Secondary circuit evaluation method, device, equipment and storage medium

Abstract

This application relates to the field of relay protection technology, specifically disclosing a method, apparatus, equipment, and storage medium for evaluating secondary circuits. The method includes the following steps: obtaining an estimated fault distance associated with a fault event to be tested; determining the expected response range corresponding to the fault event based on the estimated fault distance; extracting the actual action set; performing a consistency check between the action set corresponding to the expected response range and the actual action set to obtain a consistency check conclusion; and outputting the evaluation result corresponding to the fault event based on the consistency check conclusion. By obtaining the estimated fault distance and determining the expected response range, the evaluation object is narrowed from the entire line bay to the responsibility domain corresponding to the fault location, reducing the probability of misjudgment in secondary circuit evaluation. The automated evaluation process, with fault distance as the core constraint and employing consistency check, improves the efficiency and stability of fault evaluation.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This application relates to the field of relay protection technology, and in particular to a method, apparatus, equipment and storage medium for evaluating secondary circuits. Background Technology

[0002] Currently, the evaluation and diagnosis of the correct operation of the secondary circuit of relay protection devices often rely on a single phenomenon or on the empirical backtracking analysis of event sequence by operation and maintenance personnel. It is difficult to achieve automated evaluation under conditions such as dense fault events, frequent boundary scenarios, and incomplete data.

[0003] In relay protection, faults may occur simultaneously with multiple terminals and bays, making it difficult to narrow down the evaluation to the relevant terminals and bays. This can lead to misassociation of objects and misjudgment of responsibility domains, hindering accurate identification of the evaluation target. In multi-object linkage scenarios, misassociation can easily occur, causing evaluation bias. Furthermore, judging the correctness of actions often relies on empirical inferences, limiting the reliability of conclusions and resulting in inaccurate fault assessments when secondary circuit fault events occur. Summary of the Invention

[0004] The main purpose of this application is to provide a secondary circuit evaluation method, which aims to solve the technical problem of inaccurate secondary circuit fault evaluation in the prior art.

[0005] To achieve the above objectives, this application provides a method for evaluating secondary circuits, the method comprising the following steps: Obtain the fault distance estimate associated with the fault event to be tested, wherein the fault distance estimate is the electrical distance from the location of the fault event to be tested to the fault sampling end; The expected stress range corresponding to the fault event to be tested is determined based on the fault distance estimate. Extract the actual action set, and perform a consistency check between the action set corresponding to the expected response range and the actual action set to obtain a consistency check conclusion. Based on the consistency verification judgment conclusion, the evaluation result corresponding to the fault event to be tested is output.

[0006] In one embodiment, the step of obtaining the fault distance estimate associated with the fault event to be tested includes: Acquire multiple and / or multi-source fault distance sampling values ​​for the fault event to be tested; A ranging sample sequence is constructed using multiple fault distance sample values; Calculate the normalized dispersion of the ranging sample sequence; If the normalized dispersion does not exceed the preset consistency criterion, the robust center value of the ranging sample sequence is used as the fault distance estimate.

[0007] In one embodiment, the step of determining the expected stress range corresponding to the fault event to be tested based on the fault distance estimate includes: The estimated fault distance is normalized to obtain the relative fault distance value; Obtain the threshold values ​​of the stress zone boundary and the threshold values ​​of the uncertain zone outer side, and compare the relative value of the fault distance with the threshold values ​​of the stress zone boundary and the threshold values ​​of the uncertain zone outer side. The expected stress range corresponding to the fault event to be tested is determined based on the comparison results.

[0008] In one embodiment, the expected response range includes a set of actions comprising: an expected response set, a review set, and an expected non-response set; The step of determining the expected stress range corresponding to the fault event to be tested based on the comparison results includes: If the relative value of the fault distance is less than the threshold value of the stress zone boundary, the expected stress range corresponding to the fault event to be tested is determined as the expected stress set; or, If the relative value of the fault distance is greater than the threshold of the stress zone boundary but less than the threshold of the outer edge of the uncertainty zone, the expected stress range corresponding to the fault event to be tested is determined as the verification set; or, If the relative value of the fault distance is greater than the threshold outside the uncertainty zone, the expected stress range corresponding to the fault event to be tested is determined to be the non-stress set.

[0009] In one embodiment, the step of extracting the actual action set, performing a consistency check between the action set corresponding to the expected response range and the actual action set to obtain a consistency check conclusion includes: Obtain the fault reference time of the fault event to be tested; An action event window is constructed based on the fault reference time and the preset delay time; Extract the actual action events related to the tripping action from the action event window, and use the extracted actual action events to construct the actual action set; The set of actions corresponding to the expected response range is compared with the set of actual actions to obtain a consistency verification result.

[0010] In one embodiment, the actual action events include: protection trip output events and circuit breaker tripping events, and the actual action set includes: output action set and execution action set; The step of extracting actual action events related to the tripping action from the action event window and constructing the actual action set using the extracted actual action events includes: If the protection trip output event is found in the action event window, the fault event to be tested is constructed into an output action set; or, If the circuit breaker tripping event is found in the action event window, the fault event to be tested is constructed into a set of actions to be executed.

[0011] In one embodiment, the evaluation results include: a determination that needs to be reviewed, a determination of incorrect actions, and a determination of correct actions; The step of outputting the evaluation result corresponding to the fault event under test based on the consistency check judgment conclusion includes: Based on the order of need-to-review determination, erroneous action determination, and correct action determination, the evaluation results corresponding to the fault event to be tested are output sequentially according to the consistency verification judgment conclusion.

[0012] Furthermore, to achieve the above objectives, this application also provides a secondary circuit evaluation device, the device comprising: The location acquisition module is used to acquire the fault distance estimate associated with the fault event to be tested, wherein the fault distance estimate is the electrical distance from the location where the fault event to be tested occurs to the fault sampling end; The response confirmation module is used to determine the expected response range corresponding to the fault event to be tested based on the fault distance estimate. The action judgment module is used to extract the actual action set, perform a consistency check between the action set corresponding to the expected response range and the actual action set, and obtain a consistency check judgment conclusion. The result output module is used to output the evaluation result corresponding to the fault event to be tested based on the consistency verification judgment conclusion.

