Substation fire safety risk quantitative assessment method

Abstract

The invention discloses a substation fire safety risk quantitative assessment method, belongs to the field of fire risk assessment, and aims to solve the problems that in the prior art, weight setting is simple, index judgment standards are not fine, major risk management and control are not highlighted, and assessment results are not accurate and reliable enough. The method comprises the following steps: determining a plurality of first-level indexes and refining the first-level indexes into a plurality of levels of sub-indexes; determining the weight of each level of index by combining an expert scoring method with a combined weighting method; collecting and preprocessing data; according to the distribution condition of the evaluation index characteristic acquisition data, determining a final-stage index evaluation standard, and calculating a comprehensive risk value; judging whether a special situation with a first-level risk exists or not; and determining the risk level according to the quantification range to which the comprehensive risk value belongs. According to the method, a quantitative evaluation method is used, weight setting is closer to reality, index judgment standards are more refined, major risk management and control are highlighted, evaluation results are more accurate and reliable, and quantitative results can reflect the nature of potential fire risk distribution and risk uncertainty.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the field of fire risk assessment, and more particularly, to a method for quantitatively assessing the fire safety risk of a substation. Background Art

[0002] Substation fires have gradually become one of the main factors restricting the construction scale of substations. Substation fire accidents not only interrupt the power supply, affect the order of social production and life, but also may cause casualties and environmental pollution. With the continuous expansion of the scale of China's power system and the continuous improvement of voltage levels, electrical equipment in substations is becoming increasingly dense, and the equipment capacity continues to increase. Once a fire occurs, the consequences will be more serious. In order to effectively prevent and control the occurrence of substation fire accidents and minimize the losses caused by fires, it is necessary to shift from ex post remedy to ex ante prevention. Therefore, it is particularly important to conduct an assessment of the fire safety risk of substations.

[0003] The methods for assessing substation fire risks can be divided into qualitative methods, semi-quantitative methods, and quantitative methods. Qualitative fire risk assessment methods are mainly used to identify the most unfavorable fire events. Such methods mainly use the relevant provisions of standards, specifications, or regulations as the basis for judgment, and determine the fire risk characteristics in a simple manner, so as to solve fire safety problems in a directive manner; semi-quantitative fire risk assessment methods are mainly used to determine the relative risk of fires. Due to their characteristics of being fast, simple, and highly structured, they are widely used; quantitative fire risk assessment methods are mainly used to determine the actual risk of fires, which can produce quantitative results and reflect the potential fire risk distribution. The assessment results reflect the nature of risk uncertainty.

[0004] The "Method for Assessing Fire Risk of a Power Substation" disclosed in Chinese Patent Document CN103164748A includes: constructing a fire risk assessment method system using the analytic hierarchy process, including 5 secondary indicators and a total of 28 tertiary indicators, determining the weights of each indicator only in the form of expert scoring, and according to the described assessment work process, obtaining the fire risk assessment level of a closed / semi-closed building substation through the final assessment score, and giving rectification measures. The weight setting of the above patent is simple, the index judgment standard is not refined enough, the control of major risks is not prominent, and the assessment result is not accurate and reliable enough. Summary of the Invention

[0005] The present invention solves the problems of the existing substation fire risk assessment method, such as simple weight setting, insufficient refinement of index judgment criteria, and lack of emphasis on the control of major risks, resulting in inaccurate and unreliable assessment results. It provides a method for quantitatively assessing the fire safety risk of a substation. Using a quantitative assessment method, the weight setting is closer to the actual situation, the index judgment standard is more refined, the control of major risks is prominent, the assessment result is more accurate and reliable, and the quantitative result can reflect the potential fire risk distribution and the nature of risk uncertainty.

[0006] To achieve the above object, the present invention adopts the following technical solutions: A quantitative assessment method for fire safety risks in a substation, including: determining a number of first-level indicators and refining them into several levels of sub-indicators; using the expert scoring method combined with the combined weighting method to determine the weights of indicators at all levels from top to bottom; collecting data and performing data preprocessing; determining the judgment criteria for the last-level indicators based on the distribution of the collected data according to the characteristics of the evaluation indicators, and calculating the comprehensive risk value; judging whether there is a special situation of first-level risk; and determining the risk level of the substation according to the quantization range to which the comprehensive risk value belongs.

