A county distribution network terminal configuration method based on weak point and blind spot identification

Abstract

The application discloses a county power distribution network terminal configuration method based on weak points and blind points identification, and belongs to the technical field of power distribution network automation. The comprehensive weakness is determined according to the observability and controllability of each node, the weak points are identified, the regulation and control blind points are determined from the weak points, and the observability constraint and remote control coverage constraint are established accordingly; the optional terminal type is determined in combination with the communication accessibility of the candidate terminal installation position, the candidate terminal configuration is formed, the target terminal configuration with the lowest configuration cost is determined under the condition of meeting the constraint, and the terminal installation position and the terminal type are obtained. The application can take into account the node measurement capability and the remote regulation and control capability, improve the pertinence of the terminal configuration, and reduce the terminal configuration cost.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of distribution network automation and terminal configuration technology, specifically to a method for configuring terminals in a county-level distribution network based on the identification of weak points and blind spots. Background Technology

[0002] County-level power distribution networks include controllable equipment such as distribution nodes, feeders, and switches. The relationships between nodes, branches, and controllable equipment can be determined based on the power distribution network topology, and candidate terminal installation locations can be set. Terminals at different locations and of different types have different measurement and remote control capabilities. Their measurement data can be used for node state estimation, and their remote control functions can be used to remotely control associated controllable equipment. Therefore, different terminal configurations result in differences in node observability, remote control coverage of associated controllable equipment, and configuration costs.

[0003] Existing methods for configuring distribution network terminals typically use distribution network reliability, node observability, or terminal configuration cost as evaluation criteria. Based on the distribution network topology and candidate terminal installation locations, optimization algorithms are employed to determine the installation location and type of the terminals. For example, reliability indicators such as outage duration and outage frequency are used to evaluate the configuration effectiveness of remote control terminals, or node observability relationships are used to determine the configuration of measurement terminals that meet state estimation requirements, while also considering terminal investment costs.

[0004] However, existing technologies still have the following problems: (1) Existing methods usually evaluate the observability and controllability of nodes separately, lacking comprehensive consideration of both, making it difficult to accurately identify local weaknesses in nodes, resulting in omission of some regulatory blind spots.

[0005] (2) When evaluating terminal configuration using overall indicators such as network visibility and average coverage level, the limited impact of insufficient local perception or control capabilities of a few nodes on the overall evaluation results may result in situations where the overall indicators meet the requirements but there are still weak links in some areas.

[0006] (3) Existing terminal configuration methods are mostly aimed at improving the overall coverage level or reducing configuration costs, making it difficult to reasonably allocate terminal resources for actual weak locations, resulting in redundant configuration in some locations and insufficient configuration in others.

[0007] Therefore, there is an urgent need for a county-level power distribution network terminal configuration method that can jointly consider the observability and controllability of nodes, identify weak points and control blind spots, and reasonably determine the terminal installation location and terminal type while meeting the corresponding observability and remote control coverage requirements and taking into account the configuration cost. Summary of the Invention

[0008] In order to overcome the above-mentioned defects of the prior art, the purpose of this invention is to provide a county-level power distribution network terminal configuration method based on weak point and blind point identification, so as to solve the problems of insufficient comprehensive consideration of node observability and controllability, difficulty in accurately identifying local weak links, and difficulty in balancing terminal configuration effect and configuration cost in the existing terminal configuration methods.

[0009] To achieve the above objectives, the present invention provides a method for configuring terminals in a county-level power distribution network based on the identification of weak points and blind spots, comprising: Based on the observability and controllability of each node in the county power distribution network, the overall weakness of each node is determined, weak points are identified based on the overall weakness, and control blind spots are determined from the weak points. Based on the aforementioned weaknesses and control blind spots, the observability constraints and remote control coverage constraints corresponding to the terminal configuration are determined. From the terminal configurations that simultaneously satisfy the observability constraint and the remote control coverage constraint, the target terminal configuration with the lowest configuration cost is determined, and the terminal installation location and terminal type are obtained.

[0010] Specifically, different terminal configurations correspond to different terminal installation locations and combinations of terminal types. Different terminal types have different measurement capabilities, remote control capabilities, and configuration costs. Therefore, different terminal configurations differ in their ability to acquire the status of distribution network nodes, their remote control capabilities for associated controllable devices, and their overall configuration costs. For each node in a county-level distribution network, the observability and controllability of the node are determined based on the node status information provided by the existing terminal configurations and the remote control situation for associated controllable devices. Since deficiencies in either observability or controllability of a node may create local weak links in the operation of the distribution network, a comprehensive evaluation of the observability and controllability of the same node is conducted to obtain a comprehensive weakness degree that reflects the overall weakness of the node. Based on this, weak points and control blind spots are identified from the distribution network nodes. After identifying the weak points and control blind spots, they serve as the source of constraints for subsequent terminal configurations. Specifically, based on the insufficient observability of weak points, observability constraints are formed for the terminal configurations; based on the remote control coverage requirements of associated controllable devices corresponding to control blind spots, remote control coverage constraints are formed for the terminal configurations. Therefore, terminal configuration is no longer evaluated solely based on overall coverage level, but is also constrained by both local observability and remote control capabilities. For different terminal configurations, the observability of the configured nodes, the remote control coverage of associated controllable devices, and the configuration cost are determined, and it is judged whether both observability and remote control coverage constraints are satisfied simultaneously. For terminal configurations that satisfy both constraints, a cost comparison is performed, and the terminal configuration with the lowest configuration cost is determined as the target terminal configuration, and the corresponding terminal installation location and terminal type are output.

[0011] Compared with existing technologies, this invention comprehensively considers the observability and controllability of each node in a county-level power distribution network to determine the overall vulnerability of the nodes and identify weak points and control blind spots accordingly. This allows for a more comprehensive reflection of the local weaknesses of the nodes and reduces the omission of control blind spots. Furthermore, based on the weak points and control blind spots, it determines the observability constraints and remote control coverage constraints corresponding to the terminal configuration, enabling the terminal configuration to be optimized for weak links in the power distribution network. On this basis, it determines the target terminal configuration with the lowest configuration cost from the terminal configurations that meet the observability constraints and remote control coverage constraints, thereby reducing unnecessary terminal configuration costs while meeting the observability and remote control coverage requirements of the nodes. Attached Figure Description

[0012] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention, the drawings used in the embodiments will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings described below are only some embodiments recorded in the present invention. For those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings.

