Method and device for checking multi-carrier parameters of a hydropower project based on specification constraints

Abstract

The disclosure provides a kind of water and electricity engineering multi-carrier parameter verification method and device based on specification constraint, which comprises: standardizing treatment and layered coding are carried out to each original water and electricity engineering parameter in multiple carrier files, and the parameter set to be verified is obtained;Based on the pre-set water and electricity specification article, the corresponding two-division constraint association table of each water and electricity engineering parameter, the value deviation range of each water and electricity engineering parameter in different carrier files, and the corresponding value interval of each water and electricity engineering parameter under different working conditions are constructed;According to the first constraint, the second constraint, the value deviation range, and the corresponding value interval of each second water and electricity engineering parameter under different working conditions, each water and electricity engineering parameter in the parameter set to be verified is verified by hierarchical linkage, and the target water and electricity engineering parameter is obtained, and the parameter value of each target water and electricity engineering parameter in each working condition and risk quantization function are determined to determine the target risk working condition.The disclosure can improve the efficiency of water and electricity engineering multi-carrier parameter verification.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This disclosure relates to the field of data processing technology, and in particular to a method and apparatus for verifying multi-carrier parameters in hydropower projects based on normative constraints. Background Technology

[0002] Hydropower projects involve a large number of technical parameters, which are often distributed across multiple sources, including design calculations, various special reports, and real-time monitoring data. These parameters are interconnected and mutually constraining; deviations in any one of these parameters can lead to design errors, construction quality issues, or even safety accidents. Therefore, parameter verification is a core aspect of quality control in hydropower projects.

[0003] In related technologies, the verification of these cross-carrier parameters mainly relies on manual one-by-one checking or simple script checks based on static rules. This approach not only struggles to meet retrieval needs, resulting in low verification efficiency, but also fails to identify parameters with different names but referring to the same thing in different carriers, easily leading to verification omissions. Furthermore, parameter verification in hydropower projects is condition-dependent; related technologies often only detect explicit data errors but cannot uncover hidden risk conditions, making it difficult to meet the high standards of hydropower safety management. Summary of the Invention

[0004] To overcome the problems existing in related technologies, this disclosure provides a method and apparatus for verifying multi-carrier parameters of hydropower projects based on normative constraints. This method can improve the efficiency of parameter verification, ensure accurate verification of target hydropower project parameters in various carrier files from massive amounts of data, determine target risk conditions, and improve the quality control of hydropower projects.

[0005] According to a first aspect of the present disclosure, a method for verifying multi-carrier parameters of hydropower projects based on normative constraints is provided, the method comprising:

[0006] The original hydropower engineering parameters in multiple carrier files are standardized and hierarchically encoded to obtain a set of parameters to be verified. Each hydropower engineering parameter in the set of parameters to be verified corresponds to a unique code identifier.

[0007] Based on the pre-set hydropower code provisions, a binary constraint association table corresponding to each hydropower project parameter is constructed, along with the value deviation range of each hydropower project parameter in different carrier files, and the value interval corresponding to each hydropower project parameter under different working conditions. The constraint types in the binary constraint association table include first constraint and second constraint. The first constraint is used to characterize the red line constraint of the first structural response function value corresponding to each hydropower project parameter, and the second constraint is used to characterize the limit constraint of the second structural response function value corresponding to each hydropower project parameter.

[0008] Based on the first constraint, the parameters of each hydropower project are subjected to a circuit breaker and pruning process to obtain the first hydropower project parameters. Based on the second constraint, the first hydropower project parameters are subjected to compliance verification to obtain the second hydropower project parameters. Based on the value deviation range of each second hydropower project parameter in each carrier file and the value range of each second hydropower project parameter under different working conditions, the second hydropower project parameters are subjected to hierarchical linkage verification to obtain the target hydropower project parameters, and the parameter values ​​of each target hydropower project parameter in each working condition are determined.

[0009] A risk quantification function is constructed, and the parameter values ​​of each target hydropower project parameter in each working condition are substituted into the risk quantification function for quantification calculation. The target risk working condition is determined based on the quantification calculation results.

[0010] In one exemplary embodiment of this disclosure, a binary constraint association table corresponding to each hydropower project parameter is constructed based on preset hydropower code provisions, including:

[0011] The preset hydropower code clauses are semantically processed, and the first constraint clause and the second constraint clause are determined according to the constraint strength level of the constraint keywords corresponding to each code clause. The constraint strength level of the first constraint condition is higher than that of the second constraint condition.

[0012] Each first constraint clause is transformed into a first structural response function and a corresponding redline constraint of the first structural response function value to obtain the first constraint. Each second constraint clause is transformed into a second structural response function and a limit constraint of the corresponding second structural response function value to obtain the second constraint.

[0013] Based on the clause number, constraint type, first constraint, and second constraint corresponding to each standard clause, construct a binary constraint association table.

[0014] In one exemplary embodiment of this disclosure, the range of deviations in the values ​​of various hydropower project parameters in different carrier files is constructed based on preset hydropower code provisions, including:

[0015] Determine the importance level of each hydropower project parameter, and classify each hydropower project parameter into first parameter, second parameter, and third parameter according to the importance level;

[0016] Based on the pre-set hydropower code provisions, determine the value deviation threshold corresponding to each importance level, and construct the corresponding value deviation range based on the value deviation threshold;

[0017] Among them, the importance level of the first parameter is higher than that of the second parameter, and the importance level of the second parameter is higher than that of the third parameter; the value deviation threshold corresponding to the first parameter is set to zero, and the value deviation threshold corresponding to the second parameter is less than that corresponding to the third parameter.

[0018] In one exemplary embodiment of this disclosure, the value ranges corresponding to various hydropower engineering parameters under different operating conditions are constructed based on preset hydropower code provisions, including:

[0019] Determine multiple operating conditions of the hydropower project based on the load scenarios in the hydropower project;

[0020] Based on the pre-set hydropower specifications, the upper and lower limits of the values ​​of each hydropower project parameter under each working condition are determined, thus obtaining the value range of each hydropower project parameter under each working condition.

