Electric dust remover health state assessment method and device, electronic equipment and storage medium

Abstract

The invention relates to the technical field of industrial electric precipitation, in particular to an electric precipitator health state evaluation method and device, electronic equipment and a storage medium, and the method comprises the following steps: obtaining operation data in the operation process of an electric precipitator to determine a plurality of influence factors; determining the factor weight of each influence factor based on a preset first weight configuration rule; according to the invention, a comprehensive evaluation factor system of six dimensions of technology, fault, safety, service life, corrosion and environment is combined, a corresponding multi-level weight distribution and index scoring mechanism is established, and the overall health condition of the electric dust remover is known through quantitative scoring and grade output. Potential technical performance degradation, fault risks, potential safety hazards, corrosion and other problems can be exposed in time, potential hazards can be eliminated in time, equipment running with diseases is prevented, and therefore the unplanned shutdown risk is effectively reduced, the service life of the equipment is prolonged, and long-term stable, reliable and safe running of the equipment is guaranteed.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of industrial electrostatic precipitator technology, and in particular to a method, apparatus, electronic device, and storage medium for assessing the health status of an electrostatic precipitator. Background Technology

[0002] Electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) have been widely used in industrial dust removal due to their significant advantages, including high dust removal efficiency, wide applicability, low operating costs, ease of operation, and no secondary pollution. However, the actual health condition of ESPs is affected by a variety of complex factors, including technical performance, failure frequency, safety status, equipment lifespan, corrosion level, and operating environment.

[0003] Currently, the industry lacks an effective and systematic online health status assessment method, which leads to a significant lack of clarity in the operation and maintenance of electrostatic precipitators. This not only affects their reliability and stability but may also create safety hazards due to the failure to identify deteriorating health conditions in a timely manner. Summary of the Invention

[0004] In view of this, the purpose of the present invention is to provide a method, device, electronic equipment, and storage medium for assessing the health status of an electrostatic precipitator, so as to effectively identify potential fault hazards, optimize operation and maintenance decisions, improve the reliability and safety of equipment operation, thereby extending the service life of the equipment and ensuring its stable and efficient operation.

[0005] In a first aspect, embodiments of the present invention provide a method for assessing the health status of an electrostatic precipitator, the method comprising: To obtain operational data during the operation of the electrostatic precipitator in order to identify multiple influencing factors; Based on the preset first weight configuration rules, the factor weight of each influencing factor is determined; For each impact factor, the factor score is calculated based on the operational data of multiple evaluation indicators under the impact factor and the preset scoring rules. The health score of the electrostatic precipitator is calculated by combining the factor scores of all influencing factors and their corresponding factor weights. The target health assessment result is determined based on the comparison between the health score and the preset health threshold. Among them, the influencing factors include at least: technical factors, failure factors, safety factors, lifespan factors, corrosion factors, and environmental factors.

[0006] In conjunction with the first aspect, the steps for calculating the factor score of the impact factor, based on the operational data of multiple evaluation indicators under the impact factor and the preset scoring rules, include: For each influencing factor, the weight of each evaluation indicator under the influencing factor is determined based on the preset second weight configuration rule; For each evaluation indicator, the indicator score is calculated based on the corresponding operational data and the preset scoring rules. The factor score of an impact factor is obtained by summing the products of the index score and the index weight of each evaluation indicator.

[0007] Combining the first aspect with the factor scores and corresponding factor weights of all influencing factors, the health score of the electrostatic precipitator is calculated, including: The health score of the electrostatic precipitator is obtained by summing the product of the factor score and the corresponding factor weight of each influencing factor.

[0008] In conjunction with the first aspect, the failure factors include the first to fourth evaluation indicators; The steps for calculating the factor scores of impact factors include: Obtain historical operational data within a preset statistical period; Based on historical operational data, determine whether there is target data that matches the first evaluation indicator; If so, assign a factor score of zero to the fault factor.

[0009] In conjunction with the first aspect, the technical factors include: dust removal efficiency, outlet dust concentration, specific power consumption, energy efficiency ratio, resistance, air leakage rate, and availability. Safety factors include: installation quality, operation and maintenance management level, operating flue gas temperature, flue gas ammonia escape, flue gas SO2 corrosion, shell negative pressure, ash hopper level control, ash hopper operating temperature, environmental acid and alkali corrosion, and wind load. Life factors include: remaining design life, health status of electrical equipment, health status of instrumentation equipment, health status of mechanical equipment, maintenance status of electrical equipment, maintenance status of instrumentation equipment, and maintenance status of mechanical equipment; Corrosion factors include: SO2 corrosion in flue gas, high chloride ion corrosion in flue gas, high humidity corrosion in flue gas, low temperature condensation corrosion, and ammonium bisulfate corrosion in flue gas; Environmental factors include: environmental acid and alkali corrosion, climate humidity, and operating flue gas temperature.

[0010] Following the first aspect, after determining the target health assessment result based on the comparison between the health score and the preset health threshold, the process also includes: The current display page is rendered based on the target health assessment results, so that the target health assessment results are displayed on the display page.

[0011] In conjunction with the first aspect, the scoring rules for the technology factor are based on the comparison between the actual operating value and the target value; The scoring rules for failure factors are based on the comparison of the number of occurrences of operational data that meet the first to fourth evaluation indicators within a specified period with the specified values.

[0012] Secondly, embodiments of this application also provide a health status assessment device for an electrostatic precipitator, the device comprising: The acquisition module is used to acquire operational data during the operation of the electrostatic precipitator in order to determine multiple influencing factors; The first determining module is used to determine the factor weight of each influencing factor based on a preset first weight configuration rule; The first calculation module is used to calculate the factor score of each impact factor based on the operating data of multiple evaluation indicators under the impact factor and the preset scoring rules. The second calculation module is used to calculate the health score of the electrostatic precipitator by combining the factor scores of all influencing factors and their corresponding factor weights. The second determining module is used to determine the target health assessment result based on the comparison between the health score and the preset health threshold. Among them, the influencing factors include at least: technical factors, failure factors, safety factors, lifespan factors, corrosion factors, and environmental factors.

