Quantitative comparison method for general layout scheme of power plant

Abstract

The application provides a quantitative comparison and selection method for general layout schemes of power plants. The method quantitatively scores evaluation factors affecting the general layout of the power plant, determines the weight values of the evaluation factors based on the analytic hierarchy process, calculates the comprehensive scores of the general layout schemes, and takes the scheme with the highest comprehensive score as the recommended design scheme of the general layout. The method solves the problems of strong subjectivity and lack of quantitative basis in the comparison and selection of traditional general layout schemes, and improves the scientificity and standardization of the decision of the general layout scheme.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of power plant site layout, and more particularly to a quantitative comparison method for power plant site layout schemes. Background Technology

[0002] Currently, as power plant construction gradually moves towards land-saving, water-saving, energy-saving, and material-saving directions, and as site conditions become increasingly complex, the influencing factors of the overall layout plan are increasing, with varying focuses and mutual constraints and conflicts among these factors. Against this backdrop, traditional selection methods that are primarily qualitative and lack quantitative support have revealed the following problems: (1) High subjectivity: The evaluation of the merits of the schemes depends heavily on the personal experience and preferences of experts, and lacks a unified and measurable evaluation standard; (2) Difficulty in handling multi-objective conflicts: When different options have their own advantages and disadvantages in each individual indicator, it is difficult to comprehensively weigh them through scientific methods, which can easily lead to decision imbalance. (3) The decision-making process is not traceable: the comparison conclusions are mostly qualitative descriptions, lacking systematic mathematical expressions and data support, which is not conducive to later optimization.

[0003] Therefore, there is a need in this field for a quantitative comparison method applicable to the overall layout scheme of power plants, which has important engineering application value and practical significance for improving the level of overall design decision-making, optimizing the overall layout of the project, and reducing the total life cycle cost. Summary of the Invention

[0004] One of the objectives of this invention is to provide a quantitative comparison method for power plant layout schemes.

[0005] The second objective of this invention is to introduce a multi-index comprehensive evaluation method (analytic hierarchy process) to quantify qualitative evaluation factors and assign them reasonable weights, thereby enabling an objective and scientific comparison and selection of overall site layout schemes.

[0006] In a first aspect of the present invention, a method for quantitatively comparing and selecting power plant layout schemes is provided, comprising the following steps: (1) Collect evaluation factors that affect the overall layout of the power plant and construct a set of evaluation factors; (2) Construct at least two site layout schemes; (3) Quantitatively score each evaluation factor in the overall layout plan; (4) Determine the weight values ​​of each evaluation factor based on the analytic hierarchy process; (5) Calculate the comprehensive score of each scheme based on the quantitative scoring results and weight values ​​of each evaluation factor; (6) Select the scheme with the highest comprehensive score as the recommended master plan design scheme.

[0007] In another preferred embodiment, the power plant is selected from the group consisting of thermal power plants, hydropower plants, and nuclear power plants, preferably thermal power plants and hydropower plants, and more preferably thermal power plants.

[0008] In another preferred embodiment, the thermal power plant is selected from the group consisting of: coal-fired power plants, gas-fired power plants, oil-fired power plants, biomass power plants, and waste incineration power plants.

[0009] In another preferred embodiment, the hydropower plant is selected from the group consisting of: dam-type hydropower stations, diversion-type hydropower stations, hybrid hydropower stations, and pumped storage power stations.

[0010] In another preferred embodiment, the nuclear power plant is selected from the group consisting of: pressurized water reactor nuclear power plants, boiling water reactor nuclear power plants, fast neutron reactor nuclear power plants, and high-temperature gas-cooled reactor nuclear power plants.

[0011] In another preferred embodiment, the evaluation factors affecting the overall layout of the power plant are divided into three levels, from top to bottom: primary indicators, secondary indicators, and tertiary indicators, wherein... The primary indicators include: A. Technical rationality indicators, B. Economic rationality indicators, and C. Construction and environment. The lower-level secondary indicators of the A technical rationality index include: A1 process flow, A2 earthwork volume, A3 transportation, A4 expansion reservation conditions, A5 land area, and A6 pipeline shunting. The lower-level secondary indicators of the B economic rationality indicator include: B1 construction investment, B2 land acquisition and demolition difficulty, and B3 operating costs; The lower-level secondary indicators of the C construction and environment include: C1 construction difficulty and C2 environmental protection impact.