[0013] In addition, to achieve the above objectives, this application also provides a secondary loop evaluation device, which includes: a memory, a processor, and a secondary loop evaluation processing program stored in the memory and executable on the processor. When the secondary loop evaluation processing program is executed by the processor, it implements the steps of the above-described secondary loop evaluation method.

[0014] In addition, to achieve the above objectives, this application also proposes a storage medium, which is a computer-readable storage medium, on which a computer program is stored, and when the computer program is executed by a processor, it implements the steps of the secondary loop evaluation method described above.

[0015] The above-mentioned one or more technical solutions provided in this application may have the following advantages or at least achieve the following technical effects: This application discloses a method, apparatus, device, and storage medium for evaluating secondary circuits. The method includes: acquiring an estimated fault distance associated with a fault event to be tested; determining the expected response range corresponding to the fault event to be tested based on the estimated fault distance; extracting a set of actual actions; performing a consistency check between the set of actions corresponding to the expected response range and the set of actual actions to obtain a consistency check conclusion; and outputting an evaluation result corresponding to the fault event to be tested based on the consistency check conclusion. By acquiring the estimated fault distance and determining the expected response range, the evaluation object is narrowed from the entire line bay to the responsibility domain corresponding to the fault location, reducing the probability of misjudgment in secondary circuit evaluation. The automated evaluation process, with fault distance as the core constraint and employing consistency check, improves the efficiency and stability of fault evaluation. Attached Figure Description

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

[0017] Figure 1 This is a flowchart illustrating the first embodiment of the secondary loop evaluation method of this application; Figure 2 This is a flowchart illustrating the second embodiment of the secondary loop evaluation method of this application; Figure 3 This is a flowchart illustrating the third embodiment of the secondary loop evaluation method of this application; Figure 4 This is a flowchart illustrating the fourth embodiment of the secondary loop evaluation method of this application; Figure 5 This is a schematic diagram of the structure of the fourth embodiment of the secondary loop evaluation method of this application; Figure 6 This is a schematic diagram of the module structure of the secondary circuit evaluation device of this application; Figure 7 This is a schematic diagram of the secondary circuit evaluation equipment structure for the hardware operating environment involved in the secondary circuit evaluation method of this application.

[0018] The realization of the purpose, functional features and advantages of this application will be further explained in conjunction with the embodiments and with reference to the accompanying drawings. Detailed Implementation

[0019] The technical solutions of the embodiments of this application will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only a part of the embodiments of this application, and not all of the embodiments. Based on the embodiments of this application, all other embodiments obtained by those of ordinary skill in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of this application.

[0020] It should be noted that if the embodiments of this application involve directional indicators (such as up, down, left, right, front, back, etc.), the directional indicators are only used to explain the relative positional relationship and movement of the components in a specific posture. If the specific posture changes, the directional indicators will also change accordingly.

[0021] Furthermore, if the embodiments of this application involve descriptions such as "first" or "second," these descriptions are for descriptive purposes only and should not be construed as indicating or implying their relative importance or implicitly specifying the number of technical features indicated. Therefore, a feature defined with "first" or "second" may explicitly or implicitly include at least one of those features. Additionally, the use of "and / or" or "and / or" throughout the text includes three parallel solutions. For example, "A and / or B" includes solution A, solution B, or a solution that simultaneously satisfies A and B. Furthermore, the technical solutions of the various embodiments can be combined with each other, but this must be based on the ability of those skilled in the art to implement them. When the combination of technical solutions is contradictory or impossible to implement, it should be considered that such a combination of technical solutions does not exist and is not within the scope of protection claimed in this application.

[0022] It should be noted that the executing entity in this embodiment can be a computing service device with data processing, network communication, and program execution functions, such as a tablet computer, personal computer, or mobile phone, or a secondary loop evaluation device capable of performing the above functions. The following description uses a secondary loop evaluation device as an example to illustrate this embodiment and the subsequent embodiments.

[0023] Based on this, embodiments of this application provide a method for evaluating secondary circuits, referring to... Figure 1 , Figure 1 This is a flowchart illustrating the first embodiment of the secondary loop evaluation method of this application.

[0024] Step S10: Obtain the estimated fault distance associated with the fault event to be tested.

[0025] It should be noted that the fault event to be tested can be an electrical fault event occurring in the power system that requires evaluation of the correct operation of the secondary circuit of the relay protection device, such as a line short circuit or ground fault. This event will trigger the relevant actions of the protection device and the circuit breaker. The secondary circuit of the relay protection device, relative to the primary circuit of the power system, is a circuit composed of the relay protection device, circuit breaker, control cables, and signal elements, used to realize control and monitoring functions such as fault detection of the primary circuit, issuance of protection action commands, and tripping / closing of the circuit breaker.

[0026] It is understood that the fault distance estimate can be the electrical distance from the location of the fault event to the fault sampling end, i.e., the equivalent electrical distance along the line length from the fault sampling end where the protection device or fault recording device is installed to the fault point where the fault event occurs. This can form a fault location constraint and be used to determine the expected response range of the current fault event. Preferably, the fault distance estimate uses the COMTRADE recording file (i.e., the recording file in the common format for power system transient data exchange) and its associated output information generated by the fault recording device as a unified data source, directly extracting the fault distance L (or equivalent fault segment / relative position) from the ranging results output by the recording device or its analysis software. The ranging results can be generated by the built-in algorithm of the recording device or its associated analysis software. This invention only reads, verifies consistency, and judges the reliability of the ranging output results, without limiting the implementation of its internal ranging algorithm. The fault distance associated with the current fault event is directly extracted from the COMTRADE recording file and its associated output information. (or equivalent fault segment / relative location), and can simultaneously extract the fault occurrence time, line / interval identifier, channel identifier, and ranging quality marker corresponding to the ranging results. The fault distance L serves as the spatial constraint input for subsequent responsibility domain definition and evaluation object set division.