[0013] Thirdly, this application provides an electronic device, which includes a memory and a processor. The memory stores a computer program, and the processor runs the computer program to cause the electronic device to perform the above-described method.

[0014] Fourthly, this application provides a storage medium storing computer program instructions, which are read and executed by a processor to perform the above-described method.

[0015] The embodiments of the present invention bring the following beneficial effects: This application provides a method, device, electronic device, and storage medium for assessing the health status of an electrostatic precipitator. The method includes: acquiring operational data during the operation of the electrostatic precipitator to determine multiple influencing factors; determining the factor weight of each influencing factor based on a preset first weight configuration rule; calculating a factor score for each influencing factor based on operational data of multiple evaluation indicators under the influencing factor and a preset scoring rule; calculating a health score of the electrostatic precipitator by combining the factor scores of all influencing factors and their corresponding factor weights; and determining a target health assessment result based on a comparison between the health score and a preset health threshold. The influencing factors include at least: technical factors, fault factors, safety factors, lifespan factors, corrosion factors, and environmental factors.

[0016] This application combines a comprehensive evaluation factor system encompassing six dimensions: technology, failure, safety, lifespan, corrosion, and environment. It also establishes a corresponding multi-level weight allocation and index scoring mechanism. Through quantitative scoring and grade output, it understands the overall health status of the electrostatic precipitator and can promptly expose potential technical performance degradation, failure risks, safety hazards, and corrosion problems. This helps to eliminate hidden dangers in a timely manner, prevent equipment from operating with defects, effectively reduce the risk of unplanned downtime, extend equipment lifespan, and ensure its long-term stable, reliable, and safe operation. It overcomes the problem of the lack of a systematic evaluation method in existing technologies, transforming the health status from a vague judgment into a quantifiable and accurate score.

[0017] Other features and advantages of the invention will be set forth in the description which follows, and will be apparent in part from the description, or may be learned by practicing the invention. The objects and other advantages of the invention are realized and obtained in accordance with the structures particularly pointed out in the description, claims and drawings.

[0018] To make the above-mentioned objects, features and advantages of the present invention more apparent and understandable, preferred embodiments are described below in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings. Attached Figure Description

[0019] To more clearly illustrate the specific embodiments of the present invention or the technical solutions in the prior art, the drawings used in the description of the specific embodiments or the prior art will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings described below are some embodiments of the present invention. For those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained from these drawings without creative effort.

[0020] Figure 1 A schematic flowchart of the electrostatic precipitator health status assessment method provided in an embodiment of the present invention; Figure 2 A schematic diagram of data transmission in the process of the electrostatic precipitator health status assessment method provided in the embodiments of the present invention; Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram of the structure of the electrostatic precipitator health status assessment device provided in an embodiment of the present invention; Figure 4 This is a schematic diagram of the electronic device structure provided in an embodiment of the present invention.

[0021] Figure label: 10 - Acquisition module, 20 - First determination module, 30 - First calculation module, 40 - Second calculation module, 50 - Second determination module; 21-Operating condition configuration module, 22-Data acquisition and storage module, 23-Industrial control computer, 24-Online health status assessment model for electrostatic precipitator, 25-Human-machine interaction module; 130 - Processor, 131 - Memory, 132 - Bus, 133 - Communication interface. Detailed Implementation

[0022] To make the objectives, technical solutions, and advantages of the embodiments of the present invention clearer, the technical solutions of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of the present invention, not all embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0023] To facilitate understanding of this embodiment, the application scenarios and design concepts of this application embodiment will be briefly introduced below.

[0024] The lack of effective and systematic online health status assessment methods in existing technologies leads to blind and difficult operation and maintenance of electrostatic precipitators. This may result in safety hazards due to the failure to identify deteriorating health status in a timely manner, leading to poor equipment operation stability and reliability.

[0025] Based on this, this application provides a method, device, electronic equipment, and storage medium for assessing the health status of an electrostatic precipitator, enabling real-time, quantitative, and systematic comprehensive assessment of the health status of the electrostatic precipitator. This effectively identifies potential faults, optimizes operation and maintenance decisions, and improves the reliability and safety of equipment operation, thereby extending the service life of the equipment and ensuring its stable and efficient operation.

[0026] Example 1 This application provides a first aspect: embodiments of the present invention provide a method for assessing the health status of an electrostatic precipitator, combined with... Figure 1 As shown, the method includes: S110: Obtain operational data during the operation of the electrostatic precipitator to determine multiple influencing factors.

[0027] S120, based on the preset first weight configuration rule, determines the factor weight of each influencing factor.

[0028] S130: For each impact factor, calculate the factor score based on the operational data of multiple evaluation indicators under the impact factor and the preset scoring rules.

[0029] S140, combining the factor scores of all influencing factors and their corresponding factor weights, calculate the health score of the electrostatic precipitator.

[0030] S150 determines the target health assessment result based on the comparison between the health score and the preset health threshold.

[0031] Among them, the influencing factors include at least: technical factors, failure factors, safety factors, lifespan factors, corrosion factors, and environmental factors.

[0032] This application combines a comprehensive evaluation factor system with six dimensions and establishes a corresponding multi-level weight allocation and index scoring mechanism. By quantitatively scoring and outputting levels, it can understand the overall health status of the electrostatic precipitator and promptly expose potential technical performance degradation, failure risks, safety hazards, and corrosion problems. This helps to eliminate hidden dangers in a timely manner, prevent equipment from operating with defects, effectively reduce the risk of unplanned downtime, extend equipment life, and ensure its long-term stable, reliable, and safe operation. It overcomes the problem of the lack of a systematic evaluation method in the prior art and transforms the health status from a vague judgment to a quantifiable and accurate score.

