A mobile device dynamic scheduling method and system for multi-unit accidents

Abstract

This application discloses a method and system for dynamic scheduling of mobile equipment in the event of multi-unit accidents. The method includes: acquiring accident monitoring variables and engineering status parameters of mobile equipment for each unit; obtaining the effective mitigation time margin for each unit based on at least the accident monitoring variables; obtaining a score that includes at least the urgency of the unit status and the timeliness of commissioning based on the accident monitoring variables, engineering status parameters, and effective mitigation time margin, using a mobile equipment mitigation effectiveness evaluation model; obtaining a mitigation priority index for each unit based on the score; and sorting the units according to their mitigation priority indices to generate scheduling control instructions. This application resolves equipment allocation conflicts under multi-unit common-cause accidents, ensuring that limited mobile equipment is prioritized for deployment to units with the greatest mitigation benefits and the most urgent safety threats, thereby improving the overall safety of the entire plant.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This application relates to the field of nuclear power plant accident management and emergency response technology, and in particular to a method and system for dynamic scheduling of mobile equipment for multi-unit accidents. Background Technology

[0002] With the development of the nuclear power industry, multi-unit site layout has become the mainstream. To cope with severe accidents, nuclear power plants are usually equipped with mobile equipment such as mobile pumps and mobile power supplies as redundancy for accident mitigation.

[0003] In existing technologies, the scheduling schemes for mobile equipment are typically pre-set for single-unit accidents. However, external events such as earthquakes, tsunamis, extreme weather, or power grid failures may cause multiple units at the same site to simultaneously enter accident conditions. These conditions may include design basis accidents (DBA), such as loss of coolant accident (LOCA), or beyond design basis accidents (BDBA), such as loss of all AC power.

[0004] In the aforementioned multi-unit accident scenarios, multiple units are highly likely to compete for the same mobile equipment simultaneously. Current decision-making primarily relies on emergency commanders making qualitative judgments based on paper-based Incident Management Procedures (SAMG) and experience. However, existing Safety Parameter Display Systems (SPDS) can only statically display the parameters of each unit, failing to comprehensively consider factors such as transport time, connection latency, and the match between equipment capabilities and unit requirements in harsh environments. Human decision-making struggles to handle such complex multivariate game-theories within a very short, high-pressure timeframe, easily leading to decision delays or equipment mismatches—for example, sending equipment to units that are beyond repair while neglecting those that can be salvaged.

[0005] Existing technology CN116861646B discloses a method for evaluating the configuration of mobile equipment in nuclear power bases based on multi-unit safety assessment. This method includes: modeling mobile equipment; adding mobile equipment to the event tree and fault tree of a single-unit PSA model using PSA software, and analyzing the timing of mobile equipment intervention and personnel reliability events; establishing a MUPSA model using PSA software; setting up and calculating sensitivity analysis examples; analyzing risk changes using the calculation results and initially selecting configuration schemes; performing multi-objective comprehensive optimization analysis combining configuration maintenance costs, availability, and integrated emergency dispatch to further screen configuration schemes; and providing an evaluation of the existing configurations of the nuclear power base and configuration recommendations based on the screened configuration schemes. This method focuses on the static optimization of the number of equipment configurations, without addressing dynamic dispatch decisions after a real-time accident. It cannot respond to the rapid evolution of unit status, sudden disruption of transportation routes, and real-time changes in the matching of equipment capacity and demand during an accident process, and lacks the ability to achieve dynamic optimal allocation of a single piece of equipment among multiple units in real accident response scenarios.

[0006] Existing technology CN119066887B discloses a mobile equipment scheduling system under multi-unit accidents in nuclear power plants. In this system, a multi-unit accident simulation unit establishes an accident model through a severe accident analysis program, simulates and calculates the initial state of each unit accident, and obtains basic parameter data, key state data, and indicator data. A mobile emergency equipment demand unit establishes mobile emergency equipment demand logic and determines the scheduling scheme for mobile emergency equipment based on accident handling procedures and severe accident management guidelines. An accident mitigation simulation unit, based on the initial accident state and combined with the scheduling demand of mobile emergency equipment, conducts accident simulation and comparative analysis through a severe accident analysis program to evaluate the accident mitigation results. A mobile emergency equipment scheduling decision unit comprehensively determines the final mobile equipment scheduling decision under multi-unit accidents. This system relies on repeated simulation comparisons using a severe accident analysis program, resulting in a long calculation cycle and difficulty in meeting the real-time requirements of minute-level response in accident emergencies. Its scheduling decision depends on the results of post-accident simulation comparisons and lacks a mechanism for quantitative evaluation before scheduling. This leads to the risk of scheduling failure due to information delays, unreachable paths, or equipment capacity mismatches in actual multi-unit co-cause accidents. Summary of the Invention

[0007] The purpose of this application is to solve the technical problem that, under multi-unit common-cause accidents, it is difficult for limited mobile equipment to quickly determine the scheduling target among multiple candidate units due to real-time changes in state evolution, path reachability and equipment matching.

[0008] To achieve the above objectives, the first aspect of this application proposes a dynamic scheduling method for mobile equipment in the event of multi-unit accidents, comprising: acquiring accident monitoring variables and engineering status parameters of mobile equipment for each unit; obtaining the effective mitigation time margin for each unit based on at least the accident monitoring variables; obtaining a score that includes at least the urgency of the unit status and the timeliness of commissioning based on the accident monitoring variables, engineering status parameters, and effective mitigation time margin, and using a mobile equipment mitigation effectiveness evaluation model; obtaining a mitigation priority index for each unit based on the score; and sorting the units according to their mitigation priority indices to generate scheduling control instructions.

[0009] Furthermore, the effective mitigation time margin for each unit, obtained based on at least the accident monitoring variables, includes: the time it takes for the accident to evolve to reach the preset safety limit based on at least the accident monitoring variables, and the effective mitigation time margin for each unit calculated in conjunction with the time required for the deployment of mobile equipment.

[0010] Furthermore, accident monitoring variables include one or more of decay heat, containment pressure, and core exit temperature.

[0011] Furthermore, the effective mitigation time margin for each unit, obtained based on at least the accident monitoring variables, includes: predicting the critical moments of primary loop pressure boundary failure, spent fuel pool boiling, and containment overpressure based on the unit's current thermal-hydraulic parameters and decay heat curves; calculating the time difference between each critical moment and the current moment, taking the smallest time difference, and subtracting the sum of the transportation time, placement time, and connection and commissioning time of the mobile equipment from its current location to the target unit to obtain the effective mitigation time margin.

[0012] Furthermore, the unit status urgency score includes: scoring the unit status urgency based on the degree of threat to the integrity of the fission product barriers and the accident escalation rate, the fission product barriers including the cladding, pressure boundary and containment.

[0013] Furthermore, the commissioning timeliness assessment includes: acquiring on-site meteorological data, radiation monitoring data, and road surveillance video; identifying areas along the transport route where at least one of the following exceeds the acceptable range for the transport of mobile equipment configured by the power plant: radiation dose rate, fire thermal radiation intensity, and flooding depth, or where road collapse is caused by an earthquake; correcting the estimated arrival time of mobile equipment based on the identification results, and scoring the commissioning timeliness according to the estimated arrival time and effective mitigation time margin; if the estimated arrival time exceeds the effective mitigation time margin, the commissioning timeliness score is downgraded.

