A busbar reliability evaluation method based on full-size composite design

Abstract

The application discloses a kind of based on full-size composite design's reliability evaluation method of current collector plate, it is related to quality management technical field, including, the design data and historical record of target current collector plate are acquired, reliability evidence matrix is constructed according to the design data, and the migration edge between the historical record and the reliability evidence unit in the reliability evidence matrix is established;Based on the evidence gap, the to-be-released evidence amount, the corresponding evidence release capacity of the bridging evidence group and the execution cost of candidate evaluation action, determine target evaluation action sequence;Actual evaluation information obtained by executing the target evaluation action sequence is acquired, the to-be-bridged migration edge, the effective evidence coverage and the evidence gap are updated, and the reliability evaluation information and quality disposal information of target current collector plate are generated.The present application can improve the evidence sufficiency, traceability of reliability evaluation information and the rationality of quality disposal information.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of quality management technology, and in particular to a reliability assessment method for a manifold based on a full-size composite design. Background Technology

[0002] As components involved in electrical connection, current carrying, heat transfer, and structural support, the reliability of current collectors is typically influenced by the regional structure, composite layer structure, manufacturing process, and service conditions. During research and development, prototyping, and mass production, current collector reliability assessment usually requires a comprehensive judgment based on current batch testing data, historical batch testing records, reliability test records, and quality handling records.

[0003] Existing assessment methods typically fall into two categories: one is based on current test results, such as determining whether the target current collector meets the requirements for release, re-inspection, or isolation based on indicators like surface resistivity, local contact resistance, corrosion status, coating integrity, thermal distribution, or flatness; the other is based on historical records, using the test records, experimental records, or quality handling records of historical current collectors as a reference for judging the reliability of the current target current collector, in order to reduce the cost of repeated testing and experimentation.

[0004] However, in full-scale composite design scenarios, there may be differences in regional structure, composite layer structure, manufacturing process, and service conditions between the target current collector and historical current collectors. Historical inspection and test records may not be directly applicable to current reliability assessments. Existing methods typically focus on abnormal inspection indicators, overall risk levels, or the sequence of inspection actions, lacking a tiered approach to assessing the effectiveness of historical records relative to the current full-scale composite design state. This makes it difficult to distinguish between historical evidence that can be directly transferred, requires bridging verification, and should be excluded, easily leading to the misuse or duplicate evaluation of historical evidence. Summary of the Invention

[0005] In view of the aforementioned existing problems, the present invention is proposed.

[0006] Therefore, this invention provides a reliability assessment method for current collectors based on full-size composite design to address the difficulty in effectively migrating, bridging, verifying, and distinguishing historical reliability evidence based on the differences in full-size composite design between the target current collector and historical current collectors, which leads to the problem of misuse and duplicate evaluation of historical evidence in reliability assessment.

[0007] To solve the above-mentioned technical problems, the present invention provides the following technical solution: This invention provides a reliability assessment method for a current collector based on a full-size composite design. The method includes: acquiring design data and historical records of the target current collector; constructing a reliability evidence matrix based on the design data; and establishing migration edges between the historical records and reliability evidence units in the reliability evidence matrix. The design data includes regional structure data, composite layer structure data, manufacturing process constraint data, and service condition configuration data. The historical records include design records, inspection records, test records, and quality handling records of historical current collectors. Based on the reliability evidence matrix, the historical records, and the design difference data of the target current collector relative to the historical current collectors, the particle swarm optimization algorithm is used to determine the migration gating parameters and the evidence requirement of each reliability evidence unit. The migration edges are divided into effective migration edges, migration edges to be bridged, and failed migration edges according to the migration gating parameters. Based on the effective migration edges and the migration edges to be bridged, the effective evidence coverage and the amount of evidence to be released for each reliable evidence unit are calculated, and the evidence gap for each reliable evidence unit is determined. Based on the source of design differences and candidate evaluation actions, the migration edges to be bridged are grouped to obtain bridging evidence groups; Based on the evidence gap, the amount of evidence to be released, the evidence release capability corresponding to the bridging evidence group, and the execution cost of the candidate evaluation actions, the target evaluation action sequence is determined. Obtain the actual evaluation information obtained by executing the target evaluation action sequence, update the migration edge to be bridged, the effective evidence coverage and the evidence gap, and generate the reliability assessment information and quality handling information of the target current collector.

[0008] As a preferred embodiment of the current collector reliability assessment method based on full-size composite design described in this invention, wherein: the rows of the reliability evidence matrix correspond to the main conductive area, the hole connection area, the edge area, the coating composite area, and the assembly pressure area; the columns of the reliability evidence matrix correspond to contact resistance increase, corrosion, coating peeling, cracks, hot spots, and warpage; and the reliability evidence unit is a matrix element in the reliability evidence matrix.