[0033] Step S110 systematically sorts out and summarizes various complex factors affecting the health status of electrostatic precipitators, integrating the scattered and heterogeneous influencing factors into six core categories: technical performance, fault conditions, safety conditions, lifespan, corrosion conditions, and operating environment conditions. Based on these, six corresponding main influencing factors are constructed: Technical Factor, Fault Factor, Safety Factor, Lifetime Factor, Corrosion Factor, and Environmental Factor. Each factor represents a key dimension of the health status. For example, the "Technical Factor" focuses on the current operating efficiency of the equipment, the "Lifetime Factor" focuses on the long-term durability and wear and tear of the equipment, and the "Safety Factor" emphasizes the risks and hidden dangers in operation. This ensures that the assessment work is comprehensive and thorough.

[0034] Understandably, traditional electrostatic precipitator (ESP) health monitoring focuses on a single performance indicator (usually "dust removal rate"). This approach has significant limitations, failing to comprehensively reflect the overall condition of the equipment. It suffers from delayed and one-sided monitoring, making it difficult to provide early warnings and accurate assessments of potential safety hazards, gradual performance degradation, or complex multi-factor coupled faults. This results in a lack of foresight and systematic approach in operation and maintenance decisions, ultimately affecting the long-term stable and reliable operation of the ESP. The multi-dimensional evaluation factor system proposed in this solution represents a fundamental transformation of the aforementioned traditional single-indicator monitoring method.

[0035] As an feasible approach, this application pre-stores a one-to-one correspondence between each impact factor and its weight. This correspondence can be recorded and stored in the form of key-value pairs, tables, etc. In this way, after determining a certain impact factor (such as a technical factor), the corresponding factor weight can be found through the correspondence, providing accurate coefficients for subsequent calculations. This transforms the qualitative "importance" into a quantitative "weight value," making the rating-based operation and maintenance decisions (such as maintenance priority and resource allocation) more objective and evidence-based.

[0036] As another feasible approach, the factor weights can also be predicted and adjusted in real time using deep models to adjust the factor weights corresponding to each influencing factor based on the actual situation. All of the above methods are feasible and are not limited here.

[0037] In this embodiment, fixed factor weights are used. The weights are not distributed equally, but are based on a detailed consideration of each factor’s contribution to the core objective of “health” and its risk level. Among them, the technology factor, with a weight of 40%, is given the highest weight because it directly reflects the current core performance of the electrostatic precipitator (such as dust removal efficiency and energy consumption), and is the most direct and critical indicator for assessing whether it is "healthy" or "efficient". The second is the failure factor, with a weight of 20%, because sudden failures can directly lead to equipment shutdown or a sharp drop in performance, posing an immediate threat to production continuity and safety, and is therefore extremely important. Next is the safety factor, with a weight of 15%, which focuses on potential hazards that could lead to major accidents (such as negative pressure in the shell and material level in the ash hopper), and is given a high weight to reflect preventative risk management. Next is the lifespan and corrosion factor, with a weight of 10%, because both are gradual and cumulative influencing factors that determine the long-term reliability and remaining service life of the equipment. Although their impact is not as immediate as failures, they are crucial in the long run. Finally, the environmental factor, with a weight of 5%, is an external factor that, while affecting equipment lifespan and corrosion rate (its impact is partially reflected in the corrosion and lifespan factors), has a relatively low directness and urgency in its independent effect, hence its lowest weight.

[0038] Understandably, clear weights provide accurate coefficients for subsequent calculations, transforming qualitative "importance" into quantitative "weight values," making score-based operation and maintenance decisions (such as maintenance priority and resource allocation) more objective and evidence-based.

[0039] This differentiated weighting ensures that the final health score is not a simple aggregation of indicators, but a weighted comprehensive evaluation. This makes the score more accurately reflect the actual condition of the equipment: a device with excellent technical performance but minor environmental corrosion will still score highly; while a device that experiences a major failure (even if its technical indicators are temporarily normal) will have a significantly lower score due to the high weighting of the failure factor. This guides maintenance personnel to prioritize the core issues that have the greatest impact on equipment health.

[0040] In conjunction with the first aspect, step S130 calculates the factor score of the impact factor based on the operational data of multiple evaluation indicators under the impact factor and the preset scoring rules, including: S131, for each impact factor, determine the indicator weight of each evaluation indicator under the impact factor based on the preset second weight configuration rule.

[0041] S132, for each evaluation indicator, calculate the indicator score based on the corresponding operational data and preset scoring rules.

[0042] S133: Sum the products of the index scores and index weights of each evaluation indicator to obtain the factor score of the influencing factor.

[0043] After determining the importance of the six factors (such as the technical factor) in the overall evaluation (e.g., accounting for 40%) in step S120, step S131 defines the difference in the contribution of different evaluation indicators to the same factor (i.e., the indicator weight of each evaluation indicator). For example, in the "technical factor", the weight of "dust removal efficiency" is usually much higher than that of "air leakage rate", which is more in line with the actual engineering focus.

[0044] In conjunction with the first aspect, in the implementation of this application, the technical factors include seven evaluation indicators for electrostatic precipitators: dust removal efficiency, outlet dust concentration, specific power consumption, energy efficiency ratio, resistance, air leakage rate, and availability.

[0045] In the above-mentioned calculation of "dust removal efficiency", the required inlet dust concentration data is not a direct measurement value, but is indirectly derived from the boiler operating characteristic parameters through a preset calculation model. The calculation model takes key boiler operating parameters such as boiler ash ratio, boiler load, total boiler fuel quantity, type of coal fed into the boiler, and ash content of the fuel as inputs to calculate the theoretical inlet dust concentration value, providing key input for subsequent dust removal efficiency evaluation.

[0046] "Outlet dust concentration" is obtained in real time by a continuous dust concentration measuring instrument (such as a dust meter) at the outlet of the electrostatic precipitator or the inlet of the desulfurization system.

[0047] "Resistance" is obtained through the flue gas pressure difference between the inlet and outlet of the electrostatic precipitator.