[0021] In one exemplary embodiment of this disclosure, first hydropower engineering parameters are obtained by performing circuit breaking and pruning on each hydropower engineering parameter according to a first constraint; second hydropower engineering parameters are obtained by performing compliance verification on the first hydropower engineering parameters according to a second constraint; and third, each second hydropower engineering parameter is subjected to hierarchical linkage verification based on the value deviation range of each second hydropower engineering parameter in each carrier file and the value interval corresponding to each second hydropower engineering parameter under different operating conditions, to obtain target hydropower engineering parameters, including:

[0022] For each hydropower engineering parameter, if the value of the hydropower engineering parameter does not meet the first constraint, then the hydropower engineering parameter is subjected to circuit breaking and the subsequent verification of the hydropower engineering parameter is terminated; if the value of the hydropower engineering parameter meets the first constraint, then the hydropower engineering parameter is determined as the first hydropower engineering parameter.

[0023] For each first hydropower project parameter, if the value of the first hydropower project parameter satisfies the second constraint, then the first hydropower project parameter is determined as the second hydropower project parameter;

[0024] For each second hydropower project parameter, calculate the deviation of the second hydropower project parameter in multiple carrier files. If the deviation of the value meets the corresponding deviation range, compare the value of the second hydropower project parameter under different operating conditions. If the value of the second hydropower project parameter under different operating conditions meets the corresponding value range, then determine the second hydropower project parameter as the target hydropower project parameter.

[0025] In one exemplary embodiment of this disclosure, a risk quantification function is constructed, including:

[0026]

[0027] in, The corresponding value represents the quantified risk value of the working condition to be evaluated. Indicates the first The second asymmetric weighting coefficients corresponding to the target hydropower project parameters Indicates the first The first asymmetric weighting coefficient corresponding to each target hydropower project parameter Indicates the first condition in the work condition to be evaluated The parameter values ​​of the target hydropower project. Indicates the first The upper limit value of the second constraint corresponding to the parameters of each target hydropower project. Indicates the first The lower limit value of the second constraint corresponding to the parameters of each target hydropower project. This represents the deviation correction factor. This indicates the number of parameters for the target hydropower project, and the operating condition to be evaluated is used to characterize any operating condition.

[0028] In one exemplary embodiment of this disclosure, the parameter values ​​of each target hydropower project parameter in each working condition are substituted into a risk quantification function for quantification calculation, and the target risk working condition is determined based on the quantification calculation results, including:

[0029] Determine the parameter values ​​for each target hydropower project under each working condition;

[0030] Substitute the parameter values ​​of each target hydropower project corresponding to each working condition into the risk quantification function for calculation to obtain the risk quantification value corresponding to each working condition;

[0031] The operating condition corresponding to the highest quantified risk value is determined as the target risk operating condition.

[0032] According to a second aspect of the present disclosure, a multi-carrier parameter verification device for hydropower projects based on normative constraints is provided, comprising:

[0033] The processing module is used to standardize the original hydropower engineering parameters in multiple carrier files to obtain a set of parameters to be verified, and to assign a unique code identifier to each hydropower engineering parameter in the set of parameters to be verified.

[0034] The construction module is used to construct a binary constraint association table corresponding to each hydropower project parameter, the value deviation range of each hydropower project parameter in different carrier files, and the value interval of each hydropower project parameter under different working conditions based on the preset hydropower code clauses. The constraint types in the binary constraint association table include the first constraint and the second constraint. The first constraint is used to characterize the red line constraint of the first structural response function value corresponding to each hydropower project parameter, and the second constraint is used to characterize the limit constraint of the second structural response function value corresponding to each hydropower project parameter.

[0035] The verification module is used to perform a circuit breaker and pruning process on each hydropower project parameter according to the first constraint to obtain the first hydropower project parameter, and to perform compliance verification on the first hydropower project parameter according to the second constraint to obtain the second hydropower project parameter; based on the value deviation range of each second hydropower project parameter in each carrier file, and the value interval of each second hydropower project parameter under different working conditions, the module performs hierarchical linkage verification on each second hydropower project parameter to obtain the target hydropower project parameter, and determines the parameter value of each target hydropower project parameter in each working condition;

[0036] The determination module is used to construct a risk quantification function. The parameter values ​​of each target hydropower project parameter in each working condition are substituted into the risk quantification function for quantification calculation, and the target risk working condition is determined based on the quantification calculation results.

[0037] According to a third aspect of the present disclosure, an electronic device is provided, including a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the processor executes the program to implement the method described above.

[0038] According to a fourth aspect of the present disclosure, a computer-readable storage medium is provided, on which computer program code instructions are stored, which, when executed by a processor, implement the above-described method.

[0039] This disclosure provides a method for verifying parameters of hydropower projects across multiple carrier files based on regulatory constraints. By standardizing the original hydropower project parameters in multiple carrier files and assigning a unique code identifier to each hydropower project parameter in the parameter set to be verified, this method avoids verification omissions caused by different parameter names but the same meaning under heterogeneous carrier conditions such as scattered design calculations and special reports, thus ensuring the accuracy of parameter verification for each electronic carrier file.

[0040] Furthermore, by constructing a binary constraint association table, the first constraint is used for circuit breaking and pruning, which can intercept non-compliant parameters, avoid unnecessary computing power consumption, and improve verification efficiency. Then, based on the second constraint and the value range of multiple working conditions, the parameters are subjected to hierarchical linkage verification, which can determine the constraint relationship of hydropower project parameters across carrier files and across working conditions. This improves the accuracy loss problem that is easy to occur in traditional static rules or manual verification, so that the final retained target hydropower project parameters have compliance and credibility.

[0041] Furthermore, after obtaining the parameters of the target hydropower project, a risk quantification function is constructed, and risk quantification calculation is performed based on this function. This effectively overcomes the shortcomings of traditional manual verification in terms of missing or misjudging hidden risks. As a result, the most unfavorable target risk conditions in the entire hydropower project can be accurately calculated and identified, thereby improving the engineering guidance value of the verification results and the quality of risk management.

