ​​composed of the object to be evaluated and the evaluation index. The original data matrix is ​​standardized to obtain a standardized original data matrix; The data average of each evaluation index is obtained by standardizing the original data matrix, the standard deviation of each evaluation index and the correlation coefficient between each evaluation index are calculated using the data average of each evaluation index, the conflict of each evaluation index is calculated using the correlation coefficient between each evaluation index, and the information carrying capacity of each evaluation index is calculated through the standard deviation of each evaluation index and the conflict of each evaluation index; The objective weight of each evaluation indicator is calculated using the information carrying capacity of each evaluation indicator.

4. A comprehensive evaluation method for a distributed common grounding electrode topology structure according to claim 3, characterized in that: The standardization process includes standardization of extremely large indicators and extremely small indicators of the original data matrix; The standardized calculation formula for extremely large indicators is as follows: The standardized calculation formula for the very small index is as follows: Among them, x ij is the data of the jth evaluation index of the i-th object to be evaluated, max(x j )、min(x j ) are the maximum and minimum values ​​of the data in the jth index respectively; The specific calculation formula for the standard deviation of each evaluation index is as follows: Among them, S j is the standard deviation of the j-th indicator data, is the data average of the jth indicator; The specific calculation process of the correlation coefficient between each evaluation index is shown in the following formula: In the formula, r jk is the correlation coefficient between the jth indicator and the kth indicator, x ik is the data of the kth indicator of the i-th object to be evaluated, is the data average of the kth indicator; The specific calculation formula of the conflict of each evaluation index is as follows: In the formula, A j Indicates the conflict of the jth indicator, r ij is the correlation coefficient between the i-th indicator and the j-th indicator; The specific formula for the information carrying capacity of each evaluation indicator is as follows: C j =S j ×A j In the formula, C j is the information carrying capacity of the jth indicator, S j is the standard deviation of the jth indicator, A j is the conflict of the jth indicator; The specific calculation formula of the objective weight of each evaluation index is as follows: Among them, W j is the weight of the jth indicator.

5. The comprehensive evaluation method of a distributed common grounding electrode topology structure according to claim 1 is characterized in that: The calculation method of the combined weight of each evaluation index is as follows: Among them, w final，i is the combined weight of the i-th indicator, w AHP，i is the subjective weight of the ith indicator obtained by AHP method, w CRI，i is the objective weight of the ith indicator obtained using the CRITIC method.

6. A comprehensive evaluation method for a distributed common ground electrode topology structure according to claim 1, characterized in that: The specific process of the TOPSIS comprehensive evaluation model is: The standardized original data matrix is ​​used to determine the positive and negative ideal solutions in the scheme to be evaluated. The Euclidean distance from the scheme to be evaluated to the positive and negative ideal solutions is calculated according to the combined weights of each evaluation index and the positive and negative ideal solutions in the scheme to be evaluated. The relative proximity is calculated through the Euclidean distance from the scheme to be evaluated to the positive and negative ideal solutions, and the comprehensive evaluation score is obtained. The larger the value of the relative proximity, the higher the comprehensive evaluation score.

7. A comprehensive evaluation method for a distributed common ground electrode topology structure according to claim 6, characterized in that: The calculation of the Euclidean distance from the scheme to be evaluated to the positive and negative ideal solutions is as follows: In the formula, represents the distance from the i-th evaluated solution to the positive and negative ideal solutions, represents the positive and negative ideal solutions of the jth index; w final，i is the combined weight of the jth indicator; The calculation formula of relative proximity is as follows: In the formula, Z i It is expressed as the relative proximity of the i-th object to be evaluated, Represents the distance from the i-th scheme to be evaluated to the positive and negative ideal solutions.

8. A comprehensive evaluation system for a distributed common grounding electrode topology structure, characterized in that: It includes an evaluation index establishment module for establishing evaluation indexes, wherein the evaluation indexes include a maximum tolerable current of the topology structure, a damage resistance of the topology structure, and an investment cost of a topology structure line; The subjective weight calculation module is used to score each evaluation index to obtain the scored evaluation index, and to subjectively weight each scored evaluation index through the AHP method to obtain the subjective weight of each evaluation index; The objective weight calculation module is used to obtain the original data matrix of each evaluation indicator, calculate the objective weight of each evaluation indicator by combining the original data matrix of each evaluation indicator through the CRITIC method, and obtain the objective weight of each evaluation indicator; The combined weight calculation module is used to combine the subjective weight of each evaluation index and the objective weight of each evaluation index to calculate the combined weight of each evaluation index; The comprehensive evaluation calculation module is used to calculate the comprehensive score of each topological structure based on the original data matrix of each evaluation index and the combined weight of each evaluation index using the TOPSIS comprehensive evaluation model to obtain the comprehensive evaluation result of the distributed common grounding electrode topological structure.

9. An electronic device comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the processor implements a comprehensive evaluation method for a distributed common grounding electrode topology structure as described in any one of claims 1 to 7 when executing the computer program.

10. A computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, implements a comprehensive evaluation method for a distributed common grounding electrode topology structure as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 7.

Images