[0048] The "air leakage rate" is calculated by measuring the oxygen content of the flue gas at the inlet and outlet of the electrostatic precipitator and then applying the oxygen balance formula.

[0049] "Specific power consumption" represents the power consumption required by an electrostatic precipitator to process a unit volume of flue gas. Its calculation method is as follows: C = W ÷ Q ; in, C The specific power consumption of an electrostatic precipitator is expressed in units of 1. ; W This refers to the power consumption of the electrostatic precipitator per unit time, expressed in kW. Q The volume of flue gas processed by the electrostatic precipitator per unit time, expressed in m³. 3 / h.

[0050] The "energy efficiency ratio" is a key performance indicator that characterizes the power consumption required for an electrostatic precipitator to remove a unit weight of dust. It is used to evaluate the energy utilization efficiency of its dust removal process, and its calculation method is as follows: λ=W÷M ; in, λ The unit is the energy efficiency ratio of the electrostatic precipitator. ; W This refers to the power consumption of the electrostatic precipitator per unit time, expressed in kW. M This refers to the weight of dust removed by the electrostatic precipitator per unit time, expressed in kg / h. In this embodiment, the fault factors include first to fourth level faults or alarms arranged from largest to smallest in terms of their impact on the operation of the electrostatic precipitator.

[0051] Among them, the above-mentioned "Level 1 faults or alarms" mainly include major faults or alarms that may cause structural safety risks to the electrostatic precipitator, non-shutdown accidents, personal safety accidents, etc.; specifically, they include faults or alarms such as ash hopper structural failure or detachment, ash hopper ultimate load, and steel support ultimate load.

[0052] The aforementioned "Level 2 faults or alarms" mainly refer to faults or alarms that result in excessive dust concentration, high maintenance difficulty and cost, affect the electric field's operational rate assessment, or have a significant impact on upstream and downstream equipment. Specifically, these include: full ash hopper, ash conveying failure, high load on steel supports, excessive dust emission concentration, low dust removal efficiency, low electric field operational rate, severe ammonium bisulfate contamination, inlet fault flue gas temperature, output short circuit (undervoltage) alarm, input overcurrent alarm, main power supply circuit fault alarm, abnormal power supply operating parameters alarm, power supply safety interlock fault alarm, and power supply secondary signal feedback fault alarm.

[0053] The aforementioned "Level 3 Yellow Important Faults or Alarms" mainly refer to faults or alarms that have a significant impact on the operation or lifespan of various equipment in the electrostatic precipitator. Specifically, Level 3 Yellow Important Faults or Alarms mainly include high material level in the ash hopper, ash conveying blockage, high negative pressure in the shell, high load on the steel support, moderate contamination with ammonium bisulfate, excessive inlet flue gas volume, high inlet flue gas temperature, high flue gas velocity, high air leakage rate, anode rapping fault, cathode rapping fault, and output open circuit alarm.

[0054] The aforementioned "Level 4 Blue General Faults or Alarms" mainly refer to general faults or alarms other than Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4. Specifically, Level 4 Blue General Faults or Alarms include: high ash hopper level, low ash hopper temperature alarm, poor ash conveying, high negative pressure on the casing, slight ammonium bisulfate deposition, power supply arcing protection alarm, power supply main contactor fault alarm, power supply IGBT fault alarm, power supply IGBT high temperature alarm, power supply transformer high temperature alarm, power supply sampling fault alarm, power supply DC bus sampling fault alarm, power supply bus voltage abnormality alarm, power supply cooling fan fault alarm, power supply low oil level alarm, power supply main circuit box high temperature alarm, and various early warning alarms.

[0055] In this embodiment, safety factors include: installation quality, operation and maintenance management level, operating flue gas temperature, flue gas ammonia escape, flue gas SO2 corrosion, shell negative pressure, ash hopper level control, ash hopper operating temperature, environmental acid and alkali corrosion, and wind load.

[0056] Among them, "installation quality" is determined by conducting a preliminary on-site assessment of the quality of the main stress welds of the electrostatic precipitator (especially the ash hopper welds). "Operation and maintenance management level" mainly assesses the comprehensiveness of the user's operation and maintenance standards and systems for electrostatic precipitators, especially the operation and maintenance management measures for material level management and corresponding material level gauges. At the same time, it conducts on-site assessment of the daily implementation of various systems to determine the level. The "operating flue gas temperature" is determined by evaluating the flue gas temperature at the inlet of the electrostatic precipitator and then determining its flue gas temperature range. The "flue gas ammonia slip" is based on the ammonia slip at the outlet of the denitrification system. The data comes from the ammonia slip instrument at the outlet of the denitrification system. The ammonia slip range is determined by online judgment of the ammonia slip. "Flue gas SO2 corrosion" uses the SO2 concentration in the flue gas at the inlet of the electrostatic precipitator as the assessment basis. The data comes from the CEMS of the desulfurization system. The SO2 concentration range is determined by online judgment of the concentration value. "Shell negative pressure" is based on the negative pressure of flue gas at the inlet of the electrostatic precipitator. The flue gas pressure range is determined by comparing the negative pressure of flue gas at the inlet of the precipitator with the design negative pressure value of the shell. The evaluation principle of "ash hopper level control" is as follows: within the statistical period, considering that energy-saving operation under the premise of safety is optimal, the ash hopper level is best at a reasonable level (between high level and very high level), and the temperature range is determined by monitoring the ash hopper level. The evaluation principle for "ash hopper operating temperature" is as follows: In order to prevent condensation in the ash hopper, the ash hopper wall temperature should be maintained at no less than 120℃ and 5-10℃ higher than the flue gas dew point temperature. During the statistical period, the average operating temperature of the ash hopper should be within a reasonable range and the temperature fluctuation should be small. "Environmental acid and alkali corrosion" is determined by assessing the environmental acid and alkali corrosion conditions at the project site where the electrostatic precipitator is located. "Wind load" is evaluated based on the design value of the electrostatic precipitator. The wind load range of the electrostatic precipitator is determined by comparing the actual wind speed at the project site with the design wind speed. The actual wind speed can be obtained by manual input through the constructed working condition configuration program.