[0007] Preferably, the combined weighting method combines the ring comparison scoring method and the judgment consistency degree to determine the weights of each expert in the expert scoring method, and the judgment consistency degree of each expert with other experts is obtained by calculating the Spearman correlation coefficient. Among them, the Spearman correlation coefficient, that is, the Spearman rank correlation coefficient, is used to measure the strength of the monotonic relationship between two random variables.

[0008] Preferably, if the fire remote monitoring system is offline, or no alternative measures are taken during the failure or suspension of the alarm system and the fire extinguishing system, or the rectification of major fire hazards exceeds the due date, it is judged that there is a special situation of the first-level risk, and the evaluation result is the first-level risk.

[0009] Preferably, the calculation of the comprehensive risk value includes: obtaining the risk value of each last-level indicator by calculating the product of the ratio of the collected data of each last-level indicator to the corresponding judgment criterion and 100; and obtaining the comprehensive risk value by weighted summing the risk values of all last-level indicators according to the weights of the indicators.

[0010] Preferably, the risk assessment results are divided into four risk levels, and the critical risk value of the first-level risk is set at 35 points.

[0011] Preferably, the inherent safety level is evaluated using the equipment fire safety indicators and the building fire safety indicators, the protection and guarantee ability is evaluated using the fire safety facility indicators and the fire fighting force construction indicators, and the management level is evaluated using the fire safety management indicators.

[0012] Preferably, the equipment fire safety indicators include the transformer characteristic parameter indicators, and the transformers include converter transformers and high-reactance transformers. When evaluating a converter station, the equipment fire safety indicators also include the valve hall characteristic parameter indicators.

[0013] Preferably, the fire safety facility indicators evaluate the construction and operation conditions of several systems. When calculating the failure rate of each system, the failure rate of each system is based on the point with the highest failure rate.

[0014] Preferably, the data preprocessing includes missing value processing and unified dimension processing.

[0015] Preferably, all the above - mentioned indicators at each level are positive indicators, and the larger the indicator value, the higher the corresponding risk.

[0016] Compared with the prior art, the beneficial effects of the present invention are as follows: (1) Using the expert scoring method combined with the combined weighting method to determine the weights of indicators at all levels from top to bottom, the weight setting is more scientific and reasonable and closer to the actual situation; (2) Determining the judgment criteria for the final - level indicators according to the distribution of data collected based on the characteristics of the evaluation indicators, and the indicator judgment criteria are more refined; (3) Prioritizing the judgment of whether there are special cases of first - level risks, highlighting the control of major risks; (4) The evaluation method is more objective, reasonable and comprehensive, and the evaluation results are more accurate and reliable; (5) Using a quantitative evaluation method, and its quantitative results can reflect the distribution of potential fire risks and the nature of risk uncertainty. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0017] Figure 1 is a flowchart of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EMBODIMENTS

[0018] The technical solution of the present invention will be further specifically described below through specific embodiments in combination with the drawings.

[0019] Embodiment:

[0020] As Figure 1 shown, a quantitative assessment method for substation fire safety risks solves the problems of simple weight setting, insufficiently refined indicator judgment criteria, and lack of highlighting the control of major risks in the existing substation fire risk assessment methods, resulting in inaccurate and unreliable assessment results. In the quantitative assessment method for substation fire safety risks in this embodiment, the weight setting is closer to the actual situation, the indicator judgment criteria are more refined, the control of major risks is highlighted, and the assessment results are more accurate and reliable.

[0021] First, a multi - level indicator system is established. Specifically, in this embodiment, a three - level indicator system is established for the quantitative assessment of substation fire safety risks. The first step in establishing a three - level indicator system is to determine several first - level indicators of the three - level indicator system. In this embodiment, the three - level indicator system includes five first - level indicators, namely, equipment fire safety indicators, building fire safety indicators, fire safety facility indicators, fire - fighting force construction indicators, and fire safety management indicators. The above - mentioned five first - level indicators quantitatively assess substation fire safety risks from three aspects. Specifically, the equipment fire safety indicators and building fire safety indicators evaluate the inherent safety level of the substation, the fire safety facility indicators and fire - fighting force construction indicators evaluate the protection and guarantee capabilities of the substation, and the fire safety management indicators evaluate the management level of the substation.