[0012] In another preferred embodiment, the lower-level three-tier indicators of the A1 process flow include: A1-1 main plant front coal bunker, A1-2 main plant side coal bunker, A1-3 cooling water primary circulation, A1-4 cooling water secondary circulation, A1-5 strip coal yard, A1-6 circular coal yard, A1-7 indoor booster station, and A1-8 outdoor booster station; The lower-level three indicators of the A3 transportation system include: A3-1 coal arrival by waterway, A3-2 coal arrival by rail, and A3-3 coal arrival by road. The lower-level three indicators of the C2 environmental protection impact include: C2-1 atmospheric pollutant diffusion conditions, C2-2 noise protection distance, C2-3 solid waste storage and transfer conditions, C2-4 wastewater discharge conditions, and C2-5 greening conditions.

[0013] In another preferred embodiment, the evaluation factors further include quantitative evaluation factors.

[0014] In another preferred embodiment, the quantitative factors include the plant area, earthwork volume, and length of main pipelines.

[0015] In another preferred embodiment, the quantitative factor serves as an auxiliary reference.

[0016] In another preferred embodiment, step (4) further includes a sub-step: (4-1) After experts score the evaluation factors at the same level, they compare the scores of each evaluation factor pairwise to construct a judgment matrix for each level. The judgment matrix is ​​expressed as follows: ; in, Indicators For indicators The importance of i and j All less than or equal to n ; (4-2) Calculate the weight value of each evaluation factor; (4-3) Perform a consistency check on the judgment matrix. When the consistency ratio is... To determine if the matrix is ​​valid, the weight values ​​obtained in step (4-2) can be used; when the consistency ratio... Conversely, if the condition is not met, the judgment matrix needs to be readjusted and a consistency check performed again until the condition is met. until.

[0017] In another preferred embodiment, the optimal layout scheme of the power plant is selected as the target layer.

[0018] In another preferred embodiment, the evaluation factors at the same level are determined as the criterion level.

[0019] In another preferred embodiment, the experts score the evaluation factors at the same level based on their importance.

[0020] In another preferred embodiment, step (4-2) further includes a sub-step: (4-2-1) Calculate the geometric mean of each row of the judgment matrix. The geometric mean The calculation method is as follows: = (4-2-2) Normalize the geometric mean to obtain the weight values. The normalization calculation method is as follows: .

[0021] In another preferred embodiment, the consistency check in step (4-3) includes the following sub-steps: (4-3-1) Calculate the maximum eigenvalue λmax, where the calculation method is as follows: (4-3-2) Calculate the consistency index based on λmax The calculation method is as follows: (4-3-3) Based on the consistency index Calculate the consistency ratio The calculation method is as follows: in, The average random consistency index can be obtained based on the principle of average random consistency. n The number of indicators.

[0022] In another preferred embodiment, step (3) further includes a sub-step: (3-1) After establishing a unified scoring standard, experts score the evaluation factors. After at least three rounds of expert scoring, the average score is calculated to obtain the score of each evaluation factor in the overall layout plan.

[0023] In another preferred embodiment, the number of experts is no less than five.

[0024] In another preferred embodiment, the scoring range of the unified scoring standard is 0-10 points or 0-100 points.

[0025] In another preferred embodiment, the scoring range of the unified scoring standard is 0-10 points.

[0026] In another preferred embodiment, the overall score is calculated as follows: in, For the first Each indicator weight, For the first Scheme No. Standardized values ​​of indicators.

[0027] In a second aspect, the present invention provides a quantitative comparison device for power plant layout schemes, comprising: (i) a memory for storing computer-executable instructions; and, (ii) A processor, coupled to the memory, for implementing the steps of the method described in the first aspect of the invention when executing the computer-executable instructions.