[0042] It should be understood that the above general description and the following detailed description are exemplary and explanatory only, and are not intended to limit this disclosure. Attached Figure Description

[0043] The accompanying drawings, which are incorporated in and form part of this disclosure, illustrate embodiments consistent with this disclosure and, together with the description, serve to explain the principles of this disclosure.

[0044] Figure 1 This disclosure is a flowchart illustrating a method for verifying multi-carrier parameters in hydropower projects based on normative constraints, according to an exemplary embodiment.

[0045] Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of the structure of a multi-carrier parameter verification device for hydropower projects based on normative constraints, according to an exemplary embodiment of this disclosure.

[0046] Figure 3 This is a hardware structure diagram of a computer device shown in an embodiment of this disclosure. Detailed Implementation

[0047] Exemplary embodiments will now be described in detail, examples of which are illustrated in the accompanying drawings. When the following description relates to the drawings, unless otherwise indicated, the same numerals in different drawings denote the same or similar elements. The embodiments described in the following exemplary embodiments do not represent all embodiments consistent with this disclosure. Rather, they are merely examples of apparatuses and methods consistent with some aspects of this disclosure as detailed in the appended claims.

[0048] The terminology used in this disclosure is for the purpose of describing particular embodiments only and is not intended to be limiting of the disclosure. The singular forms "a," "say," and "that" as used in this disclosure and the appended claims are also intended to include the plural forms unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. It should also be understood that the terms used herein refer to and / or include any or all possible combinations of one or more associated listed items.

[0049] It should be understood that although the terms first, second, third, etc., may be used in this disclosure to describe various information, such information should not be limited to these terms. These terms are only used to distinguish information of the same type from one another. For example, without departing from the scope of this disclosure, first information may also be referred to as second information, and similarly, second information may also be referred to as first information. Depending on the context, words used herein may be interpreted as meaning "when," "when," or "in response to determination."

[0050] The embodiments of this disclosure will now be described in detail.

[0051] like Figure 1 As shown, Figure 1 This disclosure is a flowchart illustrating a method for verifying multi-carrier parameters in hydropower projects based on specification constraints, according to an exemplary embodiment, comprising the following steps:

[0052] Step 101: Standardize and hierarchically encode the original hydropower engineering parameters in multiple carrier files to obtain a set of parameters to be verified. Each hydropower engineering parameter in the set of parameters to be verified corresponds to a unique code identifier.

[0053] Step 102: Based on the preset hydropower code clauses, construct the bipartite constraint association table corresponding to each hydropower project parameter, the value deviation range of each hydropower project parameter in different carrier files, and the value interval of each hydropower project parameter under different working conditions. The constraint types in the bipartite constraint association table include the first constraint and the second constraint.

[0054] Step 103: Based on the first constraint, the parameters of each hydropower project are subjected to a circuit breaker and pruning process to obtain the first hydropower project parameters. Based on the second constraint, the first hydropower project parameters are subjected to compliance verification to obtain the second hydropower project parameters. Based on the value deviation range of each second hydropower project parameter in each carrier file and the value interval of each second hydropower project parameter under different working conditions, the second hydropower project parameters are subjected to hierarchical linkage verification to obtain the target hydropower project parameters, and the parameter values ​​of each target hydropower project parameter in each working condition are determined.

[0055] Step 104: Construct a risk quantification function, substitute the parameter values ​​of each target hydropower project parameter in each working condition into the risk quantification function for quantification calculation, and determine the target risk working condition based on the quantification calculation results.

[0056] The multi-carrier parameter verification method for hydropower projects based on normative constraints provided in the exemplary embodiments of this disclosure achieves unified indexing of various carrier files with different formats by standardizing the original parameters and assigning unique coded identifiers. Compared with related technologies that rely on manual verification one by one or based on simple rule matching, it can provide targeted parameter mapping and retrieval optimization for massive data, thereby improving the problem of low efficiency in cross-carrier parameter verification.

[0057] Furthermore, by defining a binary constraint association table, the preset specifications are parsed into red line constraints and limit constraints. Based on the red line constraints, compliance pre-fuse pruning is performed to directly block hydropower engineering parameters that touch the safety bottom line, avoiding the waste of ineffective computing power and improving efficiency. By performing hierarchical linkage verification on parameters that have not been fused based on limit constraints, value deviation range, and multi-condition value intervals, the logical relationship between parameters in terms of cross-carrier consistency and cross-condition rationality is explored, reducing the error rate of manual verification.

[0058] By constructing a risk quantification function and substituting the parameter values ​​under various working conditions into the risk quantification function for quantification calculation, implicit risks are made explicit through quantification, which can ensure the accuracy of the final determined target risk working conditions, ensure the accurate identification of effective parameters and acquisition of target risk working conditions from massive amounts of data, and improve the quality control of hydropower projects.

[0059] The following will provide a detailed description of the multi-carrier parameter verification method for hydropower projects based on normative constraints in this example embodiment.

[0060] Step 101: Standardize and hierarchically encode the original hydropower engineering parameters in multiple carrier files to obtain a set of parameters to be verified. Each hydropower engineering parameter in the set of parameters to be verified corresponds to a unique code identifier.