[0009] As a preferred embodiment of the current collector reliability assessment method based on full-size composite design described in this invention, the design difference data is composed of regional structural differences, composite layer structural differences, manufacturing process differences, and service condition differences. The differences in regional structure are determined based on the regional dimensions, hole positions, and regional boundaries of the target current collector and the historical current collector. The differences in composite layer structure are determined based on the substrate state, conductive layer state, protective layer state, and interface connection state of the target current collector and the historical current collector. The differences in manufacturing process are determined based on the coating parameters, pressing parameters, stamping parameters, and assembly pressure parameters of the target current collector and the historical current collector. The differences in service conditions are determined based on the current density, ambient temperature, ambient humidity, and number of cycles of the target current collector and the historical current collector.

[0010] As a preferred embodiment of the current collector reliability assessment method based on full-size composite design described in this invention, wherein: establishing the migration edge between the historical record and the reliability evidence unit in the reliability evidence matrix includes: Based on the detection area and failure mode corresponding to the historical detection record, and the test object and failure mode corresponding to the historical test record, the reliability evidence unit corresponding to the historical detection record and the historical test record is determined. Based on the detection coverage, detection accuracy, and detection conclusions of the historical detection records, determine the historical evidence contribution corresponding to the historical detection records; Based on the test duration, test stress conditions, and test conclusions in the historical test records, determine the contribution of historical evidence corresponding to the historical test records; The association between historical detection records, historical test records, and corresponding reliable evidence units that contribute historical evidence is determined as migration edges.

[0011] As a preferred embodiment of the current collector reliability assessment method based on full-size composite design described in this invention, the migration gating parameters include effective migration conditions and bridging verification conditions. The reliability of historical records is determined based on the data source level, record completeness, matching degree of evaluation conditions, and consistency of quality handling. The matching degree of the evaluation conditions is determined based on the correspondence between the detection area, test object, failure mode and corresponding reliability evidence unit corresponding to the historical records.

[0012] The effective migration conditions are determined based on historical data credibility, design difference data, and historical evidence contribution, while the bridging verification conditions are determined based on historical data credibility, design difference data, and the interaction between candidate evaluation actions. When a migration edge meets the valid migration condition, the migration edge is classified as a valid migration edge. When a migration edge does not meet the valid migration condition but meets the bridging verification condition, the migration edge is classified as a migration edge to be bridged. When a migration edge does not meet the bridging verification condition, the migration edge is classified as a failed migration edge. As a preferred embodiment of the current collector reliability assessment method based on full-size composite design described in this invention, the step of using a particle swarm optimization algorithm to determine the migration gating parameters and the evidence requirement of each reliability evidence unit includes: The effective migration condition, bridging verification condition, regional evidence requirement coefficient, failure mode evidence requirement coefficient, design difference penalty coefficient, and historical record credibility coefficient are used as particle position parameters. The fitness evaluation result of the particle swarm optimization algorithm is determined based on the consistency between the quality handling records and the corresponding historical inspection records and historical test records. The migration gating parameters and the evidence requirements of each reliability evidence unit are determined through particle swarm iteration.

[0013] As a preferred embodiment of the current collector reliability assessment method based on full-size composite design described in this invention, the step of calculating the effective evidence coverage and the amount of evidence to be released for each reliability evidence unit based on the effective migration edge and the migration edge to be bridged includes: The contribution of historical evidence corresponding to the effective migration edge is included in the effective evidence coverage of the corresponding reliable evidence unit, and the contribution of historical evidence corresponding to the migration edge to be bridged is included in the amount of evidence to be released of the corresponding reliable evidence unit. The contribution of historical evidence corresponding to the failed migration edge is excluded from the effective evidence coverage and the amount of evidence to be released. Based on the difference between the evidence demand and effective evidence coverage of each reliable evidence unit, the evidence gap of each reliable evidence unit is determined.

[0014] As a preferred embodiment of the current collector reliability assessment method based on full-size composite design described in this invention, the candidate evaluation actions consist of full-size surface resistance distribution detection, hole connection area re-inspection, edge area corrosion verification, coating composite area integrity detection, heat distribution detection, flatness detection, and manufacturing process consistency bridging verification. The bridging evidence set is determined according to the source of design discrepancies, candidate evaluation actions, and associated reliability evidence units; The sources of design differences include differences in regional structure, differences in composite layer structure, differences in manufacturing process, and differences in service conditions.

[0015] As a preferred embodiment of the current collector reliability assessment method based on full-size composite design described in this invention, wherein: determining the target evaluation action sequence includes: The benefits of candidate evaluation actions are determined based on their ability to directly fill evidence gaps, their ability to release the amount of evidence to be released in the bridging evidence group, and their execution costs. Based on the evaluation budget, delivery time, and testing equipment occupancy time, the candidate evaluation actions are constrained and verified. The target evaluation action sequence is then determined from the candidate evaluation actions that have passed the constraint verification, in descending order of the action benefits.