[0028] In a third aspect, the present invention provides a computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions, which, when read and executed by a processor, implement the steps of the method described in the first aspect of the present invention.

[0029] It should be understood that, within the scope of this invention, the above-described technical features of this invention and the technical features specifically described below (such as in the embodiments) can be combined with each other to form new or preferred technical solutions. Due to space limitations, they will not be described in detail here. Attached Figure Description

[0030] Figure 1 A schematic flowchart of the method described in this invention is shown.

[0031] Figure 2 The present invention demonstrates a quantitative comparison tool for overall site layout schemes.

[0032] Figure 3 The multi-scheme comprehensive score of the second embodiment of the present invention is shown. Detailed Implementation

[0033] Through extensive and in-depth research, the inventors have discovered for the first time a quantitative comparison method for power plant site layout schemes. This method quantifies and scores the evaluation factors influencing the power plant site layout, determines the weight values ​​of each evaluation factor based on the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), calculates the comprehensive score of each site layout scheme, and selects the scheme with the highest comprehensive score as the recommended site design scheme. This invention solves the problems of strong subjectivity and lack of quantitative basis in traditional site layout scheme comparison, improving the scientific rigor and standardization of site layout decision-making. This invention was completed based on this foundation.

[0034] This invention establishes a hierarchical evaluation index system, quantifies qualitative indicators, and determines weights by combining objective or subjective weighting methods. This transforms complex multi-objective decision-making problems into calculable and comparable comprehensive evaluation values, thereby achieving the quantification, systematization, and scientification of scheme comparison.

[0035] the term Unless otherwise defined, all technical and scientific terms used herein have the same meaning as commonly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to which this invention pertains.

[0036] As used herein, the terms “comprising,” “including,” and “containing” are used interchangeably and include not only closed definitions but also semi-closed and open definitions. In other words, the terms include “consisting of” and “substantially consisting of”.

[0037] Analytic Hierarchy Process The Analysis Hierarchy Process (AHP) essentially decomposes a problem into its constituent factors. Based on the interrelationships and hierarchical relationships between these factors, it groups and combines them at different levels to form a multi-level analytical structure model. Ultimately, this reduces the problem to determining the relative importance or ranking of the lowest level relative to the highest level. AHP is a key technique for analyzing complex problems and establishing evaluation systems in assessment.

[0038] Disadvantages of existing technology The selection of existing site layout schemes typically takes the following form: (1) The general layout design personnel shall conduct a qualitative analysis of the power plant’s general layout based on the information provided by the general layout design personnel, including steam turbine, boiler, electrical, water supply, coal transportation, ash removal, geotechnical engineering, architecture, structure, and environmental protection, and based on their engineering experience. (2) Through comprehensive review (expert meeting) discussion, experience is used to judge the smoothness of the process flow, the adaptability of expansion, the convenience of management, the convenience of construction, the stability of transportation, the environmental coordination, and the difficulty of land acquisition and demolition. (3) Use a few quantitative indicators such as land area, earthwork volume, circulating water pipeline length, and construction investment as auxiliary references.

[0039] Currently, the selection of traditional power plant layout schemes often employs a combination of qualitative analysis and design experience, with designers primarily evaluating schemes based on compliance with regulations and their intuitive understanding. However, numerous factors influence the quality of a layout scheme, and many evaluation indicators (such as process flow smoothness, expansion adaptability, management convenience, and environmental compatibility) fall under the qualitative category. Existing selection processes often rely on subjective expert judgment, lacking systematic and unified quantitative evaluation standards. This makes it difficult to establish reproducible, verifiable, and traceable decision-making criteria, hindering subsequent review and accountability. When schemes have varying strengths and weaknesses across different technical indicators, objective scoring makes comprehensive comparison difficult, leading to highly subjective and incomparable selection results, thus affecting the scientific rigor and persuasiveness of the decision.

