A comprehensive evaluation method and system for a design scheme of a gas field station automatic control system

Abstract

The application discloses a kind of gas field station automatic control system design scheme comprehensive evaluation method and system, belong to comprehensive evaluation technical field, wherein system includes system module, acquisition module, subjective weight calculation module, objective weight calculation module, comprehensive weight calculation module and scoring module.Through the weight assignment of combination of subjective and objective, the comprehensiveness and fairness of evaluation result can be ensured, the weight of each evaluation index is determined by combining expert opinion and objective data, the contribution degree of each factor can be better reflected, the deviation caused by pure subjective evaluation is avoided, not only the comprehensiveness of gas field station automatic control system design scheme evaluation is improved, but also the credibility of evaluation result is improved.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention belongs to the field of comprehensive evaluation technology, specifically relating to a comprehensive evaluation method and system for the design scheme of an automatic control system for a gas field station. Background Technology

[0002] Gas field station automation systems are automated systems designed to monitor, control, and regulate various parameters, equipment status, and processes within gas field stations. They typically consist of sensors, actuators, controllers, and related software and hardware. These components work together to achieve real-time monitoring and effective control of gas field station operations. The goal of gas field station automation systems is to ensure the safe operation of equipment within the station, improve production efficiency, reduce energy consumption, lower operating costs, and respond quickly to abnormal situations when needed. The complexity and interconnectivity of these systems make their operating environment challenging, and system failures, misoperations, or other abnormal situations can lead to serious safety accidents and economic losses. Therefore, a comprehensive evaluation of the design scheme for gas field station automation systems is crucial.

[0003] The comprehensive evaluation method is a method that takes into account both quantitative and qualitative analysis. Commonly used semi-quantitative evaluation methods include matrix method, analytic hierarchy process, event tree analysis, etc. However, although the above methods can quantify the rationality of the design scheme and provide useful information to a certain extent, they are usually greatly affected by subjective factors, and most methods are more suitable for relatively simple systems. For gas field station automatic control systems, the applicability of existing comprehensive evaluation methods has certain limitations. Summary of the Invention

[0004] The purpose of this invention is to provide a comprehensive evaluation method and system for the design scheme of gas field station automatic control system, so as to solve the problem that the evaluation method for the design scheme of gas field station automatic control system mentioned in the background art is difficult to apply.

[0005] To achieve the above objectives, the present invention provides the following technical solution: a comprehensive evaluation method for the design scheme of a gas field station automatic control system, comprising:

[0006] An evaluation system for design schemes is constructed, the evaluation system including a dimension layer with multiple dimension indicators, and each dimension indicator includes multiple evaluation indicators;

[0007] Obtain parameter data for multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system;

[0008] Based on the evaluation index parameter data, the subjective weights of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system are determined by the analytic hierarchy process.

[0009] Based on the evaluation index parameter data, the objective weights of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system are determined by the entropy weight method.

[0010] The comprehensive weight of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system is determined based on the objective and subjective weights of the multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system.

[0011] The design scheme is scored based on the comprehensive weight of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system.

[0012] Furthermore, the subjective weights of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system, determined using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) based on evaluation indicator parameter data, include:

[0013] Construct a judgment matrix for the parameter data of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension indicator;

[0014] Calculate the maximum eigenvalue and eigenvector of the judgment matrix, and obtain the subjective weights of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension.

[0015] Furthermore, the process of determining the subjective weights of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system based on evaluation indicator parameter data and using the analytic hierarchy process also includes verifying the consistency of the judgment matrix.

[0016] Furthermore, the evaluation system also includes a protective layer, which comprises multiple dimensional indicators, and the method further includes:

[0017] Obtain multi-dimensional indicator parameter data under the protection layer of the evaluation system;

[0018] Based on dimensional indicator parameter data, construct a judgment matrix for multiple dimensional indicator parameter data under the protection layer;

[0019] Calculate the maximum eigenvalue and eigenvector of the judgment matrix of the dimensional indicator parameter data to obtain the weights of multiple dimensional indicators under the active and passive protection layers, and verify the consistency of the judgment matrix of the dimensional indicator parameter data.

