Railway traction power supply system interface matching evaluation method and device and electronic equipment

Abstract

The invention provides a railway traction power supply system interface matching evaluation method and device and electronic equipment, and relates to the technical field of railways, and the method comprises the steps: determining a system interface of a railway traction power supply system; determining an evaluation index of the system interface and an importance data set of the evaluation index; the evaluation index is an interface matching evaluation index; determining an optimal combination weight of the evaluation indexes based on the importance data set; and based on the evaluation index and the optimal combination weight, determining the interface matching degree of the system interface through a weighting method. Through the mode, objective evaluation indexes are established for the system interface of the railway traction power supply system, and the interface matching degree of the system interface is determined through a weighting method based on the evaluation indexes and the optimal combination weight, so that the evaluation process can be prevented from being influenced by human subjective factors, the objectivity and effectiveness of an evaluation result can be effectively ensured, and the evaluation accuracy is improved. And scientific and quantitative evaluation of interface matching is realized.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of railway technology, and in particular to a method, apparatus, and electronic equipment for evaluating the interface compatibility of a railway traction power supply system. Background Technology

[0002] The system interface of a railway traction power supply system refers to the common working interface formed between different subsystems, different components (such as mobile equipment, civil engineering systems, traction power supply systems, communication and signaling systems, operation and maintenance systems, etc.), and different subsystems with the external environment throughout the entire lifecycle of the system, including system design, construction, operation, and maintenance. Interface compatibility assessment evaluates the degree to which different subsystems in a railway traction power supply system cooperate and coordinate to complete their intended functions and performance. Interface compatibility assessment effectively evaluates whether different subsystems in a railway traction power supply system can interact and work together efficiently and safely, thereby assessing the compatibility and integrity between different subsystems. It also helps identify problems in the integration process of the railway traction power supply system, ensuring its efficient and safe operation.

[0003] Currently, the interface compatibility assessment of railway traction power supply systems is mostly conducted qualitatively and manually. This method suffers from strong subjectivity, relying on human experience and intuition. The assessment results are easily influenced by personal experience and preferences, making it difficult to guarantee the objectivity and validity of the assessment results. Summary of the Invention

[0004] This invention provides a method, apparatus, and electronic device for evaluating the interface compatibility of a railway traction power supply system, which addresses the shortcomings of existing methods for evaluating the interface compatibility of railway traction power supply systems, which are easily affected by subjective human factors and make it difficult to guarantee the objectivity and effectiveness of the evaluation results.

[0005] This invention provides a method for evaluating the interface compatibility of a railway traction power supply system, comprising: determining the system interface of the railway traction power supply system; determining the evaluation index of the system interface and the importance dataset of the evaluation index; the evaluation index being the interface compatibility evaluation index; determining the optimal combination weight of the evaluation index based on the importance dataset; and determining the interface compatibility degree of the system interface based on the evaluation index and the optimal combination weight using a weighted method.

[0006] According to the present invention, a method for evaluating the interface compatibility of a railway traction power supply system is provided. The importance dataset of the evaluation indicators includes multiple evaluation experience data and historical railway test data. Based on the importance dataset, the optimal combination weight of the evaluation indicators is determined, including: determining the subjective weight of the evaluation indicators based on multiple evaluation experience data using the group hierarchical analysis method; determining the objective weight of the evaluation indicators based on historical railway test data using the entropy weight method; and determining the optimal combination weight of the evaluation indicators based on the subjective weight and the objective weight.

[0007] According to the present invention, a method for evaluating the interface compatibility of a railway traction power supply system determines the optimal combination weight of evaluation indicators based on subjective weights and objective weights. The method includes: determining initial combination weights based on subjective weights and their corresponding subjective weight decision factors, and objective weights and their corresponding objective weight decision factors; optimizing the initial combination weights based on a strategy model to obtain optimal subjective weight decision factors and optimal objective weight decision factors; and determining the optimal combination weight of evaluation indicators based on subjective weights and their corresponding optimal subjective weight decision factors, and objective weights and their corresponding optimal objective weight decision factors.

[0008] According to the interface compatibility evaluation method for railway traction power supply system provided by the present invention, the expression for the optimal combination weight is: ; in, The optimal combination of weights; The optimal subjective weight decision factor; The optimal objective weight decision factor; This indicates the transpose of subjective weighting; This represents the transpose of the objective weights.

[0009] According to the present invention, a method for evaluating the interface compatibility of a railway traction power supply system is provided, and the expression of the strategy model is as follows: ; in, This indicates taking the minimum value; Subjective weighting decision factors; As objective weighted decision factors; This indicates the transpose of subjective weighting; This represents the transpose of the objective weights.

[0010] According to the present invention, a method for evaluating the interface compatibility of a railway traction power supply system includes at least one evaluation index. The method determines the interface compatibility degree of the system interface using a weighted method based on the evaluation index and the optimal combination weight. This includes: determining the compatibility degree of each evaluation index based on its actual value and its required value; an actual value is determined based on the actual performance data of the system interface on one evaluation index; and the interface compatibility degree of the system interface is determined using a weighted method based on the compatibility degree of each evaluation index and the optimal combination weight.