[0040] Detailed embodiments of the present invention The specific process of the method of this invention is as follows: Figure 1 As shown, the specific process is as follows: (1) Determine the set of evaluation factors for comparing power plant layout schemes. Primary indicator: A. Technological rationality Secondary indicators: A1 Process flow (A1-1 Coal bunker in front of main plant, A1-2 Coal bunker on the side of main plant, A1-3 Cooling water primary circulation, A1-4 Cooling water secondary circulation, A1-5 Strip coal yard, A1-6 Circular coal yard, A1-7 Indoor booster station, A1-8 Outdoor booster station), A2 Earthwork volume, A3 Transportation (A3-1 Coal delivered by waterway, A3-2 Coal delivered by rail, A3-3 Coal delivered by road), A4 Expansion reserve conditions, A5 Land area, A6 Pipeline stubs.

[0041] Primary indicator: B. Economic rationality Secondary indicators: B1 construction investment, B2 land acquisition and demolition difficulty, and B3 operating costs.

[0042] Primary indicator: C Construction and Environment Secondary indicators: C1 Construction difficulty, C2 Environmental impact (C2-1 Air pollutant diffusion conditions, C2-2 Noise protection distance, C2-3 Solid waste storage and transfer conditions, C2-4 Wastewater discharge conditions, C2-5 Greening conditions) Select multiple evaluation factors that are closely related to a specific plant site.

[0043] (2) Construct a set of general layout schemes For the same factory area, develop no fewer than two general layout schemes; (3) Quantitatively score each scheme under each evaluation factor. For each overall plan scheme, each evaluation factor is quantitatively scored from 0 to 10 points; (4) The weight values ​​of each evaluation factor are determined by the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). (5) Calculate the overall score of each scheme. According to the formula: Score j =Σ(w i ×s ij ) Among them, w i Let s be the weight of the i-th evaluation factor. ij Let the score of the j-th scheme be given under the i-th evaluation factor; (6) Output the optimal overall layout scheme The scheme with the highest overall score will be selected as the recommended site plan design scheme. A quantitative comparison tool for the specific site layout schemes is available, such as... Figure 2 As shown.

[0044] Method of the present invention This invention provides a method for quantitative comparison and selection of power plant layout schemes, comprising the following steps: I. Construct a hierarchical evaluation index system for power plant general layout design that includes qualitative and quantitative factors; II. Quantify the qualitative evaluation factors according to preset levels; III. Apply the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to determine the weights of each evaluation indicator and pass the consistency test; IV. Calculate the comprehensive evaluation value of each site plan design scheme using a weighted summation model and rank and select the best one.

[0045] in, I. The qualitative factors include at least process flow smoothness, expansion adaptability, management convenience, and environmental compatibility; II. The quantitative factors include at least the plant area, earthwork volume, and length of main pipelines; III. Qualitative factors are scored by an expert panel according to a unified scoring standard, and the scores are used in the calculation.

[0046] The hierarchical evaluation index system of this invention This invention establishes a hierarchical evaluation index system for site planning professionals.

[0047] The factors influencing the overall layout of the power plant are systematically decomposed into: Target layer: Optimal overall layout scheme.

[0048] Criterion Level: Process fluency, expansion adaptability, management convenience, construction convenience, transportation stability, environmental harmony, and difficulty of land acquisition and demolition.

[0049] Indicator (evaluation factor) layer: Quantitative factors: plant area, earthwork volume, coal conveying bridge length, and circulating water pipe length.

[0050] Qualitative factors: Smoothness of process flow, ease of expansion, ease of management, environmental compatibility, and difficulty of land acquisition and demolition.

[0051] Key point: The indicator system is specifically designed for the selection of power plant general layout schemes and is verified in accordance with standards.

[0052] (2) Quantification methods for qualitative evaluation factors.

[0053] Establish standardized scoring criteria for qualitative factors such as "process flow smoothness," "expansion adaptability," "management convenience," and "environmental compatibility" (e.g., 0-10 points). Scoring was conducted by multiple professional experts using a unified standard → personalization was eliminated and subjective bias was reduced (the average score was calculated after multiple rounds of scoring). Key point: Clearly define qualitative indicators → numerical mapping rules, so that subjective judgments that cannot be directly calculated can be transformed into data that can participate in calculations.