[0027] Step S20: Determine the expected stress range corresponding to the fault event to be tested based on the fault distance estimate.

[0028] It should be noted that the expected response range can be the scope of responsibility for protection actions spatially divided according to the distance. The relative position of the fault point can be divided according to the relative distance from the fault point to the sampling end, which can determine the action set and determine whether the fault occurs in the area within the line. Based on this range division, the estimated fault distance of the fault event to be measured can be divided into different action sets, such as: the set of response areas where the fault occurs within the line, the set of faults occurring in boundary scenarios (the end of the line), and the set of faults occurring outside the line.

[0029] Understandably, based on the fault distance estimate, through normalization and threshold band division, the range of line bay protection devices that should operate in the secondary circuit of the relay protection device during this fault event is determined. This range can include three sets: the expected activation set, the verification set, and the expected non-activation set. Normalization can be performed based on the fault distance estimate, and by comparing it with preset activation zone boundary thresholds and uncertainty zone outer thresholds, the expected activation set, verification set, and expected non-activation set can be divided, thus clarifying the expected activation range of the secondary circuit under this fault event.

[0030] Step S30: Extract the actual action set, and perform a consistency check between the action set corresponding to the expected response range and the actual action set to obtain a consistency check conclusion.

[0031] It should be noted that the actual action set can be an action event window constructed based on the time of the fault occurrence. Within the window, the actual action objects and event sets related to the tripping action are extracted from the COMTRADE status variable channel events. For example, it can be divided into the output action set formed by the protection trip output and the execution action set formed by the circuit breaker opening position.

[0032] Understandably, consistency verification can be a process of comparing the expected response range of a fault event with the actual set of actions to verify whether the behavior of the actual action object matches the response requirements corresponding to the fault location. The resulting consistency verification conclusion can be a characterization of whether the actual action matches the expected response.

[0033] Step S40: Output the evaluation result corresponding to the fault event to be tested based on the consistency verification judgment conclusion.

[0034] It should be noted that the evaluation result can be a conclusion that characterizes the correctness of the operation of the secondary circuit of the relay protection device based on the consistency verification judgment conclusion for the fault event to be tested. For example, it can include three categories: correct operation, incorrect operation, and operation that needs to be reviewed.

[0035] In this embodiment, the secondary loop evaluation method includes: obtaining the fault distance estimate associated with the fault event to be tested; determining the expected response range corresponding to the fault event to be tested based on the fault distance estimate; extracting the actual action set; performing a consistency check between the expected response range and the actual action set to obtain a consistency check conclusion; and outputting the evaluation result corresponding to the fault event to be tested based on the consistency check conclusion. By obtaining the fault distance estimate and determining the expected response range, the evaluation object is converged from the entire line bay to the responsibility domain corresponding to the fault location, reducing the probability of misjudgment in the secondary loop evaluation. The automated evaluation process, with fault distance as the core constraint and consistency check, improves the efficiency and stability of fault evaluation.

[0036] Based on the first embodiment of this application, in the second embodiment of this application, the content that is the same as or similar to that in Embodiment 1 above can be referred to the above description, and will not be repeated hereafter. Please refer to Figure 2 , Figure 2 This is a flowchart illustrating a second embodiment of the secondary loop evaluation method of this application. In this embodiment, step 10 includes: Step S201: Obtain multiple and / or multi-source fault distance sampling values ​​for the fault event to be tested.

[0037] It should be noted that the fault distance sampling value can be the original fault distance data associated with the fault event to be measured, which can be directly extracted from the COMTRADE waveform recording file and the supporting output information of the fault waveform recording device. The fault distance sampling value can come from different sampling segments, different channels, different analytical parameters or different ranging output apertures of the waveform recording device, and is the original input data for fault distance estimation.

[0038] Step S202: Construct a ranging sample sequence using multiple fault distance sampling values.

[0039] It is understandable that the ranging sample sequence can be an ordered data sequence formed by organizing multiple / multi-source fault distance sampling values ​​of the same fault event to be measured according to certain rules, and it is the basic data set for subsequent consistency verification.

[0040] Step S203: Calculate the normalized dispersion of the ranging sample sequence.

[0041] It should be noted that normalized dispersion can be a quantitative indicator obtained by calculating the consistency of the ranging sample sequence. It normalizes the dispersion of the fault distance sampling values ​​based on the line length and is used to determine the stability and reliability of the ranging results.

[0042] Step S204: When the normalized dispersion does not exceed the preset consistency criterion, use the robust central value of the ranging sample sequence as the estimated fault distance value.

[0043] It should be noted that the preset consistency criterion can be the upper limit value of the normalized dispersion determined based on the ranging statistical data or calibration tests of historical same-station type lines in the power system, which can judge whether the ranging sample sequence is stable or whether the sampled fault distance values are credible.

[0044] In a possible implementation, considering that the ranging results may fluctuate under different sampling segments, different channels, different parsing parameters or different ranging output apertures of the oscillograph device, the present invention further performs consistency verification on the ranging output results: for the same fault event, obtain multiple / multi-source ranging results to form a ranging sample sequence L m (m = 1, 2,..., m), and a credible sample set D = {L m} can be formed by removing obvious abnormal samples. Calculate the ranging consistency constraint for the credible sample set D = {Lm}, and define the distance range: <opposite ; And define the normalized dispersion: ; where l is the line length. When the consistency criterion r L < r is satisfied, it is considered that the ranging results are stable and credible; where r represents the upper limit of the dispersion of the ranging results relative to the line length, which can be determined by the ranging statistics or calibration tests of historical same-station type lines, preferably 0.01 - 0.03; output the robust central value of the credible sample set as the final estimated fault distance value, preferably take the median .

[0045] Furthermore, when the ranging result consistency test fails, that is, r L > r, it is considered that the fault position constraint of the current fault event is not credible or the credibility is insufficient. Do not use this ranging result to forcibly divide the evaluation object, but include the relevant objects in the review set, and uniformly give a "to be reviewed" conclusion at the subsequent evaluation result output stage. The "to be reviewed" conclusion is used to prompt that in the current scenario, it is not appropriate to directly make a correct or incorrect action judgment based on the automatic ranging result, but manual further confirmation should be carried out in combination with fault recording, protection action evidence and circuit breaker action evidence.