[0013] Figure 1 This is a flowchart illustrating a method for configuring terminals in a county-level power distribution network based on the identification of weak points and blind spots. Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the relationship between the determination of the overall weakness and the identification of weak points and control blind spots in this invention. Detailed Implementation

[0014] To enable those skilled in the art to better understand the technical solution of the present invention, the present invention will be further described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings.

[0015] Example 1 This embodiment provides a method for configuring terminals in a county-level distribution network based on the identification of weak points and blind spots. It is used to evaluate the observability and controllability of each node based on the existing terminal configuration in the county-level distribution network, identify the weak points and control blind spots existing in the current terminal configuration, and determine the constraints that subsequent terminal configurations need to meet based on the identification results, thereby determining the target terminal configuration.

[0016] Before implementing this method, the network topology data, existing terminal configuration data, equipment data, and load level data of the county-level power distribution network are obtained. The network topology data includes nodes, branches, and their electrical connections; the existing terminal configuration data includes the installation locations, terminal types, and corresponding measurement and remote control functions of installed terminals; the equipment data includes the locations, operating status, and control relationships of controllable equipment such as circuit breakers, sectionalizing switches, tie switches, and voltage regulating equipment; and the load level data is used to characterize the importance of the load corresponding to each node.

[0017] The network topology data is obtained from a distribution geographic information system (GIS), a supervisory and data acquisition system (SCADA), a distribution automation master station, or equipment ledgers. Existing terminals include feeder terminals (FTU), substation terminals (DTU), transformer terminals (TTU), and fault indicators. Different terminal types have different measurement and remote control functions. The measurement function provides the operational data required to determine the node status, while the remote control function sends remote control commands to the corresponding controllable equipment through the distribution automation master station.

[0018] In this embodiment, Indicates the node number; the county-level power distribution network includes... Each node is defined as follows: observability characterizes the degree to which the state of a node can be determined given existing terminal configurations and distribution network topology; controllability characterizes the remote control capabilities of the area where the node is located; and overall vulnerability characterizes the combined vulnerability of the same node in terms of both observability and controllability.

[0019] like Figure 1 As shown, the method provided in this embodiment includes the following steps.

[0020] S1. Based on the observability and controllability of each node in the county power distribution network, determine the overall weakness of each node, identify weak points based on the overall weakness, and determine control blind spots from the weak points. Observability and controllability of a node reflect its ability to acquire node status and its ability to remotely control it, respectively. Evaluation based solely on observability can determine whether existing measurements can support node status determination, but it cannot reflect whether the area where the corresponding node is located has remote control capabilities. Evaluation based solely on controllability, on the other hand, cannot reflect whether sufficient node status information is available when performing corresponding controls. If these two capabilities are evaluated and used separately, it is difficult to form a unified basis for judging the weaknesses of the same node.

[0021] Therefore, this embodiment determines the observability and controllability of each node, and converts the two types of evaluation results into observability and controllability indicators with consistent value directions; further, it determines the overall weakness based on the relatively weaker of the two indicators for the same node, so that any obvious deficiency in any evaluation dimension of the node can be retained in the overall evaluation result, and then identifies the weak points and control blind spots accordingly.

[0022] S11. Quantify the observability and controllability of each node into observability and controllability indicators with the same upper limit and consistent direction of value. Observability and controllability correspond to nodal measurement conditions and remote control conditions, respectively, and cannot be directly compared using raw physical quantities. In order to enable the two types of evaluation results to be used together to determine the overall weakness, this embodiment establishes quantitative methods for observability and controllability, and sets the final observability and controllability indices according to the principle that the larger the index value, the more sufficient the corresponding capability.

[0023] Regarding observability, this embodiment uses the ability to uniquely determine node state variables based on the distribution network topology and available measurements as the criterion for determining whether a node has reached a fully observable state. Under this criterion, the baseline number of valid measurements required for a node to reach a fully observable state is first determined, and then the actual number of valid measurements under the existing terminal configuration is determined according to the same criterion. The observability index is determined based on the relationship between the two. Regarding controllability, the associated controllable devices participating in the controllability evaluation are determined based on the actual control requirements corresponding to the node, and the controllability index is determined based on the remote control status of the associated controllable devices under the existing terminal configuration.

[0024] Through the above processing, both observability and controllability indicators are quantified in the direction that the larger the indicator value, the more sufficient the corresponding capability. This provides a unified basis for comparison when determining the overall weakness based on the lower indicator value of the two indicators at the same node.

[0025] S111. Based on the distribution network topology and available measurements, determine whether a node has reached a fully observable state. For nodes Based on the topological connections of the county's power distribution network under its current operating mode, determine the connections with the nodes. The status determines the relevant nodes and branches, and acquires the measurement data that existing terminals can provide at the nodes and branches. In this embodiment, the measurement data used for observability analysis includes existing measurements from node voltage amplitude measurements, node active power injection measurements, node reactive power injection measurements, branch active power measurements, and branch reactive power measurements. Switch status is used to determine the actual topological connection relationship between nodes and branches under the current operating mode and is not considered a numerical measurement parallel to the aforementioned continuous state measurements.

[0026] This embodiment uses node voltage amplitude and phase angle as state variables to describe the operating state of the distribution network. For nodes And the network range related to its state determination, and the state variable vector composed of the node voltage magnitude and phase angle to be determined within the network range. And combine the corresponding measurement data that the existing terminals can provide to form usable measurement vectors. .

[0027] Based on the current distribution network topology and line electrical parameters, a measurement relationship is established between the state variables and available measurements. Specifically, node voltage amplitude measurements correspond to the voltage amplitude state variables of the corresponding nodes; node active power injection and reactive power injection measurements are determined by the voltage amplitude, phase angle, and node admittance of the corresponding nodes and their electrical connections; branch active power and reactive power measurements are determined by the voltage amplitude, phase angle, and corresponding branch electrical parameters of the nodes at both ends of the branch. This measurement relationship is uniformly expressed as: (1) In the formula, Indicates the use of nodes Available measurement vectors with a defined state; Represents nodes The state variable vector related to state determination; Represents the measurement function determined by the current distribution network topology and line electrical parameters; This represents the measurement error vector.