[0020] Furthermore, the objective weights of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system, determined using the entropy weight method based on evaluation indicator parameter data, include:

[0021] Construct a data matrix of multiple evaluation indicators in multiple design schemes and evaluation systems, and standardize the data matrix.

[0022] The weight of any evaluation index under any scheme is calculated based on the data matrix processed by standardization, and the information entropy of any evaluation index is obtained based on the weight.

[0023] The objective weight of any evaluation indicator is calculated based on its information entropy.

[0024] Furthermore, the comprehensive weight is determined using the game theory comprehensive weight method.

[0025] Furthermore, the determination of the comprehensive weight of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system based on the objective and subjective weights of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system includes:

[0026] A basis vector set is constructed based on the subjective and objective weights of multiple evaluation indicators in the evaluation system;

[0027] Construct an objective function and calculate the comprehensive weight of the evaluation index based on the optimal solution conditions of the objective function.

[0028] Furthermore, the method also includes classifying design schemes based on design scheme scores.

[0029] Furthermore, the dimensional indicators include basic functions, capability support, and prevention and control level.

[0030] Another aspect of this application provides a comprehensive evaluation system for the design of an automated control system for a gas field station, including:

[0031] The system module is configured to construct an evaluation system for design schemes. The evaluation system includes a dimension layer with multiple dimension indicators, and each dimension indicator includes multiple evaluation indicators.

[0032] The acquisition module is configured to acquire parameter data of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system.

[0033] The subjective weight calculation module is configured to determine the subjective weights of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system based on the evaluation indicator parameter data and using the analytic hierarchy process.

[0034] The objective weight calculation module is configured to determine the objective weights of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system based on the evaluation indicator parameter data and using the entropy weight method.

[0035] The comprehensive weight calculation module is configured to determine the comprehensive weight of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system based on the objective and subjective weights of the multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system.

[0036] The scoring module is configured to score the design scheme based on the comprehensive weight of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system.

[0037] Compared with the prior art, the beneficial effects of the present invention are:

[0038] 1. This application uses a combination of subjective and objective weighting to ensure the comprehensiveness and fairness of the evaluation results. By combining expert opinions and objective data to determine the weight of each evaluation indicator, the contribution of each factor can be better reflected, avoiding the bias caused by purely subjective evaluation. This not only improves the comprehensiveness of the gas field station automatic control system design scheme evaluation, but also enhances the credibility of the evaluation results.

[0039] 2. By understanding the characteristics and assessment requirements of the gas field station's automatic control system, and by adopting methods to reduce the influence of subjective factors, the accuracy of the assessment can be improved. By introducing objective data and scientific analysis, the impact of human factors on the assessment results is reduced, making the assessment more objective and accurate. In conjunction with the experience of field experts, a clear design scheme classification system has been established, which can better reflect the rationality of the system design scheme and improve the safety and reliability of the automatic control system design scheme. Attached Figure Description

[0040] Figure 1 This is a flowchart of the method in this application;

[0041] Figure 2 This is the parameter data matrix for the evaluation indicators corresponding to the active protection layer;

[0042] Figure 3 This is the parameter data matrix for the evaluation indicators corresponding to the passive protection layer;

[0043] Figure 4 The judgment matrix for dimensional indicator parameter data;

[0044] Figures 5-9 The judgment matrix for different evaluation indicators;

[0045] Figure 10 The result of subjective weight calculation for the evaluation indicators of a certain design scheme;

[0046] Figure 11 The objective weight calculation results for the evaluation indicators of a certain design scheme;

[0047] Figure 12 The result of calculating the comprehensive weight of evaluation indicators for a certain design scheme;

[0048] Figure 13 This is a hierarchy diagram of the rating system. Detailed Implementation

[0049] The technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of the present invention, and not all embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0050] A comprehensive evaluation method for the design scheme of gas field station automatic control system, referring to Figure 1 ,include:

[0051] S100: Construct an evaluation system for the design scheme, wherein the evaluation system includes a dimension layer with multiple dimension indicators, and each dimension indicator includes multiple evaluation indicators;

[0052] S200: Obtain parameter data for multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system;

[0053] S300: Based on the evaluation index parameter data, the subjective weights of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system are determined by the analytic hierarchy process.