[0061] In the exemplary embodiments of this disclosure, at least one category of original hydropower engineering parameters, including scale parameters, hydrological parameters, geological parameters, hydraulic parameters, structural parameters, material parameters, and electromechanical parameters, can be obtained from multiple carrier files. Scale parameters can be used to characterize the overall construction level and macro-control indicators of the project. Macro-control indicators such as installed capacity, total reservoir capacity, dead water level, and normal storage level can be extracted from the general design specifications to determine each scale parameter. Hydrological parameters can be used to characterize the hydrological characteristics and runoff patterns of the project basin. Hydrological characteristic values ​​such as multi-year average flow, peak flow, design flood level, and check flood level can be extracted from hydrological calculation reports to determine each hydrological parameter. Geological parameters can be used to characterize the basic geological conditions and physical and mechanical properties of the soil and rock mass in the project area. Basic geological data such as saturated compressive strength of rock, surrounding rock type, fault strike, and rock permeability coefficient can be extracted from engineering geological survey reports to determine various geological parameters. Hydraulic parameters can be used to characterize the dynamic characteristics and flow regimes of water flow. Hydraulic parameters can be determined by extracting fluid characteristic data such as maximum flow velocity, energy dissipation rate, head loss along the flow path, and cavitation number from hydraulic calculation reports. Structural parameters can be used to characterize the structural safety status and stress-deformation behavior of key structures. Structural safety indicators such as anti-sliding stability safety factor, maximum principal tensile stress, reinforcement ratio, and maximum settlement can be extracted from structural calculation sheets or finite element analysis reports to determine structural parameters. Material parameters can be used to characterize the physical and mechanical properties and durability indicators of building materials. Material parameters can be determined by extracting physical property indicators such as concrete strength grade, steel yield strength, impermeability grade, and elastic modulus from material test reports or design technical requirements. Electromechanical parameters can be used to characterize the operating specifications and performance indicators of hydro-generator units and auxiliary equipment. Equipment parameters such as turbine rated speed, generator efficiency, main transformer capacity, and rated voltage can be extracted from electromechanical design drawings or equipment procurement lists to determine electromechanical parameters.

[0062] In the exemplary implementation of this disclosure, the original hydropower engineering parameters can be standardized in both name and value. Based on the coded identifiers, standardized names, standardized numerical information, and carrier source information corresponding to the processed hydropower engineering parameters, a set of parameters to be verified is obtained. Name standardization can eliminate semantic ambiguity caused by inconsistent parameter naming across different carriers. Based on a hydropower thesaurus or semantic mapping technology, original parameters with varying descriptions across different carriers, such as the normal water level in a manual, can be mapped to a unified standard name, thus determining the standardized parameters. Data standardization can include unit standardization and numerical standardization. Unit standardization can be used to unify the measurement dimensions and orders of magnitude of parameters from different sources, while numerical standardization can be used to unify the number of significant digits for different physical attribute parameters.

[0063] In the exemplary implementation of this disclosure, a unique code identifier can be assigned to each hydropower engineering parameter in the parameter set to be verified. As an example, a hierarchical coding rule can be adopted to construct a structured unique coding system. This code can consist of a project segment, a professional segment, a classification segment, and a sequence segment. For example, the project segment can contain 2 characters to distinguish different hydropower engineering projects or sections. For instance, 01 represents power station A, and 02 represents power station B; the professional segment can contain 2 characters to correspond to the professional category to which the extracted parameters belong. For instance, 01 represents hydrology, 02 represents geology, 03 represents hydraulic structures, and 04 represents electromechanical metals; the classification segment can contain 3 characters to subdivide the physical attributes or specific objects of the parameters. For instance, under the hydraulic structures specialty, 101 represents a dam, 102 represents a spillway, and 103 represents a water diversion tunnel; the sequence segment can contain 4 characters to distinguish specific single parameter entities. For instance, 0001 represents dam height, and 0002 represents dam crest width;

[0064] In this way, the original data is cleaned into a standardized dataset, and each parameter is given a globally unique identifier. This provides a data foundation and index for building a verification association table and performing cross-carrier linkage verification in subsequent steps, and solves the problems of low verification efficiency and insufficient accuracy caused by ambiguous parameter definitions and chaotic units in related technologies.

[0065] Step 102: Based on the preset hydropower code clauses, construct the bipartite constraint association table corresponding to each hydropower project parameter, the value deviation range of each hydropower project parameter in different carrier files, and the value interval of each hydropower project parameter under different working conditions. The constraint types in the bipartite constraint association table include the first constraint and the second constraint.

[0066] In this exemplary embodiment, semantic processing can be performed on preset hydropower code provisions. Based on the constraint strength level of the constraint keywords corresponding to each code provision, a first constraint provision and a second constraint provision are determined. For example, the first constraint provision corresponds to keywords with a higher constraint strength level, such as "must," "should," "strictly prohibited," "must not," or "should not." These words imply absolute mandatory force, and any violation of such constraints will be considered a serious violation. The second constraint provision corresponds to keywords with a lower constraint strength level, such as "appropriate," "may," or "inappropriate." These words imply recommendation or allowance of a certain range of deviation. The constraint strength level of the first constraint provision is higher than that of the second constraint provision.

[0067] In the exemplary implementation of this disclosure, each first constraint clause can be transformed into a first structural response function and a corresponding redline constraint of the first structural response function value, thus obtaining a first constraint; simultaneously, each second constraint clause can be transformed into a second structural response function and a corresponding limit constraint of the second structural response function value, thus obtaining a second constraint. The first constraint indicates the boundary constraint conditions corresponding to the hydropower engineering parameter, i.e., a rigid boundary; the second constraint indicates a compliant value range that allows for certain fluctuations. The corresponding upper and lower limits can be determined based on this compliant value range. The upper limit of the second constraint corresponding to any hydropower engineering parameter represents the maximum allowable value of the hydropower engineering parameter, and the lower limit of the second constraint corresponding to the hydropower engineering parameter represents the minimum allowable value of the hydropower engineering parameter. Based on this, a bipartite constraint association table can be constructed according to the clause number, constraint type, first constraint, and second constraint corresponding to each specification clause.

[0068] In the exemplary embodiments of this disclosure, since the same hydropower project parameter may exhibit reasonable data fluctuations in different design calculation documents, special reports, and other media, the importance level of each hydropower project parameter can be determined. Based on the importance level, each hydropower project parameter is divided into a first parameter, a second parameter, and a third parameter. The first parameter has a higher importance level than the second parameter, and the second parameter has a higher importance level than the third parameter. Specifically, for parameters of different importance levels, a value deviation threshold corresponding to each importance level can be determined according to preset hydropower code provisions, and a corresponding value deviation range can be constructed based on the value deviation threshold. As an example, for the first parameter with the highest importance, such as special parameters like unit speed, its corresponding value deviation threshold is set to zero; for the second parameter, such as core parameters like dam height, its corresponding value deviation threshold can be set to a small value, strictly less than the value deviation threshold corresponding to the third parameter, such as general parameters like temporary cofferdam elevation. This value deviation threshold can be in the form of a percentage or a specific numerical value; this application does not impose any special limitations.