[0011] According to the present invention, a method for evaluating the interface compatibility of a railway traction power supply system is provided. The system interface includes a first system interface, a second system interface, a third system interface, a fourth system interface, a fifth system interface, and a sixth system interface. The first system interface is the interface between the mobile equipment and the traction power supply system; the second system interface is the interface between the mobile equipment and the operation and maintenance system; the third system interface is the interface between the traction power supply system and the operation and maintenance system; the fourth system interface is the interface between the traction power supply system and the communication and signaling system; the fifth system interface is the interface between the communication and signaling system and the mobile equipment; and the sixth system interface is the interface between the communication and signaling system and the operation and maintenance system.

[0012] According to the present invention, a method for evaluating the interface compatibility of a railway traction power supply system includes the following evaluation indicators: First, the evaluation indicators for the system interface include the matching relationship between the train wheel circumference traction power and the grid voltage level of the traction power supply arm; the grid voltage rise caused by train regenerative braking; the matching relationship between high current and the rated operating voltage and current of power electronic equipment; and the matching relationship between the rated voltage of the auxiliary power supply system for mobile equipment and the rated voltage of the ground power supply. Second, the evaluation indicators for the system interface include the matching relationship between the train wheel circumference traction force, the braking force and the interval running time, and the matching relationship between the train's self-propelled mileage and the distance between emergency rescue stations. Third, the evaluation indicators for the system interface include the matching relationship between the power supply capacity and the number of trains operating within a single power supply arm. Fourth, the evaluation indicators for the system interface include the matching relationship between the traction power supply grounding return current and the integrated grounding; the matching relationship between electrical phase separation and automatic phase transition; and the matching relationship between electrical section separation and automatic phase transition. Fifth, the evaluation indicators for the system interface include the matching relationship between onboard equipment and the car body. Sixth, the evaluation indicators for the system interface include the matching relationship between the train control system and the interconnected transport organization mode, and the matching relationship between the performance of the communication signal system and the tracking interval.

[0013] The present invention also provides a railway traction power supply system interface matching evaluation device, comprising: an interface determination module for determining the system interface of the railway traction power supply system; an evaluation index determination module for determining the evaluation index of the system interface and the importance dataset of the evaluation index; the evaluation index is an interface matching evaluation index; a weight determination module for determining the optimal combination weight of the evaluation index based on the importance dataset; and an interface matching degree determination module for determining the interface matching degree of the system interface based on the evaluation index and the optimal combination weight, using a weighted method.

[0014] The present invention also provides an electronic device, including a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the processor executes the computer program to implement any of the above-described methods for evaluating the interface compatibility of a railway traction power supply system.

[0015] The present invention provides a method, apparatus, and electronic equipment for evaluating the interface compatibility of railway traction power supply systems. The method involves: identifying the system interfaces of the railway traction power supply system; determining the evaluation indicators and importance datasets for the system interfaces; using the importance datasets as interface compatibility evaluation indicators; determining the optimal combination weights of the evaluation indicators; and determining the interface compatibility degree of the system interfaces using a weighted method based on the evaluation indicators and the optimal combination weights. This approach establishes objective evaluation indicators for the system interfaces of railway traction power supply systems. The determination of the interface compatibility degree using a weighted method based on the evaluation indicators and the optimal combination weights avoids the influence of subjective human factors during the evaluation process, effectively ensuring the objectivity and validity of the evaluation results, and achieving a scientific and quantitative evaluation of interface compatibility. Attached Figure Description

[0016] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in this invention or the prior art, the drawings used in the description of the embodiments or the prior art will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings described below are some embodiments of this invention. For those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained from these drawings without creative effort.

[0017] Figure 1 This is one of the flowcharts illustrating the interface compatibility evaluation method for railway traction power supply systems provided by this invention.

[0018] Figure 2 This is the second flowchart of the railway traction power supply system interface matching evaluation method provided by the present invention.

[0019] Figure 3 This is the third flowchart of the railway traction power supply system interface matching evaluation method provided by the present invention.

[0020] Figure 4This is a schematic diagram illustrating the matching relationship between the train wheel circumference traction power and the grid voltage level of the traction power supply arm, provided by the present invention.

[0021] Figure 5 This is a schematic diagram of the interface compatibility evaluation device for railway traction power supply system provided by the present invention.

[0022] Figure 6 This is a schematic diagram of the structure of the electronic device provided by the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0023] To make the objectives, technical solutions, and advantages of this invention clearer, the technical solutions of this invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some, not all, of the embodiments of this invention. All other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art based on the embodiments of this invention without creative effort are within the scope of protection of this invention.

[0024] Please see Figures 1 to 4 , Figure 1 This is one of the flowcharts illustrating the interface compatibility evaluation method for railway traction power supply systems provided by the present invention. Figure 2 This is the second flowchart of the railway traction power supply system interface matching evaluation method provided by the present invention. Figure 3 This is the third flowchart of the railway traction power supply system interface matching evaluation method provided by the present invention. Figure 4 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the matching relationship between the train wheel circumference traction power and the grid voltage level of the traction power supply arm, as provided by this invention. Figure 1 As shown, in this embodiment, the railway traction power supply system interface compatibility evaluation method includes steps S110 to S140, and the specific steps are as follows: S110: Determine the system interface of the railway traction power supply system.