[0046] In this embodiment, multiple and / or multi-source fault distance sampling values ​​of the fault event to be tested are acquired; a ranging sample sequence is constructed using multiple fault distance sampling values; the normalized dispersion of the ranging sample sequence is calculated; and if the normalized dispersion does not exceed a preset consistency criterion, the robust center value of the ranging sample sequence is used as the fault distance estimate. Using the robust center value that passes the consistency test as the fault distance estimate eliminates unstable and unreliable ranging results from the data source, ensuring the effectiveness of the fault location constraint. By removing obviously abnormal samples and selecting a robust center value (median), the interference of outliers on fault distance estimation is solved.

[0047] Based on the above embodiments of this application, in the third embodiment of this application, the same or similar content as the above embodiments can be referred to the above description, and will not be repeated hereafter. Based on this, please refer to... Figure 3 , Figure 3 This is a flowchart illustrating the third embodiment of the secondary loop evaluation method of this application. In this embodiment, step 20 includes: Step S301: Normalize the estimated fault distance to obtain the relative fault distance value.

[0048] It should be noted that the relative value of fault distance can be a dimensionless index obtained by normalizing the estimated fault distance. It is calculated as the ratio of the estimated fault distance to the corresponding line length. It is a quantitative value that eliminates differences in line length and achieves a unified determination of fault location for different lines.

[0049] Step S302: Obtain the threshold value of the stress zone boundary and the threshold value of the uncertain zone outer side, and compare the relative value of the fault distance with the threshold value of the stress zone boundary and the threshold value of the uncertain zone outer side.

[0050] It should be noted that the threshold for the fault zone boundary can be a numerical threshold determined based on power system ranging error statistics or engineering calibration. It characterizes the outer boundary of the fault zone within the line and serves as the standard for determining whether a fault occurs within the clearly defined fault zone of the line. The threshold for the outer boundary of the uncertain zone is also determined through ranging error statistics or engineering calibration, and its value is greater than the threshold for the fault zone boundary. It characterizes the outer boundary of the uncertain zone at the end of the line.

[0051] Step S303: Determine the expected stress range corresponding to the fault event to be tested based on the comparison results.

[0052] It should be noted that the expected stress range can be the range of secondary loop evaluation objects determined based on the comparison results of the relative value of the fault distance and the dual threshold, and is the final result of the responsibility domain limitation.

[0053] It is understood that the set of actions included in the expected response range may include: the expected response set, the verification set, and the expected non-response set; that is: when the relative value of the fault distance is less than the threshold of the response zone boundary, the expected response range corresponding to the fault event to be tested is determined as the expected response set; or, when the relative value of the fault distance is greater than the threshold of the response zone boundary but less than the threshold of the outer side of the uncertainty zone, the expected response range corresponding to the fault event to be tested is determined as the verification set; or, when the relative value of the fault distance is greater than the threshold of the outer side of the uncertainty zone, the expected response range corresponding to the fault event to be tested is determined as the non-response set.

[0054] In one possible implementation, the obtained fault distance estimate is normalized to a relative location and used to determine the expected stress range and manage boundary uncertainties for the current fault event. Specifically, the normalized location is defined as: ; Set the discrimination threshold x in x out Where x in The boundary threshold representing the stress zone inside the line, x out The outer threshold characterizing the boundary uncertainty region satisfies 0 <x in <1 <x out The threshold can be determined by ranging error statistics or engineering calibration.

[0055] It is understood that the evaluation object in this embodiment is a pre-determined line bay (including the relay protection device and circuit breaker corresponding to the bay), and each evaluation object has a unique line identifier and terminal identifier. Fault location information and action event information can come from the same system or from different systems: the location information is used to determine the line and terminal corresponding to the fault; the action event information (such as the protection action output event and circuit breaker tripping event in the fault recording file) is mapped to the same line and terminal according to the point table / device number. When the location information and action event information come from different sources, based on the fault trigger time, data with similar times and consistent line identifiers and terminals are grouped into the object data set under the same fault event for subsequent action result correctness verification.

[0056] Based on this, three sets are defined for subsequent action correctness verification: the expected response set S1, the verification set S2, and the expected non-response set S3, and are divided according to the following rules: when the normalized position satisfies x <x in When the fault location is determined to be within the range of this line, the corresponding line bay / protection device is included in the expected response set S1, serving as the response object for verifying the correctness of subsequent action results. When the normalized position satisfies x... in <x<x outWhen the boundary is uncertain, the corresponding interval is included in the verification set S2. For objects in S2, only the correctness conclusions of actions marked as requiring verification are subsequently output to avoid making arbitrary judgments when the boundary is uncertain. This applies when the normalized position satisfies x>x. out If the fault location is determined to be outside the range of this line, the corresponding interval is included in the expected non-operational set S3 as the basis for subsequent verification of whether the non-operational object has taken action; if the object in S3 only has an execution-level key event (such as the circuit breaker tripping in place) in the event window but no protection action output event for the object is found, it is marked as an out-of-zone action risk / action source unknown, and enters the review set S2 for further verification.

[0057] In this embodiment, the estimated fault distance is normalized to obtain a relative fault distance value; the threshold values ​​for the affected zone boundary and the outer edge of the uncertain zone are obtained, and the relative fault distance value is compared with these threshold values; the expected affected range corresponding to the fault event to be tested is determined based on the comparison result. By normalizing the estimated fault distance value to a relative fault distance value, a unified standard for determining the fault location of lines of different lengths and voltage levels is established, avoiding judgment deviations caused by different line parameters and improving the universality and accuracy of fault location determination. By setting dual threshold values—the threshold value for the affected zone boundary and the threshold value for the outer edge of the uncertain zone—a hierarchical fault location determination system is established.