[0016] As a preferred embodiment of the current collector reliability assessment method based on full-size composite design described in this invention, wherein: generating the reliability assessment information and quality handling information of the target current collector includes: When the actual evaluation information indicates that the historical record corresponding to the migration edge to be bridged is applicable to the target collector board, the migration edge to be bridged is updated to a valid migration edge, and the corresponding amount of evidence to be released is transferred to the valid evidence coverage of the corresponding reliable evidence unit. When the actual evaluation information indicates that the historical record corresponding to the migration edge to be bridged is not applicable to the target collector board, the migration edge to be bridged is updated to a failed migration edge, and the corresponding amount of evidence to be released is deducted from the amount of evidence to be released of the corresponding reliability evidence unit. The evidence gaps for the corresponding reliable evidence units are re-determined based on the updated coverage of valid evidence. Based on the updated effective evidence coverage, the re-determined evidence gaps, and the execution results of the target evaluation action sequence, the overall board effective evidence coverage, evidence gap matrix, migration edge status list, target evaluation action sequence, and reliability level are determined, and the reliability assessment information is generated. Based on the overall effective evidence coverage rate, the evidence gap matrix, the migration edge status list, and the reliability level, the quality handling type, handling basis, and subsequent execution matters are determined, and the quality handling information is generated.

[0017] The beneficial effects of this invention are as follows: by constructing a reliability evidence matrix and establishing migration edges between historical records and reliability evidence units, the state classification of historical evidence into effective migration, bridging migration, and failure migration is performed, avoiding the direct and indiscriminate reuse of historical records; by releasing reusable historical evidence through bridging migration edges and bridging evidence groups, duplicate detection and duplicate testing are reduced; by updating evidence coverage and evidence gaps through target evaluation action sequences, the sufficiency, traceability, and rationality of quality handling information of reliability assessment information are improved. Attached Figure Description

[0018] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention, the drawings used in the following description of the embodiments will be briefly introduced. Obviously, the drawings described below are only some embodiments of the present invention. For those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without creative effort.

[0019] Figure 1 This is a schematic diagram illustrating an application scenario of the present invention.

[0020] Figure 2 This is a flowchart of a reliability assessment method for a current collector based on a full-size composite design.

[0021] Figure 3 This is a flowchart of the reliability evidence matrix and migration edges.

[0022] Figure 4 This is a flowchart for bridging the evidence group. Detailed Implementation

[0023] To make the above-mentioned objects, features and advantages of the present invention more apparent and understandable, the specific embodiments of the present invention will be described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings.

[0024] Many specific details are set forth in the following description in order to provide a full understanding of the invention. However, the invention may also be practiced in other ways different from those described herein, and those skilled in the art can make similar extensions without departing from the spirit of the invention. Therefore, the invention is not limited to the specific embodiments disclosed below.

[0025] Secondly, the term "one embodiment" or "embodiment" as used herein refers to a specific feature, structure, or characteristic that may be included in at least one implementation of the present invention. The phrase "in one embodiment" appearing in different places in this specification does not necessarily refer to the same embodiment, nor is it a single or selective embodiment that is mutually exclusive with other embodiments.

[0026] Reference Figures 1-4 As one embodiment of the present invention, this embodiment provides a method for reliability evaluation of a current collector based on a full-size composite design, comprising the following steps: S1: Obtain the design data and historical records of the target current collector, construct a reliability evidence matrix based on the design data, and establish migration edges between the historical records and the reliability evidence units in the reliability evidence matrix; the design data includes regional structure data, composite layer structure data, manufacturing process constraint data, and service condition configuration data; the historical records include design records, inspection records, test records, and quality handling records of historical current collectors.

[0027] Specifically, in step S1, the design data and historical records of the target current collector are obtained. The design data includes regional structure data, composite layer structure data, manufacturing process constraint data, and service condition configuration data. The regional structure data includes the regional boundaries, regional dimensions, hole positions, and interface positions of the main conductive region, hole connection region, edge region, coating composite region, and assembly pressure region.

[0028] The composite layer structure data includes the structural state of the copper substrate, composite carbon layer, carbon paper conductive support layer, and encapsulated protective area.

[0029] Manufacturing process constraints include hot pressing temperature, hot pressing pressure, hot pressing time, curing temperature range, heating and holding regime, and assembly pressure window.

[0030] Service condition configuration data includes current density, ambient temperature, ambient humidity, and number of cycles.

[0031] Historical records include design records, inspection records, test records, and quality handling records for historical manifolds.

[0032] A reliability evidence matrix is ​​constructed based on the design data of the target current collector. Each row of the reliability evidence matrix corresponds to a five-area unit, namely the main conductive area, the hole connection area, the edge area, the coating composite area, and the assembly pressure area. The columns of the reliability evidence matrix correspond to six failure modes: increased contact resistance, corrosion, coating peeling, cracking, hot spots, and warping; each element in the matrix is ​​a reliability evidence unit.

[0033] When establishing a migration edge, not all historical records are directly included in the current target collector board; for historical test records, the corresponding reliability evidence units are first determined based on the test area and failure mode; for historical test records, the corresponding reliability evidence units are first determined based on the test object and failure mode.

[0034] If a historical detection record or historical test record can be mapped to a certain reliability evidence unit in the reliability evidence matrix, then a migration edge is established between the historical record and the reliability evidence unit.

[0035] The contribution of historical evidence from historical testing records can be determined by testing coverage, testing accuracy, and testing conclusions.

[0036] For example, full-size surface resistance distribution test records can provide historical evidence for contact resistance increase units and hot spot units in the main conductive area; flatness test records can provide historical evidence for warping units in the assembly pressure area; the amount of historical evidence contribution from historical test records can be determined by the test duration, test stress conditions, and test conclusions.