[0014] Furthermore, the scoring also includes: scores for mitigation strategy matching, human factor reliability, and redundancy effectiveness, based on accident monitoring variables, engineering status parameters, and effective mitigation time margin, and obtained using a mobile device mitigation effectiveness assessment model.

[0015] Furthermore, the engineering status parameters include one or more of the following: interface size, head-flow characteristic curve, power supply capacity, voltage system, frequency, phase sequence, and fuel quantity.

[0016] Furthermore, the scoring of mitigation strategy matching degree includes: scoring the mitigation strategy matching degree based on the results of the matching verification of the physical parameters of the mobile device and the unit's requirements; matching verification includes one or more of the following: fluid mechanical matching verification, electrical parameter matching verification, and sustainability assessment verification; fluid mechanical matching verification verifies whether the head-flow characteristic curve of the mobile pump covers the unit's water injection requirement point under the current pressure; electrical parameter matching verification verifies whether the power capacity, voltage system, frequency, and phase sequence of the mobile power supply match the unit's access bus; sustainability assessment verification verifies the availability of the fuel carried by the mobile device, external water supply, and external oil supply.

[0017] Furthermore, the human factors reliability score includes: scoring human factors reliability based on operator availability and communication quality.

[0018] Furthermore, the effectiveness of redundancy measures is scored based on whether the unit has other backup mitigation paths.

[0019] Furthermore, before obtaining the mitigation priority index for each unit based on the score, the process also includes: making a veto decision on each unit based on at least the engineering status parameters. If the current unit is determined to be beyond rescue in terms of unit status urgency or commissioning timeliness, then the mitigation priority of the current unit is set to the lowest.

[0020] Furthermore, the mitigation priority index for each unit, based on the scoring, includes: a weighted sum of scores on the urgency of the unit's status, the timeliness of commissioning, the matching degree of mitigation strategies, the reliability of human factors, and the effectiveness of redundancy measures, multiplied by a veto coefficient, to obtain the mitigation priority index for each unit; wherein, when the engineering status parameters of the mobile equipment cannot meet the minimum mitigation requirements of the unit or the transportation path is unreachable, the veto coefficient is set to 0, otherwise it is set to 1.

[0021] Furthermore, the mitigation priority index for each unit, based on the scoring, also includes: when the difference between the mitigation priority indices of two or more units is within a preset error range, priority is given to the unit with the largest potential release of radioactive source terms; if the potential of radioactive source terms is comparable, priority is given to the unit with the smaller effective mitigation time margin.

[0022] Furthermore, after generating the scheduling control command, it also includes: recalculating and sorting the mitigation priority index when a step change in the key parameters of the unit is detected during a preset time period; if the sorting result changes and the mobile device has not completed the physical connection, a rescheduling command is generated; the key parameters include at least the core outlet temperature and containment pressure.

[0023] Furthermore, there is a positive correlation between the commissioning timeliness score and the effective mitigation time margin.

[0024] To achieve the above objectives, the second aspect of this application proposes a dynamic scheduling system for mobile equipment in the event of multi-unit accidents, comprising: an acquisition module for acquiring accident monitoring variables of each unit and engineering status parameters of the mobile equipment; an effective mitigation time margin calculation module for obtaining the effective mitigation time margin of each unit based on the accident monitoring variables; a scoring module for obtaining a score based on the accident monitoring variables, engineering status parameters, and effective mitigation time margin, and using a mobile equipment mitigation effectiveness evaluation model, including at least the urgency of the unit status and the timeliness of commissioning; a mitigation priority index calculation module for obtaining the mitigation priority index of each unit based on the score; and a scheduling control instruction generation module for sorting according to the mitigation priority index of each unit and generating scheduling control instructions.

[0025] To achieve the above objectives, a third aspect of this application provides a computer-readable storage medium comprising a stored computer program, wherein the computer program can be executed by an electronic device to provide a method for dynamic scheduling of mobile devices in the event of a multi-unit accident.

[0026] To achieve the above objectives, the fourth aspect of this application proposes a computer program product, including a computer program that, when executed by a processor, implements the steps of the described method for dynamic scheduling of mobile equipment in the face of multi-unit accidents.

[0027] To achieve the above objectives, a fifth aspect of this application provides an electronic device including a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program and the processor is configured to execute the aforementioned method for dynamic scheduling of mobile equipment in the event of multi-unit accidents via the computer program.

[0028] By applying the above-described technical solution of this application, at least the following technical effects are achieved: 1. This application realizes the transformation of complex emergency decision-making into quantitative calculation based on physical parameters in complex nuclear accident scenarios with limited resources and rapidly changing operating conditions. Through a veto and dynamic reassessment mechanism, it significantly improves the scientificity and timeliness of decision-making in multi-unit accidents. 2. This application integrates the critical moment of the failure of the unit's fission product barrier with the time consumed throughout the entire process of transportation, placement, and commissioning of mobile equipment, and dynamically calculates the time window that can be used for actual intervention. This enables scheduling decisions to be based on quantifiable physical time constraints, breaking through the limitations of traditional qualitative judgments based solely on the severity of the situation, and significantly enhancing the time rationality and engineering operability of scheduling instructions. 3. This application constructs a weighted mitigation priority index and introduces a veto coefficient based on physical capabilities and path reachability to enforce the blocking of fundamentally infeasible scheduling, ensuring that limited mobile equipment is only deployed to rescueable, reachable, and matched units, significantly reducing the risk of resource mismatch and improving the accuracy and safety of accident mitigation. 4. After the scheduling command is issued, this application can still automatically trigger the recalculation and ranking comparison of the mitigation priority index based on the preset period or the step change of key parameters. If the priority is substantially reversed and the equipment has not yet been connected, a rescheduling command will be automatically generated and issued to realize closed-loop control of decision-making-execution-feedback-correction. This enables the system to have real-time adaptive capability to cope with the uncertainty of accident evolution, greatly enhancing the robustness and dynamic resilience of emergency response.

[0029] Additional aspects and advantages of this application will be set forth in part in the description which follows, and in part will be obvious from the description, or may be learned by practice of this application. Attached Figure Description

[0030] The accompanying drawings, which form part of this application, are used to provide a further understanding of this application. The illustrative embodiments and descriptions of this application are used to explain this application and do not constitute an undue limitation of this application. In the drawings: Figure 1 A flowchart of a method for dynamic scheduling of mobile equipment in response to multi-unit accidents is presented as an embodiment; Figure 2 A schematic diagram of the indicator system and weighting structure of a mobile device mitigation effectiveness evaluation model in one embodiment is presented; Figure 3 A schematic diagram of a dynamic scheduling decision-making process based on a mitigation priority index is presented in one embodiment; Figure 4 A flowchart of another embodiment of a dynamic scheduling method for mobile equipment in the face of multi-unit accidents is presented; Figure 5 A schematic diagram of the structure of a dynamic scheduling system for mobile equipment in the face of multi-unit accidents is shown as an embodiment; Figure 6 A schematic diagram of the structure of a dynamic scheduling product for multiple unit accidents is shown as an embodiment; Figure 7 A schematic diagram of the structure of an electronic device according to an embodiment is shown. Detailed Implementation

[0031] It should be noted that, unless otherwise specified, the embodiments and features described in this application can be combined with each other. This application will now be described in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings and embodiments.