[0025] like Figure 2 As shown, in the interface matching assessment of railway traction power supply system, the assessment object is the system interface of railway traction power supply system. Considering railway line conditions and environmental characteristics, the system interface refers to the common working interface formed between different subsystems (such as mobile equipment, civil engineering system, traction power supply system, communication signal system, operation and maintenance system, etc.) and between different subsystems and the external environment throughout the entire life cycle of system design, construction, operation and maintenance.

[0026] Specifically, obtain the railway system interface list, which records all system interfaces of the railway traction power supply system.

[0027] S120: Determine the evaluation metrics for the system interfaces and the importance dataset for those metrics.

[0028] The evaluation metric is the interface compatibility evaluation metric.

[0029] Optionally, the system interfaces include a first system interface, a second system interface, a third system interface, a fourth system interface, a fifth system interface, and a sixth system interface.

[0030] The first system interface is the interface between the mobile equipment and the traction power supply system. The evaluation indicators of the first system interface include the matching relationship between the train wheel circumference traction power and the grid voltage level of the traction power supply arm, the grid voltage rise caused by the train regenerative braking, the matching relationship between the high current and the rated operating voltage and current of the power electronic equipment, and the matching relationship between the rated voltage of the mobile equipment auxiliary power supply system and the rated voltage of the ground power supply.

[0031] The second system interface is the interface between mobile equipment and the operation and maintenance system. The evaluation indicators of the second system interface include the train wheel circumference traction force, the matching relationship between braking force and interval running time, and the matching relationship between train self-propelled mileage and emergency rescue station spacing.

[0032] The third system interface is the interface between the traction power supply system and the operation and maintenance system. The evaluation indicators of the third system interface include the matching relationship between the power supply capacity and the number of trains operating in a single power supply arm.

[0033] The fourth system interface is the interface between the traction power supply system and the communication signal system. The evaluation indicators of the fourth system interface include the matching relationship between the traction power supply grounding return current and the integrated grounding, the matching relationship between electrical phase separation and automatic phase transition, and the matching relationship between electrical segmentation and automatic phase transition.

[0034] The fifth system interface is the interface between the communication signal system and the mobile equipment. The evaluation indicators of the fifth system interface include the matching relationship between the on-board equipment and the vehicle body.

[0035] The sixth system interface is the interface between the communication and signaling system and the operation and maintenance system. The evaluation indicators for the sixth system interface include the matching relationship between the train control system and the interconnected transport organization mode, and the matching relationship between the performance of the communication and signaling system and the tracking interval.

[0036] Specifically, for each system interface, all evaluation metrics for that system interface and the importance dataset for each evaluation metric are determined.

[0037] Among them, the evaluation index refers to the interface matching evaluation index, which is used to evaluate the degree to which different subsystems that make up a common working interface cooperate and coordinate to complete their intended functions and performance; the importance dataset of the evaluation index includes relevant data that can reflect the importance of the interface matching evaluation index.

[0038] Optionally, taking into account the typical characteristics of railway geology, topography, climate, and meteorology, and from the perspectives of achieving functions such as speed, rescue, and interconnection, as well as performance aspects such as system operation safety, stability, and comfort, multiple perspectives such as comprehensiveness, comparability, systematicness, and coordination, as well as three aspects of technical attributes, responsibility attributes, and collaborative attributes, are considered to establish evaluation indicators for each system interface that meet the requirements of compatibility, coordination, and dynamic balance.

[0039] Optionally, the dataset for assessing the importance of the indicators includes assessment experience data from at least three railway experts and at least one set of historical railway test data.

[0040] S130: Determine the optimal combination of weights for evaluation metrics based on the importance dataset.

[0041] Specifically, for each system interface, based on the importance dataset, the optimal combination weight of evaluation indicators is determined through a preset processing method.

[0042] Optionally, the preset processing method is a game theory-based combinatorial weighting method, which includes group hierarchical analysis and entropy weighting.

[0043] S140: Based on the evaluation indicators and the optimal combination of weights, the interface matching degree of the system interface is determined by a weighted method.

[0044] Specifically, for each system interface, the interface matching degree of the system interface is determined by a weighted method based on the evaluation index of the system interface and the optimal combination weight.

[0045] The railway traction power supply system interface matching evaluation method provided in this embodiment identifies the system interface of the railway traction power supply system; determines the evaluation indicators of the system interface and the importance dataset of the evaluation indicators; the evaluation indicators are interface matching evaluation indicators; based on the importance dataset, the optimal combination weight of the evaluation indicators is determined; based on the evaluation indicators and the optimal combination weight, the interface matching degree of the system interface is determined by a weighted method. Through the above method, objective evaluation indicators are established for the system interface of the railway traction power supply system. The interface matching degree of the system interface is determined by a weighted method based on the evaluation indicators and the optimal combination weight. This avoids the influence of subjective factors in the evaluation process, effectively ensuring the objectivity and validity of the evaluation results, and achieving a scientific and quantitative evaluation of interface matching.

[0046] In some embodiments, the importance dataset for the evaluation indicators includes multiple evaluation experience data and historical railway test data; based on the importance dataset, the optimal combination weight of the evaluation indicators is determined, including: determining the subjective weight of the evaluation indicators based on multiple evaluation experience data using the group analytic hierarchy process; determining the objective weight of the evaluation indicators based on historical railway test data using the entropy weight method; and determining the optimal combination weight of the evaluation indicators based on the subjective weight and the objective weight.

