Hydropower station dispatching scheme comprehensive evaluation method based on comprehensive evaluation

Abstract

The invention provides a hydropower station dispatching scheme comprehensive evaluation method based on comprehensive evaluation, and the method comprises the steps: firstly distinguishing key periods according to the functions and tasks of a hydropower station, and constructing a hydropower station key period multi-dimensional evaluation index system; secondly, respectively calculating subjective weights and objective weights of the indexes by adopting an analytic hierarchy process and a historical completion rate dynamic correction method, and calculating comprehensive weights according to subjective and objective weight calculation results; and after a comprehensive weight is obtained through calculation, multi-dimensional comprehensive scoring is performed on the candidate scheduling schemes, and advantages and disadvantages of the hydropower station scheduling schemes are analyzed according to a scoring result. According to the method, the hydropower station dispatching scheme can be comprehensively evaluated, improvement suggestions are provided for the dispatching scheme according to the evaluation result, and reference is provided for scientific selection and evaluation of the hydropower station dispatching scheme.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the technical field of water resource management, and in particular to a comprehensive evaluation method for a hydropower station dispatching scheme based on comprehensive evaluation. Background Art

[0002] Hydropower stations are integrated facilities that serve multiple functions, including power generation, ecological conservation, flood control, and shipping. Developing scheduling plans is a key task for station personnel. Due to the numerous functions a hydropower station must address, and the constraints and trade-offs between them, determining the optimal scheduling plan is a major challenge. Traditionally, station personnel have relied on experience and partial calculations, such as total power generation, to evaluate scheduling plans. This approach requires a high level of experience and expertise. Furthermore, the indicators required for hydropower station scheduling vary during different scheduling periods, and the evaluation of scheduling plans should also vary with the time period.

[0003] Existing research on optimizing multi-objective scheduling schemes for hydropower stations primarily employs two approaches: one that reduces the multi-objective problem to a single-objective optimization model through linear weighted aggregation, and the other that analyzes the trade-offs between different scheduling objectives using multi-objective decision-making methods based on the Pareto front. However, these approaches still have limitations: First, a multi-dimensional scheme comparison and analysis system has not yet been established, making it difficult to intuitively and quantitatively evaluate the comprehensive performance of scheduling schemes under heterogeneous indicators such as power generation efficiency, ecological flow, and flood control safety. Second, existing optimization models lack a dynamic integration mechanism for decision-makers' preference information, making it impossible to adaptively adjust the weight distribution of objective functions, resulting in insufficient alignment between scheduling strategies and actual project needs. Summary of the Invention

[0004] The purpose of the present invention is to overcome the above-mentioned shortcomings and provide a comprehensive evaluation method for hydropower station scheduling schemes based on comprehensive evaluation. This method can scientifically evaluate the hydropower station scheduling schemes to meet the dispatching personnel's needs for the multi-function of the hydropower station and quickly realize the comprehensive evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of different schemes under different indicators.

[0005] To solve the above technical problems, the technical solution adopted by the present invention is: a comprehensive evaluation method for hydropower station scheduling scheme based on comprehensive evaluation, comprising the following steps:

[0006] S1. Construct a multi-dimensional evaluation index system for hydropower stations during critical periods, including power generation indicators, water supply indicators, ecological indicators, shipping indicators, flood control indicators, and other comprehensive indicators;

[0007] S2, the subjective weight matrix was calculated using the analytic hierarchy process;

[0008] S3, calculates the objective weight matrix using a dynamic correction method based on historical completion rates;

[0009] S4, the subjective weight matrix and the objective weight matrix are combined to generate a comprehensive weight matrix. The calculation formula of the comprehensive weight matrix is:

[0010] w_e=0.5w_AHP+0.5w_HRC;

[0011] Among them, w_e is the comprehensive weight matrix, w_AHP is the weight of the analytic hierarchy process, and w_HRC is the weight of the dynamic correction method;

[0012] S5, perform multi-dimensional scoring on the candidate scheduling solutions to obtain a comprehensive score, which is calculated as follows:

[0013] Comprehensive score = Σ(single indicator score × comprehensive weight);

[0014] S6. Based on the scores of each dimension, compare the scores of each indicator item in the candidate solutions, and analyze and evaluate the scores.

[0015] Preferably, the construction of a multi-dimensional evaluation index system for a hydropower station during a critical period in S1 specifically includes:

[0016] S11, analyze and distinguish the different critical dispatching periods of different hydropower stations;

[0017] S12, selecting different key evaluation indicators according to different critical scheduling periods, the key evaluation indicators including one or more indicators related to power generation, ecology, water supply, shipping, and flood control;

[0018] S13. Construct a comprehensive evaluation index system based on the selected evaluation indicators.