[0032] The present application will be further described in detail below with reference to specific embodiments, which should not be construed as limiting the scope of protection claimed in the present application.

[0033] Example 1

[0034] According to one aspect of this application, a dynamic scheduling method for mobile equipment in the face of multi-unit accidents is proposed.

[0035] In this embodiment, taking a multi-unit heterogeneous accident caused by an earthquake as an example, a nuclear power base was hit by a strong earthquake. The site contains two units (Unit 1 and Unit 2) and there is only one available mobile power supply vehicle.

[0036] like Figure 1 The image illustrates a method for dynamic scheduling of mobile equipment in the event of a multi-unit accident, according to an embodiment of this application. The process mainly includes the following steps: S1. Obtain the accident monitoring variables and engineering status parameters of each unit and the equipment.

[0037] Furthermore, accident monitoring variables include one or more of decay heat, containment pressure, and core outlet temperature; engineering condition parameters include one or more of interface size, head-flow characteristic curve, power supply capacity, voltage system, frequency, phase sequence, and fuel quantity.

[0038] When multiple units are detected to be in an accident condition at the same time, the accident condition parameters of each unit in the plant are read in real time through the data interface, including the accident monitoring variables of each unit and the engineering status parameters of the on-site mobile equipment.

[0039] The accident scenarios include Design Basis Accidents (DBA) and Beyond Design Basis Accidents (BDBA), specifically including: Plant-wide Power Outage (SBO), Loss of Ultimate Heat Sink (LUHS), Loss of Main Feedwater, Loss of Coolant (LOCA), Internal Fire, Internal Flooding, or common-cause failures caused by earthquakes; mobile equipment includes, but is not limited to: medium and low-voltage mobile diesel generators, high-voltage mobile pumps, low-voltage high-flow mobile pumps, mobile air compressors, and mobile fans.

[0040] Specifically, in this embodiment, the system reads SPDS data through a multi-source data acquisition interface for accident detection and status identification. Unit 1 experiences a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) under design basis, and the emergency diesel engine fails to start, resulting in high primary circuit pressure. It urgently needs to restore power to the intermediate-pressure safety injection pump for core replenishment. Unit 2 experiences a total plant blackout (SBO), which is being maintained using a steam-driven auxiliary feedwater pump, and its status is temporarily stable. However, the battery is expected to run out in 4 hours, at which point monitoring will be lost. Both units request the use of a mobile power vehicle, resulting in a resource conflict.

[0041] S2. Based on at least the accident monitoring variables, obtain the effective mitigation time margin for each unit.

[0042] Furthermore, based on at least the accident monitoring variables, the time it takes for the accident to evolve to reach the preset safety limit is predicted, and the effective mitigation time margin for each unit is calculated in combination with the time required for the deployment of mobile equipment.

[0043] Based on accident monitoring variables, the current accident process stage and fission product barrier integrity status of each unit are determined. Then, dynamic spatiotemporal matching analysis is used to calculate the remaining mitigation time window for each unit before the critical safety function (CSF) becomes unrecoverable, the core is damaged, or the spent fuel is damaged. The logistics time of moving equipment (including transportation, connection, and commissioning) is subtracted to obtain the effective mitigation time margin.

[0044] Furthermore, based on the current thermal-hydraulic parameters and decay heat curves of the unit, the critical moments for primary loop pressure boundary failure, spent fuel pool boiling, and containment overpressure are predicted respectively. The time difference between each critical moment and the current moment is calculated, the smallest time difference is taken, and the sum of the transportation time, placement time, and connection and commissioning time of the mobile equipment from its current location to the target unit is subtracted to obtain an effective mitigation time margin.

[0045] Specifically, in this embodiment, the system performs dynamic spatiotemporal matching analysis: For Unit 1, thermal-hydraulic calculations indicate that the reactor core will be exposed in 1 hour (critical time). Due to road damage caused by the earthquake, the mobile power supply vehicle is expected to arrive in 50 minutes. Effective mitigation time margin = 60min - 50min = 10min (extremely tight, but theoretically feasible); For Unit 2, the critical time is 4 hours. The path is clear, and the estimated arrival time is 30 minutes. The effective mitigation time margin is 240 min - 30 min = 210 min (very ample).

[0046] S3. Based on accident monitoring variables, engineering status parameters, and effective mitigation time margin, and using a mobile device mitigation effectiveness assessment model, a score is obtained that includes at least the urgency of the unit status and the timeliness of commissioning.

[0047] Furthermore, the scoring also includes: scores for mitigation strategy matching, human factor reliability, and redundancy effectiveness, based on accident monitoring variables, engineering status parameters, and effective mitigation time margin, and obtained using a mobile device mitigation effectiveness assessment model.

[0048] The pre-set mobile device mitigation effectiveness assessment model is invoked to match and calculate the accident monitoring variables of each unit with the engineering status parameters of the mobile devices. The mobile device mitigation effectiveness assessment model includes five evaluation dimensions: unit status urgency, commissioning timeliness, mitigation strategy matching degree, human factor reliability, and redundancy effectiveness. Each dimension has a pre-set weighting coefficient determined based on nuclear safety importance analysis.

[0049] Furthermore, the unit status urgency score includes: scoring the unit status urgency based on the degree of threat to the integrity of the fission product barriers and the accident escalation rate, the fission product barriers including the cladding, pressure boundary and containment.

[0050] Specifically, in this embodiment, crew status urgency is a key factor in scheduling priority decisions. The main purpose of analyzing crew status urgency is to assess and compare the consequences of each crew failing to implement relevant mitigation measures for mobile equipment, thereby supporting decisions on the priority of mobile equipment deployment. The crew status urgency score is the sum of the following two scores: Speed ​​of the accident process: 40 points total. Rapid accident process (40 points), relatively slow accident process (20 points), very slow accident process (0 points). For example: spent fuel pool accidents generally proceed very slowly, while reactor accidents with successful secondary side heating generally proceed slowly; Severity of the threat posed by the fission product barrier without intervention and the magnitude of potential radioactive release: 60 points. Threatens the fission product release barrier and may cause a large release of radioactivity (60 points); Threatens the fission product release barrier but the potential release of radioactivity is small (e.g., the reactor core is intact but the containment vessel has a breach) (30 points); No threat of fission product barrier / radioactive release (0 points).

[0051] Furthermore, the commissioning timeliness assessment includes: acquiring on-site meteorological data, radiation monitoring data, and road surveillance video; identifying areas along the transport route where at least one of the following exceeds the acceptable range for the transport of mobile equipment configured by the power plant: radiation dose rate, fire thermal radiation intensity, and flooding depth, or where road collapse is caused by an earthquake; correcting the estimated arrival time of mobile equipment based on the identification results, and scoring the commissioning timeliness according to the estimated arrival time and effective mitigation time margin; if the estimated arrival time exceeds the effective mitigation time margin, the commissioning timeliness score is downgraded.