[0037] For example, corrosion durability test records can provide historical evidence of corrosion units in edge areas and coating peeling units in coating composite areas.

[0038] It should be noted that in this embodiment, the contribution of historical evidence is defined as the evidence score. The evidence score is not a physical quantity such as resistance, length, temperature, or pressure, but an evidence strength value obtained based on evaluation rules such as detection coverage, detection accuracy, test duration, and the validity of test conclusions. The same evidence score unit is used for subsequent effective evidence coverage, the amount of evidence to be released, and evidence gaps.

[0039] S2: Based on the reliability evidence matrix, the historical records, and the design difference data of the target current collector relative to the historical current collectors, the particle swarm optimization algorithm is used to determine the migration gating parameters and the evidence requirement of each reliability evidence unit.

[0040] Specifically, in step S2, based on the reliability evidence matrix, historical records, and design differences between the target current collector and historical current collectors, the particle swarm optimization algorithm is used to determine the migration gating parameters and the evidence requirements for each reliability evidence unit.

[0041] Design difference data consists of differences in regional structure, composite layer structure, manufacturing process, and service conditions.

[0042] When calculating design variance data, first perform normalization variance conversion on similar physical quantities. For any physical quantity... The target current collector is set to... The historical current collector value is The corresponding allowable difference is The normalized difference score for this physical quantity is: ; In the formula, For the same type of physical quantities to be compared, The values ​​of the corresponding physical quantities in the target collector plate. For the target object, The values ​​of the corresponding physical quantities in the historical current collectors. As a historical object, To determine the absolute difference in physical quantities between the target current collector and historical current collectors, and to avoid the influence of positive and negative directions on the determination of the magnitude of the difference, The allowable difference value corresponding to the physical quantity has the same characteristics as... , Same physical dimensions The normalized difference score for physical quantities ranges from 0 to 1.

[0043] For example, if For the hole size, then It is also a quantity of length; if For the pressing pressure, then It is also a pressure quantity.

[0044] For the Historical record and number The design difference score between individual regional units can be obtained from the regional structure difference score, composite layer structure difference score, manufacturing process difference score, and service condition difference score: ; In the formula, For the first Historical record and number Design difference scoring between regional units For the first Historical record and number Scoring of regional structural differences between regional units For the first Historical record and number Scoring of differences in composite layer structures in individual regions For the first Historical record and number Scoring of manufacturing process differences in individual regional units For the first Historical record and number Scoring of differences in service conditions among regional units For historical records, The region cell number in the reliability evidence matrix. , , and These are the weights corresponding to the four types of difference scores mentioned above, and the sum of each weight is 1. The values ​​range from 0 to 1, and the sum of the weights is 1.

[0045] The reliability of historical records is determined by the level of data source, the completeness of records, the matching degree of evaluation conditions, and the consistency of quality treatment, and is expressed as: ; In the formula, For the first Reliability of historical records; Rate the data source level. To record the completeness score, To evaluate the matching degree of the conditions, Scoring for consistency in quality handling; , , and The corresponding weights range from 0 to 1, and the sum of the weights is 1.

[0046] All four ratings are derived from the verifiable attributes of the historical records themselves, and are all evidence credibility ratings between 0 and 1.

[0047] Among them, the data source level is used to distinguish between records generated by controlled testing equipment, records generated by controlled testing protocols, and ordinary production records; record completeness is used to characterize whether the testing area, test object, failure mode, testing conclusion, or test conclusion in the record is complete; evaluation condition matching degree is determined based on the correspondence between the testing area, test object, failure mode corresponding to the historical record and the corresponding reliability evidence unit; and quality handling consistency is used to characterize whether the historical testing conclusion or historical test conclusion is consistent with the subsequent quality handling results. After determining the historical record reliability and design difference score, the migration score of the migration edge can be expressed as: ; In the formula, For the first The first historical record up to the The first regional unit, the first Each failure mode corresponds to a migration score for a reliability evidence unit. The mapping matching score is used to characterize the degree of matching between the historical record and the corresponding reliability evidence unit in terms of detection area, test object, and failure mode.

[0048] , and All scores are between 0 and 1, therefore It is also a rating between 0 and 1.

[0049] Each particle in the particle swarm optimization algorithm represents a set of candidate parameters, including gating parameters characterizing effective migration conditions, gating parameters characterizing bridging verification conditions, regional evidence requirement coefficients, failure mode evidence requirement coefficients, design difference penalty coefficients, and historical record credibility coefficients. Particle position and velocity updates adopt the standard particle swarm iteration method. ; ; In the formula, For the number of iterations, For the first The particle in the first The position vector at the next iteration. For the first The particle in the first The position vector at the next iteration. For the first The particle in the first The velocity vector at the next iteration For the first The particle in the first The velocity vector at the next iteration For inertial weights, As a learning factor, As a group learning factor, This represents the global optimal position of the particle swarm. For inertial weights, and A random number between 0 and 1 This represents the particle's historical optimal position.