[0058] Based on the above embodiments of this application, in the fourth embodiment of this application, the same or similar content as the above embodiments can be referred to the above description, and will not be repeated hereafter. Based on this, please refer to... Figure 4 , Figure 4 This is a flowchart illustrating the fourth embodiment of the secondary loop evaluation method of this application. In this embodiment, step 30 includes: Step S401: Obtain the fault reference time of the fault event to be tested.

[0059] It should be noted that the fault reference time can be the core time node of the fault event to be tested, extracted from the COMTRADE waveform file and its supporting output information. It serves as the time reference for constructing the action event window and retrieving action events, and is also the basis for merging action data from different sources.

[0060] Step S402: Construct an action event window based on the fault reference time and the preset delay time.

[0061] It should be noted that the action event window can be based on the fault reference time, combined with a preset delay time to define a time range (the preset delay time in the patent is 0.2-0.5s). This is used to limit the retrieval interval of protection and circuit breaker action events after a fault, covering the fault clearing and possible short delays, and avoiding interference from irrelevant events. The preset delay time can be set according to the actual needs of the power system engineering (0.2-0.5s) to determine the time span of the action event window, ensuring complete coverage of the entire process of the protection device tripping output and the circuit breaker opening position after a fault.

[0062] Step S403: Extract the actual action events related to the tripping action from the action event window, and use the extracted actual action events to construct the actual action set.

[0063] It should be noted that actual action events can be extracted from the COMTRADE status channel events within the action event window, representing the actual action behavior of the secondary circuit. The actual action set can be formed by classifying and organizing all valid actual action events extracted from the action event window into action objects and corresponding event sets according to event type.

[0064] Step S404: Perform a consistency check between the set of actions corresponding to the expected response range and the set of actual actions to obtain a consistency check conclusion.

[0065] In one possible implementation, after obtaining the expected response range, key events related to the tripping action result are extracted from the COMTRADE state variable channel events to construct a set of actual action objects, which is then used for consistency verification with the aforementioned expected set. Taking the fault occurrence time t as an example... f Construct the action event window W based on the baseline a : ; Where T a The timeout range is 0.2-0.5 seconds, which can be set according to project needs (e.g., covering a single fault clearing and possible short-term delays). In W... a The window retrieves and organizes key action events in chronological order, including at least: protection trip output event I. trip and its time I trip Circuit breaker tripping event I cb and its time t cb To avoid multiple records for the same action due to repeated SOE transmission or circuit breaker auxiliary contact bounce, an event merging window T is set. merge For the same object and the same event type in T mergeMultiple records within the window are merged, and the earliest valid action time within the window is taken as the representative time of the event.

[0066] Based on the above event extraction results, to improve the reliability of the judgment, the actual actions are divided into two sets: 1) Exit action set A cmd If the evaluation object is in W a Internal retrieval of protection trip output event I trip (or equivalent exit event), then it is considered that the object has issued a trip exit signal, and the object is added to A. cmd 1) Record the representative moment; 2) Execute action set A exec If the evaluation object is in W a If a circuit breaker tripping event (Icb) (or equivalent execution event) is found within the internal retrieval, then the object is considered to have execution-level tripping evidence, and the object is added to A. exec And record the representative moment. Among them, A cmd A is used for consistency determination of "correct / incorrect actions". exec Used for generating verification prompts such as action link closed-loop verification and action source unknown.

[0067] Furthermore, the expected response set S1, the verification set S2, the expected non-response set S3, and the obtained actual action object set A are combined as described above. cmd A exec A consistency verification is performed, and a conclusion is outputting regarding the correctness of the relay protection device's operation under this fault event. To improve the feasibility and interpretability of the conclusion, this invention preferably utilizes object-level key event types simultaneously (including at least protection trip output event I). trip Circuit breaker tripping event I cb The criteria are based on the time of the action and the time of the action. For cases belonging to the review set S2 or with insufficient evidence, a "review required" flag is output with the reason, and no wrong judgment is forced when there is insufficient evidence. To avoid misjudgment in cases of uncertain boundaries or insufficient evidence, the conclusion is output with priority: first, a review requirement is determined; if the review requirement is not met, an incorrect action is determined; and finally, a correct action is determined.

[0068] It should be understood that the situations requiring verification (not directly outputting the erroneous action, but outputting "requires verification" with the reason) include: 1) Ranging result consistency check fails: After performing consistency verification on multi-source ranging results for the same fault event, if the ranging divergence exceeds a preset threshold, leading to unstable fault location constraints or insufficient reliability, then only "requires verification" will be output this time, without making a strong conclusion on the correctness of the relevant object's actions. 2) Boundary uncertainty: The object belongs to the verification set S2 (e.g., x). in <x<x out(Or insufficient ranging consistency leads to unstable position), this time only outputs "needs verification", without making a strong conclusion on the correctness of its action; 3) Missing key events: The key event type used for judgment is missing, for example, there is an object: , ; The above conditions are met, but the object I was not found. trip If the direct judgment conditions cannot be met, the output will be "requires review".

[0069] Furthermore, regarding the determination of erroneous actions: when the fault location constraint is reliable and the object does not belong to the review set S2, if any of the following conditions are met, it is determined to be an "erroneous action," and the triggering condition, a list of involved objects, and evidence of their key events (event type and representative time) are output. This can include: 1) Refusal to act type error: There is an expected responding object: ; No actual action was detected for the object within the event window. ; At this point, an "incorrect action" evaluation will be output.

[0070] It may also include: 2) Malfunctioning errors: The existence of expected non-responsive objects. ; The protection trip output command I for this object was retrieved within the event window. trip This means that the protection device itself issued a trip command. At this time, an "error action" evaluation is output.

[0071] Furthermore, regarding the determination of correct action: 1) For all expected response objects: ; The event window detected that the object issued a tripping output, namely: ; 2) For all expected non-responsive objects: ; No tripping output was detected from this object within the event window. ; This step should output at least the following structured fields: fault event identifier; object identifier (line / bay / protection device / circuit breaker); object set (S1 / S2 / S3); actual action set (A cmd A exec ); Object-level key event types and representative moments (I trip and t trip Icb and t cb Action results and conclusions (correct action / incorrect action / requires review) are used for operation and maintenance handling and statistical analysis.