[0052] Specifically, in this embodiment, the timeliness of commissioning is also a crucial factor in determining the priority of deployment. When assessing the impact of equipment commissioning time on mitigation effectiveness, the time window requirements for equipment commissioning under accident conditions should be considered, and it should be noted that different accident conditions have different time window requirements for equipment commissioning. The score for commissioning timeliness is the sum of the following two scores: The degree to which mobile equipment deployment time meets the unit's time window requirements: 70 points maximum. The scoring considers the accessibility of mobile equipment deployment to the unit. Scoring method: Deployment time faster than the time window (70 points), close to the time window (40 points), slower than the time window (20 points), unreachable (0 points); The degree to which the mobile device's operating time meets the operating time window requirements of other units: 30 points maximum. The evaluation of the degree of satisfaction refers to the fact that after a unit uses the mobile device for a period of time, it can be used by another unit or used alternately by multiple units. Scoring method: Can be shared by 2 or more units including this unit (30 points), sharing is possible but may not meet the time window requirements (15 points), cannot be shared (0 points).

[0053] Furthermore, the scoring of mitigation strategy matching degree includes: scoring the mitigation strategy matching degree based on the results of the matching verification of the physical parameters of the mobile device and the unit's requirements; matching verification includes one or more of the following: fluid mechanical matching verification, electrical parameter matching verification, and sustainability assessment verification; fluid mechanical matching verification verifies whether the head-flow characteristic curve of the mobile pump covers the unit's water injection requirement point under the current pressure; electrical parameter matching verification verifies whether the power capacity, voltage system, frequency, and phase sequence of the mobile power supply match the unit's access bus; sustainability assessment verification verifies the availability of the fuel carried by the mobile device, external water supply, and external oil supply.

[0054] The physical parameters of mobile devices include head and power.

[0055] Specifically, in this embodiment, the mitigation strategy matching degree refers to the mitigation effect after the mobile equipment is put into operation. Units with high mitigation effects after operation should be prioritized for scheduling to improve overall rescue efficiency. To evaluate the effectiveness of mobile equipment operation, the performance of equipment that may affect the operation effect and the unit's status should be considered in relation to the mitigation strategy requirements. For example, when using a mobile pump to provide emergency replenishment water to the primary circuit, attention should be paid to whether the expected replenishment water flow rate can meet the minimum replenishment water flow rate requirement, and the estimated effect of the mobile pump on delaying core damage after emergency replenishment water at the expected flow rate. When evaluating the effectiveness of mobile equipment operation, the impact on mitigating the threat of fission product barriers, slowing down the accident process, and reducing the risk of radioactive release should be comprehensively considered. The score for the mitigation strategy matching degree is the sum of the following two scores: Degree of satisfaction of mobile device performance with incident mitigation strategy: 50 points maximum. Equipment performance and related resources meet the requirements of the incident mitigation strategy (e.g., flow rate, power, water supply, fuel, etc.) (50 points); Equipment performance and related resources basically meet the strategy requirements (40 points); Equipment performance and related resources partially meet the requirements (20 points); Equipment performance and related resources cannot meet the requirements (0 points). The degree to which the strategy reduces the risk of radioactive release: 50 points in total. The strategy can avoid damage to the fission product barrier (50 points), the strategy can significantly reduce the risk of large-scale radioactive release (40 points), the strategy can effectively mitigate the accident process (30 points), the strategy can mitigate the accident process to a certain extent (20 points), the strategy has a weak effect on mitigating the accident process after its implementation (10 points), the strategy has no effect (0 points).

[0056] Furthermore, the human factors reliability score includes: scoring human factors reliability based on operator availability and communication quality.

[0057] Specifically, in this embodiment, unlike the fixed equipment already installed in a nuclear power plant, the deployment and operation of mobile equipment requires the participation of more emergency response personnel. For example, when using a mobile pump to replenish water to the refueling tank, it may be necessary for a fire truck to simultaneously draw water from a potentially available water source as the water input for the mobile pump, and then inject it into the refueling tank. Additionally, hoses need to be connected between the fire truck and the water source, the fire truck and the mobile pump, and the mobile pump and the refueling tank. The status of the required personnel (sufficiency, shortage, personnel proficiency, etc.) will affect the probability of human error during mobile equipment deployment, thus affecting the effective implementation of the strategy. The assessment of personnel and communication status during mobile equipment deployment mainly considers the impact on the successful execution of related measures. The human factor reliability score is the sum of the following two scores: Deployment personnel adequacy: 60 points maximum. The organization and personnel involved in mobile device deployment are professionally complete and sufficient (60 points); the professional and personnel personnel are basically complete and sufficient (40 points); there is a significant lack of professional or personnel expertise (20 points); the existing organization and personnel are insufficient to deploy mobile devices (requiring personnel support from other teams or organizations) (0 points). Communication status: 40 points maximum. Communication between organizations is smooth (40 points), communication between organizations is difficult (20 points), and communication between organizations is impossible (0 points).

[0058] Furthermore, the effectiveness of redundancy measures is scored based on whether the unit has other backup mitigation paths.

[0059] Specifically, in this embodiment, redundancy measures can serve as a supplementary means to improve the success rate of accident rescue in the event of mobile device deployment failure or poor operational performance. Potential redundancy measures include: using equipment already installed on the unit for mitigation, and using other mobile devices on or off the site for mitigation. The existence of redundancy measures and their effects will affect the accident process (e.g., a unit with redundancy measures will not call the mobile device currently making a decision, and will use redundancy measures), and thus the priority of mobile device calls. When evaluating redundancy measures and their effects, the redundancy measures and their effects should be compared with the mobile device strategy and its effects, and the impact on mitigating the threat of fission product barriers, slowing the accident process, and reducing the risk of radioactive release should be comprehensively considered. The score for redundancy measures is the sum of the following two scores: Comparison of the effectiveness of redundancy measures with the relevant strategies for the mobile devices involved in the decision: 50 points in total. Redundancy measures are comparable to the relevant strategies for the mobile devices involved in the decision (0 points), slightly worse than the decided strategies (15 points), significantly worse than the decided strategies (30 points), and have no backup strategies (50 points). The extent to which redundancy measures reduce the risk of radioactive release: 50 points. Redundancy measures can prevent the destruction of the fission product barrier (0 points), redundancy measures can significantly reduce the risk of large-scale radioactive release (10 points), redundancy measures can effectively mitigate the accident process (20 points), redundancy measures can mitigate the accident process to a certain extent (30 points), redundancy measures have a weak effect on mitigating the accident process after being put into operation (40 points), redundancy measures have no effect (50 points).

[0060] Furthermore, there is a positive correlation between the commissioning timeliness score and the effective mitigation time margin.

[0061] Setting a positive correlation between commissioning timeliness score and effective mitigation time margin is beneficial for prioritizing the dispatch of units that still have sufficient operational windows, thereby improving the success rate of implementing mobile equipment mitigation measures, avoiding the allocation of limited emergency resources to units that are difficult to complete mitigation operations, and improving the overall accident mitigation efficiency and system safety benefits.

[0062] Specifically, in this embodiment, such as Figure 2 The document illustrates the indicator system and weighting structure of the mobile device mitigation effectiveness evaluation model. Using this model, Unit 1 and Unit 2 were scored for unit status urgency, commissioning timeliness, mitigation strategy matching degree, human factor reliability, and redundancy effectiveness. For Unit 1, the unit status urgency score is 100 (extremely critical), the commissioning timeliness score is 70 (barely making the window), the mitigation strategy matching score is 80, the human factor reliability score is 80, and the redundancy measure effectiveness score is 70. For Unit 2, the unit status urgency score is 60 (temporarily stable), the commissioning timeliness score is 85, the mitigation strategy matching score is 60, the human factor reliability score is 80, and the redundancy measure effectiveness score is 80.