[0028] The switch status is used to update the topological connection relationship corresponding to equation (1). When the open / closed status of equipment such as sectionalizing switches and tie switches changes, the branch connection relationship participating in the node status calculation is determined according to its actual open / closed status, so that the established measurement relationship is consistent with the current operation mode of the county power distribution network.

[0029] After establishing the measurement relationship between state variables and available measurements, the measurement Jacobian matrix is ​​constructed based on the partial derivatives of the measurement functions with respect to the state variables. : (2) In this matrix, each row of the measurement Jacobian matrix corresponds to a measurement relationship in the available measurement vector, each column corresponds to a state variable to be determined in the state variable vector, and the matrix elements represent the sensitivity of the corresponding measurement value to changes in the corresponding state variable.

[0030] For the nonlinear measurement relationships corresponding to the AC distribution network, the measurement relationships are linearized at the current operating point, and the corresponding measurement Jacobian matrix is ​​calculated. Since the constraints formed by different measurements on state variables may be independent of each other, or they may have overlapping or linear correlations, this embodiment determines the number of independent state constraints that can be formed by the currently available measurements by using the rank of the measurement Jacobian matrix.

[0031] Let the state variable vector be... The number of state variables that need to be determined independently is Given the current distribution network topology and determined reference nodes, when the following conditions are met: (3) When the measurement Jacobian matrix reaches full column rank, it indicates that the currently available measurements can provide sufficient independent constraints for the state variables to be determined, and can uniquely determine the nodes under the stated topological connectivity. The corresponding state variables are used to determine the node. Reaching a state of complete observability.

[0032] when When this occurs, it indicates that the independent state constraints formed by the currently available measurements are insufficient, and there are still state variables that cannot be uniquely determined by existing measurements. Therefore, the decision node is not made. It has not reached a fully observable state.

[0033] In the aforementioned observability determination process, measurements that can form independent constraints on the state variables to be determined are considered valid measurements. Specifically, when a measurement, after being added to an existing set of measurements, increases the rank of the corresponding measurement's Jacobian matrix, it indicates that the measurement has added an independent constraint for state determination, and it is counted as a valid measurement. When a measurement forms a state constraint that is redundant or linearly dependent on an existing measurement, and its addition cannot further increase the rank of the measurement's Jacobian matrix, it is not counted as a valid measurement. Thus, the determination of valid measurements is based on their actual contribution to the identifiability of node states, rather than a simple accumulation of the original measurement data items uploaded by existing terminals.

[0034] It should be noted that the above numerical observability analysis is a specific implementation method for determining the fully observable state of a node in this embodiment. When using topological observability analysis, based on the current distribution network topology connections, measurement installation locations, and the node and branch state constraints provided by the corresponding measurements, it is determined whether the existing measurements can uniquely determine the node state. In this implementation method, measurements that can add independent state constraints are also considered valid measurements, and the same observability analysis caliber is used to determine the subsequent baseline valid measurement count and the actual valid measurement count.

[0035] Step S111 establishes a unified criterion for determining whether a node has reached a fully observable state and whether its measurements are effective. Step S112 further determines, according to the criterion, the baseline number of effective measurements required for a node to reach a fully observable state and the actual number of effective measurements under the existing terminal configuration, and determines the observability index of the node accordingly.

[0036] S112. Determine the observability index of each node according to the observability determination method. After establishing the determination method for a node to reach a fully observable state and effective measurements in step S111, the actual number of effective measurements of the node under the existing terminal configuration and the baseline number of effective measurements required for the node to reach a fully observable state are determined according to the same determination criteria, and the observability index of the node is determined based on the relationship between the two.

[0037] For nodes Based on the available measurements that can be used to determine the node status under the existing terminal configuration, establish the corresponding measurement relationships according to the method described in step S111, and construct the measurement Jacobian matrix. In this embodiment, measurements that can form mutually independent state constraints for the state variables to be determined are considered as valid measurements. Since the rank of the measurement Jacobian matrix reflects the number of mutually independent measurement constraints among the currently available measurements, the node is determined by the rank of the measurement Jacobian matrix when using the numerical observability analysis method described in step S111. The actual number of valid measurements is expressed as: (4) In the formula, Represents a node The actual number of valid measurements under the existing terminal configuration.

[0038] When using the above determination method, if adding a measurement increases the rank of the measurement Jacobian matrix, it indicates that the measurement adds an independent constraint for state determination, and the actual effective measurement count increases accordingly. If the added measurement forms a redundant or linearly dependent state constraint with existing measurements, and cannot further increase the rank of the measurement Jacobian matrix, the actual effective measurement count is not increased again. Therefore, the actual effective measurement count reflects the number of independent state constraints that the existing terminal configuration can actually provide for node state determination, rather than the number of original measurement data items uploaded by the existing terminal.

[0039] Furthermore, according to the fully observable determination condition described in step S111, when the measurement Jacobian matrix reaches full column rank, the existing available measurements can form sufficient independent constraints on all undetermined state variables, and the node reaches a fully observable state. Therefore, in this embodiment, the number of independent valid measurements required for the measurement Jacobian matrix to reach full column rank is used as the baseline number of valid measurements for the node.

[0040] Let the state variable vector be... The number of state variables that need to be determined independently is When using the above numerical observability analysis method, the nodes The reference effective measurement number is expressed as: (5) In the formula, Represents a node The number of baseline valid measurements required to achieve a fully observable state is specifically the number of independent valid measurements required for the measurement Jacobian matrix to reach full column rank.

[0041] Due to the measurement of the Jacobian matrix The number of columns is equal to the number of state variables to be determined. Its rank will not exceed Combining equations (4) and (5), the actual effective number of measurements, the reference effective number of measurements, and the rank of the measurement Jacobian matrix satisfy the following relationship: (6) According to the complete observability determination condition described in step S111, the relationship between the observability state of a node and the actual number of valid measurements and the reference number of valid measurements is expressed as follows: (7) As can be seen from equation (7), when the actual number of valid measurements reaches the baseline number of valid measurements, the existing terminal configuration can provide the independent state constraints required to determine all the undetermined state variables, and the node reaches a fully observable state; when the actual number of valid measurements is less than the baseline number of valid measurements, the independent state constraints formed by the current existing measurements are not enough to uniquely determine all the undetermined state variables, and the node does not reach a fully observable state.

[0042] Based on this, and according to the degree to which the actual effective measurement count provided by the existing terminal configuration satisfies the baseline effective measurement count required for the node to reach a fully observable state, the node is determined. observability indicators: (8) In the formula, Represents a node Observability indicators.