[0069] Meanwhile, parameter verification in hydropower projects is highly dependent on operating conditions. The constraint standards for the same parameter differ under different load conditions. Therefore, multiple operating conditions can be determined based on the load scenarios in a hydropower project. For example, normal operating conditions, accidental operating conditions, and transient operating conditions can be distinguished. Normal operating conditions indicate the conventional load scenarios under long-term stable operation of the hydropower project; accidental operating conditions indicate temporary load scenarios caused by extreme natural events such as earthquakes and check floods; and transient operating conditions indicate load scenarios under short-term operational conditions such as construction and maintenance. Based on this, according to pre-defined hydropower code provisions, the upper and lower limits of each hydropower project parameter under each operating condition can be determined, thus obtaining the value range of each hydropower project parameter under each operating condition.

[0070] By constructing the aforementioned binary constraint association table, value deviation range, and operating condition value interval, not only is rigid compliance review of a single parameter achieved, but also refined hierarchical control of cross-carrier data consistency is enabled. Furthermore, the rationality verification scale can be dynamically adjusted according to changes in operating conditions, providing multi-dimensional rule support for subsequent circuit breaker pruning and linkage comparison verification.

[0071] Step 103: Based on the first constraint, the parameters of each hydropower project are subjected to a circuit breaker and pruning process to obtain the first hydropower project parameters. Based on the second constraint, the first hydropower project parameters are subjected to compliance verification to obtain the second hydropower project parameters. Based on the value deviation range of each second hydropower project parameter in each carrier file and the value interval of each second hydropower project parameter under different working conditions, the second hydropower project parameters are subjected to hierarchical linkage verification to obtain the target hydropower project parameters, and the parameter values ​​of each target hydropower project parameter in each working condition are determined.

[0072] In the example implementation of this disclosure, after constructing the binary constraint association table corresponding to each hydropower engineering parameter, the value deviation range of each hydropower engineering parameter in different carrier files, and the value interval of each hydropower engineering parameter under different operating conditions, the parameter value of each hydropower engineering parameter in the parameter set to be verified can be compared with the corresponding first constraint. If the value of the hydropower engineering parameter does not meet the first constraint, that is, it touches the rigid safety bottom line in the specification, then the hydropower engineering parameter is subjected to circuit breaking, and all subsequent verification processes for the hydropower engineering parameter are immediately terminated, and it is directly judged as a non-compliant parameter; conversely, if the value of the hydropower engineering parameter meets the first constraint, it means that the parameter meets the mandatory specification requirements, and then the hydropower engineering parameter is determined as the first hydropower engineering parameter, allowing it to enter the next level of verification.

[0073] In the exemplary implementation of this disclosure, after obtaining the first hydropower project parameters, a second constraint can be used to perform compliance verification on them. Specifically, for each first hydropower project parameter, it is determined whether its parameter value falls within the compliant value range represented by the second constraint. If the value of the first hydropower project parameter satisfies the second constraint, it indicates that the parameter meets the flexibility or recommendation requirements of the specification, and thus the first hydropower project parameter is determined as the second hydropower project parameter.

[0074] In the exemplary implementation of this disclosure, after completing the compliance verification of the aforementioned single parameter, a hierarchical linkage verification across carriers and operating conditions can be performed for each second hydropower project parameter. As an example, a consistency check can first be performed to calculate the value deviation of the same second hydropower project parameter in multiple carrier files, such as different design calculation reports and special reports. If the calculated value deviation meets the corresponding value deviation range, i.e., the cross-carrier data does not show fluctuations exceeding the allowable threshold, a rationality check is further performed, linking and comparing the parameter values ​​of the second hydropower project parameter under different operating conditions, such as normal operating conditions and accidental operating conditions. If the value of the second hydropower project parameter under different operating conditions meets its corresponding value range under that specific operating condition, the second hydropower project parameter is ultimately determined as the target hydropower project parameter. This target hydropower project parameter is used to characterize the hydropower project parameter that can assess risk. Simultaneously, the parameter values ​​of each target hydropower project parameter ultimately retained in each operating condition will be extracted and determined as reliable input data for subsequent risk quantification calculations.

[0075] By executing the aforementioned progressive hierarchical linkage verification process, not only are potential violations in hydropower engineering parameters eliminated through the pre-emptive circuit breaker mechanism, avoiding subsequent redundant and ineffective computing power consumption, but also the second constraint and hierarchical linkage verification achieve accurate screening of parameter consistency and compliance, ensuring that the final output target hydropower engineering parameters have high credibility and engineering safety value under various complex load scenarios.

[0076] Step 104: Construct a risk quantification function, substitute the parameter values ​​of each target hydropower project parameter in each working condition into the risk quantification function for quantification calculation, and determine the target risk working condition based on the quantification calculation results.

[0077] As an example, if the target hydropower project parameters are safety factor, stress index, and displacement index, then the sub-objective functions corresponding to each target hydropower project parameter in each working condition are as follows:

[0078] Let the parameter value corresponding to the safety factor be expressed as: Its corresponding sub-objective function is expressed as Since the core control requirement for the safety factor is that it should not be lower than the lower limit of the corresponding second constraint. Since we don't need to focus on cases exceeding the upper limit of the second constraint (a higher safety factor indicates greater safety and does not fall under unfavorable or risky operating conditions), we only need to construct a sub-function that approaches the lower limit of the second constraint. Therefore, the sub-objective function corresponding to the safety factor must satisfy: when hour, That is, the more unfavorable the operating conditions, the closer it is to the maximum value; when hour, At this point, due to extreme unsafety, it is unnecessary to include the most unfavorable operating condition to avoid interfering with the optimization process; when hour, This indicates a high safety margin and does not fall under unfavorable operating conditions. A deviation correction factor can be introduced. If values ​​can be obtained. To avoid the denominator being 0, the corresponding first asymmetric weighting coefficient is used. The sub-objective function corresponding to the safety factor is derived as follows:

[0079]