[0050] The fitness evaluation results of the particle swarm optimization algorithm are determined based on the consistency between the quality handling records and the corresponding detection and test records.

[0051] If a set of gating parameters causes inapplicable historical records to be classified as valid migration edges, a misuse loss occurs; if a set of gating parameters causes historical records that were subsequently proven reusable to be classified as invalid migration edges, a misexclusion loss occurs; if the evidence gap is large or the evaluation cost is high, a corresponding penalty is imposed. The fitness evaluation value can be expressed as:

[0052] In the formula, This is the fitness evaluation value; For the score of misuse loss, To score the loss for incorrect exclusion, For residual score of evidence gap, To evaluate cost scoring; , , and The weight is 0 to 1, and the sum of the weights is 1.

[0053] The above-mentioned loss items were all obtained by normalizing the consistency among quality handling records, inspection records, and test records.

[0054] Particle swarm iteration to reduce With the goal of obtaining migration gating parameters and the evidence requirements of each reliability evidence unit, we can obtain the migration gating parameters and the evidence requirements of each reliability evidence unit.

[0055] S3: Based on the migration gating parameters, the migration edges are divided into effective migration edges, migration edges to be bridged, and failed migration edges. Based on the effective migration edges and the migration edges to be bridged, the effective evidence coverage and the amount of evidence to be released for each reliable evidence unit are calculated, and the evidence gap for each reliable evidence unit is determined.

[0056] Specifically, in step S3, based on the migration gating parameters obtained from the particle swarm optimization algorithm, the migration edges are divided into valid migration edges, migration edges to be bridged, and failed migration edges.

[0057] Specifically, when a migration edge meets the valid migration conditions, it is classified as a valid migration edge; when a migration edge does not meet the valid migration conditions but meets the bridging verification conditions, it is classified as a migration edge to be bridged; when a migration edge does not meet the bridging verification conditions, it is classified as a failed migration edge.

[0058] The contribution of historical evidence corresponding to a valid migration edge is included in the valid evidence coverage of the corresponding reliable evidence unit; the contribution of historical evidence corresponding to a migration edge to be bridged is not directly included in the valid evidence coverage, but is included in the amount of evidence to be released of the corresponding reliable evidence unit; the contribution of historical evidence corresponding to a failed migration edge is excluded from the valid evidence coverage and the amount of evidence to be released.

[0059] For the The first regional unit, the first The reliability evidence units corresponding to each failure mode, the effective evidence coverage, the amount of evidence to be released, and the evidence gap can be expressed as follows: ; ; ; In the formula, For effective evidence coverage, The amount of evidence to be released This is a gap in evidence; For the set of valid migration edges pointing to reliable evidence units, For the set of transition edges to be bridged, pointing to this reliable evidence unit, For the first The contribution of each historical record to the historical evidence unit's reliability. This represents the amount of evidence required for this reliable evidence unit.

[0060] , , , and All use the same evidence scoring unit, so additions, subtractions, and comparisons can be made.

[0061] For example, a composite current collector may include a copper substrate, a composite carbon layer, and a carbon paper conductive support layer, and can be formed by hot pressing at 180°C and subsequent curing. If the target current collector is highly consistent with a historical record in terms of composite layer structure and manufacturing process, the migration edge corresponding to that historical record can enter the effective migration edge; if the historical record and the target current collector differ in composite material composition or hot pressing pressure, but can be confirmed through manufacturing process consistency bridging verification, then the migration edge enters the bridging migration edge; if the historical record does not have a composite carbon layer structure and its applicability cannot be verified through candidate evaluation actions, then the migration edge enters the failed migration edge.

[0062] S4: Group the migration edges to be bridged according to the source of design difference and candidate evaluation actions to obtain bridging evidence groups.

[0063] Specifically, in step S4, the edges to be bridged are grouped according to the source of design differences and candidate evaluation actions to obtain bridging evidence groups.

[0064] Design discrepancies originate from variations in regional structure, composite layer structure, manufacturing processes, and service conditions. The candidate evaluation process consists of full-size surface resistivity distribution testing, re-inspection of hole connection areas, edge area corrosion verification, coating composite area integrity testing, thermal distribution testing, flatness testing, and manufacturing process consistency bridging verification.

[0065] The purpose of bridging evidence groups is to organize a group of bridging migration edges that can be verified by the same candidate evaluation action.

[0066] For example, migration edges to be bridged caused by differences in manufacturing processes can be classified into the bridging evidence group corresponding to manufacturing process consistency bridging verification; migration edges to be bridged caused by differences in composite layer structure and associated with coating peeling, corrosion, or hot spots can be classified into the bridging evidence group corresponding to coating composite area integrity testing; migration edges to be bridged caused by changes in hole position or area boundary and associated with cracks or increased contact resistance can be classified into the bridging evidence group corresponding to hole connection area re-inspection.

[0067] This grouping method ensures that the value of candidate evaluation actions is reflected not only in their ability to directly fill current evidence gaps, but also in their ability to release the amount of evidence to be released in bridging evidence groups.

[0068] A candidate evaluation action may simultaneously verify multiple edges to be bridged through a single evaluation, thereby releasing a set of historical records as valid evidence or updating them as invalid evidence.