[0043] Combining equation (6), we can see that the observability index satisfies: (9) When the existing terminal configuration cannot provide independent state constraints for determining the node state. ,correspond This indicates that the node lacks effective measurement support for state determination under the current terminal configuration; as the number of effective measurements that can form independent state constraints increases, Increase, observability index Increase accordingly; when hour, The node reaches the fully observable state described in step S111. Therefore, the larger the observability index, the closer the effective measurement conditions that the existing terminal configuration can currently provide are to the measurement conditions required for the node to reach the fully observable state.

[0044] After the above processing, node observability is no longer represented solely by a binary result of observable or unobservable. Instead, it is quantified based on the degree to which the independent state constraints that can actually be formed by the existing terminal configuration are satisfied relative to the independent state constraints required for complete observability. Therefore, even if neither node has reached a completely observable state, their observability indices can be used to further distinguish their distance from complete observability, providing a continuous quantitative basis for determining the overall weakness in conjunction with controllability indices.

[0045] It should be noted that equations (4) to (7) correspond to a specific method for determining the actual effective number of measurements and the baseline effective number of measurements when using the numerical observability analysis described in step S111. When using topological observability analysis, the actual effective number of measurements is determined based on the current distribution network topology connection relationship, the measurement installation location, and the independent constraints formed by the determination of the node status of each measurement pair. and the number of reference effective measurements required to reach a fully observable state And still determine the observability index according to formula (8), so as to ensure that the actual effective measurement number and the benchmark effective measurement number adopt the same observability judgment caliber.

[0046] Only in the simplified case of radial networks, where node-associated branch measurements are used as the basis for state determination and no additional pseudo-measurements are employed, can the number of baseline valid measurements required to achieve a fully observable state be determined based on the node-associated branch relationships. For cases that do not meet the above simplification conditions, the number of baseline valid measurements is determined according to the judgment methods corresponding to the aforementioned numerical observability analysis or topological observability analysis, and the number of node-associated branches is not directly used as the baseline valid measurement number uniformly adopted by different nodes.

[0047] Through the above processing, the observability index of each node is obtained. This serves as the quantitative basis for subsequently determining the overall weakness of nodes in conjunction with controllability indicators.

[0048] S113. Determine the controllability indicators for each node; The observability index is used to characterize the degree to which the measurement conditions provided by the existing terminal configuration support the determination of the node status. However, the fact that the node status can be acquired does not mean that the area where the node is located also has remote control capabilities. Therefore, this embodiment further determines the controllability index based on the remote control capability of the controllable device associated with the node under the existing terminal configuration.

[0049] For nodes Based on the topological connections, feeder power supply paths, locations of controllable equipment, and their actual control range within the county's power distribution network, the nodes that can be controlled are determined. The associated controllable devices in the area are subject to fault isolation, power supply path adjustment, or operation mode switching, and these associated controllable devices are grouped into nodes. The corresponding set of associated controllable devices is denoted as .

[0050] The determination of the associated controllable devices is based on the actual regulatory effect that the controllable devices can exert on the area where the node is located, rather than solely on the physical distance between the controllable devices and the node. For example, when an upstream sectionalizing switch can isolate a fault in the area where the node is located by opening the circuit breaker, the sectionalizing switch is determined as an associated controllable device of the corresponding node; when a tie switch can change the power supply path in the area where the node is located by opening and closing the tie switch, the tie switch is determined as an associated controllable device of the corresponding node. The same node can correspond to one or more associated controllable devices.

[0051] Based on the existing terminal configuration, the control connection relationship between the terminal and the controllable devices, and the remote control configuration in the distribution automation master station, determine whether each associated controllable device can issue remote control commands and receive execution feedback through the existing terminal. The controllable devices that can issue remote control commands and receive execution feedback under the existing terminal configuration are grouped into a set of remotely controllable devices, denoted as […]. .

[0052] For a node whose associated controllable device set is not empty, if at least one of its associated controllable devices belongs to the remotely controllable device set, it means that the existing terminal configuration can still remotely control the area where the node is located through the associated controllable device, and the controllability index of the node is determined to be 1; when all associated controllable devices corresponding to the node cannot be effectively remotely controlled through the existing terminal, the controllability index of the node is determined to be 0, specifically expressed as follows: (10) In the formula, Represents a node Controllability indicators; Represents a node The corresponding set of associated controllable devices; This refers to a set of controllable devices that, given an existing terminal configuration, can issue remote control commands and receive execution feedback. Represents a node Among the associated controllable devices, those currently possessing effective remote control capabilities.

[0053] when When, it indicates a node At least one remote control method that can be implemented through associated controllable devices should be retained; when This indicates that although the node has associated controllable devices that can regulate its area, the existing terminal configuration cannot effectively remotely control any of these associated controllable devices, thus the node's remote control capability is lacking.

[0054] for A node is considered a blind spot because it indicates that there are no associated controllable devices in the current primary equipment structure of the distribution network that can be configured to provide remote control coverage. This situation cannot be eliminated by adding or adjusting the terminal installation location or terminal type, and therefore it is not considered a blind spot in the control system. To avoid creating a false controllability deficiency in the subsequent comprehensive weakness calculation due to the lack of associated controllable devices, this embodiment treats it as if there is no remote control capability deficiency to be supplemented, that is, it is set as follows: .

[0055] It should be noted that controllability indicators are only used to characterize the remote control capability of the associated controllable devices corresponding to a node. Telemetry, remote signaling, and fault indication information only reflect that the operating information of a node or device can be acquired, and do not indicate that the corresponding device can be remotely controlled; therefore, they are not used as the basis for determining controllability indicators. Only when the distribution automation master station can issue remote control commands to the associated controllable devices through existing terminals and obtain feedback information reflecting that the remote control action has been executed, is that device included in the set of controllable devices. .

[0056] In step S11, the observability indices of the nodes are obtained respectively. and controllability indicators .in, The range of values ​​is , The value can be 0 or 1, and both are set according to the principle that the larger the index value, the more sufficient the corresponding capability. Therefore, it can be directly used to determine the degree of weakness in the subsequent comprehensive assessment without the need for additional normalization processing.