[0063] S4. Obtain the mitigation priority index for each unit based on the score.

[0064] Furthermore, each unit is subject to a veto decision based on at least the engineering status parameters. If the current unit is determined to be beyond rescue in terms of the urgency of the unit status or the timeliness of commissioning, the mitigation priority of the current unit is set to the lowest.

[0065] The Mitigation Priority Index (MPI) characterizes the degree to which the commissioning of mobile equipment on the unit improves the overall safety level of the plant.

[0066] Furthermore, the scores for unit status urgency, commissioning timeliness, mitigation strategy matching degree, human factor reliability, and redundancy effectiveness are weighted and summed, and then multiplied by a veto coefficient to obtain the mitigation priority index for each unit. Among them, when the engineering status parameters of the mobile equipment cannot meet the minimum mitigation requirements of the unit or the transportation path is unreachable, the veto coefficient is set to 0; otherwise, it is set to 1.

[0067] Preferably, the scores for unit status urgency, commissioning timeliness, mitigation strategy matching degree, human factor reliability, and redundancy effectiveness are weighted and summed, and then multiplied by a veto coefficient to obtain the mitigation priority index for each unit.

[0068] Furthermore, the formula for calculating the Mitigation Priority Index (MPI) is as follows:

[0069] Where i = 1, 2, ..., n; n is the number of dimensions; W i S represents the preset weighting coefficient for the i-th dimension; i is the normalized score for the i-th dimension; K is the veto coefficient.

[0070] The weights of unit status urgency, commissioning timeliness, mitigation strategy matching degree, human factor reliability, and redundancy effectiveness are obtained through the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), and their rationality is finally confirmed through a consistency check.

[0071] Specifically, in this embodiment, the system calls the mitigation effectiveness evaluation model for calculation, where the weight of the urgency of the unit status is 0.40, the weight of the timeliness of commissioning is 0.12, the weight of the matching degree of mitigation strategy is 0.26, the weight of human factors reliability is 0.07, and the weight of the effectiveness of redundancy measures is 0.15. The sum of the five weights is 1, and the result is as follows: For unit 1, MPI1 = (100 × 0.40 + 70 × 0.12 + 80 × 0.26 + 80 × 0.07 + 70 × 0.15) × 1 = 85.3; For unit 2, MPI2 = (60 × 0.40 + 85 × 0.12 + 60 × 0.26 + 80 × 0.07 + 80 × 0.15) × 1 = 67.4.

[0072] Furthermore, the method also includes a tie-breaking mechanism: when the difference in the mitigation priority index of two or more units is within a preset error range, priority is given to scheduling to the unit with the largest potential release of radioactive source terms; if the potential of radioactive source terms is equal, priority is given to scheduling to the unit with the smaller effective mitigation time margin.

[0073] The potential release of radioactive sources is estimated based on the unit's core radioactive stockpile, the degree of fuel damage, and the containment capacity. Two units are considered to have comparable potential releases if the estimated potential releases are on the same order of magnitude, or if the difference is less than a preset error range.

[0074] S5. Sort the units according to their mitigation priority index and generate dispatch control instructions.

[0075] Based on the ranking of the mitigation priority index of each unit, dispatch control instructions for mobile equipment are generated. These instructions include target unit locking, transportation route planning, and personnel allocation schemes.

[0076] Specifically, in this embodiment, the mitigation priority index of Unit 1 is 85.3, and the mitigation priority index of Unit 2 is 67.4. Although Unit 1 has a very small effective mitigation time margin and a high risk, its unit status is extremely urgent, and within the theoretically salvageable range, its rescue benefit (avoiding core meltdown) is far higher than that of Unit 2 (which is mainly used to maintain monitoring and control power, with relatively lower mitigation benefits). Therefore, the generated dispatch control command is "Mobile power vehicle locks onto Unit 1, departs immediately".

[0077] Furthermore, the mitigation priority index is recalculated and sorted when a step change in the unit's key parameters is detected within a preset time period. If the sorting result changes and the mobile device has not completed the physical connection, a rescheduling instruction is generated. The key parameters include the core outlet temperature and containment pressure.

[0078] Rescheduling commands are used to instruct mobile equipment to change target units.

[0079] Specifically, in this embodiment, such as Figure 3 As shown, 10 minutes later, aftershocks completely blocked the only road leading to Crew 1. The system identified the roadblock through road surveillance video and triggered a veto logic: determining that the transport route for Crew 1 was unreachable, the coefficient K changed from 1 to 0; MPI1 instantly became 0; MPI2 remained at 67.4. The system immediately sent a command to the mobile device terminal: "Stop proceeding to Crew 1, immediately reroute to Crew 2." At the same time, an alarm was issued to the emergency command center, suggesting that passive mitigation measures be initiated for Crew 1 or that air support be requested.

[0080] like Figure 4 The diagram shows a flowchart of a dynamic scheduling method for mobile equipment in response to multi-unit accidents, according to another embodiment of this application.

[0081] It should be noted that, for the sake of simplicity, the foregoing method embodiments are all described as a series of actions. However, those skilled in the art should understand that this application is not limited to the described order of actions, as some steps may be performed in other orders or simultaneously according to this application. Furthermore, those skilled in the art should also understand that the embodiments described in the specification are preferred embodiments, and the actions and modules involved are not necessarily essential to this application.

[0082] Example 2

[0083] According to another aspect of the embodiments of this application, this application also provides a dynamic scheduling system or apparatus for mobile equipment in the event of multi-unit accidents. For example... Figure 5 As shown, the system or device includes: The acquisition module 501 is used to acquire the accident monitoring variables of each unit and the engineering status parameters of the mobile equipment; The effective mitigation time margin calculation module 502 is used to obtain the effective mitigation time margin of each unit based on at least the accident monitoring variables. The scoring module 503 is used to obtain a score that includes at least the urgency of the unit status and the timeliness of commissioning, based on accident monitoring variables, engineering status parameters and effective mitigation time margin, and using a mobile device mitigation effectiveness assessment model. The mitigation priority index calculation module 504 is used to obtain the mitigation priority index of each unit based on the score; The dispatch control instruction generation module 505 is used to sort the units according to their mitigation priority index and generate dispatch control instructions.

[0084] Specifically, in this embodiment, the acquisition module 501 is configured to communicate with the nuclear power plant's existing Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) and on-site environmental monitoring system to read accident monitoring variables and environmental status data.

[0085] As an optional approach, the effective mitigation time margin for each unit is obtained based on at least the accident monitoring variables, including: predicting the time for the accident evolution to reach the preset safety limit based on at least the accident monitoring variables, and calculating the effective mitigation time margin for each unit in combination with the time required for the deployment of mobile equipment.

[0086] As an alternative, accident monitoring variables include one or more of decay heat, containment pressure, and core exit temperature.

[0087] As an optional approach, the effective mitigation time margin for each unit is obtained based on at least the accident monitoring variables, including: predicting the critical moments of primary loop pressure boundary failure, spent fuel pool boiling, and containment overpressure based on the current thermal-hydraulic parameters and decay heat curves of the unit; calculating the time difference between each critical moment and the current moment, taking the smallest time difference, and subtracting the sum of the transportation time, placement time, and connection and commissioning time of the mobile equipment from its current location to the target unit to obtain the effective mitigation time margin.