[0047] In this embodiment, the importance dataset for the evaluation indicators includes evaluation experience data from at least three railway experts and at least one set of historical railway test data.

[0048] For an evaluation index of a system interface, its subjective weight can be determined by using the group analytic hierarchy process based on the evaluation experience data of multiple railway field experts corresponding to the evaluation index.

[0049] Specifically, a system interface includes at least one evaluation metric. For each system interface, according to the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), all evaluation metrics of that system interface can be ranked according to importance, and the ranking result can be transformed into a judgment matrix to calculate the subjective weight of each evaluation metric. Assuming the evaluation metrics of the system interface... Importance is Evaluation metrics for system interfaces Importance is ,like Then the evaluation indicators and evaluation indicators The importance comparison value can be denoted as ;like Then the evaluation indicators and evaluation indicators The importance comparison value can be denoted as Then the judgment matrix The expression is: ; ; in, The number of evaluation metrics for system interfaces; The number of experts in the railway field; For the first Evaluation indicators provided by railway experts relative to evaluation indicators Importance comparison value, The larger the value, the better the evaluation indicator. Compared to evaluation indicators More important.

[0050] Furthermore, based on the judgment matrix The eigenvector corresponding to the largest eigenvalue The subjective weights of each evaluation indicator can be calculated. , The expression is: ; in, Railway experts Evaluation indicators The evaluation value (i.e., subjective weight).

[0051] Railway experts and railway experts The degree of difference in evaluation between them can be measured by Euclidean distance. express: ; in, For railway experts Evaluation indicators Evaluation value; For railway experts Evaluation indicators Evaluation value; For railway experts Evaluation value; For railway experts The evaluation value.

[0052] satisfy: , The degree of difference in the evaluation values ​​of the same assessment indicator by the same expert. and For railway experts and railway experts The degree of difference in the evaluation values ​​of the same assessment indicator is equal in both cases. The smaller the value, the more it indicates expertise in the railway field. and railway experts The closer the judgments of importance of the same evaluation indicator, the better. This indicates that railway experts and railway experts The assessment of the importance of this evaluation indicator is completely consistent.

[0053] No. The similarity between the evaluation scores of one railway expert and those of all other railway experts is used as a measure. express: ; in, For the first The railway expert and the first The degree of difference in evaluation values ​​among railway experts.

[0054] From this, we can conclude that the first Weighting coefficients of railway experts for: ; Based on the above, the subjective weights of the evaluation indicators determined by the group analytic hierarchy process are... The expression is: .

[0055] Furthermore, for an evaluation index of a system interface, its objective weight can be determined based on the historical railway test data corresponding to the evaluation index, using the entropy weight method.

[0056] Specifically, based on The output entropy of each evaluation indicator is used to calculate the objective weight of the evaluation indicator. The expression for the output entropy of the evaluation index is: ; in, The number of evaluation indicators involved in collaboration; For the first The number of collaborative relationship chains for each evaluation indicator; This represents the total number of synergistic chains across all evaluation metrics.

[0057] because ,So Then there is Then the coefficient of difference The expression is: ; Based on the above, the objective weights of the evaluation indicators determined by the entropy weight method are... The expression is: .

[0058] Furthermore, based on subjective and objective weights, a compromise value is obtained by finding the minimum deviation between the two, thereby determining the optimal combination weights of the evaluation indicators and achieving the effect of interactive decision-making between subjective and objective factors.

[0059] In some embodiments, determining the optimal combination weights of evaluation indicators based on subjective weights and objective weights includes: determining initial combination weights based on subjective weights and their corresponding subjective weight decision factors, and objective weights and their corresponding objective weight decision factors; optimizing the initial combination weights based on a strategy model to obtain optimal subjective weight decision factors and optimal objective weight decision factors; and determining the optimal combination weights of evaluation indicators based on subjective weights and their corresponding optimal subjective weight decision factors, and objective weights and their corresponding optimal objective weight decision factors.

[0060] Specifically, for an evaluation metric of a system interface, based on its subjective weight. and subjective weight Corresponding subjective weight decision factors Objective weight and objective weight Corresponding objective weight decision factors Determine the initial combination weights Initial combined weights The expression is: ; in, Types of methods for assigning weights to evaluation indicators.

[0061] Furthermore, based on the game model, the initial combination weights are optimized to obtain the optimal subjective weight decision factor and the optimal objective weight decision factor.

[0062] Specifically, the expression for the game model is: ; in, This indicates taking the minimum value; Subjective weighting decision factors; As objective weighted decision factors; Indicates subjective weight transpose; Represents objective weight The transpose of .

[0063] Based on the properties of matrix differentiation, the optimal first-order reciprocal condition of the game model is calculated: .

[0064] Furthermore, the subjective weight decision factor is solved based on the optimal first-order reciprocal condition. and objective weighting decision factors After normalization, we have: ; in, The optimal subjective weight decision factor; It is the optimal objective weight decision factor.

[0065] Furthermore, based on subjective weighting and subjective weight Corresponding optimal subjective weight decision factor Objective weight and objective weight Corresponding optimal objective weight decision factor Determine the optimal combination of weights for the evaluation indicators. .