[0019] Preferably, the analytic hierarchy process in S2 specifically includes:

[0020] S21, Hierarchical model building: defining a hierarchy by categorizing goals, criteria, and alternatives into different levels;

[0021] S22, judgment matrix construction, using the 1-9 scale to build a pairwise comparison matrix to quantify the relative importance of elements. For factors i and j, the matrix element a ij Follow: a ij =1: equal importance; a ij =9: extreme importance of i to j; intermediate values 2-8 indicate gradual differences;

[0022] S23, consistency test, calculate the consistency index CI:

[0023]

[0024] Among them, λmax is the maximum eigenvalue of the matrix, and n is the matrix order.

[0025] Compare CI with random consistency index RI, consistency ratio CR = CI / RI, which must satisfy CR < 0.1;

[0026] S24, hierarchical weight synthesis, integrates the weights of each layer to determine the global priority of the alternatives relative to the overall goal.

[0027] Preferably, the dynamic correction method based on historical completion rate in S3 specifically includes:

[0028] S31, calculate the historical completion rate of all indicators in different years, and calculate the mean and standard deviation of the historical completion rate of each indicator, which are recorded as [μ1,μ2,…,μ n ] and [σ1,σ2,…,σ n ];

[0029] S32, calculate the utility function U based on the mean and standard deviation:

[0030]

[0031] Among them, λ is the risk aversion coefficient, and the higher its value, the lower the weight of the greater the volatility;

[0032] S33, determination of initial weight: The initial weight is calculated according to the utility function result as follows:

[0033] w j =U j / ∑U i ;

[0034] Among them, w j Represents the specific weight of each indicator, forming the initial weight matrix w s =[w1,w2,…,w n ];

[0035] S34, calibrating the weight.

[0036] Preferably, the multi-dimensional scoring calculation method in S5 specifically includes:

[0037] S51, for each small indicator, calculate the score S corresponding to each reservoir indicator according to the calculation formula of each indicator in ;

[0038] S52, score S according to each indicator in and the corresponding weight W in , calculate the total score S corresponding to each indicator of each reservoir tin ;

[0039] S53, after calculating the indicators of each reservoir, the scores of different indicators of different reservoirs are S Tin Perform weighted averaging, with the weights determined based on the importance of the reservoir, to obtain the final score S for each reservoir indicator. Ti ;

[0040] S54, add up all indicator scores, and the result is the final score.

[0041] Preferably, the analysis and evaluation method of S6 specifically includes:

[0042] S61, extracting the actual process of evaluating the scheduling scheme and the process of comparing the schemes, comparing the changes in different variables of the inflow and outflow flow, water level process line, and output process line of different schemes, and conducting detailed analysis of the different points;

[0043] S62, by analyzing the water level, constraints and risks of the hydropower station and comparing the events required to complete the key node events in the scheduling plan, analyze the possible window period;

[0044] S63: Analyze the water level, flow rate, and output constraints at each time node and each time period, calculate the constraint risk of all time periods, and mark and issue warnings for periods with excessively high risks;

[0045] S64, based on risk events and risk points, summarize and organize the advantages and disadvantages of different scheduling plans, improvement points or possible improvement points and scheduling decision suggestions.

[0046] Preferably, the scheduling critical period includes:

[0047] According to the different functions and tasks undertaken by the hydropower station in different periods under the changes of natural inflow, the scheduling period is divided into drawdown period, flood season, water storage period and full storage operation period.

[0048] Preferably, the power generation, water supply, ecology, and shipping indicators may include one or more of the following:

[0049] Total power generation, output guarantee rate, average output, power supply guarantee for important holidays, standard coal savings, water supply guarantee rate, water supply volume, water shortage, water shortage rate, water shortage depth, disaster emergency water supply, ecological flow satisfaction rate, ecological flow boundary, ecological overflow water volume, ecological water shortage, shipping scheduling satisfaction rate, and waterway maintenance depth compliance rate;

[0050] Preferably, the flood control indicators include one or more of the following:

[0051] Maximum flood peak flow, maximum flood control water level, peak reduction rate, amount of water abandoned, risk of water abandonment, total flood interception capacity, downstream water level reduction, flood resource utilization rate, maximum flood interception capacity, reduction in flood control inundated area, reduction in flood control and disaster losses, number of flood defenses, economic benefits of flood control and disaster reduction, growth brought about by flood control, and cost savings in flood control project maintenance.