[0088] As an alternative approach, the unit's state urgency score includes: scoring the unit's state urgency based on the degree of threat to the integrity of the fission product barriers and the accident escalation rate. The fission product barriers include the cladding, pressure boundary, and containment.

[0089] As an optional approach, the commissioning timeliness assessment includes: acquiring on-site meteorological data, radiation monitoring data, and road surveillance video; identifying areas along the transport route where at least one of the following exceeds the acceptable range for the transport of mobile equipment deployed by the power plant: radiation dose rate, fire thermal radiation intensity, or flooding depth, or where road collapse is caused by an earthquake; correcting the estimated arrival time of mobile equipment based on the identification results, and scoring the commissioning timeliness according to the estimated arrival time and effective mitigation time margin; if the estimated arrival time exceeds the effective mitigation time margin, the commissioning timeliness score is downgraded.

[0090] As an optional approach, the scoring also includes: scores based on accident monitoring variables, engineering status parameters, and effective mitigation time margin, and scores for mitigation strategy matching, human factor reliability, and redundancy effectiveness obtained using a mobile device mitigation effectiveness assessment model.

[0091] As an optional approach, engineering status parameters include one or more of the following: interface size, head-flow characteristic curve, power supply capacity, voltage system, frequency, phase sequence, and fuel quantity.

[0092] As an optional approach, the mitigation strategy matching score includes: scoring the mitigation strategy matching score based on the results of the matching verification between the physical parameters of the mobile device and the unit's requirements; the matching verification includes one or more of the following: fluid mechanical matching verification, electrical parameter matching verification, and sustainability assessment verification; fluid mechanical matching verification verifies whether the head-flow characteristic curve of the mobile pump covers the unit's water injection requirement point under the current pressure; electrical parameter matching verification verifies whether the power capacity, voltage standard, frequency, and phase sequence of the mobile power supply match the unit's access bus; sustainability assessment verification verifies the availability of the fuel carried by the mobile device, external water supply, and external oil supply.

[0093] As an alternative, human factors reliability scoring includes: scoring human factors reliability based on operator availability and communication quality.

[0094] As an optional approach, the effectiveness of redundancy measures can be scored based on whether the unit has other backup mitigation paths.

[0095] As an optional approach, before obtaining the mitigation priority index for each unit based on the score, the following steps are also taken: a veto decision is made for each unit based on at least the engineering status parameters. If the current unit is determined to be beyond rescue in terms of unit status urgency or commissioning timeliness, then the mitigation priority of the current unit is set to the lowest.

[0096] As an optional approach, the mitigation priority index for each unit is obtained based on the scoring, which includes: a weighted sum of scores on the urgency of the unit's status, the timeliness of commissioning, the matching degree of mitigation strategies, the reliability of human factors, and the effectiveness of redundancy measures, and then multiplied by a veto coefficient to obtain the mitigation priority index for each unit; wherein, when the engineering status parameters of the mobile equipment cannot meet the minimum mitigation requirements of the unit or the transportation path is unreachable, the veto coefficient is set to 0, otherwise it is set to 1.

[0097] As an optional approach, the mitigation priority index for each unit, based on the scoring, also includes: when the difference between the mitigation priority indices of two or more units is within a preset error range, priority is given to the unit with the largest potential release of radioactive source terms; if the potential of radioactive source terms is comparable, priority is given to the unit with the smaller effective mitigation time margin.

[0098] As an optional approach, after generating the scheduling control command, the following steps are also included: recalculating and sorting the mitigation priority index when a step change in the unit's key parameters is detected within a preset time period; if the sorting result changes and the mobile equipment has not completed the physical connection, a rescheduling command is generated; the key parameters include at least the core outlet temperature and containment pressure.

[0099] In this application embodiment, the terms "module" or "unit" refer to a computer program or part of a computer program that has a predetermined function and works with other related parts to achieve a predetermined goal, and can be implemented wholly or partially using software, hardware (such as processing circuitry or memory), or a combination thereof. Similarly, a processor (or multiple processors or memory) can be used to implement one or more modules or units. Furthermore, each module or unit can be part of an overall module or unit that includes the functionality of that module or unit.

[0100] Regarding the system in the above embodiments, the specific ways in which each module performs operations have been described in detail in the embodiments related to the method, and will not be elaborated here.

[0101] Example 3

[0102] According to one aspect of this application, a computer program product is provided, the computer program product comprising a computer program.

[0103] The sequence numbers of the embodiments in this application are for descriptive purposes only and do not represent the superiority or inferiority of the embodiments.

[0104] Figure 6 A schematic block diagram of a computer system architecture for implementing an electronic device according to embodiments of the present application is shown.

[0105] It should be noted that, Figure 6 The computer system 600 of the electronic device shown is merely an example and should not impose any limitation on the functionality and scope of use of the embodiments of this application.

[0106] like Figure 6 As shown, the computer system 600 includes a central processing unit (CPU) 601, which can perform various appropriate actions and processes based on programs stored in read-only memory (ROM) 602 or programs loaded from storage section 608 into random access memory (RAM). The RAM 603 also stores various programs and data required for system operation. The CPU 601, ROM 602, and RAM 603 are interconnected via a bus 604. An input / output interface 605 (I / O interface) is also connected to the bus 604.

[0107] The following components are connected to the input / output interface 605: an input section 606 including a keyboard, mouse, etc.; an output section 607 including a cathode ray tube (CRT), liquid crystal display (LCD), etc., and speakers, etc.; a storage section 608 including a hard disk, etc.; and a communication section 609 including a network interface card such as a local area network card, modem, etc. The communication section 609 performs communication processing via a network such as the Internet. A drive 610 is also connected to the input / output interface 605 as needed. A removable medium 611, such as a disk, optical disk, magneto-optical disk, semiconductor memory, etc., is installed on the drive 610 as needed so that computer programs read from it can be installed into the storage section 608 as needed.

[0108] Specifically, according to embodiments of this application, the processes described in the various method flowcharts can be implemented as computer software programs. For example, embodiments of 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 communication section 609, and / or installed from removable medium 611. When the computer program is executed by central processing unit 601, it performs various functions defined in the system of this application.

[0109] Example 4

[0110] According to another aspect of the embodiments of this application, an electronic device is also provided for a dynamic scheduling method of mobile devices in response to multi-unit accidents. This embodiment uses this electronic device as an example of a terminal device. Figure 7 As shown, the electronic device includes a memory 702 and a processor 704. The memory 702 stores a computer program, and the processor 704 is configured to execute the steps in any of the above method embodiments via the computer program.

[0111] Optionally, in this embodiment, the aforementioned electronic device may be located in at least one of a plurality of network devices in a computer network.

[0112] Optionally, in this embodiment, the processor may be configured to execute the methods in the embodiments of this application via a computer program.

[0113] Alternatively, as those skilled in the art will understand, Figure 7 The structure shown is for illustrative purposes only. Figure 7 This does not limit the structure of the aforementioned electronic devices. For example, the electronic device may also include components that are more... Figure 7The more or fewer components shown (such as network interfaces, etc.), or having the same Figure 7 The different configurations shown.