[0072] In one implementation, PSCAD is used to build a power system fault simulation scenario, including the line being evaluated (including L0, L1, L2, and L3), fault signals from the protection devices at both ends (including P0, P1, P2, and P3), protection models (including D0, D1, D2, and D3), and circuit breaker models (including B0, B1, B2, and B3), such as... Figure 5 As shown, Figure 5 This is a schematic diagram of the structure of the fourth embodiment of the secondary circuit evaluation method of this application. The simulation presets the fault application location and time, and simultaneously sets / records the action timing of protection output signals and circuit breaker status signals (e.g., the time nodes of action events such as protection action output events and circuit breaker tripping events) as the reference truth value for the scenario. Due to the limitations of the simulation platform, a complete COMTRADE fault waveform file cannot be directly exported. This example simulates a key waveform dataset with the same organization as the fault waveform data, based on the fault timing and action event time nodes set in the PSCAD scenario. This dataset includes analog quantity feature sequences such as current / voltage to represent the occurrence of the fault, and state quantity event sequences to represent changes in the protection output and circuit breaker status. The transition times of each digital event are consistent with the action times of the corresponding signals in the PSCAD scenario (allowing for sampling and quantization errors).

[0073] Based on the above, this example sets the line length as follows: The simulation time range is taken as follows The fault application time is uniformly set to In the simulation, the location where the fault is applied is preset, and the response process at both ends after the fault is recorded as the scenario reference truth value. The reference truth value mainly includes two types of time information: one is the time when the protection actions at both ends occur; the other is the time when the circuit breakers at both ends act.

[0074] To ensure a clear sequential relationship between the two types of actions on the timeline, facilitating differentiation and statistical analysis, this example incorporates a delay module between "protection action" and "circuit breaker action" to construct the protection model. When a protection action is triggered, a corresponding circuit breaker action signal is generated after a set delay Δt, simulating the inherent action delay from the protection output to the circuit breaker actuator. Therefore, if the protection action occurs at time... If so, the corresponding circuit breaker will operate at t+Δt.

[0075] Based on the above simulation settings, in order to cover the three typical output results of this patented method, three further fault scenarios are constructed, as follows: Scenario 1: The fault occurs within the line area, 80km from end A. After the fault occurs, protection actions are triggered at both ends, and circuit breakers are activated: the protection action time at end A is set to t=0.28s, and the circuit breaker action time at end A is set to t=0.32s; the protection action time at end B is set to t=0.29s, and the circuit breaker action time at end B is set to t=0.34s.

[0076] Scenario 2: The fault occurs outside the line zone, 112km away from terminal A. Under the fault conditions outside the zone, a certain non-responsive object is configured to still activate its protection and drive the circuit breaker to operate (demonstrating maloperation): the protection activation time at terminal A is set to t=0.28s, and the circuit breaker activation time at terminal A is set to t=0.32s; no protection or circuit breaker operation occurs at the other terminals.

[0077] Scenario 3: The fault is applied near the end boundary, 99.5km from end A, causing the location determination to fall into the boundary uncertainty zone. In this scenario, in addition to setting the normal occurrence of protection and circuit breaker actions at end A (protection action t=0.28s, circuit breaker action t=0.32s at end A), a phenomenon where only the circuit breaker actions occur without corresponding protection actions is also set (to simulate unclear action sources / incomplete evidence): for example, the circuit breaker action time at end B is set to t=0.345s, while no protection action time is set at end B.

[0078] In the three simulation scenarios described above, the key dataset of the simulated waveform recording is used as input. Following the method described in this patent, the following steps are performed sequentially: ranging consistency verification and fault distance estimation, normalized position calculation and object set partitioning, exit / execution evidence extraction within the action event window, and conclusion output based on priority rules. This yields the evaluation results for each scenario, summarized in Table 1. Subsequently, the output conclusions of this method shown in Table 1 are compared and verified with the PSCAD scenario reference truth values: For fault scenario 1 within the area, because the normalized position satisfies… The relevant objects should be included in the expected response object set. And the event window satisfies and Therefore, "correct action" should be output; for scenario 2, which involves erroneous action outside the designated area, because... If an area is determined to be outside the designated zone, the relevant objects should be classified into the expected non-responsive set. ,exist and If the erroneous action criterion is met, "erroneous action" is output; for scenario 3 with uncertain boundaries, because... When a review set is triggered, this method should output "Review Required" according to the priority rules. Meanwhile, Table 1 contains... The attributes within / outside / boundary zone determined by the threshold relationship should be consistent with the fault location attributes preset in the PSCAD scene, and the "correct action / incorrect action / requires verification" conclusion output by this method is consistent with the reference truth value of the PSCAD scene, indicating that the judgment logic of this method is feasible.

[0079] The above are merely preferred embodiments of this application and do not limit the patent scope of this application. Any equivalent structural or procedural transformations made using the content of this application's specification and drawings, or direct or indirect applications in other related technical fields, are similarly included within the patent scope of this application.

[0080] This application also provides a secondary circuit evaluation device, please refer to... Figure 6 The secondary circuit evaluation device includes: The location acquisition module 10 is used to acquire the fault distance estimate associated with the fault event to be tested, wherein the fault distance estimate is the electrical distance from the location where the fault event to be tested occurs to the fault sampling end; The response confirmation module 20 is used to determine the expected response range corresponding to the fault event to be tested based on the fault distance estimation value; The action judgment module 30 is used to extract the actual action set, perform a consistency check judgment between the action set corresponding to the expected response range and the actual action set, and obtain a consistency check judgment conclusion. The result output module 40 is used to output the evaluation result corresponding to the fault event to be tested based on the consistency verification judgment conclusion.