[0057] In this embodiment, the lifespan factor includes: remaining design life, health status of electrical equipment, health status of instrumentation equipment, health status of mechanical equipment, maintenance status of electrical equipment, maintenance status of instrumentation equipment, and maintenance status of mechanical equipment.

[0058] In this embodiment, the "remaining design life" refers to the remaining design life of the electrostatic precipitator, which is assumed to be 30 years. The remaining design life is the design life minus the cumulative time of commissioning and operation.

[0059] Corrosion factors include: SO2 corrosion in flue gas, high chloride ion corrosion in flue gas, high humidity corrosion in flue gas, low temperature condensation corrosion, and ammonium bisulfate corrosion in flue gas.

[0060] In this embodiment, the above-mentioned evaluation indicators for corrosion factors of electrostatic precipitators are all set for the parameters of the flue gas at the inlet of the electrostatic precipitator, namely the SO2 concentration, chloride ion concentration, humidity, temperature, and ammonium bisulfate content of the flue gas.

[0061] Environmental factors include: environmental acid and alkali corrosion, climate humidity, and operating flue gas temperature.

[0062] In this embodiment, the environmental acid and alkali corrosion and climate humidity are set according to the environmental conditions and climate humidity of the project site where the electrostatic precipitator is located, and the operating flue gas temperature is set according to the inlet flue gas temperature of the electrostatic precipitator.

[0063] Subsequently, based on the real-time operating data corresponding to each evaluation indicator (such as the actual value of the current dust removal efficiency) and the predefined scoring rules, the indicator score is calculated. This score intuitively reflects the current state of the indicator. The "scoring rules" are a set of rules that map actual data values ​​to standard scores. For example, for the "dust removal efficiency" indicator, the rule might be: "60 points for reaching the design value, 2 points added for every 0.1% increase, 3 points deducted for every 0.1% decrease, maximum 100 points, minimum 0 points."

[0064] Based on the above examples, in this embodiment, the influence of each evaluation index corresponding to the technical factor on the electrostatic precipitator technical factor is assigned a different weight value, and the total weight of the seven technical factor evaluation indicators is 100%. Specifically, the weights are as follows: dust removal efficiency 25%, outlet dust concentration 20%, specific power consumption 15%, energy efficiency ratio 15%, availability 12%, resistance 8%, and air leakage rate 5%.

[0065] Subsequently, combining the scoring rules shown in Table 1 and the operational data of the evaluation index collected in step S110, the online evaluation model of the health status of the electrostatic precipitator containing the above scoring rules can be used to calculate and output the index scores corresponding to each of the above evaluation indicators, thereby determining the scores of the seven technical factor evaluation indicators, wherein the score range of each indicator is [0, 100].

[0066] Table 1 shows the scoring rules for each evaluation indicator in the technology factor.

[0067]

[0068] Similarly, the weights assigned to the first to fourth level faults or alarms corresponding to the fault factors are 40%, 30%, 20%, and 10%, respectively. Subsequently, based on the operating data corresponding to each evaluation indicator and the preset scoring rules shown in Table 2, the indicator scores of the evaluation indicators are calculated.

[0069] Table 2 shows the scoring rules for each evaluation indicator in the failure factor.

[0070]

[0071] Similarly, weights were assigned to each evaluation indicator in the safety factor as follows: installation quality (20%), operation and maintenance management level (20%), operating flue gas temperature (6%), flue gas ammonia escape (15%), flue gas SO2 corrosion (10%), shell negative pressure (5%), ash hopper level control (8%), ash hopper operating temperature (5%), environmental acid and alkali corrosion (8%), and wind load (3%). Subsequently, based on the corresponding operating data for each evaluation indicator and the preset scoring rules shown in Table 3, the indicator scores were calculated.

[0072] Table 3 shows the scoring rules for each evaluation indicator in the safety factor.

[0073]

[0074] Similarly, weights were assigned to each evaluation indicator in the lifespan factor as follows: remaining design life 25%, electrical equipment health status 30%, instrumentation equipment health status 10%, mechanical equipment health status 20%, electrical equipment operation and maintenance status 5%, instrumentation equipment operation and maintenance status 5%, and mechanical equipment operation and maintenance status 5%. Subsequently, based on the corresponding operational data for each evaluation indicator and the preset scoring rules shown in Table 4, the indicator scores were calculated.

[0075] Table 4 shows the scoring rules for each evaluation indicator in the lifespan factor.

[0076]

[0077] Similarly, weights were assigned to each evaluation index in the corrosion factor as follows: high SO2 corrosion in flue gas (20%), high chloride ion corrosion in flue gas (25%), high humidity corrosion in flue gas (10%), low-temperature condensation corrosion (20%), and ammonium bisulfate corrosion in flue gas (25%). Subsequently, based on the corresponding operating data for each evaluation index and the preset scoring rules shown in Table 5, the index scores of the evaluation indexes were calculated.

[0078] Table 5 shows the scoring rules for each evaluation index in the corrosion factor.

[0079]

[0080] Similarly, weights were assigned to each assessment indicator in the environmental factors as follows: environmental acid and alkali corrosion weight was 50%, climate humidity weight was 20%, and operating flue gas temperature weight was 30%. Subsequently, the indicator scores were calculated based on the corresponding operating data and the preset scoring rules shown in Table 6.

[0081] Table 6 shows the scoring rules for each assessment indicator in the environmental factors.

[0082]

[0083] Finally, in step S133, the score of each indicator obtained in S132 is multiplied by its weight assigned in S131 to obtain the weighted score of that indicator. Then, the weighted scores of all indicators are summed. Through weighted summation, the scores of all indicators under the same factor are aggregated into a single score representing the overall state of that factor, i.e., the factor score. This factor score is a score between 0 and 100, representing the health status of the influencing factor. For example, the final score for the "technology factor" is 85.