[0057] S12. Determine the overall weakness of the node based on the degree of deviation of the lower index value among the observability index and controllability index of the same node from the normalized upper limit value. Step S11 obtains observability and controllability indicators from the perspectives of node status acquisition capability and remote control capability, respectively. If the two types of indicators are used separately, although the status of the node in the two dimensions can be judged separately, a unified evaluation result for comparing the weaknesses between different nodes cannot be formed. If a summation or averaging method is used for synthesis, the higher-valued indicators will provide numerical compensation for the lower-valued indicators, weakening the obvious deficiencies of a node in a certain dimension in the synthesis result.

[0058] For example, when a node has a high observability index, but none of its associated controllable devices can be effectively remotely controlled through existing terminal configurations, high observability cannot replace the lack of remote control capability; conversely, even if a node has remote control capability, it cannot replace the lack of effective measurements for determining its state. Therefore, when evaluating the weakness of a node before terminal configuration, the relatively weaker of observability and controllability should be retained, and the stronger one should not be allowed to offset the weaker one.

[0059] Based on the aforementioned shortcomings, we take the node... observability indicators and controllability indicators The lower index value in the table is used to calculate the degree of deviation of the lower index value from the normalized upper limit of 1, thus obtaining the node. Overall weakness: (11) In the formula, Represents a node The overall weakness.

[0060] because , ,therefore: (12) when At this time, the node does not have a lack of remote control capability caused by existing terminal configuration. (13) The overall vulnerability is determined by the degree to which a node's current observability is insufficient relative to its fully observable state.

[0061] when At this time, none of the associated controllable devices corresponding to the node can be effectively remotely controlled by existing terminals. (14) This means that the overall weakness of a node has reached its upper limit. Therefore, even if a node already has high observability, its complete lack of remote control capabilities will not be weakened by a high observability index.

[0062] Equations (13) and (14) are not new evaluation rules, but specific results of Equation (11) under two values ​​of the controllability index, used to illustrate how the short board effect affects the overall weakness of the node.

[0063] Through the above processing, the two evaluation results, which originally represented the state acquisition capability and the remote control capability respectively, are converted into the comprehensive weakness of the same node, and the weaker state in the two evaluation dimensions is retained, providing a quantitative basis for subsequent identification of weak points and determination of node priorities according to a unified scale.

[0064] S13. Based on the missing status of observability and controllability indicators, and combined with the comparison results of the comprehensive weakness degree and the preset weakness threshold, the weak points are determined; the nodes in the weak points where the controllability indicators are missing are determined as the control blind spots.

[0065] While a comprehensive assessment of weakness can represent the degree of weakness of a node on a unified scale, the technical states corresponding to a node being "completely missing in one evaluation dimension" and "present in both evaluation dimensions but one being weaker" are different. Therefore, this embodiment, based on the comprehensive assessment of weakness, further combines the missing states of observability and controllability indicators to determine the weak points.

[0066] when When this occurs, it indicates that the existing terminal configuration cannot provide independent and valid measurements for determining the node's state, thus classifying the node's observability metrics as missing; when When the node has associated controllable devices, but the existing terminal configuration cannot effectively remotely control any of the associated controllable devices, the node's controllability index is determined to be in a missing state.

[0067] For nodes where at least one of the observability or controllability indicators is missing, they are directly identified as weak points. and The node will then have the overall weakness score obtained in step S12. With preset weak threshold When comparing: (15) At that time, the node This was identified as a weak point.

[0068] Therefore, the set of weak points Represented as: (16) In the formula, Represents the set of weak points; Indicates a preset weak threshold; the symbol " "" indicates that any one of the judgment conditions must be met.

[0069] Using the above method, when a node is completely lacking in observability or controllability, it can be identified as a weak point without further screening using a weak threshold. When neither of the two indicators is completely lacking, the relative weaker capability is further judged based on the overall degree of weakness to determine whether it has reached the point where terminal reinforcement is required.

[0070] After identifying the weaknesses, further distinguish the nodes that are caused by a lack of remote control capabilities. Set up the set of weaknesses. China satisfies If the node is determined to be a regulatory blind spot, then the set of regulatory blind spots is... Represented as: (17) In the formula, This represents the set of blind spots in regulation.

[0071] Since step S113 has excluded nodes without associated controllable devices from the controllability deficiency determination, the controllability blind spots obtained by equation (17) all correspond to at least one actual associated controllable device. However, none of the associated controllable devices have formed effective remote control coverage under the current terminal configuration. This ensures that when setting remote control coverage constraints for controllability blind spots in the future, there are actual controllable objects that can be covered by adding or adjusting the terminal configuration.

[0072] Step S13 identifies the weak points and control blind spots in the existing terminal configuration and distinguishes whether a node enters the weak point range due to insufficient measurement support, lack of remote control capability, or high overall weakness. This provides a basis for setting terminal configuration constraints based on different sources of weakness in the future.

[0073] S14. Based on the comprehensive weakness ranking results of the weak points, and combined with the load level corresponding to each weak point, determine the key nodes from the weak points; After obtaining all weak points in step S13, if all weak points are considered as improvement targets that must be met in subsequent terminal configurations, the scope of terminal configuration constraints will be expanded, potentially increasing the number of configured terminals and configuration costs, especially given the large number of weak nodes in a county-level power distribution network. Therefore, this embodiment further determines the reinforcement priority order among nodes based on the overall weakness of each weak point.

[0074] Specifically, according to the degree of overall weakness Set of weak points from largest to smallest The nodes are sorted. When multiple weak points have the same overall weakness, they are sorted from highest to lowest according to their corresponding load levels. The number of nodes to be prioritized is pre-set according to the terminal configuration plan. Select the top from the sorted results A weak point.

[0075] The greater the overall weakness, the more the node deviates from the sufficient state in terms of observability or controllability constraints. Therefore, according to... Selecting nodes in descending order prioritizes those with higher current vulnerability levels. However, the overall vulnerability level only indicates the degree of node inadequacy under the current terminal configuration and does not directly reflect the importance of the load a node bears. If sorting is based solely on the overall vulnerability level, vulnerable points corresponding to primary loads may be overlooked. The sorting is relatively late and has not yet entered the front. Each node.

[0076] Therefore, based on the above ranking results, further verification was conducted according to the load level corresponding to each weak point, and those not included in the top rankings were... The first-level load weaknesses of each sorting result are added to the critical nodes, ultimately resulting in a set of critical nodes. .