[0054] S400: Based on the evaluation index parameter data, the objective weights of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system are determined by the entropy weight method.

[0055] S500: The comprehensive weight of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system is determined based on the objective and subjective weights of the multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system.

[0056] S600: The design scheme is scored based on the comprehensive weight of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system.

[0057] Specifically, in step S100, the above evaluation system is constructed based on the protective layer analysis method. For example, referring to... Figure 13The aforementioned evaluation system is hierarchically divided into a top-down protection layer, a dimension layer, and an indicator layer. The dimension layer includes multiple dimension indicators, and the multiple evaluation indicators included in these dimensions collectively constitute the indicator layer of the evaluation system. For example, the protection layer includes an active protection layer and a passive protection layer. The active protection layer at the dimension layer is divided into basic functions, capability support, and prevention and control levels. Basic functions at the indicator layer are further divided into indicators for process operation execution, key equipment level, basic process control, auxiliary system operation, alarm handling level, and organizational management level. Capability support at the indicator layer includes reliability and maintainability indicators. Prevention and control levels at the indicator layer include information assurance, functional safety, and prevention and control execution indicators. The passive protection layer at the dimension layer is divided into consequence handling and emergency response. Consequence handling at the indicator layer includes indicators for the operation of the venting system, the operation of the gas system, and the operation of the fire protection system. Emergency response at the indicator layer includes indicators for emergency plan execution, emergency drill frequency, personnel emergency response level, emergency response plan, and emergency support capability. Furthermore, all indicators at multiple levels in the evaluation system are positive indicators.

[0058] In step S200, the data charts of multiple evaluation index parameters under each dimension index in the price system are referenced. Figure 2 and 3 , Figure 2 This is a chart showing the evaluation metrics corresponding to multiple dimensions under the active protection layer. Figure 3 This chart shows the evaluation indicators for multiple dimensions under the passive protection layer. The evaluation indicator parameters in the chart are scored by on-site experts using a 10-point scale, based on the operation and maintenance data of the gas field station's automatic control system. The evaluation levels are divided into four categories: I (Excellent), II (Good), III (Medium), and IV (Poor), with corresponding scores of 3, 5, 7, and 9, respectively. If the score falls between the corresponding branches, the system's indicator falls between the corresponding levels. The higher the score of the evaluation indicator, the better the indicator of the automatic control system design scheme.

[0059] Specifically, in step S300, based on the evaluation index parameter data, the subjective weights of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system are determined using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), including:

[0060] Construct a judgment matrix for the parameter data of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension indicator;

[0061] Calculate the maximum eigenvalue and eigenvector of the judgment matrix, and obtain the subjective weights of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension indicator;

[0062] In the above steps, the calculation of the largest eigenvalue and eigenvector of the matrix is ​​solved using the square root method, and the specific calculation formula is as follows:

[0063]

[0064]

[0065] Equation (1) is used to calculate the product of each row of elements in the judgment matrix, Equation (2) is used to calculate the nth root of the product of each row of elements, and Equation (3) is used to obtain the feature vector of the evaluation index through normalization. After obtaining the feature vector, the judgment matrix and the feature vector are multiplied together, that is, matrix operation is performed, and the subjective weight of each evaluation index can be obtained.

[0066] The above steps also include:

[0067] The consistency of the judgment matrix is ​​checked.

[0068] The formula for checking the consistency of the judgment matrix is ​​as follows:

[0069]

[0070] In the above formula, λ max To determine the largest eigenvalue of a matrix, CI represents the consistency index. The larger the CI value, the less consistent the matrix is. CR represents the consistency ratio, and RI represents the random consistency index, which can be queried from a table based on the n value.

[0071] Specifically, refer to Figures 5-9 This is a judgment matrix consisting of multiple evaluation indicators corresponding to different dimensional indicators. The data in the judgment matrix is ​​obtained based on the acquired evaluation indicator parameter data. Figure 10 This represents the calculation result of the subjective weights of all evaluation indicators in the evaluation system of a certain design scheme.