[0084] Understandably, the scoring rules described above can be represented based on actual operating conditions, industry standards, and other factors. This is merely an example and not intended to be limiting. Furthermore, in practice, configuration programs for different operating conditions are typically pre-built to meet the health assessment needs of electrostatic precipitators under varying conditions.

[0085] In conjunction with the first aspect, step S140 includes: S141, sum the product of the factor score and the corresponding factor weight of each influencing factor to obtain the health score of the electrostatic precipitator.

[0086] By using weighted summation calculations, the final score is determined by key factors. The health status evaluation of the six dimensions is combined into a single, comprehensive health score, which makes it easier for managers to quickly understand the overall status of the equipment, make horizontal comparisons between different equipment, and make maintenance decisions based on quantitative data.

[0087] In conjunction with the first aspect, the failure factors include the first to fourth evaluation indicators; step S130 calculates the factor scores of the influencing factors, specifically including: S134, obtain historical operating data within the preset statistical period.

[0088] Retrieving all fault and alarm records from a pre-defined time period (e.g., the last 24 hours or the last week) from a database or monitoring system ensures that the assessment is not based on a snapshot of a moment, but on the cumulative situation over a period of time, thus avoiding the omission of transient but important faults.

[0089] S135, based on historical operating data, determine whether there is target data that matches the first evaluation indicator.

[0090] Searching the historical data obtained in S134, based on a pre-established fault knowledge base or coding rules, it is determined whether there are any events classified as the first evaluation indicator (i.e., level one red major fault or alarm). For example, any record that matches the alarm code or fault description with the level one fault list such as "ash bucket structure failure" or "steel support ultimate load" will be identified as "target data".

[0091] If so, proceed to step S136.

[0092] S136, assign the factor score of the fault factor to zero.

[0093] If the judgment result of S135 is "yes" (i.e., there is at least one Level 1 red major fault or alarm target data), then regardless of the situation of other Level 2, 3, and 4 faults (no matter how many times they occur), the final score of the entire fault factor will be forcibly set to 0. This step is to implement the "one-vote veto" mechanism.

[0094] Thus, since the fault factor carries a significant weight (e.g., 20%) in the overall health score (step S141), if the judgment result in step S135 is "yes," its score suddenly becomes 0, causing a sharp drop in the overall health score of the electrostatic precipitator, which could very likely directly cause it to fall into the "poor" category. This forces maintenance personnel to immediately interrupt routine work and prioritize handling this major fault, thereby avoiding a potentially serious safety accident.

[0095] Understandably, if there is no target data for a Level 1 red major fault or alarm, the "one-vote veto" mechanism will not be triggered, and the factor score calculation for the fault factor will be performed according to steps S131-S133.

[0096] In conjunction with the first aspect, the technical factors include: dust removal efficiency, outlet dust concentration, specific power consumption, energy efficiency ratio, resistance, air leakage rate, and availability. Safety factors include: installation quality, operation and maintenance management level, operating flue gas temperature, flue gas ammonia escape, flue gas SO2 corrosion, shell negative pressure, ash hopper level control, ash hopper operating temperature, environmental acid and alkali corrosion, and wind load. Life factors include: remaining design life, health status of electrical equipment, health status of instrumentation equipment, health status of mechanical equipment, maintenance status of electrical equipment, maintenance status of instrumentation equipment, and maintenance status of mechanical equipment; Corrosion factors include: SO2 corrosion in flue gas, high chloride ion corrosion in flue gas, high humidity corrosion in flue gas, low temperature condensation corrosion, and ammonium bisulfate corrosion in flue gas; Environmental factors include: environmental acid and alkali corrosion, climate humidity, and operating flue gas temperature.

[0097] In conjunction with the first aspect, after step S150, the following also includes: The current display page is rendered based on the target health assessment results, so that the target health assessment results are displayed on the display page.

[0098] Specifically, the "target health assessment result" in step S150 includes assessment conclusions such as "excellent", "good", "average", and "poor". Specifically, when the final score is ≥90, the assessment conclusion is "excellent"; when 75≤final score<90, the assessment conclusion is "good"; when 60≤final score<75, the assessment conclusion is "average"; and when the final score<60, the assessment conclusion is "poor".

[0099] In practice, an online health status assessment result display program is built and integrated into the human-computer interaction device to display the real-time health status of the electrostatic precipitator. After calculating the health score and comparing it with a preset health threshold, the program displays the health score and target health assessment results. It can also display the operational data of each assessment indicator within each influencing factor, factor scores, and other data in real time. Furthermore, it can convert the data into graphical representations for intuitive display through a combination of text and graphics.

[0100] In conjunction with the first aspect, the scoring rules for the technology factor are based on the comparison between the actual operating value and the target value.

[0101] The specific method is as follows: For each evaluation indicator (such as dust removal efficiency, outlet concentration, specific power consumption, etc.), a preset "target value" or "benchmark value" (usually a design value, performance guarantee value, or optimal operating value) is set. The actual operating value collected in real time is compared with the target value, and a score is calculated based on the comparison result using preset mapping rules. For example, when "actual value ≤ target value," 100 points are awarded; when "actual value > target value," points are deducted according to the rules for each deviation beyond a certain range, up to 0 points; or, "actual value reaches target value," 80 points are awarded, with points added for performance exceeding the target value and points deducted for performance falling short. This directly quantifies the deviation between current performance and the ideal state, reflecting the equipment's technical level.

[0102] The scoring rules for failure factors are based on the comparison of the number of occurrences of operational data that meet the first to fourth evaluation indicators within a specified period with the specified values.

[0103] Specifically, the system counts faults occurring within a fixed period (e.g., the last 30 days) and categorizes them into four levels. For level two to four faults, the scoring rule is: aim for zero occurrences; the more faults that occur, the more points are deducted. For example, each level two fault deducts 50 points, and each level four fault deducts 10 points. For level one faults (red critical faults), a special "one-vote veto" rule is applied: if a fault occurs once or more within the statistical period, its total score is immediately set to 0. This is the most important and highest priority rule. This quantifies the reliability and stability of equipment operation and imposes extremely severe penalties on critical faults to trigger the highest-level alarm.