[0052] Preferably, the other comprehensive indicators include one or more of the following:

[0053] Constraint risks, whether the requirements of key node events are met, stability including water level fluctuation output, water abandonment risk, optimization degree and distance from the optimal solution, joint scheduling benefits, and reservoir capacity utilization rate.

[0054] Preferably, the weight correction step in S34 includes:

[0055] S341, for a certain indicator m, statistics its completion rate matrix of all indicators in the period s when the completion rate increases and the previous period s-1 When the completion rate of this indicator increases, the unit loss of other indicators is:

[0056]

[0057] S342, from step S341, the influence matrix R constructed by all indicators can be obtained n×n ;

[0058]

[0059] S343, calculate the sum of the unit loss corresponding to each indicator:

[0060]

[0061] S344, to avoid the final weight being 0, the influence matrix is normalized using the following formula:

[0062]

[0063] At this time, the correction weight matrix w c Elements for:

[0064]

[0065] S345, the final weight matrix is:

[0066] w e =w s *w c .

[0067] Preferably, the window period determination method in S62 includes:

[0068] The principle for determining the window period is that the water level and flow rate meet the requirements of the node event, and the implementation of the node event will not cause the hydropower station to violate the constraints or result in the undesirable situation of water abandonment.

[0069] Preferably, the key nodes in S62 include:

[0070] Due to the tasks undertaken by the hydropower station during the scheduling period, it needs to complete scheduling, experiments, water level targets, and flow targets at different time points.

[0071] The present invention has the following beneficial effects:

[0072] The present invention proposes a dynamic correction method based on historical completion rate to solve the objective weight of the hydropower station scheduling plan indicators, and combines the hierarchical analysis method to calculate the subjective weight to realize the comprehensive evaluation step combining subjective and objective factors. In this way, the scheduling information of the hydropower station in the historical scheduling data and the subjective tendency of the hydropower station dispatchers can be comprehensively considered to make an evaluation of the hydropower station scheduling plan that is more adapted to actual needs, providing a certain reference for the hydropower station dispatchers to scientifically and objectively select the hydropower station scheduling plan, thereby improving the comprehensive scheduling efficiency of the hydropower station. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0073] The present invention will be further described below with reference to the accompanying drawings and examples.

[0074] Figure 1 This is the flow chart of the subjective and objective comprehensive evaluation of the hydropower station scheduling plan of this patent.

[0075] Figure 2 This is the water level, flow rate and output diagram of the actual dispatching process of the lower reaches of the Jinsha River-Three Gorges cascade system.

[0076] Figure 3 This is the water level, flow and output diagram for the optimized dispatching process of the Jinsha River lower reaches - Three Gorges cascade system.

[0077] Figure 4 The historical completion rate results of each indicator.

[0078] Figure 5 This is the result diagram of the loss of each indicator.

[0079] Figure 6 This is a graph showing the changes in weights of each indicator. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0080] The present invention will be described in further detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Examples of the embodiments are shown in the accompanying drawings, wherein the same or similar reference numerals throughout represent the same or similar elements or elements having the same or similar functions. The embodiments described below with reference to the accompanying drawings are exemplary and are intended to explain the present invention, and are not to be construed as limiting the present invention.

[0081] Example 1:

[0082] See also Figure 1-6 A comprehensive evaluation method for a hydropower station scheduling plan based on comprehensive evaluation is characterized by comprising the following steps:

[0083] S1. Construct a multi-dimensional evaluation index system for hydropower stations during critical periods, including power generation, water supply, ecology, navigation, flood control, and other comprehensive indicators.

[0084] S2, the subjective weight matrix was calculated using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP);

[0085] S3, calculates the objective weight matrix using a dynamic correction method based on historical completion rates;

[0086] S4, comprehensive weight matrix is generated by integrating subjective and objective weights. The calculation formula is:

[0087] w_e=0.5w_AHP+0.5w_HRC;

[0088] Among them, w_e is the comprehensive weight matrix, w_AHP is the weight of the analytic hierarchy process, and w_HRC is the weight of the dynamic correction method;

[0089] S5, perform multi-dimensional scoring on the candidate scheduling solutions to obtain a comprehensive score, which is calculated as follows:

[0090] Comprehensive score = Σ(single indicator score × comprehensive weight);

[0091] S6. Based on the scores of each dimension, compare the scores of each indicator item in the candidate solutions, and analyze and evaluate the scores.

[0092] In this embodiment, the construction of a multi-dimensional evaluation index system for a hydropower station during a critical period in S1 specifically includes:

[0093] S11, analyze and distinguish the different critical dispatching periods of different hydropower stations;

[0094] S12, selecting different key evaluation indicators according to different critical scheduling periods, the key evaluation indicators including one or more indicators related to power generation, ecology, water supply, shipping, and flood control;

[0095] S13. Construct a comprehensive evaluation index system based on the selected evaluation indicators.