[0054] (3) Determine the weights of the indicators based on the analytic hierarchy process.

[0055] Perform pairwise comparisons of indicators at the same level → judgment matrix → maximum eigenvalue and eigenvector → normalized weights.

[0056] Perform a CR consistency test (CR < 0.1), and if the requirement is not met, provide feedback for adjustment.

[0057] Key takeaway: The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is used to structure, make traceable, and reproducible expert experience. This solves the problem of "gutted or unweighted" evaluation methods in traditional selection processes.

[0058] (4) Synthesis and optimization of comprehensive evaluation values ​​of multiple schemes.

[0059] Linear weighted model: Where wi is the weight of the i-th indicator, and rij is the standardized value of the i-th indicator in the j-th scheme; Sort by size Sj to quantitatively optimize the overall site layout scheme Key point: Unify multidimensional, heterogeneous, and semi-qualitative information into a comparable comprehensive evaluation value to achieve objective comparison and selection.

[0060] The main advantages of this invention include: (1) This invention provides a quantitative comparison method for the overall layout of the optimal solution by selecting multi-dimensional evaluation factors, quantifying and scoring each evaluation factor, determining its weight by using the hierarchical analysis method, and finally outputting the overall optimal solution.

[0061] (2) The method of the present invention solves the problem that the traditional general layout scheme comparison is highly subjective and lacks quantitative basis, and improves the scientificity and standardization of the decision-making of the general layout scheme.

[0062] (3) The method of the present invention can be used for general layout design review and scheme selection in multiple industries such as power, metallurgy, coal, and chemical industry.

[0063] The present invention will be further illustrated below with reference to specific embodiments. It should be understood that these embodiments are for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to limit the scope of the invention. Experimental methods in the following embodiments, unless otherwise specified, are generally performed under conventional conditions or as recommended by the manufacturer. Unless otherwise stated, percentages and parts are weight percentages and parts by weight.

[0064] Example 1: Calculation of weight values ​​for each evaluation factor The weight values ​​of each evaluation factor are determined by the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), a judgment matrix is ​​constructed, the weights of each evaluation factor are calculated, and consistency verification is performed to obtain a normalized weight set. (1) Hierarchical structure model (target layer - criterion layer) Target layer (A): Optimal Layout of Power Plant Criterion Layer (C): ① C1 process flow is short and efficient ② C2 Earthwork volume ③ C3 Transportation conditions ④ C4 Reserved for future expansion ⑤ C5 Environmental Protection Impact ⑥ C6 Difficulty of land acquisition and demolition ⑦ C7 Construction Investment ⑧ C8 land area ⑨ C9 Construction Difficulty (2) Construct the judgment matrix (target layer - criterion layer) ① C1 process flow is short and efficient ② C2 Earthwork volume ③ C3 Transportation conditions ④ C4 Reserved for future expansion ⑤ C5 Environmental Protection Impact ⑥ C6 Difficulty of land acquisition and demolition ⑦ C7 Construction Investment ⑧ C8 land area ⑨ C9 Construction Difficulty The following judgment matrix was obtained from the expert scoring (Table 1): (a ij (This represents the importance ratio of the i-th factor to the j-th factor) Table 1 Judgment Matrix (3) Calculate the weights (geometric mean method) ① Calculate the geometric mean of each row (Table 2) = Table 2 Geometric Mean for Each Row ② Normalization → Weight Vector (Table 3) Table 3 Weight Vector (4) Consistency test (CR test) ① Maximum eigenvalue λmax The calculation yields: λmax ≈ 9.132 ② Consistency Index (CI) ③Standard RI value table (n=9) (Table 4) Table 4 Standard RI Values ④ Consistency ratio (CR) =0.0165 / 1.45=0.011<0.10 The matrix is ​​deemed valid after passing the consistency check.