[0080] Let the parameter values ​​corresponding to the stress index represent Its corresponding sub-objective function is expressed as Since the core requirement for stress control is not to exceed the upper limit of the corresponding second constraint in the standard. Since we don't need to consider cases below the lower limit of the second constraint (lower stress indicates a safer structure under stress), we only need to construct a sub-function that approaches the upper limit of the corresponding second constraint. Therefore, the sub-objective function of stress must satisfy: when hour, That is, the more unfavorable the operating conditions, the closer it is to the maximum value; when , Due to extreme exceeding of limits, it is unnecessary to include the most unfavorable operating condition to avoid interfering with the optimization process; when hour, This means the stress is sufficient and it is not an unfavorable working condition. This can be combined with the corresponding second asymmetric weighting coefficient. The sub-objective function corresponding to the stress index is derived as follows:

[0081]

[0082] Let the parameter value corresponding to the displacement index represent Its corresponding sub-objective function is expressed as Since the displacement must not exceed the upper limit of the corresponding second constraint. and not less than the lower limit of the corresponding second constraint (Excessive or insufficient displacement may indicate structural anomalies), therefore, a composite sub-function needs to be constructed that approaches both the upper and lower limits of the corresponding second constraint. Thus, the sub-objective function for displacement must satisfy: when... or hour, This means that the more unfavorable the operating conditions, the closer it is to the maximum value; when When it is in the middle range of the standard, This represents the normal operating condition. A corresponding second asymmetric weighting coefficient can be introduced. and the corresponding first asymmetric weighting coefficient The sub-objective function corresponding to the displacement index is derived as follows:

[0083]

[0084] Since constructing the risk quantification function requires the coordinated identification of various target hydropower engineering parameters, the three sub-objective functions mentioned above can be linearly superimposed to eliminate the dimensional differences between different physical quantities, ensuring that the values ​​of the sub-objective functions are all between 0 and 1. After superposition, the value range of the risk quantification function is controllable. The risk quantification functions corresponding to the three target hydropower engineering parameters—safety factor, stress index, and displacement index—can be as follows:

[0085]

[0086] in, The corresponding value represents the risk quantification value for any working condition. Indicates the first in this working condition The parameter values ​​of the target hydropower project. This represents the upper limit value of the second constraint corresponding to the i-th target hydropower project parameter. This represents the lower limit value of the second constraint corresponding to the i-th target hydropower project parameter. This represents the second asymmetric weighting coefficient corresponding to the i-th target hydropower project parameter. This represents the first asymmetric weighting coefficient corresponding to the i-th target hydropower project parameter. , The value can be determined based on the actual situation. This disclosure does not impose any special restrictions, and neither can be zero at the same time.

[0087] when The closer to the corresponding second constraint upper limit value Or the corresponding second constraint lower limit value When the asymmetric envelope total objective function F(x) takes a larger value, the greater the value, which quantifies the worst-case scenario, i.e., the risk quantification value; this is achieved through weighting coefficients. , To achieve asymmetric emphasis and adapt to different control physical quantities, i.e., the safety management requirements of target hydropower project parameters, the objective function ultimately transforms the worst-case judgment of multiple control physical quantities into quantifiable and optimizable risk values. This leads to a risk quantification function applicable to all operating conditions, as shown below:

[0088]

[0089] in, The corresponding value represents the risk quantification value of the working condition to be evaluated, used to quantify the most unfavorable degree of the working condition to be evaluated. The working condition to be evaluated is used to characterize any working condition. This represents the second asymmetric weighting coefficient corresponding to the i-th target hydropower project parameter. This represents the first asymmetric weighting coefficient corresponding to the i-th target hydropower project parameter. This represents the parameter value of the i-th target hydropower project in the evaluation condition. This represents the upper limit value of the second constraint corresponding to the i-th target hydropower project parameter. This represents the lower limit value of the second constraint corresponding to the i-th target hydropower project parameter. This represents the deviation correction factor. This indicates the number of parameters for the target hydropower project.

[0090] In this exemplary embodiment, the parameter values ​​of each target hydropower project parameter corresponding to each working condition are substituted into the aforementioned risk quantification function for calculation. The closer the parameter value of the target hydropower project is to the boundary limit, the closer the denominator approaches its minimum value, and the larger the risk quantification value. This boundary penalty mechanism can identify working conditions where the parameter values ​​are compliant but extremely close to the safety red line. After obtaining the risk quantification value corresponding to each working condition, the working condition corresponding to the largest risk quantification value can be determined as the target risk working condition, which is the most unfavorable working condition. By constructing an asymmetric weighted risk quantification function, the quantification of engineering safety is achieved, providing risk ranking for hydropower projects.

[0091] Corresponding to the embodiments of the foregoing methods, this disclosure also provides embodiments of the apparatus and the terminal to which it is applied.

[0092] like Figure 2 As shown, Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of a multi-carrier parameter verification device for hydropower projects based on specification constraints, according to an exemplary embodiment of this disclosure. The device includes: a processing module 210, a construction module 220, a verification module 230, and a determination module 240.

[0093] Processing module 210 is used to standardize the original hydropower engineering parameters in multiple carrier files to obtain a set of parameters to be verified, and to assign a unique code identifier to each hydropower engineering parameter in the set of parameters to be verified.

[0094] The construction module 220 is used to construct a binary constraint association table corresponding to each hydropower project parameter, the value deviation range of each hydropower project parameter in different carrier files, and the value interval of each hydropower project parameter under different working conditions based on the preset hydropower code clauses. The constraint types in the binary constraint association table include a first constraint and a second constraint. The first constraint is used to characterize the red line constraint of the first structural response function value corresponding to each hydropower project parameter, and the second constraint is used to characterize the limit constraint of the second structural response function value corresponding to each hydropower project parameter.

[0095] The verification module 230 is used to perform a circuit breaker and pruning process on each hydropower project parameter according to the first constraint to obtain the first hydropower project parameter, and to perform compliance verification on the first hydropower project parameter according to the second constraint to obtain the second hydropower project parameter; based on the value deviation range of each second hydropower project parameter in each carrier file, and the value range of each second hydropower project parameter under different working conditions, the module performs hierarchical linkage verification on each second hydropower project parameter to obtain the target hydropower project parameter, and determines the parameter value of each target hydropower project parameter in each working condition;

[0096] Module 240 is used to construct a risk quantification function. The parameter values ​​of each target hydropower project parameter in each working condition are substituted into the risk quantification function for quantification calculation. The target risk working condition is determined based on the quantification calculation results.