[0022] Next, a number of first-level indicators are refined into sub-indicators at several levels. In this embodiment, the five first-level indicators of the above three-level indicator system, including equipment fire safety indicators, building fire safety indicators, fire safety facility indicators, fire force construction indicators, and fire safety management indicators, are refined into second-level indicators and further refined into third-level indicators, with a total of 70 third-level indicators.

[0023] The equipment fire safety indicators are refined into 6 second-level indicators, including substation scale and level, historical fire situation, characteristic parameters of transformers (including converter transformers and high-reactance transformers), characteristic parameters of valve halls (optional for converter stations), power cables, and other distribution equipment. The substation scale and level are refined into 4 third-level indicators, including floor area, substation voltage level, substation layout method, and total substation capacity. The historical fire situation is refined into 2 third-level indicators, including the number of fires and the fire loss situation. The characteristic parameters of transformers (including converter transformers and high-reactance transformers) are refined into 2 third-level indicators, including the number of transformers and the weight of transformer oil. The characteristic parameters of valve halls (optional for converter stations) are refined into 3 third-level indicators, including valve hall area, number of valve towers, and rated capacity. The power cables are refined into 4 third-level indicators, including cable length, cable type, service life, and cable mixing ratio. Other distribution equipment is refined into 2 third-level indicators, including the number of other oil-filled equipment and the average oil weight of other oil-filled equipment.

[0024] The building fire safety indicators are refined into 4 second-level indicators, including building attributes, building fire prevention, building explosion protection, and safety evacuation. The building attributes are refined into 3 third-level indicators, including building fire legality, building service life, and total building area. The building fire prevention is refined into 4 third-level indicators, including general layout, fire separation distance, fire resistance rating, and fire separation (including fireproof plugging). The building explosion protection is refined into 2 third-level indicators, including explosion relief design and layout of explosive places. The safety evacuation is refined into 3 third-level indicators, including safety exits, evacuation distance, and evacuation width.

[0025] The fire safety facility indicators are refined into 4 second-level indicators, including fire protection system acceptance situation, fire protection power supply system, fire prevention system, and fire extinguishing system. The fire protection system acceptance situation is refined into 1 third-level indicator, including the unaccepted ratio of the fire protection system. The fire protection power supply system is refined into 2 third-level indicators, including fire protection power supply and fire protection power source. The fire prevention system is refined into 3 third-level indicators, including the failure rate of the fire automatic alarm system, the failure rate of the smoke prevention and exhaust system, and the failure rate of fire emergency lighting and evacuation indicators. The fire extinguishing system is refined into 9 third-level indicators, including the failure rate of the fire water supply system, the failure rate of the fire hydrant system, the failure rate of the automatic sprinkler fire extinguishing system, the failure rate of the water spray fire extinguishing system, the failure rate of the fine water mist fire extinguishing system, the failure rate of the foam spray fire extinguishing system, the failure rate of the gas fire extinguishing system, the failure rate of the intelligent fire extinguishing device, and the lack-matching ratio of fire extinguishing equipment.

[0026] The indicators for fire force construction are refined into 3 secondary indicators, including on-station fire force, fire rescue conditions, and fire force in the jurisdiction. The on-station fire force is further refined into 4 tertiary indicators, including the allocation of full-time firefighters, the configuration of fire equipment, the reserve of fire extinguishing agents, and the construction of mini fire stations. The fire rescue conditions are refined into 2 tertiary indicators, including fire truck access roads and emergency communication. The fire force in the jurisdiction is refined into 2 tertiary indicators, including the distance of the fire rescue force in the jurisdiction from the station and the level of the fire rescue stations in the jurisdiction.