[0065] (5) Summary table of final weight results Table 5 Summary of Final Weighting Results The evaluation system for overall site layout schemes, constructed based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), yielded a summary table of final weight results (Table 5) by calculating the relative weights of each evaluation factor. As shown in the table, the evaluation index system exhibits a clear hierarchical structure. Among them, the shortest process flow and construction investment have the highest weights, both at 0.20, ranking first. This indicates that these two factors are the core controlling factors determining the merits of the overall site layout scheme and play a dominant role in the scheme selection process.

[0066] Secondly, earthwork volume, transportation conditions, and land area all have a weight of 0.12, ranking third and accounting for a total of 36%. These three indicators reflect the site adaptability and resource utilization efficiency during the project construction process, and are important constraints affecting the difficulty of project implementation and operating costs.

[0067] Secondly, the weights for expansion planning, environmental impact, and construction difficulty are all 0.07, ranking sixth, mainly reflecting the project's sustainable development requirements and risk management during the construction period. Finally, the difficulty of land acquisition and demolition has a weight of 0.03, ranking ninth, and is considered a secondary influencing factor.

[0068] Overall, the weighting system conforms to the basic principle of "technologically advanced and economically reasonable" in the overall layout of industrial projects, and has passed the consistency test of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). It can scientifically reflect the relative importance of each indicator in decision-making and can serve as the basic basis for subsequent comprehensive scoring of multiple options.

[0069] Example 2: Taking a 2x1000MW ultra-supercritical coal-fired power plant in Anhui Province as an example: (1) Schemes to be compared: Scheme 1 (side coal bunker and indoor GIS, cooling tower facing north), Scheme 2 (front coal bunker and outdoor AIS, cooling tower facing northeast), Scheme 3 (side coal bunker and outdoor AIS, cooling tower facing east).

[0070] (2) Indicator System: • Quantitative: land area, earthwork volume, length of circulating water pipe, construction investment cost; Qualitative aspects: technological process, adaptability to expansion, and environmental compatibility.

[0071] (3) Evaluation factor quantitative scoring (the average value is taken after three rounds of back-to-back scoring by experts) (Table 6): Table 6 Evaluation Factor Score Table (4) Weight calculation: a. Construct the judgment matrix (target layer - criterion layer) C1 Process Flow C2 covers an area of C3 Earthwork Volume C4 circulating water pipe length C5 Expansion Adaptability C6 Environmental compatibility C7 Construction Investment The following judgment matrix was obtained from the expert scoring (Table 7), where a ij This represents the importance ratio of the i-th factor to the j-th factor. Table 7 Judgment Matrix b. Calculate the weights (geometric mean method) ① Calculate the geometric mean of each row (Table 8) = Table 8 Geometric Mean for Each Row ② Normalization → Weight vector W Table 9 Weight Vector value c. Consistency test (CR test) ① Maximum eigenvalue λmax The calculation yields: λmax ≈ 7.074 ② Consistency Index (CI) ③Standard RI value table (Table 10) (n=9) Table 10 Standard RI Values ④ Consistency ratio (CR) CR = CI / RI = 0.012 / 1.32 = 0.009 < 0.10 The matrix is ​​deemed valid after passing the consistency check.

[0072] d. Summary table of final weight results (Table 11) Table 11 Summary of Final Weight Results (5) Comprehensive evaluation of multiple options Result: As Figure 3 As shown, Option 1 (layout of the side coal bunker and indoor GIS) received the highest overall score and was selected as the recommended option due to its short process flow, small footprint, small amount of soil required, flexible expansion, and low construction investment.

[0073] All documents mentioned in this invention are incorporated herein by reference as if each document were individually incorporated by reference. Furthermore, it should be understood that after reading the foregoing teachings of this invention, those skilled in the art can make various alterations or modifications to this invention, and these equivalent forms also fall within the scope defined by the appended claims.

Claims

1. A method for quantitatively comparing and selecting power plant layout schemes, characterized in that, Includes the following steps: (1) Collect evaluation factors that affect the overall layout of the power plant and construct a set of evaluation factors; (2) Construct at least two site layout schemes; (3) Quantitatively score each evaluation factor in the overall layout plan; (4) Determine the weight values ​​of each evaluation factor based on the analytic hierarchy process; (5) Calculate the comprehensive score of each scheme based on the quantitative scoring results and weight values ​​of each evaluation factor; (6) Select the scheme with the highest comprehensive score as the recommended master plan design scheme.