[0104] In this embodiment, for quantifiable indicators (such as flue gas ammonia escape, shell negative pressure, and ash hopper operating temperature), a rule comparing actual values ​​with target values ​​is used, similar to the technical factors. For example, ammonia escape ≤3ppm scores 100 points, 3-5ppm scores 80 points, and so on. For qualitative evaluation indicators (such as installation quality, operation and maintenance management level, and environmental acid and alkali corrosion), a rating method is used. The system or a technician first determines whether the current state belongs to a predefined level such as "excellent," "average," or "poor," and then directly assigns the corresponding score (e.g., 100 points, 80 points, 60 points). Thus, the current safety status and potential risks of the equipment are comprehensively evaluated, including both real-time operating parameters and long-term management and environmental factors.

[0105] Please see Figure 2 The operating condition configuration module 21 and the data acquisition and storage module 22 are both connected to the industrial control computer 23. The online health status assessment method for the electrostatic precipitator is encapsulated as an online health status assessment model 24 for the electrostatic precipitator, which is also integrated into the industrial control computer 23. The industrial control computer 23 is connected to the human-machine interaction module 25. Each control in the human-machine interaction module 25 is bound to a specific function, which can respond to user operations in real time and visualize and interactively process the real-time analysis results output by the online health status assessment model 24 for the electrostatic precipitator.

[0106] In this embodiment, the core function of the human-computer interaction module 25 is to intuitively present the real-time analysis results of various health indicators of the electrostatic precipitator in the form of graphical charts, which mainly include: real-time factor scores of six major influencing factors (technical factors, fault factors, safety factors, life factors, corrosion factors and environmental factors); the health status score of the electrostatic precipitator and the target health assessment results (such as "excellent", "good", "average" and "poor").

[0107] Secondly, embodiments of this application also provide a health status assessment device for an electrostatic precipitator, combined with... Figure 3As shown, the device includes: an acquisition module 10, a first determination module 20, a first calculation module 30, a second calculation module 40, and a second determination module 50.

[0108] The acquisition module 10 is used to acquire operating data during the operation of the electrostatic precipitator in order to determine multiple influencing factors.

[0109] The first determining module 20 is used to determine the factor weight of each influencing factor based on a preset first weight configuration rule.

[0110] The first calculation module 30 is used to calculate the factor score of each impact factor based on the operating data of multiple evaluation indicators under the impact factor and the preset scoring rules.

[0111] The second calculation module 40 is used to calculate the health score of the electrostatic precipitator by combining the factor scores of all influencing factors and their corresponding factor weights.

[0112] The second determining module 50 is used to determine the target health assessment result based on the comparison between the health score and the preset health threshold.

[0113] Among them, the influencing factors include at least: technical factors, failure factors, safety factors, lifespan factors, corrosion factors, and environmental factors.

[0114] Thirdly, embodiments of this application provide an electronic device, combined with Figure 4 As shown, the electronic device includes a memory 131 and a processor 130. The memory 131 stores a computer program, and the processor 130 runs the computer program to make the electronic device perform the above-described method.

[0115] Furthermore, combined Figure 4 The electronic device shown also includes a bus 132 and a communication interface 133, with the processor 130, the communication interface 133 and the memory 131 connected via the bus 132.

[0116] The memory 131 may include high-speed random access memory (RAM) and may also include non-volatile memory, such as at least one disk storage device. Communication between this system network element and at least one other network element is achieved through at least one communication interface 133 (which can be wired or wireless), such as the Internet, wide area network, local area network, metropolitan area network, etc. The bus 132 may be an ISA bus, PCI bus, or EISA bus, etc. The bus can be divided into address bus, data bus, control bus, etc. For ease of representation, Figure 4 The symbol is represented by a single double-headed arrow, but this does not mean that there is only one bus or one type of bus.

[0117] Processor 130 may be an integrated circuit chip with signal processing capabilities. In implementation, each step of the above method can be completed by the integrated logic circuitry in the hardware of processor 130 or by instructions in software form. Processor 130 may be a general-purpose processor, including a Central Processing Unit (CPU), a Network Processor (NP), etc.; it may also be a Digital Signal Processor (DSP), an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC), a Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA), or other programmable logic devices, discrete gate or transistor logic devices, or discrete hardware components. It can implement or execute the methods, steps, and logic block diagrams disclosed in the embodiments of this invention. The general-purpose processor may be a microprocessor or any conventional processor. The steps of the methods disclosed in the embodiments of this invention can be directly manifested as execution by a hardware decoding processor, or execution by a combination of hardware and software modules in the decoding processor. The software module can reside in a mature storage medium in the art, such as random access memory, flash memory, read-only memory, programmable read-only memory, electrically erasable programmable memory, or registers. This storage medium is located in memory 131, and processor 130 reads the information in memory 131 and, in conjunction with its hardware, completes the steps of the method described in the foregoing embodiments.

[0118] Fourthly, embodiments of this application provide a readable storage medium storing computer program instructions, which are read and executed by a processor to perform the above-described method.

[0119] Those skilled in the art will clearly understand that, for the sake of convenience and brevity, the specific working process of the system and apparatus described above can be referred to the corresponding process in the foregoing method embodiments, and will not be repeated here.

[0120] Furthermore, in the description of the embodiments of the present invention, unless otherwise explicitly specified and limited, the terms "installation," "connection," and "linking" should be interpreted broadly. For example, they can refer to a fixed connection, a detachable connection, or an integral connection; they can refer to a mechanical connection or an electrical connection; they can refer to a direct connection or an indirect connection through an intermediate medium; and they can refer to the internal connection of two components. Those skilled in the art can understand the specific meaning of the above terms in the present invention based on the specific circumstances.