[0066] In some embodiments, the expression for the optimal combination of weights is: ; in, The optimal combination of weights; The optimal subjective weight decision factor; The optimal objective weight decision factor; This indicates the transpose of subjective weighting; This represents the transpose of the objective weights.

[0067] In some embodiments, the expression for the game model is: ; in, This indicates taking the minimum value; Subjective weighting decision factors; As objective weighted decision factors; This indicates the transpose of subjective weighting; This represents the transpose of the objective weights.

[0068] In some embodiments, the number of evaluation indicators is at least one; the interface matching degree of the system interface is determined by a weighted method based on the evaluation indicators and the optimal combination weights, including: determining the matching degree of each evaluation indicator based on the actual value of each evaluation indicator and the required value of each evaluation indicator; an actual value is determined based on the actual performance data of the system interface on an evaluation indicator; the interface matching degree of the system interface is determined by a weighted method based on the matching degree of each evaluation indicator and the optimal combination weights.

[0069] Specifically, a system interface includes at least one evaluation metric. For each evaluation metric of each system interface, the matching degree of the evaluation metric can be determined based on the actual value of the evaluation metric and the required value of the evaluation metric. The actual value of the evaluation metric refers to the actual performance value of the system interface on the evaluation metric.

[0070] Assume the first The actual value of each evaluation indicator is , No. The required value for each evaluation indicator is The system interface is in its first By comparing the actual values ​​with the required values ​​for each evaluation indicator, the system interface at the [number]th [period] can be calculated. Matching degree on the evaluation indicators : .

[0071] Furthermore, based on the matching degree of each evaluation indicator and the optimal combination weight, the interface matching degree of the system interface is determined by a weighted method.

[0072] Specifically, the interface matching degree of the system interface The expression is: .

[0073] It should be noted that, since the interface matching degree of the system interface is determined based on the actual performance data of all evaluation indicators of the system interface, the interface matching degree of the system interface... The expression can also be written as: ; in, This refers to the actual performance data for all evaluation indicators.

[0074] In this embodiment, interface matching degree It is a value between 0 and 100%, where 0 means the interface does not match and 100% means the interface matches perfectly.

[0075] It should be noted that, for each system interface, when the number of evaluation metrics is greater than one, the interface matching degree can be calculated based on all evaluation metrics and their corresponding optimal combination weights. When the number of evaluation indicators is equal to 1, the matching degree on a single evaluation indicator is the interface matching degree.

[0076] Optionally, after calculating the interface matching degree of all system interfaces, the interface matching degree of all system interfaces can be compared, and each system interface can be sorted according to the interface matching degree. The higher the interface matching degree, the better the interface matching.

[0077] The railway traction power supply system interface matching evaluation method provided in this embodiment establishes system interface matching evaluation indicators that meet compatibility, coordination, and dynamic balance from the perspectives of achieving functions such as speed, rescue, and interconnection, and performance such as system operation safety, stability, and comfort. Simultaneously, it calculates the subjective weights of the evaluation indicators based on the degree of importance differences among the interface matching evaluation indicators, calculates the objective weights of the evaluation indicators based on existing railway test historical data using the entropy weight method, and considers the conflict between the entropy weights and objective weights of the evaluation indicators according to game theory. By minimizing the deviation, it obtains the optimal combination weights of the evaluation indicators, realizing interactive decision-making between subjective and objective factors and a scientific and quantitative evaluation of interface matching.

[0078] In some embodiments, the system interface includes a first system interface, a second system interface, a third system interface, a fourth system interface, a fifth system interface, and a sixth system interface. The first system interface is the interface between the mobile equipment and the traction power supply system, the second system interface is the interface between the mobile equipment and the operation and maintenance system, the third system interface is the interface between the traction power supply system and the operation and maintenance system, the fourth system interface is the interface between the traction power supply system and the communication and signaling system, the fifth system interface is the interface between the communication and signaling system and the mobile equipment, and the sixth system interface is the interface between the communication and signaling system and the operation and maintenance system.

[0079] In some embodiments, the evaluation indicators for the first system interface include the matching relationship between the train wheel circumference traction power and the grid voltage level of the traction power supply arm, the grid voltage rise caused by train regenerative braking, the matching relationship between high current and the rated operating voltage and current of power electronic equipment, and the matching relationship between the rated voltage of the mobile equipment auxiliary power supply system and the rated voltage of the ground power supply; the evaluation indicators for the second system interface include the matching relationship between the train wheel circumference traction force, the matching relationship between braking force and interval running time, and the matching relationship between the train self-propelled mileage and the distance between emergency rescue stations; the evaluation indicators for the third system interface include the matching relationship between power supply capacity and the number of trains operating within a single power supply arm; the evaluation indicators for the fourth system interface include the matching relationship between traction power supply grounding return current and integrated grounding, the matching relationship between electrical phase separation and automatic phase crossing, and the matching relationship between electrical segmentation and automatic phase crossing; the evaluation indicators for the fifth system interface include the matching relationship between on-board equipment and the car body; and the evaluation indicators for the sixth system interface include the matching relationship between the train control system and the interconnected transport organization mode, and the matching relationship between the performance of the communication signal system and the tracking interval.

[0080] The present invention also provides a specific example of a method for evaluating the interface compatibility of railway traction power supply systems.