2. The method as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The evaluation factors affecting the overall layout of the power plant are divided into three levels, from top to bottom: primary indicators, secondary indicators, and tertiary indicators. The primary indicators include: A. Technical rationality indicators, B. Economic rationality indicators, and C. Construction and environment. The lower-level secondary indicators of the A technical rationality index include: A1 process flow, A2 earthwork volume, A3 transportation, A4 expansion reservation conditions, A5 land area, and A6 pipeline shunting. The lower-level secondary indicators of the B economic rationality indicator include: B1 construction investment, B2 land acquisition and demolition difficulty, and B3 operating costs; The lower-level secondary indicators of the C construction and environment include: C1 construction difficulty and C2 environmental protection impact.

3. The method as described in claim 2, characterized in that, The lower-level three indicators of the A1 process flow include: A1-1 coal bunker in front of the main plant, A1-2 coal bunker on the side of the main plant, A1-3 primary cooling water circulation, A1-4 secondary cooling water circulation, A1-5 strip coal yard, A1-6 circular coal yard, A1-7 indoor booster station, and A1-8 outdoor booster station. The lower-level three indicators of the A3 transportation system include: A3-1 coal arrival by waterway, A3-2 coal arrival by rail, and A3-3 coal arrival by road. The lower-level three indicators of the C2 environmental protection impact include: C2-1 atmospheric pollutant diffusion conditions, C2-2 noise protection distance, C2-3 solid waste storage and transfer conditions, C2-4 wastewater discharge conditions, and C2-5 greening conditions.

4. The method as described in claim 1, characterized in that, Step (4) further includes sub-steps: (4-1) After experts score the evaluation factors at the same level, they compare the scores of each evaluation factor pairwise to construct a judgment matrix for each level. The judgment matrix is ​​expressed as follows: ； in, Indicators For indicators The importance of i and j All less than or equal to n ; (4-2) Calculate the weight value of each evaluation factor; (4-3) Perform a consistency check on the judgment matrix. When the consistency ratio is... To determine if the matrix is ​​valid, the weight values ​​obtained in step (4-2) can be used; when the consistency ratio... Conversely, if the condition is not met, the judgment matrix needs to be readjusted and a consistency check performed again until the condition is met. until.

5. The method as described in claim 4, characterized in that, Step (4-2) further includes sub-steps: (4-2-1) Calculate the geometric mean of each row of the judgment matrix. The geometric mean The calculation method is as follows: = (4-2-2) Normalize the geometric mean to obtain the weight values. The normalization calculation method is as follows: 。 6. The method as described in claim 4, characterized in that, The consistency check in step (4-3) includes the following sub-steps: (4-3-1) Calculate the maximum eigenvalue λmax, where the calculation method is as follows: (4-3-2) Calculate the consistency index based on λmax The calculation method is as follows: (4-3-3) Based on the consistency index Calculate the consistency ratio The calculation method is as follows: in, The average random consistency index can be obtained based on the principle of average random consistency. n The number of indicators.

7. The method as described in claim 1, characterized in that, Step (3) further includes sub-steps: (3-1) After establishing a unified scoring standard, experts score the evaluation factors. After at least three rounds of expert scoring, the average score is calculated to obtain the score of each evaluation factor in the overall layout plan.

8. The method as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The overall score is calculated as follows: in, For the first Each indicator weight, For the first Scheme No. Standardized values ​​of indicators.

9. A quantitative comparison device for power plant general layout schemes, characterized in that, include: (a) Memory, used to store computer-executable instructions; as well as, (b) A processor, coupled to the memory, for implementing the steps of the method as described in any one of claims 1 to 8 when executing the computer-executable instructions.

10. A computer-readable storage medium, characterized in that, The computer-readable storage medium stores computer-executable instructions that, when read and executed by a processor, implement the steps of the method as described in any one of claims 1-8.

Images