[0077] To visually represent the compositional relationships of key nodes, let's assume that the nodes are selected in descending order of overall weakness. A set of weak points The weak points are the nodes that correspond to the first-level load and form a set. ,but: (18) In the formula, Represents the set of key nodes; This indicates the top-ranked selection based on overall weakness. A set of weak points; This represents the set of nodes corresponding to the first-level load in the weak point.

[0078] Equation (18) is only used to indicate that a critical node is formed by merging two types of nodes, without introducing new evaluation parameters. By sorting the nodes according to their overall weakness, nodes with more obvious current shortcomings are retained first, while the primary load supplementation mechanism is used to prevent important load nodes from being missed due to their lower sorting position.

[0079] This yields the set of key nodes. The subsequent steps further determine the terminal configuration constraint objects from the key nodes. Specifically, observability constraints are determined for nodes with insufficient observability in the key nodes, remote control coverage constraints are determined for control blind spots in the key nodes, and remote control coverage constraints are determined for control blind spots in the key nodes. This allows the weak point and control blind spot identification results obtained in step S1 to be directly transformed into constraint inputs for terminal configuration optimization.

[0080] S2. Based on the aforementioned weaknesses and control blind spots, determine the observability constraints and remote control coverage constraints corresponding to the terminal configuration; The weaknesses and control blind spots identified in step S1 reflect the insufficient observability and lack of remote control capabilities of each node under the existing terminal configuration. However, the identification results can only indicate the locations where terminal reinforcement is needed and the types of weaknesses, and cannot directly limit the degree of improvement that subsequent terminal configurations should achieve. If only the weaknesses and control blind spots are used as reference objects for terminal configuration without further forming corresponding configuration constraints, then when selecting terminal installation locations and terminal types with configuration cost as the objective, it is still possible to obtain terminal configurations with low configuration costs but unimproved node observability or the continued existence of control blind spots.

[0081] Therefore, this embodiment determines the observability constraints after terminal configuration based on the observability of the weak points, and determines the remote control coverage constraints after terminal configuration based on the remote control coverage requirements of the controllable devices associated with the controllable blind spots, so that the identification results obtained in step S1 can be directly converted into conditions that must be met in subsequent terminal configuration.

[0082] Furthermore, in one specific embodiment of this example, to prioritize improving nodes with high overall weakness or bearing significant loads, the specific targets of the above two types of constraints are determined from the key nodes obtained in step S14. Specifically, observability constraints are determined for observability-deficient nodes among the key nodes, and remote control coverage constraints are determined for control blind spots among the key nodes.

[0083] S21. For nodes with insufficient observability among the key nodes, determine their observability constraints after terminal configuration based on observability thresholds.

[0084] The observability index obtained in step S112 This indicates the degree to which the actual number of valid measurements at a node, under the existing terminal configuration, meets the baseline number of valid measurements required to achieve a fully observable state. For critical nodes, if their current observability already meets operational requirements, there is no need to forcibly add measurement conditions simply because they are critical nodes. For critical nodes whose current observability is below the minimum requirement, it is necessary to add valid measurements that can form independent state constraints through subsequent terminal configurations to bring their observability up to the corresponding requirements.

[0085] This embodiment pre-sets an observability threshold. This represents the minimum observability requirement that a node needs to achieve after terminal configuration, and its value ranges from 0 to 1. The set of key nodes... Nodes whose current observability index is lower than the observability threshold are identified as observability-deficient nodes, and these nodes form a set of nodes that need to satisfy the observability constraints. , is represented as: (19) In the formula, This represents the set of nodes in the critical nodes that need to satisfy the observability constraint; This represents the observability threshold. The observability threshold is a pre-set operational constraint parameter used to limit the minimum level of measurement support that key nodes need to achieve after terminal configuration. For example, in one implementation, the observability threshold... Take 0.75.

[0086] For any given terminal configuration, based on all available measurements generated by that terminal configuration, nodes are re-determined according to the same observability determination criteria used in steps S111 and S112. The actual effective measurement count, and the actual effective measurement count after terminal configuration is recorded as... .

[0087] Specifically, after the terminal is configured, all measurements that can be used to determine the node state are re-established according to their corresponding measurement relationships, and the independent state constraints that each measurement can form are determined. Measurements that can add independent state constraints are included. Measurements that form overlapping or linearly dependent constraints with other measurements and cannot further enhance the identifiability of node states are not counted repeatedly. .therefore, Instead of directly adding the original actual valid measurement count to the newly added measurement data items in the terminal configuration, the valid measurement count is re-determined according to the same valid measurement determination method as in step S112.

[0088] With the distribution network topology and state variable range remaining unchanged, the terminal configuration alters the available measurement conditions that nodes can obtain, without changing the number of independent and valid measurements required for a node to reach a fully observable state. Therefore, the node... The corresponding reference effective measurement number is still determined using step S112. .

[0089] Accordingly, the terminal is configured with the following nodes. The observability index is expressed as: (20) In the formula, Represents a node Observability metrics after terminal configuration; Indicates the node after terminal configuration The actual number of valid measurements.

[0090] For sets For each node in the process, the observability index after terminal configuration must not be lower than the observability threshold, that is: (twenty one) Equation (21) transforms the insufficient observability of nodes identified in step S1 into a quantitative condition that the terminal configuration must meet. For any terminal configuration subsequently formed, the set is determined according to Equation (20). The observability index of each node after terminal configuration; only when each node in the set satisfies equation (21) is the corresponding terminal configuration considered to satisfy the observability constraint.

[0091] Through the above processing, the terminal configuration does not simply require the addition of terminals or measurement data items, but rather requires the actual addition of independent and effective measurements that can be used to determine the node status, so that the corresponding observability-deficient nodes can reach the pre-set observability requirements, thereby directly using the observability identification results of step S1 for subsequent terminal configuration screening.

[0092] S22. For the control blind spots in the key nodes, determine the remote control coverage constraints after terminal configuration based on the remote control coverage requirements of the corresponding associated controllable devices. The control blind spot obtained in step S13 indicates that a node has associated controllable devices capable of controlling its area, but under the existing terminal configuration, none of the associated controllable devices of the node can issue remote control commands and obtain execution feedback. Unlike insufficient observability, control blind spots cannot be eliminated simply by adding measurement conditions; rather, it requires that after the terminal configuration, at least one controllable device with an actual control relationship with the node forms effective remote control coverage.