[0081] like Figure 3As shown, focusing on mobile equipment, the key consideration is the interface between mobile equipment and fixed infrastructure systems during the operation phase. A railway system interface list is constructed to clarify the evaluation objects. The railway system interface list records all system interfaces of the railway traction power supply system.

[0082] Furthermore, from the perspectives of interface implementation functions such as speed, rescue, and interconnection, and performance aspects such as system operation safety, stability, and comfort, we construct all interface matching evaluation indicators for all system interfaces and collect the importance dataset of the evaluation indicators.

[0083] Furthermore, based on game theory, the evaluation indicators are combined and weighted to obtain the optimal combination weights of the evaluation indicators.

[0084] Furthermore, based on the actual performance values ​​of the system interface's functions and the optimal combination of evaluation indicators, the interface matching degree is calculated.

[0085] like Figure 4 As shown, regarding the interface between mobile equipment and the traction power supply system, taking the matching relationship between the train wheel circumference traction power and the grid voltage level of the traction power supply arm as an example, the train wheel circumference traction power is optimally utilized when the grid voltage level of the traction power supply arm is within the range of 22.5kV to 29kV. When the actual grid voltage level of the railway traction power supply system's power supply arm is 20kV, under this evaluation index, the matching degree between the mobile equipment and the traction power supply system is 88.6%.

[0086] Taking the grid voltage rise caused by train regenerative braking and the matching relationship between high current and rated operating voltage and current of power electronic equipment as examples, during a long downhill slope of 28.5‰, the grid voltage rise caused by train regenerative braking is 0.6kV and the contact network voltage threshold is 0.8kV. Under this evaluation index, the matching degree between the mobile equipment and the traction power supply system is 100%.

[0087] Taking the matching relationship index between the rated voltage of the auxiliary power supply system of mobile equipment and the rated voltage of the ground power supply as an example, the ground charging facilities are installed in the rescue station at the long mileage end of the station. The rated voltage of the auxiliary power supply system of mobile equipment is AC400V, and the ground power supply box of the station can output AC380V and DC600V power. Under this evaluation index, the matching degree between the mobile equipment and the traction power supply system is 100%.

[0088] Taking the matching relationship between the traction power of the train wheel circumference and the power supply capacity of the traction power supply system as an example, when the traction power of the freight train wheel circumference is 19200kW, considering that the freight train tracking interval is 8 minutes, the power supply arm length is 25km, and the number of freight trains running in the same direction on a single power supply arm is 3, the total power consumption is 19200kW*3=57.6MVA. The transformer installation capacity that the current traction power supply system can provide is 50MVA, and the matching degree between the traction capacity of the freight locomotive and the power supply capacity of the traction power supply system is 86%.

[0089] Furthermore, considering the matching relationship between the train wheel circumference traction power and the grid voltage level of the traction power supply arm (i.e., index 1), the grid voltage rise caused by train regenerative braking and the matching relationship between high current and the rated operating voltage and current of power electronic equipment (i.e., index 2), the matching relationship between the rated voltage of the auxiliary power supply system of mobile equipment and the rated voltage of the ground power supply (i.e., index 3), and the matching relationship between the train wheel circumference traction power and the power supply capacity of the traction power supply system (i.e., index 4), three railway experts were selected to evaluate the importance of the four indicators. The scoring data of one expert is shown in Table 1. Table 1

[0090] Furthermore, through group hierarchical analysis, the subjective weights of the four evaluation indicators were obtained as follows: Using the entropy weight method, the objective weights of the four evaluation indicators were obtained as follows: Through the strategy model, the optimal combination weights of the four evaluation indicators are obtained as follows: .

[0091] The interface matching degree between the mobile equipment and the traction power supply system was calculated based on four evaluation indicators. .

[0092] This invention also provides a device for evaluating the interface compatibility of a railway traction power supply system. Please refer to [link / reference]. Figure 5 , Figure 5 This is a schematic diagram of the interface matching evaluation device for railway traction power supply system provided by the present invention. In this embodiment, the interface matching evaluation device for railway traction power supply system includes an interface determination module 510, an evaluation index determination module 520, a weight determination module 530, and an interface matching degree determination module 540.

[0093] Interface determination module 510 is used to determine the system interface of the railway traction power supply system.

[0094] The evaluation metric determination module 520 is used to determine the evaluation metrics for the system interface and the importance dataset of the evaluation metrics.

[0095] The evaluation metric is the interface compatibility evaluation metric.

[0096] The weight determination module 530 is used to determine the optimal combination of weights for evaluation metrics based on the importance dataset.

[0097] The interface matching degree determination module 540 is used to determine the interface matching degree of the system interface based on the evaluation index and the optimal combination weight, using a weighted method.

[0098] In some embodiments, the importance dataset for the evaluation indicators includes multiple evaluation experience data and historical railway test data.

[0099] The weight determination module 530 is used to determine the subjective weights of the evaluation indicators based on multiple evaluation experience data and through the group hierarchical analysis method; to determine the objective weights of the evaluation indicators based on historical railway test data and through the entropy weight method; and to determine the optimal combination weights of the evaluation indicators based on the subjective and objective weights.