[0027] The indicators for fire safety management are refined into 6 secondary indicators, including organization and responsibilities, daily management situation, personnel capabilities, emergency response plans, fire safety publicity and education and training, and informatization management level. Organization and responsibilities are refined into 3 tertiary indicators, including the organizational structure of fire protection work, the division of fire safety responsibilities, and fire safety rules and regulations and procedures. The daily management situation is refined into 5 tertiary indicators, including fire prevention inspection, management of key areas, management of fire protection facilities, treatment of fire hazards, and management of fire protection logs. Personnel capabilities are refined into 3 tertiary indicators, including management personnel, operation and maintenance personnel, and maintenance personnel. Emergency response plans are refined into 2 tertiary indicators, including the formulation of emergency response plans and emergency response drills. Fire safety publicity and education and training are refined into 2 tertiary indicators, including the daily education and training of the unit and the training of key position personnel. The informatization management level is refined into 3 tertiary indicators, including the level of Internet of Things access, the failure rate of Internet of Things facilities, and the offline rate of Internet of Things facilities.

[0028] It should be noted that among the secondary indicators of the transformer characteristic parameter indicators under the primary indicator of equipment fire safety indicators, the transformer includes but is not limited to converter transformers and high-voltage shunt reactors. When evaluating a converter station, the secondary indicator of valve hall characteristic parameter indicators is also included under the primary indicator of equipment fire safety indicators. In addition, the primary indicator of fire safety facilities evaluates the construction and operation of several systems in the substation. When calculating the failure rate of each system, the failure rates of different points in each system are different. In this embodiment, the failure rate of each system is based on the point with the highest calculated failure rate. The quantified failure rate of the fire automatic alarm system and the fire extinguishing system at the main transformer is the product of the actual failure rate and 100.

[0029] Next, in this embodiment, the expert scoring method and the combined weighting method are used to determine the weights of the indicators at all levels in the three-level indicator system from top to bottom step by step.

[0030] The expert scoring method relies on the experience and judgment of experts to determine the relative importance of indicators. In this embodiment, an expert panel consisting of experts familiar with the evaluation objectives and indicator system is selected. According to the indicator system, a scoring form is designed to collect the judgments of experts on the importance of indicators. Each expert in the expert panel scores each indicator separately. In this embodiment, each expert directly scores each indicator, and the scoring range is 0-10 points. The higher the score, the more important the indicator. After all experts have completed scoring, statistical analysis is performed on the scoring data of the experts, and the weight of each indicator is calculated based on the scoring data of all experts.

[0031] When performing statistical analysis on the scoring data of experts and calculating the weight of each indicator based on the scoring data of all experts, due to differences in the authority of each expert and differences in the degree of seriousness of scoring, different weights need to be assigned to each expert, and the scoring data of each expert is weighted and averaged according to the weight of the expert to obtain the weight of each indicator.

[0032] In this embodiment, the combined weighting method is used to determine the weights of each expert. The combined weighting method combines the subjective weighting method and the objective weighting method. In this embodiment, the weights obtained by the subjective weighting method and the objective weighting method are weighted and averaged to determine the weights of each expert. The use of the combined weighting method comprehensively considers various factors, improving the rationality and reliability of the determination of expert weights.

[0033] In this embodiment, the subjective weighting method used in the above combined weighting method is the ring comparison scoring method. The ring comparison scoring method compares all experts pairwise to judge which expert is more important, and then determines the weights of each expert according to the comparison results. The use of the ring comparison scoring method is more objective than the direct assignment method in the subjective weighting method, which directly assigns the weights of experts. The ring comparison scoring method can greatly reduce subjective bias through the comparison between experts.

[0034] In this embodiment, the objective weighting method used in the above combined weighting method is the weighting method based on the consistency of expert judgments, considering the degree of consistency of expert judgments. The core idea of this method is that the opinions of experts with more consistent judgments should be more emphasized. Specifically, first calculate the degree of judgment consistency of each expert with other experts, and then determine the weights of experts according to the degree of consistency. The use of the weighting method based on the consistency of expert judgments makes the determination of expert weights pay more attention to the quality and reliability of expert judgments.

[0035] In this embodiment, the degree of judgment consistency of each expert with other experts is obtained by calculating the Spearman correlation coefficient. The Spearman correlation coefficient, that is, the Spearman correlation coefficient, is used to measure the strength of the monotonic relationship between two random variables. This monotonic relationship can be linear or non-linear.