[0114] The memory 702 can be used to store software programs and modules, such as the program instructions / modules corresponding to the dynamic scheduling method and system for mobile devices in multi-unit accidents according to an embodiment of this application. The processor 704 executes various functional applications and data processing by running the software programs and modules stored in the memory 702, thereby realizing the aforementioned dynamic scheduling method for mobile devices in multi-unit accidents. The memory 702 may include high-speed random access memory, and may also include non-volatile memory, such as one or more magnetic storage devices, flash memory, or other non-volatile solid-state memory. In some instances, the memory 702 may further include memory remotely located relative to the processor 704, and these remote memories can be connected to the terminal via a network. Examples of such networks include, but are not limited to, the Internet, corporate intranets, local area networks, mobile communication networks, and combinations thereof. Specifically, the memory 702 may be used, but is not limited to, to store accident monitoring variables and engineering status parameters. As an example, such as Figure 7 As shown, the memory 702 may include, but is not limited to, the acquisition module 501, the effective mitigation time margin calculation module 502, the scoring module 503, the mitigation priority index calculation module 504, and the scheduling control instruction generation module 505 in the above system. Furthermore, it may include, but is not limited to, other module units in the above system, which will not be elaborated upon in this example.

[0115] Optionally, the transmission device 706 described above is used to receive or send data via a network. Specific examples of the network described above may include wired networks and wireless networks. In one example, the transmission device 706 includes a Network Interface Controller (NIC), which can be connected to other network devices and a router via a network cable to communicate with the Internet or a local area network. In another example, the transmission device 706 is a radio frequency (RF) module, used for wireless communication with the Internet.

[0116] In addition, the above-mentioned electronic device also includes: a display 708 for displaying the above-mentioned scheduling and control instructions; and a connection bus 710 for connecting the various module components in the above-mentioned electronic device.

[0117] In other embodiments, the aforementioned terminal device or server can be a node in a distributed system, wherein the distributed system can be a blockchain system, which is a distributed system formed by connecting multiple nodes through network communication. The nodes can form a peer-to-peer network, and any form of computing device, such as a server, terminal, or other electronic device, can become a node in the blockchain system by joining this peer-to-peer network.

[0118] Example 5

[0119] According to one aspect of this application, a computer-readable storage medium is provided, wherein a processor of an electronic device reads computer instructions from the computer-readable storage medium, and the processor executes the computer instructions, causing the electronic device to perform one of the various optional implementations of the above-described method for dynamic scheduling of mobile devices in response to multi-unit accidents.

[0120] Optionally, in this embodiment, the computer-readable storage medium described above may be configured to store methods for performing the embodiments of this application.

[0121] Optionally, in this embodiment, those skilled in the art will understand that all or part of the steps in the various methods of the above embodiments can be implemented by a program instructing the hardware related to the terminal device. The program can be stored in a computer-readable storage medium, which may include: flash drive, read-only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), disk or optical disk, etc.

[0122] The sequence numbers of the embodiments in this application are for descriptive purposes only and do not represent the superiority or inferiority of the embodiments.

[0123] If the integrated units in the above embodiments are implemented as software functional units and sold or used as independent products, they can be stored in the aforementioned computer-readable storage medium. Based on this understanding, the technical solution of this application, in essence, or the part that contributes to the prior art, or all or part of the technical solution, can be embodied in the form of a software product. This computer software product is stored in a storage medium and includes several instructions to cause one or more electronic devices to execute all or part of the steps of the methods described in the various embodiments of this application.

[0124] In the above embodiments of this application, the descriptions of each embodiment have different focuses. For parts not described in detail in a certain embodiment, please refer to the relevant descriptions of other embodiments.

[0125] In the several embodiments provided in this application, it should be understood that the disclosed application can be implemented in other ways. The system embodiments described above are merely illustrative; for example, the division of units is only a logical functional division, and in actual implementation, there may be other division methods. For example, multiple units or components may be combined or integrated into another system, or some features may be ignored or not executed. Furthermore, the coupling or direct coupling or communication connection shown or discussed may be through some interfaces, indirect coupling or communication connection between units or modules, and may be electrical or other forms.

[0126] The units described as separate components may or may not be physically separate. The components shown as units may or may not be physical units; that is, they may be located in one place or distributed across multiple network units. Some or all of the units can be selected to achieve the purpose of this embodiment according to actual needs.

[0127] Furthermore, the functional units in the various embodiments of this application can be integrated into one processing unit, or each unit can exist physically separately, or two or more units can be integrated into one unit. The integrated unit can be implemented in hardware or as a software functional unit.

[0128] The above description is merely a preferred embodiment of this application and is not intended to limit this application. Various modifications and variations can be made to this application by those skilled in the art. Any modifications, equivalent substitutions, improvements, etc., made within the spirit and principles of this application should be included within the protection scope of this application.

[0129] By applying the above-described technical solution of this application, at least the following technical effects are achieved: 1. This application realizes the transformation of complex emergency decision-making into quantitative calculation based on physical parameters in complex nuclear accident scenarios with limited resources and rapidly changing operating conditions. Through a veto and dynamic reassessment mechanism, it significantly improves the scientificity and timeliness of decision-making in multi-unit accidents. 2. This application integrates the critical moment of the failure of the unit's fission product barrier with the time consumed throughout the entire process of transportation, placement, and commissioning of mobile equipment, and dynamically calculates the time window that can be used for actual intervention. This enables scheduling decisions to be based on quantifiable physical time constraints, breaking through the limitations of traditional qualitative judgments based solely on the severity of the situation, and significantly enhancing the time rationality and engineering operability of scheduling instructions. 3. This application constructs a weighted mitigation priority index and introduces a veto coefficient based on physical capabilities and path reachability to enforce the blocking of fundamentally infeasible scheduling, ensuring that limited mobile equipment is only deployed to rescueable, reachable, and matched units, significantly reducing the risk of resource mismatch and improving the accuracy and safety of accident mitigation. 4. After the scheduling command is issued, this application can still automatically trigger the recalculation and ranking comparison of the mitigation priority index based on the preset period or the step change of key parameters. If the priority is substantially reversed and the equipment has not yet been connected, a rescheduling command will be automatically generated and issued to realize closed-loop control of decision-making-execution-feedback-correction. This enables the system to have real-time adaptive capability to cope with the uncertainty of accident evolution, greatly enhancing the robustness and dynamic resilience of emergency response.

[0130] The above are merely several specific embodiments of this application, but the scope of protection of this application is not limited thereto. Any equivalent substitutions or modifications made by those skilled in the art within the scope of the technology disclosed in this application, based on the technical solution and inventive concept of this application, should be included within the scope of protection of this application.

[0131] It should be noted that, in this document, relational terms such as "first" and "second" are used merely to distinguish one entity or operation from another, and do not necessarily require or imply any such actual relationship or order between these entities or operations. Furthermore, the terms "comprising," "including," or any other variations thereof are intended to cover non-exclusive inclusion, such that a process, method, article, or apparatus that comprises a list of elements includes not only those elements but also other elements not expressly listed, or elements inherent to such a process, method, article, or apparatus. Without further limitations, an element defined by the phrase "comprising one..." does not exclude the presence of other identical elements in the process, method, article, or apparatus that includes the element.