[0100] In some embodiments, the weight determination module 530 is used to determine the initial combined weights based on subjective weights and their corresponding subjective weight decision factors, objective weights and their corresponding objective weight decision factors; optimize the initial combined weights based on the game model to obtain the optimal subjective weight decision factors and the optimal objective weight decision factors; and determine the optimal combined weights of the evaluation indicators based on the subjective weights and their corresponding optimal subjective weight decision factors, objective weights and their corresponding optimal objective weight decision factors.

[0101] In some embodiments, the expression for the optimal combination of weights is: ; in, The optimal combination of weights; The optimal subjective weight decision factor; The optimal objective weight decision factor; This indicates the transpose of subjective weighting; This represents the transpose of the objective weights.

[0102] In some embodiments, the expression for the game model is: ; in, This indicates taking the minimum value; Subjective weighting decision factors; As objective weighted decision factors; This indicates the transpose of subjective weighting; This represents the transpose of the objective weights.

[0103] In some embodiments, the number of evaluation metrics is at least one.

[0104] The interface matching degree determination module 540 is used to determine the matching degree of each evaluation indicator based on the actual value and the required value of each evaluation indicator. An actual value is determined based on the actual performance data of the system interface on an evaluation indicator. Based on the matching degree of each evaluation indicator and the optimal combination weight, the interface matching degree of the system interface is determined by a weighted method.

[0105] In some embodiments, the system interface includes a first system interface, a second system interface, a third system interface, a fourth system interface, a fifth system interface, and a sixth system interface. The first system interface is the interface between the mobile equipment and the traction power supply system, the second system interface is the interface between the mobile equipment and the operation and maintenance system, the third system interface is the interface between the traction power supply system and the operation and maintenance system, the fourth system interface is the interface between the traction power supply system and the communication and signaling system, the fifth system interface is the interface between the communication and signaling system and the mobile equipment, and the sixth system interface is the interface between the communication and signaling system and the operation and maintenance system.

[0106] In some embodiments, the evaluation indicators for the first system interface include the matching relationship between the train wheel circumference traction power and the grid voltage level of the traction power supply arm, the grid voltage rise caused by train regenerative braking, the matching relationship between high current and the rated operating voltage and current of power electronic equipment, and the matching relationship between the rated voltage of the mobile equipment auxiliary power supply system and the rated voltage of the ground power supply; the evaluation indicators for the second system interface include the matching relationship between the train wheel circumference traction force, the matching relationship between braking force and interval running time, and the matching relationship between the train self-propelled mileage and the distance between emergency rescue stations; the evaluation indicators for the third system interface include the matching relationship between power supply capacity and the number of trains operating within a single power supply arm; the evaluation indicators for the fourth system interface include the matching relationship between traction power supply grounding return current and integrated grounding, the matching relationship between electrical phase separation and automatic phase crossing, and the matching relationship between electrical segmentation and automatic phase crossing; the evaluation indicators for the fifth system interface include the matching relationship between on-board equipment and the car body; and the evaluation indicators for the sixth system interface include the matching relationship between the train control system and the interconnected transport organization mode, and the matching relationship between the performance of the communication signal system and the tracking interval.

[0107] The present invention also provides an electronic device. Figure 6 This is a schematic diagram of the structure of the electronic device provided by the present invention, such as... Figure 6As shown, the electronic device may include a processor 610, a communications interface 620, a memory 630, and a communication bus 640. The processor 610, communications interface 620, and memory 630 communicate with each other via the communication bus 640. The processor 610 can call logical instructions from the memory 630 to execute a railway traction power supply system interface compatibility evaluation method.

[0108] Furthermore, the logical instructions in the aforementioned memory 630 can be implemented as software functional units and, when sold or used as independent products, can be stored in a computer-readable storage medium. Based on this understanding, the technical solution of the present invention, in essence, or the part that contributes to the prior art, or a part 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 the present 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.

[0109] The device embodiments described above are merely illustrative. The units described as separate components may or may not be physically separate. The components shown as units may or may not be physical units; that is, they may be located in one place or distributed across multiple network units. Some or all of the modules can be selected to achieve the purpose of this embodiment according to actual needs. Those skilled in the art can understand and implement this without any creative effort.

[0110] Through the above description of the embodiments, those skilled in the art can clearly understand that each embodiment can be implemented by means of software plus necessary general-purpose hardware platforms, and of course, it can also be implemented by hardware. Based on this understanding, the above technical solutions, in essence or the part that contributes to the prior art, can be embodied in the form of a software product. This computer software product can be stored in a computer-readable storage medium, such as ROM / RAM, magnetic disk, optical disk, etc., and includes several instructions to cause a computer device (which may be a personal computer, server, or network device, etc.) to execute the methods described in the various embodiments or some parts of the embodiments.

[0111] Finally, it should be noted that the above embodiments are only used to illustrate the technical solutions of the present invention, and not to limit them; although the present invention has been described in detail with reference to the foregoing embodiments, those skilled in the art should understand that modifications can still be made to the technical solutions described in the foregoing embodiments, or equivalent substitutions can be made to some of the technical features; and these modifications 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.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating the interface compatibility of a railway traction power supply system, characterized in that, include: Determine the system interface of the railway traction power supply system; Determine the evaluation metrics for the system interface and the importance dataset for the evaluation metrics; The evaluation metric is the interface compatibility evaluation metric; Based on the importance dataset, determine the optimal combination weights of the evaluation indicators; Based on the evaluation indicators and the optimal combination weights, the interface matching degree of the system interface is determined by a weighted method.