[0036] In this embodiment, the specific calculation steps for the degree of judgment consistency between each of the above-mentioned experts and other experts are as follows: First, calculate the Spearman correlation coefficient between the scoring results of the target expert and each of the other experts. Then, calculate the average value of all the obtained Spearman correlation coefficients as the overall consistency index, that is, obtain the degree of judgment consistency between the target expert and other experts, which is the average value of all the above-mentioned Spearman correlation coefficients. By analogy, the degree of judgment consistency between each expert and other experts can be obtained. Furthermore, based on the degree of consistency, the determination of the expert weights in the objective weighting method is completed.

[0037] In this embodiment, the weights of the indicators at all levels in the three-level indicator system are determined step by step from top to bottom. Specifically, first, use the expert scoring method combined with the combined weighting method to determine the weights of each first-level indicator in the above-mentioned three-level indicator system. Then, use the expert scoring method combined with the combined weighting method to determine the weights of each second-level indicator under each first-level indicator. It should be noted that the weight of each first-level indicator is equal to the sum of the weights of each second-level indicator under that first-level indicator. Next, use the expert scoring method combined with the combined weighting method to determine the weights of each third-level indicator under each second-level indicator. It should be noted that the weight of each second-level indicator is equal to the sum of the weights of each third-level indicator under that second-level indicator. Thus, this embodiment completes the process of determining the weights of the indicators at all levels in the three-level indicator system. This embodiment uses the expert scoring method combined with the combined weighting method to determine the weights of the indicators at all levels in the three-level indicator system from top to bottom, and its weight setting is more scientific and reasonable and closer to the actual situation.

[0038] Since in the subsequent calculation process, only the weights of each final-level indicator, that is, the weights of each third-level indicator, are actually used in the weights of each level of indicators in the three-level indicator system, this embodiment lists the weights of each third-level indicator actually determined by the State Grid: the weight of floor area is 0.0046, the weight of substation voltage level is 0.0089, the weight of substation layout method is 0.0094, the weight of total substation capacity is 0.0101, the weight of fire occurrence quantity is 0.0090, the weight of fire loss situation is 0.0080, the weight of transformer quantity is 0.0195, the weight of transformer oil weight is 0.0535, the weight of valve hall area is 0.0060, the weight of valve tower quantity is 0.0086, the weight of rated capacity is 0.0154, the weight of cable length is 0.0090, the weight of cable type is 0.0056, the weight of service life is 0.0063, the weight of cable mixed placement ratio is 0.0041, the weight of the quantity of other oil-filled equipment is 0.0100, the weight of the average oil weight of other oil-filled equipment is 0.0120, the weight of building fire legality is 0.0111, the weight of building service life is 0.0063, the weight of total building area is 0.0076, the weight of general layout is 0.0078, the weight of fire separation distance is 0.0080, the weight of fire resistance rating is 0.0092, the weight of fire separation (including fireproof blocking) is 0.0080, the weight of explosion-proof and pressure-relief design is 0.0106, the weight of the layout of explosive places is 0.0094, the weight of safety exits is 0.0094, the weight of evacuation distance is 0.0074, the weight of evacuation width is 0.0052, the weight of the unaccepted ratio of the fire protection system is 0.0640, the weight of fire protection power supply and distribution is 0.0180, the weight of fire protection power source is 0.0210, the weight of the failure rate of the fire automatic alarm system is 0.0517, the weight of the failure rate of the smoke prevention and exhaust system is 0.0277, the weight of the failure rate of fire emergency lighting and evacuation indication is 0.0196, the weight of the failure rate of the fire water supply system is 0.0229, the weight of the failure rate of the fire hydrant system is 0.0133, the weight of the failure rate of the automatic sprinkler system is 0.0166, the weight of the failure rate of the water spray fire extinguishing system is 0.0166, the weight of the failure rate of the fine water mist fire extinguishing system is 0.0112, the weight of the failure rate of the foam spray fire extinguishing system is 0.0121, the weight of the failure rate of the gas fire extinguishing system is 0.0113, the weight of the failure rate of the intelligent fire extinguishing device is 0.0128, the weight of the lack and ratio of fire extinguishing equipment is 0.0112, the weight of the allocation of full-time firefighters is 0.0291, the weight of the configuration of fire protection equipment is 0.0285, the weight of the reserve of fire extinguishing agents is 0.0163, the weight of the construction of mini fire stations is 0.0081, the weight of the fire truck passageway is 0.0213, the weight of emergency communication is 0.0107, the weight of the distance of the fire rescue force in the jurisdiction from the station is 0.0390, the weight of the level of the fire rescue station in the jurisdiction is 0.In 0170, the weight of the fire protection work organization is 0.0115, the weight of the division of fire safety responsibilities is 0.0115, the weight of fire safety rules and regulations is 0.0090, the weight of fire prevention inspections is 0.0134, the weight of key area management is 0.0106, the weight of fire protection facilities management is 0.0132, the weight of fire hazard treatment is 0.0095, the weight of fire protection ledger management is 0.0063, the weight of management personnel is 0.0069, the weight of operation and maintenance personnel is 0.0069, the weight of maintenance personnel is 0.0062, the weight of emergency plan formulation is 0.0108, the weight of emergency response drills is 0.0132, the weight of unit daily education and training is 0.0068, the weight of key post personnel training is 0.0132, the weight of Internet of Things access level is 0.0203, the weight of Internet of Things facility failure rate is 0.0133, and the weight of Internet of Things facility offline rate is 0.0174.