[0096] In this embodiment, the analytic hierarchy process in S2 specifically includes:

[0097] S21, Hierarchical model building: defining a hierarchy by categorizing goals, criteria, and alternatives into different levels;

[0098] S22, judgment matrix construction, using the 1-9 scale to build a pairwise comparison matrix to quantify the relative importance of elements. For factors i and j, the matrix element a ij Follow: a ij =1: equal importance; a ij =9: extreme importance of i to j; intermediate values 2-8 indicate gradual differences;

[0099] S23, consistency test, calculate the consistency index CI:

[0100]

[0101] Among them, λ max is the maximum eigenvalue of the matrix, and n is the matrix order.

[0102] Compare CI with random consistency index RI, consistency ratio CR = CI / RI, which must satisfy CR < 0.1;

[0103] S24, hierarchical weight synthesis, integrates the weights of each layer to determine the global priority of the alternatives relative to the overall goal.

[0104] In this embodiment, the dynamic correction method based on the historical completion rate in S3 specifically includes:

[0105] S31, calculate the historical completion rate of all indicators in different years, and calculate the mean and standard deviation of the historical completion rate of each indicator, which are recorded as [μ1,μ2,…,μ n ] and [σ1,σ2,…,σ n ];

[0106] S32, calculate the utility function U based on the mean and standard deviation:

[0107]

[0108] Among them, λ is the risk aversion coefficient, and the higher its value, the lower the weight of the greater the volatility;

[0109] S33, determination of initial weight: The initial weight is calculated according to the utility function result as follows:

[0110] w j =U j / ∑U i ;

[0111] Among them, w j Represents the specific weight of each indicator, forming the initial weight matrix w s =[w1,w2,…,w n ];

[0112] S34, calibrating the weight.

[0113] In this embodiment, the multi-dimensional scoring calculation method in S5 specifically includes:

[0114] S51, for each small indicator, calculate the score S corresponding to each reservoir indicator according to the calculation formula of each indicator in ;

[0115] S52, score S according to each indicator in and the corresponding weight W in , calculate the total score S corresponding to each indicator of each reservoir tin ;

[0116] S53, after calculating the indicators of each reservoir, the scores of different indicators of different reservoirs are S Tin Perform weighted averaging, with the weights determined based on the importance of the reservoir, to obtain the final score S for each reservoir indicator. Ti ;

[0117] S54, add up all indicator scores, and the result is the final score.

[0118] In this embodiment, the analysis and evaluation method of S6 specifically includes:

[0119] S61, extracting the actual process of evaluating the scheduling scheme and the process of comparing the schemes, comparing the changes in different variables of the inflow and outflow flow, water level process line, and output process line of different schemes, and conducting detailed analysis of the different points;

[0120] S62, by analyzing the water level, constraints and risks of the hydropower station and comparing the events required to complete the key node events in the scheduling plan, analyze the possible window period;

[0121] S63: Analyze the water level, flow rate, and output constraints at each time node and each time period, calculate the constraint risk of all time periods, and mark and issue warnings for periods with excessively high risks;

[0122] S64, based on risk events and risk points, summarize and organize the advantages and disadvantages of different scheduling plans, improvement points or possible improvement points and scheduling decision suggestions.

[0123] In this embodiment, the scheduling critical period includes:

[0124] According to the different functions and tasks undertaken by the hydropower station in different periods under the changes of natural inflow, the scheduling period is divided into drawdown period, flood season, water storage period and full storage operation period.

[0125] In this embodiment, the power generation, water supply, ecology, and shipping indicators may include one or more of the following:

[0126] Total power generation, output guarantee rate, average output, power supply guarantee for important holidays, standard coal savings, water supply guarantee rate, water supply volume, water shortage, water shortage rate, water shortage depth, disaster emergency water supply, ecological flow satisfaction rate, ecological flow boundary, ecological overflow water volume, ecological water shortage, shipping scheduling satisfaction rate, and waterway maintenance depth compliance rate;

[0127] In this embodiment, the flood control indicators include one or more of the following:

[0128] Maximum flood peak flow, maximum flood control water level, peak reduction rate, amount of water abandoned, risk of water abandonment, total flood interception capacity, downstream water level reduction, flood resource utilization rate, maximum flood interception capacity, reduction in flood control inundated area, reduction in flood control and disaster losses, number of flood defenses, economic benefits of flood control and disaster reduction, growth brought about by flood control, and cost savings in flood control project maintenance.