[0081] The secondary circuit evaluation device provided in this application, employing the secondary circuit evaluation method in the above embodiments, can solve the technical problem of inaccurate secondary circuit fault evaluation. Compared with the prior art, the beneficial effects of the secondary circuit evaluation device provided in this application are the same as those of the secondary circuit evaluation method provided in the above embodiments, and other technical features in the secondary circuit evaluation device are the same as those disclosed in the methods of the above embodiments, and will not be repeated here.

[0082] This application provides a secondary loop evaluation device, which includes: at least one processor; and a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor; wherein the memory stores instructions executable by the at least one processor, and the instructions are executed by the at least one processor to enable the at least one processor to perform the secondary loop evaluation method in Embodiment 1 above.

[0083] The following is for reference. Figure 7The diagram illustrates a structural schematic of a secondary loop evaluation device suitable for implementing embodiments of this application. The secondary loop evaluation device in the embodiments of this application may include, but is not limited to, mobile terminals such as mobile phones, laptops, digital broadcast receivers, PDAs (Personal Digital Assistants), PADs (Portable Application Description), PMPs (Portable Media Players), in-vehicle terminals (e.g., in-vehicle navigation terminals), and fixed terminals such as digital TVs and desktop computers. Figure 7 The secondary circuit evaluation device shown is merely an example and should not impose any limitations on the functionality and scope of use of the embodiments of this application.

[0084] like Figure 7 As shown, the secondary loop evaluation device may include a processing unit 1001 (e.g., a central processing unit, a graphics processing unit, etc.), which can perform various appropriate actions and processes according to a program stored in a read-only memory (ROM) 1002 or a program loaded from a storage device 1003 into a random access memory (RAM) 1004. The RAM 1004 also stores various programs and data required for the operation of the secondary loop evaluation device. The processing unit 1001, ROM 1002, and RAM 1004 are interconnected via a bus 1005. An input / output (I / O) interface 1006 is also connected to the bus. Typically, the following systems can be connected to the I / O interface 1006: input devices 1007 including, for example, a touchscreen, touchpad, keyboard, mouse, image sensor, microphone, accelerometer, gyroscope, etc.; output devices 1008 including, for example, a liquid crystal display (LCD), speaker, vibrator, etc.; storage devices 1003 including, for example, magnetic tape, hard disk, etc.; and communication devices 1009. The communication device 1009 allows the secondary circuit evaluation equipment to communicate wirelessly or wiredly with other devices to exchange data. Although the figures show secondary circuit evaluation equipment with various systems, it should be understood that implementation or possession of all the systems shown is not required. More or fewer systems may be implemented alternatively.

[0085] Specifically, according to the embodiments disclosed in this application, the processes described above with reference to the flowcharts can be implemented as computer software programs. For example, embodiments disclosed in this application include a computer program product comprising a computer program carried on a computer-readable medium, the computer program containing program code for performing the methods shown in the flowcharts. In such embodiments, the computer program can be downloaded and installed from a network via a communication device, or installed from storage device 1003, or installed from ROM 1002. When the computer program is executed by processing device 1001, it performs the functions defined in the methods of the embodiments disclosed in this application.

[0086] The secondary circuit evaluation device provided in this application adopts the secondary circuit evaluation method in the above embodiments. Compared with the prior art, the beneficial effects of the secondary circuit evaluation device provided in this application are the same as the beneficial effects of the secondary circuit evaluation method provided in the above embodiments. Moreover, the other technical features of the secondary circuit evaluation device are the same as the features disclosed in the method of the previous embodiment, and will not be repeated here.

[0087] It should be understood that the various parts disclosed in this application can be implemented using hardware, software, firmware, or a combination thereof. In the description of the above embodiments, specific features, structures, materials, or characteristics can be combined in any suitable manner in one or more embodiments or examples.

[0088] The above description is merely a specific embodiment of this application, but the scope of protection of this application is not limited thereto. Any variations or substitutions that can be easily conceived by those skilled in the art within the scope of the technology disclosed in this application should be included within the scope of protection of this application. Therefore, the scope of protection of this application should be determined by the scope of the claims.

[0089] This application provides a computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program instructions (i.e., a computer program) stored thereon, the computer-readable program instructions being used to execute the secondary loop evaluation method in the above embodiments.

[0090] The computer-readable storage medium provided in this application may be, for example, a USB flash drive, but is not limited to, electrical, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, or semiconductor systems, devices, or any combination thereof. More specific examples of computer-readable storage media may include, but are not limited to: electrical connections having one or more wires, portable computer disks, hard disks, random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or flash memory), optical fiber, portable compact disk read-only memory (CD-ROM), optical storage devices, magnetic storage devices, or any suitable combination thereof. In this embodiment, the computer-readable storage medium may be any tangible medium containing or storing a program that can be used by or in conjunction with an instruction execution system, system, or device. The program code contained on the computer-readable storage medium may be transmitted using any suitable medium, including but not limited to: wires, optical cables, RF (Radio Frequency), etc., or any suitable combination thereof.

[0091] The aforementioned computer-readable storage medium may be included in the secondary circuit evaluation device; or it may exist independently and not be assembled into the secondary circuit evaluation device.

[0092] Computer program code for performing the operations of this application can be written in one or more programming languages ​​or a combination thereof, including object-oriented programming languages ​​such as Java, Smalltalk, and C++, and conventional procedural programming languages ​​such as the "C" language or similar programming languages. The program code can be executed entirely on the user's computer, partially on the user's computer, as a standalone software package, partially on the user's computer and partially on a remote computer, or entirely on a remote computer or server. In cases involving remote computers, the remote computer can be connected to the user's computer via any type of network—including a Local Area Network (LAN) or a Wide Area Network (WAN)—or can be connected to an external computer (e.g., via the Internet using an Internet service provider).

[0093] The flowcharts and block diagrams in the accompanying drawings illustrate the architecture, functionality, and operation of possible implementations of systems, methods, and computer program products according to various embodiments of this application. In this regard, each block in a flowchart or block diagram may represent a module, segment, or portion of code containing one or more executable instructions for implementing a specified logical function. It should also be noted that in some alternative implementations, the functions indicated in the blocks may occur in a different order than those indicated in the drawings. For example, two consecutively indicated blocks may actually be executed substantially in parallel, and they may sometimes be executed in reverse order, depending on the functions involved. It should also be noted that each block in the block diagrams and / or flowcharts, and combinations of blocks in the block diagrams and / or flowcharts, can be implemented using a dedicated hardware-based system that performs the specified function or operation, or using a combination of dedicated hardware and computer instructions.