[0121] If the aforementioned functions are implemented as software functional units and sold or used as independent products, they can be stored in a computer-readable storage medium. Based on this understanding, the technical solution of this invention, essentially, or the part that contributes to the prior art, or a portion of the technical solution, can be embodied in the form of a software product. This computer software product is stored in a storage medium and includes several instructions to cause a computer device (which may be a personal computer, server, or network device, etc.) to execute all or part of the steps of the methods described in the various embodiments of this invention. The aforementioned storage medium includes various media capable of storing program code, such as USB flash drives, portable hard drives, read-only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), magnetic disks, or optical disks.

[0122] In the description of this invention, it should be noted that the terms "center," "upper," "lower," "left," "right," "vertical," "horizontal," "inner," and "outer," etc., indicate the orientation or positional relationship based on the orientation or positional relationship shown in the accompanying drawings. They are used only for the convenience of describing the invention and for simplifying the description, and do not indicate or imply that the device or element referred to must have a specific orientation, or be constructed and operated in a specific orientation. Therefore, they should not be construed as limitations on the invention. Furthermore, the terms "first," "second," and "third" are used for descriptive purposes only and should not be construed as indicating or implying relative importance.

[0123] Finally, it should be noted that the above embodiments are merely specific implementations of the present invention, used to illustrate the technical solutions of the present invention, and not to limit it. The scope of protection of the present invention is not limited thereto. Although the present invention has been described in detail with reference to the foregoing embodiments, those skilled in the art should understand that any person skilled in the art can still modify or easily conceive of changes to the technical solutions described in the foregoing embodiments within the technical scope disclosed in the present invention, or make equivalent substitutions for some of the technical features; and these modifications, changes, or substitutions do not cause the essence of the corresponding technical solutions to deviate from the spirit and scope of the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention, and should all be covered within the scope of protection of the present invention. Therefore, the scope of protection of the present invention should be determined by the scope of the claims.

Claims

1. A method for assessing the health status of an electrostatic precipitator, characterized in that, The method includes: To obtain operational data during the operation of the electrostatic precipitator in order to identify multiple influencing factors; Based on the preset first weight configuration rule, the factor weight of each of the influencing factors is determined; For each of the aforementioned impact factors, a factor score is calculated based on the operational data of multiple evaluation indicators under the impact factor and the preset scoring rules. The health score of the electrostatic precipitator is calculated by combining the factor scores of all the influencing factors and their corresponding factor weights. Based on the comparison between the health score and the preset health threshold, the target health assessment result is determined; Among them, the influencing factors include at least: technical factors, failure factors, safety factors, lifespan factors, corrosion factors, and environmental factors.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The steps for calculating the factor score of the impact factor based on the operational data of multiple evaluation indicators under the impact factor and the preset scoring rules include: For each of the aforementioned influencing factors, the weight of each evaluation indicator under the aforementioned influencing factor is determined based on a preset second weight configuration rule; For each evaluation indicator, the indicator score is calculated based on the corresponding operating data and the preset scoring rules. The factor score of the influencing factor is obtained by summing the products of the index score and the index weight of each evaluation index.

3. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, By combining the factor scores of all the influencing factors and their corresponding factor weights, the health score of the electrostatic precipitator is calculated, including: The health score of the electrostatic precipitator is obtained by summing the product of the factor score and the corresponding factor weight of each influencing factor.

4. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The failure factors include the first to fourth evaluation indicators; The steps for calculating the factor scores of the impact factors include: Obtain historical operational data within a preset statistical period; Based on the historical operational data, determine whether there is target data that matches the first evaluation indicator; If so, assign a factor score of zero to the fault factor.

5. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The technical factors include: dust removal efficiency, outlet dust concentration, specific power consumption, energy efficiency ratio, resistance, air leakage rate, and availability. The safety factors include: installation quality, operation and maintenance management level, operating flue gas temperature, flue gas ammonia escape, flue gas SO2 corrosion, shell negative pressure, ash hopper level control, ash hopper operating temperature, environmental acid and alkali corrosion, and wind load. The lifespan factors include: remaining design life, health status of electrical equipment, health status of instrumentation equipment, health status of mechanical equipment, maintenance status of electrical equipment, maintenance status of instrumentation equipment, and maintenance status of mechanical equipment. The corrosive agents include: flue gas SO2 corrosion, flue gas high chloride ion corrosion, flue gas high humidity corrosion, low temperature condensation corrosion, and flue gas ammonium bisulfate corrosion; The environmental factors include: environmental acid and alkali corrosion, climate humidity, and operating flue gas temperature.

6. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, After determining the target health assessment result based on the comparison between the health score and the preset health threshold, the method further includes: The current display page is rendered based on the target health assessment results to display the target health assessment results on the display page.

7. The method according to claim 3, characterized in that, The scoring rules for the technical factors are based on the comparison between actual operating values ​​and target values. The scoring rules for the fault factors are based on the comparison of the number of occurrences of the operating data that meet the first to fourth evaluation indicators within a specified period with a specified value.

8. A health status assessment device for an electrostatic precipitator, characterized in that, The device includes: The acquisition module is used to acquire operational data during the operation of the electrostatic precipitator in order to determine multiple influencing factors; The first determining module is used to determine the factor weight of each of the influencing factors based on a preset first weight configuration rule; The first calculation module is used to calculate the factor score of each of the impact factors based on the operating data of multiple evaluation indicators under the impact factor and the preset scoring rules. The second calculation module is used to calculate the health score of the electrostatic precipitator by combining the factor scores of all the influencing factors and their corresponding factor weights. The second determining module is used to determine the target health assessment result based on the comparison relationship between the health score and the preset health threshold; Among them, the influencing factors include at least: technical factors, failure factors, safety factors, lifespan factors, corrosion factors, and environmental factors.

9. An electronic device, characterized in that, The electronic device includes a memory and a processor, the memory storing a computer program and the processor running the computer program to cause the electronic device to perform the method of any one of claims 1 to 7.

10. A storage medium, characterized in that, The storage medium stores computer program instructions, which, when read and executed by a processor, perform the method described in any one of claims 1 to 7.

Images