[0129] In this embodiment, the other comprehensive indicators include one or more of the following:

[0130] Constraint risks, whether the requirements of key node events are met, stability including water level fluctuation output, water abandonment risk, optimization degree and distance from the optimal solution, joint scheduling benefits, and reservoir capacity utilization rate.

[0131] In this embodiment, the weight correction step in S34 includes:

[0132] S341, for a certain indicator m, statistics its completion rate matrix of all indicators in the period s when the completion rate increases and the previous period s-1 When the completion rate of this indicator increases, the unit loss of other indicators is:

[0133]

[0134] S342, from step S341, the influence matrix R constructed by all indicators can be obtained n×n ;

[0135]

[0136] S343, calculate the sum of the unit loss corresponding to each indicator:

[0137]

[0138] S344, to avoid the final weight being 0, the influence matrix is normalized using the following formula:

[0139]

[0140] At this time, the correction weight matrix w c Elements for:

[0141]

[0142] S345, the final weight matrix is:

[0143] w e =w s *w c .

[0144] In this embodiment, the window period determination method in S62 includes:

[0145] The principle for determining the window period is that the water level and flow rate meet the requirements of the node event, and the implementation of the node event will not cause the hydropower station to violate the constraints or result in the undesirable situation of water abandonment.

[0146] In this embodiment, the key nodes in S62 include:

[0147] Due to the tasks undertaken by the hydropower station during the scheduling period, it needs to complete scheduling, experiments, water level targets, and flow targets at different time points.

[0148] Example 2:

[0149] The following takes the four-reservoir-Three Gorges cascade system in the lower reaches of the Jinsha River as an example to explain in detail the evaluation method of this application. The upper and lower positions of the cascade power stations are Wudongde, Baihetan, Xiluodu, Xiangjiaba, and Three Gorges. The actual scheduling scheme and the optimized scheduling scheme during the drawdown period of 2024 are taken as an example. The boundary conditions and water inflow of the two scheduling schemes are consistent, and the time scale is daily, with a time span from the beginning of January to the end of June. Among them, the optimized scheduling scheme is based on the maximum power generation as the goal, and is calculated using a solution algorithm based on mixed integer quadratic constrained programming (MIQCP). The water level, flow rate, and output diagram of the actual process and the optimized scheduling process are shown in the figure below. Figure 2 、 Figure 3 Table 1 below shows the statistical evaluation index size of the two schemes.

[0150] Table 1 Statistics of evaluation indicators of each scheme

[0151]

[0152]

[0153] The evaluation indicators for the drawdown period include five aspects: power generation, water supply, ecology, waterways, and other. Other indicators include drawdown correlation, constraint risk, constraint satisfaction, key nodes, and stability. Because each indicator contains numerous sub-items and the importance of sub-items across different categories is difficult to compare, we first weighted power generation, water supply, ecology, waterways, and other indicators separately. Due to the relative importance of drawdown speed, constraint risk, constraint satisfaction, key nodes, and stability among other indicators, we compared these indicators separately with the other indicators.

[0154] By referring to the evaluation of various indicators in previous studies and combining the opinions of scheduling experts, we compared and assigned values to each indicator pairwise, resulting in the following judgment matrix for the drawdown period. Among them, key nodes, water supply, ecology, and waterways are considered to be the most important requirements, and therefore are considered equally important, with judgment coefficients of 1. Stability is relatively less important, and therefore, compared to other indicators, it is lower than 1. Power generation is considered lower than priority indicators such as water supply, but higher than indicators such as drawdown and constraint risk. Constraint satisfaction is considered to be second only to priority indicators, but higher than other indicators such as power generation.

[0155] Table 2 Judgment matrix of major indicators in the decline period

[0156]

[0157]

[0158] Among them, the judgment matrix between the sub-indicators of power generation, ecology, and water supply indicators is as follows:

[0159] Table 3 Power generation index judgment matrix

[0160] index Total power generation Water consumption rate Output guarantee rate Power supply guarantee rate during important holidays Total power generation 1.00 3.00 1.00 7.00 Water consumption rate 0.33 1.00 0.14 1.00 Output guarantee rate 1.00 7.00 1.00 7.00 Power supply guarantee rate during important holidays 0.14 1.00 0.14 1.00

[0161] Table 4 Ecological indicator judgment matrix

[0162] index Ecological flow satisfaction rate Destruction of ecological flow boundaries Ecological overflow water Ecological water shortage Ecological flow satisfaction rate 1.00 3.00 5.00 3.00 Destruction of ecological flow boundaries 0.33 1.00 3.00 1.00 Ecological overflow water 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.33 Ecological water shortage 0.33 1.00 3.00 1.00