[0094] The modules described in the embodiments of this application can be implemented in software or hardware. The names of the modules do not necessarily limit the functionality of the unit itself.

[0095] The readable storage medium provided in this application is a computer-readable storage medium that stores computer-readable program instructions (i.e., a computer program) for executing the above-described secondary circuit evaluation method, thereby solving the technical problem of inaccurate secondary circuit fault evaluation. Compared with the prior art, the beneficial effects of the computer-readable storage medium provided in this application are the same as those of the secondary circuit evaluation method provided in the above embodiments, and will not be repeated here.

[0096] The above description is only a part of the embodiments of this application and does not limit the patent scope of this application. All equivalent structural transformations made under the technical concept of this application and using the contents of the specification and drawings of this application, or direct / indirect applications in other related technical fields, are included in the patent protection scope of this application.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating secondary circuits, characterized in that, The secondary circuit evaluation method includes the following steps: Obtain the fault distance estimate associated with the fault event to be tested, wherein the fault distance estimate is the electrical distance from the location of the fault event to be tested to the fault sampling end; The expected stress range corresponding to the fault event to be tested is determined based on the fault distance estimate. Extract the actual action set, and perform a consistency check between the action set corresponding to the expected response range and the actual action set to obtain a consistency check conclusion. Based on the consistency verification judgment conclusion, the evaluation result corresponding to the fault event to be tested is output.

2. The secondary circuit evaluation method as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The step of obtaining the fault distance estimate associated with the fault event to be tested includes: Acquire multiple and / or multi-source fault distance sampling values ​​for the fault event to be tested; A ranging sample sequence is constructed using multiple fault distance sample values; Calculate the normalized dispersion of the ranging sample sequence; If the normalized dispersion does not exceed the preset consistency criterion, the robust center value of the ranging sample sequence is used as the fault distance estimate.

3. The secondary circuit evaluation method as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The step of determining the expected stress range corresponding to the fault event to be tested based on the fault distance estimate includes: The estimated fault distance is normalized to obtain the relative fault distance value; Obtain the threshold values ​​of the stress zone boundary and the threshold values ​​of the uncertain zone outer side, and compare the relative value of the fault distance with the threshold values ​​of the stress zone boundary and the threshold values ​​of the uncertain zone outer side. The expected stress range corresponding to the fault event to be tested is determined based on the comparison results.

4. The secondary circuit evaluation method as described in claim 3, characterized in that, The expected response range includes the following set of actions: the expected response set, the review set, and the expected non-response set; The step of determining the expected stress range corresponding to the fault event to be tested based on the comparison results includes: If the relative value of the fault distance is less than the threshold value of the stress zone boundary, the expected stress range corresponding to the fault event to be tested is determined as the expected stress set; or, If the relative value of the fault distance is greater than the threshold of the stress zone boundary but less than the threshold of the outer edge of the uncertainty zone, the expected stress range corresponding to the fault event to be tested is determined as the verification set; or, If the relative value of the fault distance is greater than the threshold outside the uncertainty zone, the expected stress range corresponding to the fault event to be tested is determined to be the non-stress set.

5. The secondary circuit evaluation method as described in claim 4, characterized in that, The step of extracting the actual action set, performing a consistency check between the action set corresponding to the expected response range and the actual action set, and obtaining a consistency check conclusion includes: Obtain the fault reference time of the fault event to be tested; An action event window is constructed based on the fault reference time and the preset delay time; Extract the actual action events related to the tripping action from the action event window, and use the extracted actual action events to construct the actual action set; The set of actions corresponding to the expected response range is compared with the set of actual actions to obtain a consistency verification result.

6. The secondary circuit evaluation method as described in claim 5, characterized in that, The actual action events include: protection trip output events and circuit breaker tripping in place events; the actual action set includes: output action set and execution action set. The step of extracting actual action events related to the tripping action from the action event window and constructing the actual action set using the extracted actual action events includes: If the protection trip output event is found in the action event window, the fault event to be tested is constructed into an output action set; or, If the circuit breaker tripping event is found in the action event window, the fault event to be tested is constructed into a set of actions to be executed.

7. The secondary circuit evaluation method as described in claim 6, characterized in that, The evaluation results include: a review requirement, an incorrect action, and a correct action. The step of outputting the evaluation result corresponding to the fault event under test based on the consistency check judgment conclusion includes: Based on the order of need-to-review determination, erroneous action determination, and correct action determination, the evaluation results corresponding to the fault event to be tested are output sequentially according to the consistency verification judgment conclusion.

8. A secondary circuit evaluation device, characterized in that, The device includes: The location acquisition module is used to acquire the fault distance estimate associated with the fault event to be tested, wherein the fault distance estimate is the electrical distance from the location where the fault event to be tested occurs to the fault sampling end; The response confirmation module is used to determine the expected response range corresponding to the fault event to be tested based on the fault distance estimate. The action judgment module is used to extract the actual action set, perform a consistency check between the action set corresponding to the expected response range and the actual action set, and obtain a consistency check judgment conclusion. The result output module is used to output the evaluation result corresponding to the fault event to be tested based on the consistency verification judgment conclusion.

9. A secondary circuit evaluation device, characterized in that, The secondary loop evaluation device includes: a memory, a processor, and a secondary loop evaluation processing program stored in the memory and executable on the processor. When the secondary loop evaluation processing program is executed by the processor, it implements the steps of the secondary loop evaluation method as described in any one of claims 1 to 7.

10. A storage medium, characterized in that, The storage medium is a computer-readable storage medium, and a computer program is stored on the storage medium. When the computer program is executed by a processor, it implements the steps of the secondary loop evaluation method as described in any one of claims 1 to 7.

Images