2. The method for evaluating the interface compatibility of a railway traction power supply system according to claim 1, characterized in that, The importance dataset for the evaluation indicators includes multiple evaluation experience data and historical railway test data; Determining the optimal combination weights of the evaluation metrics based on the importance dataset includes: Based on multiple sets of evaluation experience data, the subjective weights of the evaluation indicators are determined using the group analytic hierarchy process. Based on the historical railway test data, the objective weights of the evaluation indicators are determined using the entropy weight method. Based on the subjective weights and the objective weights, the optimal combination weights of the evaluation indicators are determined.

3. The method for evaluating the interface compatibility of a railway traction power supply system according to claim 2, characterized in that, The determination of the optimal combination weights of the evaluation indicators based on the subjective weights and the objective weights includes: Based on the subjective weights and the subjective weight decision factors corresponding to the subjective weights, the objective weights and the objective weight decision factors corresponding to the objective weights, the initial combined weights are determined; Based on the game model, the initial combination weights are optimized to obtain the optimal subjective weight decision factor and the optimal objective weight decision factor; Based on the subjective weights and the optimal subjective weight decision factors corresponding to the subjective weights, and the objective weights and the optimal objective weight decision factors corresponding to the objective weights, the optimal combination weights of the evaluation indicators are determined.

4. The method for evaluating the interface compatibility of a railway traction power supply system according to claim 3, characterized in that, The expression for the optimal combination weights is: ； in, The optimal combination weights; The optimal subjective weight decision factor; The optimal objective weight decision factor; This represents the transpose of the subjective weights; This represents the transpose of the objective weights.

5. The method for evaluating the interface compatibility of a railway traction power supply system according to claim 3, characterized in that, The expression for the game model is: ； in, This indicates taking the minimum value; The subjective weight decision factor; The objective weight decision factor; This represents the transpose of the subjective weights; This represents the transpose of the objective weights.

6. The method for evaluating the interface compatibility of a railway traction power supply system according to claim 1, characterized in that, The number of evaluation indicators must be at least one; The determination of the interface matching degree of the system interface based on the evaluation index and the optimal combination weights, using a weighted method, includes: Based on the actual value and the required value of each evaluation indicator, the matching degree of each evaluation indicator is determined respectively; an actual value is determined based on the actual performance data of the system interface on a given evaluation indicator. Based on the matching degree of each evaluation index and the optimal combination weight, the interface matching degree of the system interface is determined by a weighted method.

7. The method for evaluating the interface compatibility of a railway traction power supply system according to claim 1, characterized in that, The system interfaces include a first system interface, a second system interface, a third system interface, a fourth system interface, a fifth system interface, and a sixth system interface. The first system interface is the interface between the mobile equipment and the traction power supply system; the second system interface is the interface between the mobile equipment and the operation and maintenance system; the third system interface is the interface between the traction power supply system and the operation and maintenance system; the fourth system interface is the interface between the traction power supply system and the communication and signaling system; the fifth system interface is the interface between the communication and signaling system and the mobile equipment; and the sixth system interface is the interface between the communication and signaling system and the operation and maintenance system.

8. The method for evaluating the interface compatibility of a railway traction power supply system according to claim 7, characterized in that, The evaluation indicators of the first system interface include the matching relationship between the train wheel circumference traction power and the grid voltage level of the traction power supply arm, the grid voltage rise caused by the train regenerative braking, the matching relationship between the high current and the rated operating voltage and current of the power electronic equipment, and the matching relationship between the rated voltage of the mobile equipment auxiliary power supply system and the rated voltage of the ground power supply. The evaluation indicators of the second system interface include the train wheel circumference traction force index, the matching relationship index between braking force and interval running time, and the matching relationship index between train self-running kilometers and emergency rescue station spacing; The evaluation metrics for the third system interface include a matching relationship metric between power supply capacity and the number of trains operating within a single power supply arm. The evaluation indicators of the fourth system interface include the matching relationship between traction power supply grounding return current and integrated grounding, the matching relationship between electrical phase separation and automatic phase transition, and the matching relationship between electrical segmentation and automatic phase transition. The evaluation metrics for the fifth system interface include the matching relationship metrics between the on-board equipment and the vehicle body; The evaluation metrics for the sixth system interface include the matching relationship between the train control system and the interconnected transport organization mode, and the matching relationship between the performance of the communication signaling system and the tracking interval.

9. A device for evaluating the interface compatibility of a railway traction power supply system, characterized in that, include: The interface determination module is used to determine the system interface of the railway traction power supply system; The evaluation index determination module is used to determine the evaluation indexes of the system interface and the importance dataset of the evaluation indexes; The evaluation metric is the interface compatibility evaluation metric; The weight determination module is used to determine the optimal combination weights of the evaluation indicators based on the importance dataset. The interface matching degree determination module is used to determine the interface matching degree of the system interface based on the evaluation index and the optimal combination weight, using a weighted method.

10. An electronic device comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and running on the processor, characterized in that, When the processor executes the computer program, it implements the railway traction power supply system interface compatibility evaluation method as described in any one of claims 1 to 8.

Images