[0163] Table 5 Water supply index judgment matrix

[0164] index Water supply guarantee rate Water supply Water shortage Water shortage rate Disaster emergency water supply Water supply guarantee rate 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 5.00 Water supply 0.50 1.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 Water shortage 0.50 1.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 Water shortage rate 0.33 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.00 Disaster emergency water supply 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.33 1.00

[0165] The calculation results of the consistency index are as follows. The CR values are all less than 0.1, and the consistency of the judgment matrix is reasonable:

[0166] Table 6 Consistency index result matrix

[0167] index λmax CI RI CR overall 10.05 0.13 1.46 0.09 Power generation 6.31 0.06 1.26 0.05 Ecology 4.04 0.01 0.89 0.02 water supply 6.06 0.01 1.26 0.01

[0168] In this embodiment, the final calculated weights are shown in Table 7.

[0169] The HRC-DPAMC method uses historical data to calculate the completion rate of cascade hydropower plants during the January to June drawdown period over the past 10 years. Due to the length of time the plants have been built, data for some plants during certain periods is incomplete. Therefore, the completion rate is calculated by averaging the data from the five cascade hydropower plants for which actual data is available.

[0170] In this embodiment, according to the aforementioned calculation steps, the loss rate calculation results of each indicator are calculated. Among them, some indicators are 1 for the entire period and the corresponding loss rate cannot be calculated. The indicator mean is used as a substitute. The final calculation weights are shown in Table 7.

[0171] Based on AHP and HRC-DPAMC, the schemes were evaluated subjectively and objectively. For the same indicator, the weight of the two methods was 50% each. The final comprehensive evaluation weights are shown in Table 7. The weight changes of each indicator are as follows: Figure 4 shown.

[0172] The weight trends calculated by the AHP and HRC methods are generally consistent. However, for some special indicators, such as the power supply guarantee rate during important holidays and key nodes, the HRC method mistakenly assigns higher weights to these indicators because their historical completion rates are generally 1 throughout the entire period. However, after calculating the comprehensive weights, the trend is more consistent with the AHP method. Therefore, it can be considered that both the comprehensive weights and the AHP weights are relatively reasonable.

[0173] When calculating the score, first calculate the score S of each indicator i , multiplied by the weight wi of different methods to obtain the score of each indicator under this method.

[0174] Table 7 Weight calculation results

[0175] index AHP method HRC method Comprehensive weight Total power generation 0.019 0.004 0.010 Water consumption rate 0.004 0.011 0.008 Output guarantee rate 0.023 0.029 0.022 Power supply guarantee rate during important holidays 0.003 0.089 0.046 Falling speed 0.066 0.089 0.078 Ecological flow satisfaction rate 0.039 0.063 0.051 Ecological flow boundary 0.039 0.001 0.020 Ecological overflow water 0.022 0.089 0.056 Ecological water shortage 0.009 0.051 0.030 Water supply guarantee rate 0.018 0.017 0.018 Water supply 0.103 0.047 0.076 Water shortage 0.040 0.047 0.044 Water shortage rate 0.016 0.001 0.008 Disaster emergency water supply 0.040 0.049 0.045 Shipping scheduling satisfaction rate 0.149 0.089 0.119 Channel maintenance water depth compliance rate 0.050 0.089 0.070 Constraint risk 0.038 0.034 0.036 Constraint satisfaction 0.112 0.089 0.101 Key Nodes 0.197 0.089 0.144 Stability 0.015 0.022 0.019

[0176] Table 8 Calculation results of indicator scores

[0177]

[0178]

[0179] In this embodiment, the following analysis can be obtained from the final comprehensive evaluation score:

[0180] ① In terms of power generation indicators: under the same boundary conditions and constraints, the optimized scheme has a lower water consumption rate, higher average output and total power generation, but due to the small differences, the scores are close; however, the output guarantee rate is reduced, and the score is lower than the actual drawdown process.

[0181] ② Water supply indicators: All plans meet water supply needs and have the same scores.

[0182] ③ Ecological indicators: The ecological flow satisfaction rate of the optimized scheme reached 98.6%, which is better than the actual scheme; however, the total amount of ecological water shortage was slightly higher than the actual scheduling process, and the score was slightly lower; none of the schemes generated ecological overflow water, and the scores were consistent, all 1.

[0183] ④ Shipping indicators: All meet navigation requirements and the score is 1.