[0069] Specifically, for each migration edge to be bridged, the source of design discrepancies associated with that edge is determined. The source of design discrepancies is determined based on the type of discrepancy that has the greatest impact on the migration gating results, among regional structural discrepancies, composite layer structural discrepancies, manufacturing process discrepancies, and service condition discrepancies.

[0070] Based on the correspondence between candidate evaluation actions and design difference sources, bridging migration edges that have the same design difference source, correspond to the same candidate evaluation action, and whose associated reliability evidence units fall within the coverage of the candidate evaluation action are grouped into the same bridging evidence group.

[0071] For example, if the reliability evidence unit associated with the migration edge to be bridged is the coating peeling evidence unit in the coating composite region, and the source of design difference is determined to be the source of composite layer structure difference, then the migration edge to be bridged is assigned to the bridging evidence group corresponding to the integrity detection of the coating composite region.

[0072] If the reliability evidence unit associated with the edge to be bridged and migrated is a crack evidence unit in the hole connection area, and the source of design difference is determined to be the source of regional structural difference, then the edge to be bridged and migrated shall be assigned to the bridging evidence group corresponding to the hole connection area re-examination.

[0073] When the source of design difference of the edge to be bridged is determined to be the source of manufacturing process difference, and the edge to be bridged is associated with multiple regional units, the edge to be bridged is assigned to the bridging evidence group corresponding to the manufacturing process consistency bridging verification.

[0074] S5: Based on the evidence gap, the amount of evidence to be released, the evidence release capability corresponding to the bridging evidence group, and the execution cost of the candidate evaluation actions, determine the target evaluation action sequence.

[0075] Based on the evidence gap, the amount of evidence to be released, the evidence release capability corresponding to the bridging evidence group, and the execution cost of the candidate evaluation actions, the target evaluation action sequence is determined.

[0076] For the The evaluation of each candidate action can be determined based on its direct capability enhancement, capability release, and execution cost.

[0077] In the formula, For the first The action benefit of each candidate evaluation action. For the first The candidate evaluation action for the first The first regional unit, the first The ability to directly supplement the reliability evidence unit corresponding to each failure mode. For the first The ability of each candidate evaluation action to release the amount of evidence to be released in the corresponding reliable evidence unit in the bridging evidence group. For the first The execution cost score for each candidate evaluation action.

[0078] , , and All use evidence scoring units; Cost scoring is calculated by discounting expenses, delivery time, and equipment occupancy time according to rules. Therefore, This indicates the amount of evidence that can be supplemented or released per unit cost.

[0079] The candidate evaluation actions are constrained and verified based on the evaluation budget, delivery time, and testing equipment occupancy time. The target evaluation action sequence is then determined from the candidate evaluation actions that pass the constraint verification, in descending order of action benefit.

[0080] The target evaluation action sequence is not simply a sorting of detection paths, but an evaluation resource allocation result based on evidence gaps and the evidence release capability of bridging evidence groups.

[0081] For example, when the main differences between the target manifold and historical records are concentrated in hot-pressing pressure, hot-pressing time, and assembly pressure parameters, manufacturing process consistency bridging verification can verify multiple sources of manufacturing process differences that need to be bridged, so its benefit may be higher than evaluation actions that only supplement a single evidence unit. Similarly, when there are differences between the target manifold and historical records in the composite carbon layer material system, coating composite region integrity detection can simultaneously verify coating peeling, corrosion, and hot spot-related bridging migration edges, and therefore can be included in the target evaluation action sequence.

[0082] It should be noted that the evidence release capability of a candidate evaluation action is used to indicate the ability, after the execution of the candidate evaluation action, to verify whether the migrating edge to be bridged in the corresponding bridging evidence group is suitable for the target current collector. The evidence release capability is jointly determined by the correspondence between the candidate evaluation action and the bridging evidence group, the evaluation coverage of the candidate evaluation action, and the remaining evidence gap of the corresponding reliability evidence unit.

[0083] For the same unit of reliable evidence, the amount of evidence released by a candidate evaluation action shall not exceed the amount of evidence to be released for that unit of reliable evidence, nor shall it exceed the evidence gap for that unit of reliable evidence. This avoids repeatedly including the same amount of evidence to be released in the action benefits of multiple evaluation actions.

[0084] When determining the benefit of candidate evaluation actions, the effective evidence gain of each reliable evidence unit is determined. The effective evidence gains of each reliable evidence unit are then summarized, and the benefit is determined in conjunction with the execution cost of the candidate evaluation action. The effective evidence gain is jointly determined by the ability of the candidate evaluation action to directly fill evidence gaps and its ability to release the amount of evidence to be released in the bridging evidence group.

[0085] S6: Obtain the actual evaluation information obtained by executing the target evaluation action sequence, update the migration edge to be bridged, the effective evidence coverage and the evidence gap, and generate the reliability assessment information and quality handling information of the target current collector. After executing the target evaluation action sequence, obtain the actual evaluation information.

[0086] Actual evaluation information may include manufacturing process consistency verification results, full-size surface resistance distribution test results, hole connection area re-inspection results, edge area corrosion verification results, coating composite area integrity test results, heat distribution test results, and flatness test results.