[0093] Therefore, nodes belonging to the control blind spots are identified from the key nodes obtained in step S14, and these nodes are grouped into a set of nodes that need to satisfy the remote control coverage constraint. , is represented as: (twenty two) In the formula, This represents the set of key nodes that need to satisfy the remote control coverage constraint.

[0094] For nodes Step S113 has determined the corresponding set of associated controllable devices. In this embodiment, the remote control coverage requirement corresponding to the node is specifically defined as follows: after the terminal is configured, the node... At least one of the corresponding controllable devices must be able to issue remote control commands and receive execution feedback through the corresponding terminal.

[0095] For any given terminal configuration, based on the remote control function of the configured terminal, the control connection relationship between the terminal and the controllable devices, and the remote control configuration in the distribution automation master station, the controllable devices capable of issuing remote control commands and obtaining execution feedback through this terminal configuration are determined, and these controllable devices are grouped into a set of remotely controllable devices after the terminal configuration, denoted as […]. .

[0096] Using the same judgment method as when determining the controllability index in step S113, for the set Set remote control coverage constraints for each node: (twenty three) In the formula, This refers to the set of controllable devices that, after being configured with the corresponding terminal, can issue remote control commands and receive execution feedback.

[0097] Equation (23) indicates that for each key node that needs to eliminate control blind spots, there should be an intersection between its associated controllable device set and the remotely controllable device set after terminal configuration. That is, after terminal configuration, there should be at least one associated controllable device that can be effectively remotely controlled by the power distribution automation master station through the corresponding terminal.

[0098] This determination method is consistent with the node controllability determination in step S113. In step S113, when there is no intersection between the set of controllable devices associated with the node and the set of remotely controllable devices corresponding to the existing terminal configuration, the node's controllability index is 0; and after the subsequent terminal configuration makes equation (23) true, the node recovers at least one means to remotely control its area, thus no longer being in the state of lack of controllability.

[0099] It should be noted that terminals capable of obtaining telemetry, remote signaling, or fault indication information can only provide node or device operating status information. When a terminal lacks the ability to issue remote control commands to associated controllable devices, the corresponding controllable devices cannot be added to the set of controllable devices configured by the terminal. Therefore, simply increasing such measurement capabilities cannot satisfy the remote control coverage constraint described in equation (23). Only when the corresponding terminal can issue remote control commands to the associated controllable device and obtain execution feedback is the associated controllable device considered to have formed effective remote control coverage.

[0100] Step S22 transforms the control blind spots in key nodes into remote control coverage conditions that terminal configurations must meet, enabling subsequent terminal configurations to supplement the actual lack of remote control capabilities in existing terminal configurations and to form remote control coverage that meets the requirements for the corresponding associated controllable devices.

[0101] Step S2 yields the observability constraints and remote control coverage constraints corresponding to the terminal configuration. Equation (21) requires that the observability index of nodes with insufficient observability reach the observability threshold after terminal configuration, and Equation (23) requires that at least one associated controllable device forms effective remote control coverage for control blind spots after terminal configuration. Subsequent step S3 evaluates different candidate terminal configurations based on these two constraints and determines the target terminal configuration with the lowest configuration cost from among the candidate terminal configurations that simultaneously satisfy both the observability constraints and the remote control coverage constraints.

[0102] S3. From the terminal configurations that simultaneously satisfy the observability constraint and the remote control coverage constraint, determine the target terminal configuration with the lowest configuration cost, and obtain the terminal installation location and terminal type. Step S2 has converted the insufficient observability and lack of remote control capability identified in step S1 into observability constraints and remote control coverage constraints that the terminal configuration needs to meet, respectively. However, the constraints only limit the state that the terminal needs to achieve after configuration, and the specific installation location and terminal type of the terminal have not yet been determined.

[0103] Since the primary equipment locations, available measurement conditions, associated controllable devices that can form remote control coverage, and communication reachability differ for different candidate terminal installation locations, and the measurement functions, remote control functions, and configuration costs of different terminal types also vary, it is necessary to compare different terminal configurations within the configuration space formed by the candidate terminal installation locations and optional terminal types, and determine the terminal configuration with the lowest configuration cost under the premise of satisfying the two types of constraints described in step S2.

[0104] In this embodiment, the existing terminal configuration remains unchanged, and the subsequently formed candidate terminal configurations represent supplementary terminal configurations based on the existing terminal configurations. The measurement capabilities and remote control capabilities provided by the existing terminals are retained, and the candidate terminal configurations are used to supplement measurement conditions or remote control coverage capabilities that the existing terminal configurations cannot yet meet. Therefore, when evaluating the node observability and remote control coverage status of associated controllable devices after terminal configuration, the capabilities formed by both the existing terminal configuration and the candidate terminal configuration are considered, and the configuration cost only calculates the additional configuration cost generated by the candidate terminal configuration.

[0105] Specifically, firstly, the corresponding optional terminal types are determined based on the communication reachability of each candidate terminal installation location, and at most one terminal type is selected from the optional terminal types corresponding to each candidate terminal installation location to form different candidate terminal configurations; then, the node observability, remote control coverage status of associated controllable devices, and configuration cost corresponding to each candidate terminal configuration are determined respectively, and the candidate terminal configuration with the lowest configuration cost is determined as the target terminal configuration from the candidate terminal configurations that simultaneously satisfy the observability constraint and remote control coverage constraint described in step S2.

[0106] S31. Select at most one terminal type from the available terminal types corresponding to each candidate terminal installation location to form a candidate terminal configuration; Obtain pre-set candidate terminal installation locations and form a set of candidate terminal installation locations. The candidate terminal installation locations are those permitted for terminal configuration in the terminal planning. Represents the index of the candidate terminal installation location, and the set of candidate terminal installation locations. Including Candidate terminal installation locations.

[0107] Within the same county-level power distribution network, the primary equipment locations and communication environments at different candidate terminal installation locations may differ, and the types of terminals allowed at those locations may also differ. For example, different types of terminals differ in their measurement functions, remote control functions, and supported communication methods; therefore, all terminal types cannot be uniformly configured at all candidate terminal installation locations.

[0108] Therefore, regarding the installation location of candidate terminals First, based on the communication reachability described in step S311, determine the available terminal types corresponding to the location and form a set of available terminal types. Then select from the optional terminal types whether to configure a terminal and the type of terminal to configure.