[0184] ⑤ Other indicators: The process quantity of the optimization scheme is generally closer to the constraints, and the risk of violating the constraints is greater, so the score is slightly lower than that of other schemes; however, the constraints are not exceeded during the optimization process, while the constraints are violated during the actual scheduling process, so the former scores higher; the optimization scheme makes more frequent adaptive adjustments according to the water inflow process to achieve better power generation, ecological, and shipping benefits. The stability of processes such as water level, flow, and output is correspondingly reduced, and the stability index score is lower than the actual scheduling process; all schemes meet the requirements of key node events and have consistent scores.

[0185] ⑥ Total score: Under different evaluation methods, the overall performance of the optimized scheduling scheme is better, and the main difference between the actual scheduling schemes lies in the constraint satisfaction.

[0186] Although the embodiments of the present invention have been shown and described, it will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that various changes, modifications, substitutions and variations may be made to the embodiments without departing from the principles and spirit of the invention, and that the scope of the invention is defined by the claims and their equivalents.

Claims

1. A comprehensive evaluation method for a hydropower station dispatching scheme based on comprehensive evaluation, characterized in that: The following steps are involved: S1. Construct a multi-dimensional evaluation index system for hydropower stations during critical periods, including power generation indicators, water supply indicators, ecological indicators, shipping indicators, flood control indicators, and other comprehensive indicators; S2, the subjective weight matrix was calculated using the analytic hierarchy process; S3, calculates the objective weight matrix using a dynamic correction method based on historical completion rates; S4, the subjective weight matrix and the objective weight matrix are combined to generate a comprehensive weight matrix. The calculation formula of the comprehensive weight matrix is: w_e=0.5w_AHP+0.5w_HRC; Among them, w_e is the comprehensive weight matrix, w_AHP is the weight of the analytic hierarchy process, and w_HRC is the weight of the dynamic correction method; S5, perform multi-dimensional scoring on the candidate scheduling solutions to obtain a comprehensive score, which is calculated as follows: Comprehensive score = Σ(single indicator score × comprehensive weight); S6. Based on the scores of each dimension, compare the scores of each indicator item in the candidate solutions, and analyze and evaluate the scores.

2. The method for comprehensive evaluation of a hydropower station scheduling plan based on comprehensive evaluation according to claim 1, characterized in that: The multi-dimensional evaluation index system for the critical period of a hydropower station constructed in S1 specifically includes: S11, analyze and distinguish the different critical dispatching periods of different hydropower stations; S12, selecting different key evaluation indicators according to different critical scheduling periods, the key evaluation indicators including one or more indicators related to power generation, ecology, water supply, shipping, and flood control; S13. Construct a comprehensive evaluation index system based on the selected evaluation indicators.

3. The comprehensive evaluation method for a hydropower station scheduling scheme based on comprehensive evaluation according to claim 1 is characterized in that: The analytic hierarchy process in S2 specifically includes: S21, Hierarchical model building: defining a hierarchy by categorizing goals, criteria, and alternatives into different levels; S22, judgment matrix construction, using the 1-9 scale to build a pairwise comparison matrix to quantify the relative importance of elements. For factors i and j, the matrix element a ij Follow: a ij =1: equal importance; a ij =9: extreme importance of i to j; intermediate values 2-8 indicate gradual differences; S23, consistency test, calculate the consistency index CI: Among them, λ max is the maximum eigenvalue of the matrix, and n is the matrix order. Compare CI with random consistency index RI, consistency ratio CR = CI / RI, which must satisfy CR < 0.1; S24, hierarchical weight synthesis, integrates the weights of each layer to determine the global priority of the alternatives relative to the overall goal.

4. The method for comprehensive evaluation of a hydropower station scheduling plan based on comprehensive evaluation according to claim 1, characterized in that: The dynamic correction method based on historical completion rate in S3 specifically includes: S31, calculate the historical completion rate of all indicators in different years, and calculate the mean and standard deviation of the historical completion rate of each indicator, which are recorded as [μ1,μ2,…,μ n ] and [σ1,σ2,…,σ n ]; S32, calculate the utility function U based on the mean and standard deviation: Among them, λ is the risk aversion coefficient, and the higher its value, the lower the weight of the greater the volatility; S33, determination of initial weight: The initial weight is calculated according to the utility function result as follows: w j =U j / ∑U i ; Among them, w j Represents the specific weight of each indicator, forming the initial weight matrix w s =[w1,w2,…,w n ]; S34, calibrating the weight.