[0087] When the actual evaluation information indicates that the historical record corresponding to the bridging migration edge is applicable to the target collector board, the bridging migration edge is updated as a valid migration edge, and the corresponding amount of evidence to be released is transferred to the valid evidence coverage of the corresponding reliability evidence unit.

[0088] When the actual evaluation information indicates that the historical record corresponding to the bridging migration edge is not applicable to the target collector board, the bridging migration edge is updated to a failed migration edge, and the corresponding amount of evidence to be released is deducted from the amount of evidence to be released of the corresponding reliability evidence unit.

[0089] After completing the migration edge state update, the evidence gaps of the corresponding reliability evidence units are re-determined based on the updated effective evidence coverage. Based on the updated effective evidence coverage, the re-determined evidence gaps, and the execution results of the target evaluation action sequence, the overall board effective evidence coverage, evidence gap matrix, migration edge state list, target evaluation action sequence, and reliability level are determined, and reliability assessment information is generated.

[0090] Further, based on the overall effective evidence coverage, evidence gap matrix, migration edge status list, and reliability level, the quality handling type, handling basis, and subsequent execution matters are determined, generating quality handling information. Quality handling types may include batch release, supplementary evaluation, bridging verification, isolation re-inspection, and follow-up tracking.

[0091] In summary, this invention achieves the following: by constructing a reliability evidence matrix and establishing migration edges between historical records and reliability evidence units, it classifies historical evidence into states of effective migration, bridging migration, and failure migration, thus avoiding the direct and indiscriminate reuse of historical records; by releasing reusable historical evidence through bridging migration edges and bridging evidence groups, it reduces duplicate testing and repeated experiments; and by updating evidence coverage and evidence gaps through target evaluation action sequences, it improves the sufficiency, traceability, and rationality of quality handling information in reliability assessment.

[0092] It should be noted that the above embodiments are only used to illustrate the technical solutions of the present invention and are not intended to limit it. Although the present invention has been described in detail with reference to preferred embodiments, those skilled in the art should understand that modifications or equivalent substitutions can be made to the technical solutions of the present invention without departing from the spirit and scope of the technical solutions of the present invention, and all such modifications or substitutions should be covered within the scope of the claims of the present invention.

Claims

1. A reliability assessment method for a current collector based on a full-size composite design, characterized in that, include: The design data and historical records of the target current collector are obtained. A reliability evidence matrix is ​​constructed based on the design data, and migration edges are established between the historical records and the reliability evidence units in the reliability evidence matrix. The design data includes regional structure data, composite layer structure data, manufacturing process constraint data, and service condition configuration data. The historical records include design records, inspection records, test records, and quality handling records of historical current collectors. Based on the reliability evidence matrix, the historical records, and the design difference data of the target current collector relative to the historical current collectors, the particle swarm optimization algorithm is used to determine the migration gating parameters and the evidence requirement of each reliability evidence unit. The migration edges are divided into effective migration edges, migration edges to be bridged, and failed migration edges according to the migration gating parameters. Based on the effective migration edges and the migration edges to be bridged, the effective evidence coverage and the amount of evidence to be released for each reliable evidence unit are calculated, and the evidence gap for each reliable evidence unit is determined. Based on the source of design differences and candidate evaluation actions, the migration edges to be bridged are grouped to obtain bridging evidence groups; Based on the evidence gap, the amount of evidence to be released, the evidence release capability corresponding to the bridging evidence group, and the execution cost of the candidate evaluation actions, the target evaluation action sequence is determined. Obtain the actual evaluation information obtained by executing the target evaluation action sequence, update the migration edge to be bridged, the effective evidence coverage and the evidence gap, and generate the reliability assessment information and quality handling information of the target current collector.

2. The reliability assessment method for a current collector based on a full-size composite design as described in claim 1, characterized in that: The rows of the reliability evidence matrix correspond to the main conductive area, the hole connection area, the edge area, the coating composite area, and the assembly pressure area. The columns of the reliability evidence matrix correspond to the contact resistance increase, corrosion, coating peeling, cracks, hot spots, and warping. The reliability evidence unit is the matrix element in the reliability evidence matrix.

3. The reliability assessment method for a current collector based on a full-size composite design as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The design difference data is composed of differences in regional structure, differences in composite layer structure, differences in manufacturing process, and differences in service conditions; The differences in regional structure are determined based on the regional dimensions, hole positions, and regional boundaries of the target current collector and the historical current collector. The differences in composite layer structure are determined based on the substrate state, conductive layer state, protective layer state, and interface connection state of the target current collector and the historical current collector. The differences in manufacturing process are determined based on the coating parameters, pressing parameters, stamping parameters, and assembly pressure parameters of the target current collector and the historical current collector. The differences in service conditions are determined based on the current density, ambient temperature, ambient humidity, and number of cycles of the target current collector and the historical current collector.