[0039] Next, data needs to be collected, and data information is collected for each final-level indicator, that is, each third-level indicator in this embodiment. After completing the data collection, data preprocessing is carried out, including but not limited to handling missing values in the data and unifying the dimension of the data.

[0040] After completing the data preprocessing process, the calculation of the comprehensive risk value is carried out. All indicators in the third-level indicator system in this embodiment are positive indicators. Its characteristic is that the larger the value of the indicator, the higher the corresponding risk. In this embodiment, the full score of the risk value of each third-level indicator is 100 points, and the full score of the total risk score, that is, the comprehensive risk value, is also 100 points. First, collect data x i 's distribution status to determine the judgment standard c i of the final-level indicator, that is, the third-level indicator in the third-level indicator system in this embodiment, and then calculate the comprehensive risk value R. According to the distribution status of the collected data x i to determine the judgment standard c i of the final-level indicator, that is, the third-level indicator in this embodiment, making the indicator judgment standard more refined.

[0041] The specific calculation process of the comprehensive risk value R includes two steps: First, calculate the ratio of the data x i collected for each final-level indicator, that is, the third-level indicator in this embodiment, to the corresponding judgment standard c i , and multiply the ratio by 100 to obtain the risk value of each final-level indicator, that is, the third-level indicator in this embodiment; then perform a weighted sum of the risk values of all final-level indicators, that is, the third-level indicators in this embodiment, according to the weights w i of each third-level indicator to obtain the comprehensive risk value R.

[0042] The calculation of the comprehensive risk value R can be summarized into a formula, and the expression of the formula is as follows:

[0043]

[0044] In the above formula, R is the comprehensive risk value of substation fire safety, and xi i is the data collected for the i-th third-level indicator, and ci i is the evaluation criterion for the i-th third-level indicator, and wi i is the weight of the i-th third-level indicator. Thus, the specific calculation of the comprehensive risk value R is completed.

[0045] Next, set the risk classification and set the quantization range. In this embodiment, the risk assessment results are divided into four levels, that is, there are a total of four risk levels, including level 1 risk, level 2 risk, level 3 risk, and level 4 risk. Among them, level 1 risk indicates the highest risk level, that is, the greatest risk, while level 4 risk indicates the lowest risk level, that is, the lowest risk; the quantization range refers to the score range corresponding to each risk level.

[0046] Among them, the critical risk value of level 1 risk, that is, the watershed between level 1 risk and level 2 risk, is set to 35 points.

[0047] The risk classification standard actually determined by the State Grid is as shown in the following table:

[0048] When determining the risk level of a substation, it is first necessary to judge whether there is any special situation of level 1 risk in the substation. If the judgment result is that the substation does have any one of the special situations of level 1 risk, then its evaluation result is level 1 risk. Specifically, during the substation fire safety risk assessment process, if any one of the following red-line indicators exists, then the substation fire safety risk assessment result for this time is level 1 risk: 1. The fire remote monitoring system (including the dispatching system and the fire centralized monitoring system) is offline. 2. During the period when the alarm system and the fire extinguishing system are faulty or out of service, no alternative measures are taken. 3. The rectification of major fire hazards exceeds the due date. This embodiment gives priority to judging whether there is any special situation of level 1 risk in the substation, highlighting the control of major risks.