5. The comprehensive evaluation method for a hydropower station scheduling scheme based on comprehensive evaluation according to claim 1 is characterized in that: The multi-dimensional scoring calculation method in S5 specifically includes: S51, for each small indicator, calculate the score S corresponding to each reservoir indicator according to the calculation formula of each indicator in ; S52, score S according to each indicator in and the corresponding weight W in , calculate the total score S corresponding to each indicator of each reservoir tin ; S53, after calculating the indicators of each reservoir, the scores of different indicators of different reservoirs are S Tin Perform weighted averaging, with the weights determined based on the importance of the reservoir, to obtain the final score S for each reservoir indicator. Ti ; S54, add up all indicator scores, and the result is the final score.

6. The method for comprehensive evaluation of a hydropower station scheduling plan based on comprehensive evaluation according to claim 1, characterized in that: The analysis and evaluation method of S6 specifically includes: S61, extracting the actual process of evaluating the scheduling scheme and the process of comparing the schemes, comparing the changes in different variables of the inflow and outflow flow, water level process line, and output process line of different schemes, and conducting detailed analysis of the different points; S62, by analyzing the water level, constraints and risks of the hydropower station and comparing the events required to complete the key node events in the scheduling plan, analyze the possible window period; S63: Analyze the water level, flow rate, and output constraints at each time node and each time period, calculate the constraint risk of all time periods, and mark and issue warnings for periods with excessively high risks; S64, based on risk events and risk points, summarize and organize the advantages and disadvantages of different scheduling plans, improvement points or possible improvement points and scheduling decision suggestions.

7. The method for comprehensive evaluation of a hydropower station scheduling plan based on comprehensive evaluation according to claim 2, characterized in that: The scheduling critical period includes: According to the different functions and tasks undertaken by the hydropower station in different periods under the changes of natural inflow, the scheduling period is divided into drawdown period, flood season, water storage period and full storage operation period.

8. The method for comprehensive evaluation of hydropower station scheduling scheme based on subjective and objective comprehensive evaluation according to claim 2 is characterized in that: The power generation, water supply, ecological and shipping indicators may include one or more of the following: Total power generation, output guarantee rate, average output, power supply guarantee for important holidays, standard coal saving, water supply guarantee rate, water supply, water shortage, water shortage rate, water shortage depth, disaster emergency water supply, ecological flow satisfaction rate, ecological flow boundary, ecological overflow water volume, ecological water shortage, shipping scheduling satisfaction rate, and waterway maintenance water depth compliance rate.

9. The method for comprehensive evaluation of hydropower station scheduling schemes based on subjective and objective comprehensive evaluation according to claim 2, characterized in that: The flood control indicators include one or more of the following: Maximum flood peak flow, maximum flood control water level, peak reduction rate, amount of water abandoned, risk of water abandonment, total flood interception capacity, downstream water level reduction, flood resource utilization rate, maximum flood interception capacity, reduction in flood control inundated area, reduction in flood control and disaster losses, number of flood defenses, economic benefits of flood control and disaster reduction, growth brought about by flood control, and cost savings in flood control project maintenance.

10. The method for comprehensive evaluation of hydropower station scheduling scheme based on subjective and objective comprehensive evaluation according to claim 2, characterized in that: The other comprehensive indicators include one or more of the following: Constraint risks, whether the requirements of key node events are met, stability including water level fluctuation output, water abandonment risk, optimization degree and distance from the optimal solution, joint scheduling benefits, and reservoir capacity utilization rate.

11. A comprehensive evaluation method for hydropower station scheduling scheme based on subjective and objective comprehensive evaluation according to claim 4, characterized in that: The weight correction step in S34 includes: S341, for a certain indicator m, statistics its completion rate matrix of all indicators in the period s when the completion rate increases and the previous period s-1 When the completion rate of this indicator increases, the unit loss of other indicators is: S342, from step S341, the influence matrix R constructed by all indicators can be obtained n×n ; S343, calculate the sum of the unit loss corresponding to each indicator: S344, to avoid the final weight being 0, the influence matrix is normalized using the following formula: At this time, the correction weight matrix w c Elements for: S345, the final weight matrix is: In e =in s *In c 。 12. A comprehensive evaluation method for hydropower station scheduling scheme based on subjective and objective comprehensive evaluation according to claim 6, characterized in that: The window period determination method in S62 includes: The principle for determining the window period is that the water level and flow rate meet the requirements of the node event, and the implementation of the node event will not cause the hydropower station to violate the constraints or result in the undesirable situation of water abandonment.

13. A comprehensive evaluation method for hydropower station scheduling scheme based on subjective and objective comprehensive evaluation according to claim 6, characterized in that: The key nodes in S62 include: Due to the tasks undertaken by the hydropower station during the scheduling period, it needs to complete scheduling, experiments, water level targets, and flow targets at different time points.

Images