4. The reliability assessment method for a current collector based on a full-size composite design as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The establishment of the migration edge between the historical record and the reliability evidence unit in the reliability evidence matrix includes: Based on the detection area and failure mode corresponding to the historical detection record, and the test object and failure mode corresponding to the historical test record, the reliability evidence unit corresponding to the historical detection record and the historical test record is determined. Based on the detection coverage, detection accuracy, and detection conclusions of the historical detection records, determine the historical evidence contribution corresponding to the historical detection records; Based on the test duration, test stress conditions, and test conclusions in the historical test records, determine the contribution of historical evidence corresponding to the historical test records; The association between historical detection records, historical test records, and corresponding reliable evidence units that contribute historical evidence is determined as migration edges.

5. The reliability assessment method for a current collector based on a full-size composite design as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The migration gating parameters include valid migration conditions and bridging verification conditions; The reliability of historical records is determined based on the data source level, record completeness, matching degree of evaluation conditions, and consistency of quality handling. The matching degree of the evaluation conditions is determined based on the correspondence between the detection area, test object, failure mode and corresponding reliability evidence unit corresponding to the historical records. The effective migration conditions are determined based on historical data credibility, design difference data, and the contribution of historical evidence; the bridging verification conditions are determined based on historical data credibility, design difference data, and the interaction between candidate evaluation actions. When a migration edge meets the valid migration condition, the migration edge is classified as a valid migration edge. When a migration edge does not meet the valid migration condition but meets the bridging verification condition, the migration edge is classified as a migration edge to be bridged. When a migration edge does not meet the bridging verification conditions, the migration edge is classified as a failed migration edge.

6. The reliability assessment method for a current collector based on a full-size composite design as described in claim 5, characterized in that, The process of using particle swarm optimization to determine migration gating parameters and the evidence requirement for each reliable evidence unit includes: The effective migration condition, bridging verification condition, regional evidence requirement coefficient, failure mode evidence requirement coefficient, design difference penalty coefficient, and historical record credibility coefficient are used as particle position parameters. The fitness evaluation result of the particle swarm optimization algorithm is determined based on the consistency between the quality handling records and the corresponding historical inspection records and historical test records. The migration gating parameters and the evidence requirements of each reliability evidence unit are determined through particle swarm iteration.

7. The reliability assessment method for a current collector based on a full-size composite design as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The step of calculating the effective evidence coverage and the amount of evidence to be released for each reliable evidence unit based on the effective migration edge and the migration edge to be bridged includes: The contribution of historical evidence corresponding to the effective migration edge is included in the effective evidence coverage of the corresponding reliable evidence unit, and the contribution of historical evidence corresponding to the migration edge to be bridged is included in the amount of evidence to be released of the corresponding reliable evidence unit. The historical evidence contribution corresponding to the failed migration edge is excluded from the effective evidence coverage and the amount of evidence to be released. Based on the difference between the evidence demand and the effective evidence coverage of each reliable evidence unit, the evidence gap of each reliable evidence unit is determined.

8. The reliability assessment method for a current collector based on a full-size composite design as described in claim 1, characterized in that: The candidate evaluation process consists of full-size surface resistance distribution detection, hole connection area re-inspection, edge area corrosion verification, coating composite area integrity detection, heat distribution detection, flatness detection, and manufacturing process consistency bridging verification. The bridging evidence set is determined according to the source of design discrepancies, candidate evaluation actions, and associated reliability evidence units; The sources of design differences include differences in regional structure, differences in composite layer structure, differences in manufacturing process, and differences in service conditions.

9. The reliability assessment method for a current collector based on a full-size composite design as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The determination of the target evaluation action sequence includes: The benefits of candidate evaluation actions are determined based on their ability to directly fill evidence gaps, their ability to release the amount of evidence to be released in the bridging evidence group, and their execution costs. Based on the evaluation budget, delivery time, and testing equipment occupancy time, the candidate evaluation actions are constrained and verified. The target evaluation action sequence is then determined from the candidate evaluation actions that have passed the constraint verification, in descending order of the action benefits.

10. The reliability assessment method for a current collector based on a full-size composite design as described in claim 1, characterized in that: The generation of reliability assessment information and quality handling information for the target current collector includes: When the actual evaluation information indicates that the historical record corresponding to the migration edge to be bridged is applicable to the target collector board, the migration edge to be bridged is updated to a valid migration edge, and the corresponding amount of evidence to be released is transferred to the valid evidence coverage of the corresponding reliable evidence unit. When the actual evaluation information indicates that the historical record corresponding to the migration edge to be bridged is not applicable to the target collector board, the migration edge to be bridged is updated to a failed migration edge, and the corresponding amount of evidence to be released is deducted from the amount of evidence to be released of the corresponding reliability evidence unit. The evidence gaps for the corresponding reliable evidence units are re-determined based on the updated coverage of valid evidence. Based on the updated effective evidence coverage, the re-determined evidence gaps, and the execution results of the target evaluation action sequence, the overall board effective evidence coverage, evidence gap matrix, migration edge status list, target evaluation action sequence, and reliability level are determined, and the reliability assessment information is generated. Based on the overall effective evidence coverage rate, the evidence gap matrix, the migration edge status list, and the reliability level, the quality handling type, handling basis, and subsequent execution matters are determined, and the quality handling information is generated.

Images