[0072] In some embodiments, the above evaluation method further includes:

[0073] Obtain multi-dimensional indicator parameter data under the protection layer of the evaluation system;

[0074] Based on dimensional indicator parameter data, construct a judgment matrix for multiple dimensional indicator parameter data under the protection layer;

[0075] Calculate the maximum eigenvalue and eigenvector of the judgment matrix of the dimensional indicator parameter data to obtain the weights of multiple dimensional indicators under the protection layer, and verify the consistency of the judgment matrix of the dimensional indicator parameter data.

[0076] The calculation of the weights of the dimensional indicators and the consistency check and evaluation indicators of the dimensional indicator judgment matrix are the same in the above steps, and will not be repeated here. Figure 4 The judgment matrices for the dimensional indicators under the active and passive protection layers are given as examples.

[0077] In step S400, based on the evaluation index parameter data, the objective weights of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system are determined using the entropy weight method. The specific steps are as follows:

[0078] Construct a data matrix containing m design schemes and n evaluation indicators, and standardize the data matrix using the following formula:

[0079]

[0080] The weight z of the j-th evaluation index in the i-th design scheme is calculated based on the standardized data matrix. ij The formula is as follows:

[0081]

[0082] The information entropy of the j-th evaluation index is calculated using the following formula:

[0083]

[0084] Calculate the objective weight w of the j-th indicator j The calculation formula is as follows:

[0085]

[0086] Figure 11 An example is given showing the calculation results of the objective weights of multiple evaluation indicators favored by a certain design scheme.

[0087] In step S500, the comprehensive weight of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system is determined based on the objective and subjective weights of these indicators. This comprehensive weighting is achieved using game theory, and the specific steps are as follows:

[0088] Based on the subjective and objective weights of multiple evaluation indicators in the evaluation system, a basis vector set ω = {ω1, ω2, ..., ω...} is constructed. n The basis vector set is a 2*n matrix, where different rows (i) represent subjective weights and objective weights, respectively, and different columns (j) represent different evaluation indicators. In this case, any combination of weight vectors in ω can be expressed as...

[0089]

[0090] In the above formula, This indicates the overall weight of the evaluation indicators. This represents the combination coefficient of the weights of the j-th evaluation index. Let j represent a set of evaluation index vectors.

[0091] In order to obtain With each ωn To minimize the deviation between them, we construct the objective function, as shown in the following formula:

[0092]

[0093] According to the differential properties of matrices, the optimal solution to the objective function must satisfy the following conditions:

[0094]

[0095] Based on the above calculation ω i * That is, to calculate the comprehensive weight of the evaluation indicators in the evaluation system;

[0096] In step S600, the formula for calculating the design scheme score is as follows:

[0097]

[0098] In the above formula, X represents the overall score of the design scheme. β represents the overall weight of the evaluation indicators. ij This indicates that the experts gave scores.

[0099] The design schemes are categorized into several levels based on their scores: poor, average, good, and excellent. When the comprehensive score X ≥ 90, the design scheme for the gas field station automatic control system is rated as excellent, indicating high feasibility. When the comprehensive score 80 ≤ X < 90, the design scheme is rated as good, indicating relatively high feasibility. When the comprehensive score 60 ≤ X < 80, the design scheme is rated as average, indicating moderate feasibility. When the comprehensive score 60 > X, the design scheme is rated as poor, indicating insufficient feasibility.

[0100] Another aspect of this application provides a comprehensive evaluation system for the design of an automated control system for a gas field station, including:

[0101] The system module is configured to construct an evaluation system for design schemes. The evaluation system includes a dimension layer with multiple dimension indicators, and each dimension indicator includes multiple evaluation indicators.

[0102] The acquisition module is configured to acquire parameter data of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system.

[0103] The subjective weight calculation module is configured to determine the subjective weights of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system based on the evaluation indicator parameter data and using the analytic hierarchy process.

[0104] The objective weight calculation module is configured to determine the objective weights of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system based on the evaluation indicator parameter data and using the entropy weight method.

[0105] The comprehensive weight calculation module is configured to determine the comprehensive weight of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system based on the objective and subjective weights of the multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system.

[0106] The scoring module is configured to score the design scheme based on the comprehensive weight of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system.

[0107] Although embodiments of the invention have been shown and described, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that various changes, modifications, substitutions and alterations can be made to these embodiments without departing from the principles and spirit of the invention, the scope of which is defined by the appended claims and their equivalents.