[0132] It should be noted that, in the description of this specification, the references to terms such as "one embodiment," "some embodiments," "example," "specific example," or "some examples," etc., indicate that a specific feature, structure, material, or characteristic described in connection with that embodiment or example is included in at least one embodiment or example of this application. In this specification, the illustrative expressions of the above terms do not necessarily refer to the same embodiment or example. Furthermore, the specific features, structures, materials, or characteristics described may be combined in any suitable manner in one or more embodiments or examples. Moreover, without contradiction, those skilled in the art can combine and integrate the different embodiments or examples described in this specification, as well as the features of different embodiments or examples.

Claims

1. A mobile device dynamic scheduling method for multi-unit accidents, characterized in that, include: Obtain the accident monitoring variables and engineering status parameters of each unit and mobile equipment; The effective mitigation time margin for each unit is obtained based on at least the aforementioned accident monitoring variables; Based on the accident monitoring variables, the engineering status parameters, and the effective mitigation time margin, a score including at least the unit status urgency and commissioning timeliness is obtained using the mobile device mitigation effectiveness evaluation model. Based on the aforementioned scores, a mitigation priority index is obtained for each unit; The units are sorted according to their mitigation priority index, and scheduling control instructions are generated.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The method of obtaining the effective mitigation time margin for each unit based on at least the accident monitoring variables includes: predicting the time when the accident evolution reaches the preset safety limit based on at least the accident monitoring variables, and calculating the effective mitigation time margin for each unit in combination with the time required for mobile device deployment.

3. The method according to claim 2, characterized in that, The accident monitoring variables include one or more of decay heat, containment pressure, and core exit temperature.

4. The method according to claim 3, characterized in that, The effective mitigation time margin for each unit, obtained based on at least the aforementioned accident monitoring variables, includes: Based on the current thermal-hydraulic parameters of the unit and the decay heat curve, the critical moments of primary loop pressure boundary failure, spent fuel pool boiling and containment overpressure are predicted respectively. Calculate the time difference between each critical moment and the current moment, take the smallest time difference, and subtract the sum of the transportation time, placement time and connection debugging time of the mobile device from its current location to the target unit to obtain the effective mitigation time margin.

5. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The assessment of the urgency of the unit's status includes: The urgency of the unit's status is scored based on the degree of threat to the integrity of the fission product barrier and the accident deterioration rate. The fission product barrier includes the cladding, pressure boundary, and containment.

6. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The scoring of the timeliness of commissioning includes: Acquire on-site meteorological data, radiation monitoring data, and road surveillance video; Identify areas along the transport route where at least one of the following factors—radiation dose rate, fire heat radiation intensity, and flooding depth—exceeds the acceptable range for transport of mobile equipment configured for the power plant, or where road collapse is caused by an earthquake. The estimated arrival time of the mobile device is corrected based on the identification results, and the timeliness of the commissioning is scored according to the estimated arrival time and the effective mitigation time margin. If the estimated arrival time exceeds the effective mitigation time margin, the commissioning timeliness score will be downgraded.

7. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The scoring also includes: scores for mitigation strategy matching degree, human factor reliability, and redundancy effectiveness obtained based on the accident monitoring variables, the engineering status parameters, and the effective mitigation time margin, using a mobile device mitigation effectiveness evaluation model.

8. The method according to claim 7, characterized in that, The engineering status parameters include one or more of the following: interface size, head-flow characteristic curve, power supply capacity, voltage system, frequency, phase sequence, and fuel quantity.

9. The method according to claim 8, characterized in that, The score for the matching degree of the mitigation strategy includes: The matching degree of the mitigation strategy is scored based on the results of the verification of the matching between the physical parameters of the mobile device and the unit requirements; The matching verification includes one or more of the following: fluid mechanical matching verification, electrical parameter matching verification, and continuous evaluation verification. The fluid machinery matching verification is to verify whether the head-flow characteristic curve of the mobile pump covers the water injection demand point of the unit under the current pressure. The electrical parameter matching verification is to verify whether the power capacity, voltage system, frequency and phase sequence of the mobile power supply match the unit's access bus. The continuous assessment and verification involves verifying the availability of fuel carried by the mobile device, external water supply, and external oil supply.

10. The method according to claim 7, characterized in that, The human factors reliability score includes: scoring the human factors reliability based on the operator's availability rate and communication quality.

11. The method according to claim 7, characterized in that, The effectiveness of the redundancy measures is scored based on whether the unit has other backup mitigation paths.

12. The method according to claim 7, characterized in that, Before obtaining the mitigation priority index of each unit based on the score, the method further includes: making a veto judgment on each unit based on at least the engineering status parameters; if the current unit is judged to be unable to be rescued in terms of the urgency of the unit status or the timeliness of commissioning, then the mitigation priority of the current unit is set to the lowest.

13. The method according to claim 12, characterized in that, The mitigation priority index for each unit obtained based on the scoring includes: The scores for the urgency of the unit status, the timeliness of commissioning, the matching degree of the mitigation strategy, the reliability of human factors and the effectiveness of the redundancy measures are weighted and summed, and then multiplied by a veto coefficient to obtain the mitigation priority index of each unit. Specifically, when the engineering status parameters of the mobile device cannot meet the minimum mitigation requirements of the unit or the transportation route is unreachable, the veto coefficient is set to 0; otherwise, it is set to 1.

14. The method according to claim 13, characterized in that, The mitigation priority index for each unit obtained based on the score also includes: When the difference between the mitigation priority indices of two or more units is within a preset error range, priority is given to scheduling to the unit with the largest potential release of radioactive source terms; if the potential of radioactive source terms is equal, priority is given to scheduling to the unit with the smaller effective mitigation time margin.

15. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, After generating the scheduling control command, the method further includes: recalculating and sorting the mitigation priority index when a step change is detected in the key parameters of the unit within a preset time period; if the sorting result changes and the mobile device has not completed the physical connection, a rescheduling command is generated; the key parameters include at least the core outlet temperature and containment pressure.

16. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The score for the timeliness of commissioning is positively correlated with the effective mitigation time margin.

17. A dynamic scheduling system for mobile equipment in the event of multi-unit accidents, characterized in that, include: The acquisition module is used to acquire the accident monitoring variables of each unit and the engineering status parameters of the mobile equipment; The effective mitigation time margin calculation module is used to obtain the effective mitigation time margin of each unit based on the accident monitoring variables. The scoring module is used to obtain a score that includes at least the urgency of the unit status and the timeliness of commissioning, based on the accident monitoring variables, the engineering status parameters and the effective mitigation time margin, and using the mobile device mitigation effectiveness evaluation model. The mitigation priority index calculation module is used to obtain the mitigation priority index of each unit based on the score; The scheduling control instruction generation module is used to sort the units according to their mitigation priority index and generate scheduling control instructions.

18. A computer-readable storage medium, characterized in that, The computer-readable storage medium includes a stored computer program, wherein the computer program can be executed by an electronic device to perform the method described in any one of claims 1 to 16.

19. A computer program product, comprising a computer program, characterized in that, When executed by a processor, the computer program performs the steps of the method described in any one of claims 1 to 16.

20. An electronic device comprising a memory and a processor, characterized in that, The memory stores a computer program, and the processor is configured to execute the method described in any one of claims 1 to 16 through the computer program.

Images