[0097] It should be noted that the multi-carrier parameter verification device for hydropower projects based on normative constraints in this embodiment is used to implement the corresponding multi-carrier parameter verification method for hydropower projects based on normative constraints in the aforementioned method embodiments, and has the beneficial effects of the corresponding method embodiments, which will not be elaborated here.

[0098] The embodiments of the multi-carrier parameter verification device for hydropower projects based on specification constraints disclosed herein can be applied to computer equipment, such as servers or terminal devices. The device embodiments can be implemented through software, hardware, or a combination of both. Taking software implementation as an example, as a logical device, it is formed by its processor reading the corresponding computer program instructions from non-volatile memory into memory for execution. From a hardware perspective, such as... Figure 3 The diagram shown is a hardware structure diagram of a computer device used for verifying multi-carrier parameters in hydropower projects based on standard constraints, according to an embodiment of this disclosure. Except for... Figure 3In addition to the processor 310, memory 330, network interface 320, and non-volatile memory 340 shown, the server or electronic device where the hydropower engineering multi-carrier parameter verification device based on specification constraints is located in the embodiment may also include other hardware depending on the actual function of the computer device, which will not be described in detail here.

[0099] Accordingly, this disclosure also provides a multi-carrier parameter verification device for hydropower projects based on standard constraints. The device includes a processor and a memory for storing processor-executable instructions. The processor is configured to perform the aforementioned multi-carrier parameter verification method for hydropower projects based on standard constraints.

[0100] The specific implementation process of the functions and roles of each module in the above device can be found in the implementation process of the corresponding steps in the above method, and will not be repeated here.

[0101] For the device embodiments, since they basically correspond to the method embodiments, the relevant parts can be referred to in the description of the method embodiments. The device embodiments described above are merely illustrative. The modules described as separate components may or may not be physically separate, and the components shown as modules may or may not be physical modules, that is, they may be located in one place or distributed across multiple network modules. Some or all of the modules can be selected to achieve the purpose of this disclosure according to actual needs. Those skilled in the art can understand and implement this without creative effort.

[0102] The foregoing has described specific embodiments of this disclosure. Other embodiments are within the scope of the appended claims. In some cases, the actions or steps recited in the claims may be performed in a different order than that shown in the embodiments and may still achieve the desired results. Furthermore, the processes depicted in the drawings do not necessarily require the specific or sequential order shown to achieve the desired results. In some embodiments, multitasking and parallel processing are also possible or may be advantageous.

[0103] Other embodiments of this disclosure will readily occur to those skilled in the art upon consideration of the specification and practice of the invention applied herein. This disclosure is intended to cover any variations, uses, or adaptations of this disclosure that follow the general principles of this disclosure and include common knowledge or customary techniques in the art not claimed herein. The specification and examples are to be considered exemplary only, and the true scope and spirit of this disclosure are indicated by the following claims.

[0104] It should be understood that this disclosure is not limited to the precise structures described above and shown in the accompanying drawings, and various modifications and changes can be made without departing from its scope. The scope of this disclosure is limited only by the appended claims.

[0105] The above description is merely a preferred embodiment of this disclosure and is not intended to limit this disclosure. Any modifications, equivalent substitutions, improvements, etc., made within the spirit and principles of this disclosure should be included within the scope of protection of this disclosure.

Claims

1. A method for verifying multi-carrier parameters in hydropower projects based on normative constraints, characterized in that, include: The original hydropower engineering parameters in multiple carrier files are standardized and hierarchically encoded to obtain a set of parameters to be verified. Each hydropower engineering parameter in the set of parameters to be verified corresponds to a unique code identifier. Based on the preset hydropower code provisions, a binary constraint association table is constructed for each hydropower engineering parameter, the value deviation range of each hydropower engineering parameter in different carrier files, and the value interval of each hydropower engineering parameter under different working conditions. The constraint types in the binary constraint association table include a first constraint and a second constraint. The first constraint is used to characterize the red line constraint of the first structural response function value corresponding to each hydropower engineering parameter, and the second constraint is used to characterize the limit constraint of the second structural response function value corresponding to each hydropower engineering parameter. Based on the first constraint, the parameters of each hydropower project are subjected to a circuit breaker and pruning process to obtain the first hydropower project parameters. Based on the second constraint, the first hydropower project parameters are subjected to a compliance verification to obtain the second hydropower project parameters. Based on the value deviation range of each second hydropower project parameter in each carrier file and the value interval of each second hydropower project parameter under different working conditions, the second hydropower project parameters are subjected to hierarchical linkage verification to obtain the target hydropower project parameters, and the parameter values ​​of each target hydropower project parameter in each working condition are determined. A risk quantification function is constructed, and the parameter values ​​of each target hydropower project parameter in each working condition are substituted into the risk quantification function for quantification calculation. The target risk working condition is determined based on the quantification calculation results. According to: Each of the aforementioned working conditions is quantitatively calculated to obtain a corresponding risk quantification value, and the working condition corresponding to the largest risk quantification value is determined as the target risk working condition; The corresponding value represents the quantified risk value of the working condition to be evaluated. Indicates the first The second asymmetric weighting coefficients corresponding to the target hydropower project parameters Indicates the first The first asymmetric weighting coefficient corresponding to each target hydropower project parameter Indicates the first condition in the work condition to be evaluated The parameter values ​​of the target hydropower project. Indicates the first The upper limit value of the second constraint corresponding to the parameters of each target hydropower project. Indicates the first The lower limit value of the second constraint corresponding to the parameters of each target hydropower project. This represents the deviation correction factor. The number of parameters of the target hydropower project is indicated, and the working condition to be evaluated is used to characterize any working condition.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The construction of a binary constraint association table corresponding to each hydropower project parameter based on preset hydropower code provisions includes: The preset hydropower code clauses are semantically processed, and the first constraint clause and the second constraint clause are determined according to the constraint strength level of the constraint keywords corresponding to each code clause. The constraint strength level of the first constraint condition is higher than that of the second constraint condition. Each of the first constraint clauses is converted into a redline constraint of each first structural response function and the corresponding first structural response function value to obtain the first constraint; each of the second constraint clauses is converted into a limit constraint of each second structural response function and the corresponding second structural response function value to obtain the second constraint. Based on the clause number, constraint type, first constraint, and second constraint corresponding to each standard clause, construct the binary constraint association table.

3. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, Based on pre-defined hydropower code provisions, the range of deviations in the values ​​of various hydropower engineering parameters across different carrier files is constructed, including: Determine the importance level of each of the hydropower project parameters, and classify each of the hydropower project parameters into first parameters, second parameters, and third parameters according to the importance level; The value deviation thresholds corresponding to each importance level are determined according to the preset hydropower code clauses, and the corresponding value deviation ranges are constructed based on the value deviation thresholds. Wherein, the importance level of the first parameter is higher than that of the second parameter, and the importance level of the second parameter is higher than that of the third parameter; the value deviation threshold corresponding to the first parameter is set to zero, and the value deviation threshold corresponding to the second parameter is less than that corresponding to the third parameter.

4. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, Based on pre-defined hydropower code provisions, the value ranges corresponding to the various hydropower engineering parameters under different operating conditions are constructed, including: The multiple operating conditions of the hydropower project are determined based on the load scenarios in the hydropower project; Based on the preset hydropower code provisions, the upper and lower limits of the values ​​of each hydropower engineering parameter under each working condition are determined, thereby obtaining the value range of each hydropower engineering parameter under each working condition.

5. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The process involves performing a circuit breaker pruning process on each of the hydropower project parameters according to the first constraint to obtain the first hydropower project parameters; then, performing a compliance check on the first hydropower project parameters according to the second constraint to obtain the second hydropower project parameters; finally, performing a hierarchical linkage check on each of the second hydropower project parameters based on the value deviation range of each of the second hydropower project parameters in each carrier file and the value intervals corresponding to each of the second hydropower project parameters under different operating conditions to obtain the target hydropower project parameters, including: For each hydropower project parameter, if the value of the hydropower project parameter does not meet the first constraint, then the hydropower project parameter is subjected to circuit breaking and the subsequent verification of the hydropower project parameter is terminated; if the value of the hydropower project parameter meets the first constraint, then the hydropower project parameter is determined as the first hydropower project parameter. For each first hydropower project parameter, if the value of the first hydropower project parameter satisfies the second constraint, then the first hydropower project parameter is determined as the second hydropower project parameter; For each second hydropower engineering parameter, the deviation of the second hydropower engineering parameter in multiple carrier files is calculated. If the deviation of the value meets the corresponding deviation range, the value of the second hydropower engineering parameter under different operating conditions is compared. If the value of the second hydropower engineering parameter under different operating conditions meets the corresponding value range, the second hydropower engineering parameter is determined as the target hydropower engineering parameter.

6. A multi-carrier parameter verification device for hydropower projects based on standard constraints, characterized in that, include: The processing module is used to standardize the original hydropower engineering parameters in multiple carrier files to obtain a set of parameters to be verified, and to assign a unique code identifier to each hydropower engineering parameter in the set of parameters to be verified. The construction module is used to construct a binary constraint association table corresponding to each hydropower engineering parameter, the value deviation range of each hydropower engineering parameter in different carrier files, and the value interval of each hydropower engineering parameter under different working conditions based on the preset hydropower code clauses. The constraint types in the binary constraint association table include a first constraint and a second constraint. The first constraint is used to characterize the red line constraint of the first structural response function value corresponding to each hydropower engineering parameter, and the second constraint is used to characterize the limit constraint of the second structural response function value corresponding to each hydropower engineering parameter. The verification module is used to perform a circuit breaker and pruning process on each of the hydropower engineering parameters according to the first constraint to obtain the first hydropower engineering parameters, and to perform compliance verification on the first hydropower engineering parameters according to the second constraint to obtain the second hydropower engineering parameters; based on the value deviation range of each of the second hydropower engineering parameters in each carrier file, and the value interval of each of the second hydropower engineering parameters under different working conditions, the module performs hierarchical linkage verification on each of the second hydropower engineering parameters to obtain the target hydropower engineering parameters, and determines the parameter values ​​of each of the target hydropower engineering parameters in each working condition; The determination module is used to construct a risk quantification function, which substitutes the parameter values ​​of each target hydropower project parameter in each working condition into the risk quantification function for quantification calculation, and determines the target risk working condition based on the quantification calculation results; The determining module is specifically used for: according to: Each of the aforementioned working conditions is quantitatively calculated to obtain a corresponding risk quantification value, and the working condition corresponding to the largest risk quantification value is determined as the target risk working condition; The corresponding value represents the quantified risk value of the working condition to be evaluated. Indicates the first The second asymmetric weighting coefficients corresponding to the target hydropower project parameters Indicates the first Among the target hydropower project parameters, The corresponding value represents the quantified risk value of the working condition to be evaluated. Indicates the first The second asymmetric weighting coefficients corresponding to the target hydropower project parameters Indicates the first The first asymmetric weighting coefficient corresponding to each target hydropower project parameter Indicates the first condition in the work condition to be evaluated The parameter values ​​of the target hydropower project. Indicates the first The upper limit value of the second constraint corresponding to the parameters of each target hydropower project. Indicates the first The lower limit value of the second constraint corresponding to the parameters of each target hydropower project. This represents the deviation correction factor. The number of parameters of the target hydropower project is indicated, and the working condition to be evaluated is used to characterize any working condition.

7. An electronic device, characterized in that, include: processor; as well as A memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, implement the method as described in any one of claims 1 to 5.

8. A computer-readable storage medium, characterized in that, The computer-readable storage medium stores computer program code instructions, which, when executed by a processor, implement the method as described in any one of claims 1 to 5.

Images