Claims

1. A comprehensive evaluation method for the design scheme of an automatic control system for a gas field station, characterized in that, include: An evaluation system for design schemes is constructed, the evaluation system including a dimension layer with multiple dimension indicators, and each dimension indicator includes multiple evaluation indicators; Obtain parameter data for multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system; Based on the evaluation index parameter data, the subjective weights of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system are determined by the analytic hierarchy process. Based on the evaluation index parameter data, the objective weights of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system are determined by the entropy weight method. The comprehensive weight of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system is determined based on the objective and subjective weights of the multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system. The design scheme is scored based on the comprehensive weight of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system.

2. The comprehensive evaluation method for the design scheme of a gas field station automatic control system according to claim 1, characterized in that: The subjective weights of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system, determined using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) based on evaluation indicator parameter data, include: Construct a judgment matrix for the parameter data of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension indicator; Calculate the maximum eigenvalue and eigenvector of the judgment matrix, and obtain the subjective weights of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension.

3. The comprehensive evaluation method for the design scheme of a gas field station automatic control system according to claim 2, characterized in that: The process of determining the subjective weights of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system based on evaluation indicator parameter data and using the analytic hierarchy process also includes verifying the consistency of the judgment matrix.

4. The comprehensive evaluation method for the design scheme of a gas field station automatic control system according to claim 1, characterized in that: The evaluation system also includes a protective layer, which comprises multiple dimensional indicators, and the method further includes: Obtain multi-dimensional indicator parameter data under the protection layer of the evaluation system; Based on dimensional indicator parameter data, construct a judgment matrix for multiple dimensional indicator parameter data under the protection layer; Calculate the maximum eigenvalue and eigenvector of the judgment matrix of the dimensional indicator parameter data to obtain the weights of multiple dimensional indicators under the active and passive protection layers, and verify the consistency of the judgment matrix of the dimensional indicator parameter data.

5. The comprehensive evaluation method for the design scheme of a gas field station automatic control system according to claim 1, characterized in that: The objective weights of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system, determined using the entropy weight method based on evaluation indicator parameter data, include: Construct a data matrix of multiple evaluation indicators in multiple design schemes and evaluation systems, and standardize the data matrix. The weight of any evaluation index under any scheme is calculated based on the data matrix processed by standardization, and the information entropy of any evaluation index is obtained based on the weight. The objective weight of any evaluation indicator is calculated based on its information entropy.

6. The comprehensive evaluation method for the design scheme of a gas field station automatic control system according to claim 1, characterized in that: The overall weights are determined using the game theory-based overall weighting method.

7. The comprehensive evaluation method for the design scheme of a gas field station automatic control system according to claim 6, characterized in that: The determination of the comprehensive weight of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system, based on the objective and subjective weights of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system, includes: A basis vector set is constructed based on the subjective and objective weights of multiple evaluation indicators in the evaluation system; Construct an objective function and calculate the comprehensive weight of the evaluation index based on the optimal solution conditions of the objective function.

8. The comprehensive evaluation method for the design scheme of a gas field station automatic control system according to claim 1, characterized in that: The method also includes classifying design schemes based on design scheme scores.

9. The comprehensive evaluation method for the design scheme of a gas field station automatic control system according to claim 1, characterized in that: The dimensions and indicators include basic functions, capability support, and prevention and control level.

10. A comprehensive evaluation system for the design scheme of an automatic control system for a gas field station, characterized in that, include: The system module is configured to construct an evaluation system for design schemes. The evaluation system includes a dimension layer with multiple dimension indicators, and each dimension indicator includes multiple evaluation indicators. The acquisition module is configured to acquire parameter data of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system. The subjective weight calculation module is configured to determine the subjective weights of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system based on the evaluation indicator parameter data and using the analytic hierarchy process. The objective weight calculation module is configured to determine the objective weights of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system based on the evaluation indicator parameter data and using the entropy weight method. The comprehensive weight calculation module is configured to determine the comprehensive weight of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system based on the objective and subjective weights of the multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system. The scoring module is configured to score the design scheme based on the comprehensive weight of multiple evaluation indicators under each dimension of the evaluation system.

Images