[0049] If the judgment result is that the substation does not have any one of the special situations of level 1 risk, then determine the risk level of the substation according to the quantization range, that is, the score range, to which the calculated comprehensive risk value of the substation belongs. For example, if the comprehensive risk value of a substation is 15 points, then the risk level of the substation is level 3 risk, that is, the final evaluation result is obtained. A substation fire safety risk quantitative assessment method in this embodiment is more objective, reasonable, and comprehensive, and the evaluation result obtained by applying the above method is more accurate and reliable.

[0050] The above-described embodiments are only preferred solutions of the present invention and do not impose any form of limitation on the present invention. Although the present invention has been described in detail with reference to the foregoing embodiments, those skilled in the art can still modify the technical solutions described in the foregoing embodiments or perform equivalent replacements on some of the technical features thereof. Any modifications, equivalent replacements, and improvements made within the spirit and principle of the invention shall be included within the protection scope of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for quantitatively assessing fire safety risks in a substation, characterized in that: include: Determine several first-level indicators and break them down into several sub-indicators; The weights of indicators at all levels are determined from top to bottom using the expert scoring method combined with the combined weighting method; Collect data and perform data preprocessing; According to the distribution of the data collected based on the characteristics of the evaluation indicators, determine the final indicator evaluation criteria and calculate the comprehensive risk value; Determine whether there are special circumstances of level 1 risk; The risk level of the substation is determined according to the quantitative range to which the comprehensive risk value belongs.

2. A method for quantitatively assessing fire safety risks in a substation according to claim 1, characterized in that: The combined weighting method combines the month-on-month scoring method and the degree of judgment consistency to determine the weight of each expert in the expert scoring method, and the degree of judgment consistency between each expert and other experts is obtained by calculating the Spearman correlation coefficient.

3. A method for quantitatively assessing fire safety risks in a substation according to claim 2, characterized in that: If the fire remote monitoring system is offline, or the alarm system and fire extinguishing system do not take alternative measures during the failure or outage, or the rectification of major fire hazards is exceeded, it is judged to be a special situation of the above-mentioned first-level risk, and the assessment result is a first-level risk.

4. A method for quantitatively assessing fire safety risks in a substation according to claim 2, characterized in that: The calculation of the comprehensive risk value includes: The risk value of each final indicator is obtained by calculating the product of the ratio of the collected data of each final indicator to the corresponding evaluation standard and 100; The risk values ​​of all final-level indicators are weighted and summed according to the weights of the indicators to obtain the comprehensive risk value.

5. A method for quantitatively assessing fire safety risks in a substation according to any one of claims 1 to 4, characterized in that: The risk assessment results are divided into four risk levels, and the critical risk value of level one risk is set at 35 points.

6. A method for quantitatively assessing fire safety risks in a substation according to claim 1, characterized in that: Equipment fire safety indicators and building fire safety indicators are used to assess the inherent safety level, fire safety facility indicators and fire force construction indicators are used to assess the protection and guarantee capabilities, and fire safety management indicators are used to assess the management level.

7. A method for quantitatively assessing fire safety risks in a substation according to claim 6, characterized in that: The equipment fire safety index includes transformer characteristic parameter index, and the transformer includes converter transformer and high-resistance transformer. When evaluating the converter station, the equipment fire safety index also includes valve hall characteristic parameter index.

8. A method for quantitatively assessing fire safety risks in a substation according to claim 6, characterized in that: The fire safety facility index evaluates the construction and operation of several systems. When calculating the failure rate of each system, the failure rate of each system is based on the highest failure rate point.

9. A method for quantitatively assessing fire safety risks in a substation according to claim 1, characterized in that: The data preprocessing includes missing value processing and dimension unification processing.

10. A method for quantitatively assessing fire safety risks in a substation according to claim 1, characterized in that: The indicators at all levels are positive indicators. The larger the indicator value, the higher the corresponding risk.

Images