[0109] S311. Determine the selectable terminal type based on the communication reachability of each candidate terminal's installation location; In this embodiment, the communication reachability of the candidate terminal installation location is used as a screening condition for the optional terminal type. The communication reachability is used to characterize whether, under the condition that there is an existing communication network in the county distribution network, the corresponding candidate terminal installation location can establish a communication connection with the distribution automation master station that meets the data transmission requirements when using the corresponding communication method.

[0110] The communication reachability of the candidate terminal installation location is an existing input attribute for terminal planning. It can be marked based on the existing communication network coverage data of the county power distribution network, communication operation records, or on-site communication test results. In this embodiment, the wireless propagation model or communication distance calculation model is not re-established during the terminal configuration process.

[0111] For candidate terminal installation locations Based on the communication reachability and the communication methods supported by each terminal type, the terminal types that can be used at the candidate terminal installation location are filtered, and the filtered terminal types that can be configured are formed into a set of optional terminal types. .

[0112] In this step, communication reachability is used to limit the range of available terminal types corresponding to the installation location of the candidate terminal, rather than directly indicating whether it is included. The terminal type must satisfy the observability constraint or remote control coverage constraint described in step S2. After a terminal type enters the set of selectable terminal types, it is still necessary to perform subsequent constraint verification on the configuration of the corresponding candidate terminal based on the actual measurement and remote control capabilities that it can form at the corresponding candidate terminal installation location.

[0113] S3111. When the installation location of a candidate terminal is in a communication blind zone, the terminal type with local storage and communication recovery retransmission capability shall be determined as the corresponding optional terminal type. In county-level power distribution networks, some candidate terminals may be installed at the ends of long feeders or in remote branch areas where wireless communication coverage is insufficient. To ensure that locations with inadequate communication conditions do not suffer permanent data loss due to insufficient terminal online capability, this embodiment further limits the types of selectable terminals for communication blind spots.

[0114] The communication blind spot described in this embodiment refers to an area where, based on existing communication network coverage data or on-site communication test results, the existing communication network cannot provide continuous and effective communication coverage at the corresponding candidate terminal installation location, but a communication connection can be re-established after communication conditions are restored. The communication blind spot is determined based on existing communication reachability markers at the candidate terminal installation location and is not recalculated using a new communication propagation model in this step.

[0115] When a candidate terminal is installed in a communication dead zone, only terminal types with local storage and post-communication retransmission capabilities will be retained as the corresponding selectable terminal types. Local storage refers to the terminal's ability to save locally collected measurement data during communication interruption with the distribution automation master station; post-communication retransmission capability refers to the ability of the terminal to resend the measurement data saved during the communication interruption to the distribution automation master station after the communication connection between the terminal and the distribution automation master station is restored.

[0116] The above processing can prevent the measurement data collected during temporary communication interruptions from being lost due to the inability to upload in real time, and ensure that the corresponding candidate terminal installation locations can still be retained as candidate locations for terminal configuration.

[0117] It should be noted that the local storage and communication recovery capability addresses the issue of saving measurement data during communication interruption and retransmitting data after communication is restored. It is not equivalent to the corresponding terminal having the ability to upload data in real time during communication interruption.

[0118] Therefore, measurement data collected by the terminal during the communication interruption but not yet uploaded to the distribution automation master station are not considered as available measurements in the node observability calculation at the current evaluation time. Only when the corresponding measurement data can be provided to the node status determination process described in step S111 at the current evaluation time will it participate in the actual effective measurement count after terminal configuration according to the effective measurement determination methods described in steps S111 and S112. The determination.

[0119] Correspondingly, the fact that a terminal has local storage and the ability to retransmit data after communication is restored does not mean that it can issue real-time remote control commands and receive execution feedback during a communication interruption. Therefore, when a candidate terminal is installed in a communication blind spot to improve the control blind spot, the remote control coverage determination method described in step S22 should still be used to determine whether the corresponding terminal configuration can actually issue remote control commands and receive execution feedback. It cannot be determined that the terminal meets the remote control coverage constraint simply because it has local storage and the ability to retransmit data after communication is restored.

[0120] Therefore, step S3111 only addresses which terminal types can be included in the candidate range under the condition of insufficient communication reachability, while whether the terminal configuration can ultimately meet the observability constraint and remote control coverage constraint is still determined by the subsequent configuration evaluation results.

[0121] The installation locations of each candidate terminal are obtained through steps S311 and S3111. Corresponding set of optional terminal types After determining the available terminal types corresponding to each candidate terminal installation location, the installation locations of the candidate terminals are then... and their corresponding optional terminal types Set the terminal type selection variable ,satisfy: (twenty four) In the formula, Indicates the installation location of the candidate terminal. Select terminal type ; Indicates that it is not in the candidate terminal installation location. Select the terminal type; This indicates the candidate terminal configuration selection at the candidate terminal installation location. Configure terminal type .

[0122] The same candidate terminal installation location can be left unconfigured, or a corresponding optional terminal type can be selected, but two or more terminal types cannot be selected simultaneously. Therefore: (25) When the left side of equation (25) equals 0, it indicates the candidate terminal installation location. No terminal is configured; when the left side of equation (25) equals 1, it indicates that an optional terminal type has been selected at the installation location of the candidate terminal. All terminal type selection variables together constitute the candidate terminal configuration.

[0123] All the terminal type selection variables corresponding to the installation locations of all candidate terminals together constitute a candidate terminal configuration, denoted as . Different The combination of values ​​corresponds to different candidate terminal configurations, thus simultaneously representing whether the terminal is installed, the terminal installation location, and the selected terminal type.

[0124] S32. Based on the observability of each candidate terminal configuration, the remote control coverage status of associated controllable devices, and the configuration cost, determine the target terminal configuration with the lowest configuration cost from the candidate terminal configurations that satisfy the observability constraint and the remote control coverage constraint. After forming different candidate terminal configurations in step S31, it is necessary to determine the actual observability improvement results and remote control coverage results formed by each candidate terminal configuration. The effectiveness of a candidate terminal configuration cannot be directly determined based solely on the number or type of terminals, because the measurements formed by different terminals may have overlaps or linear correlations. Furthermore, a terminal with remote control functionality can only form effective remote control coverage when it can actually issue remote control commands to the corresponding associated controllable devices and receive execution feedback.

[0125] For any candidate terminal configuration First, based on the terminal type selected in the candidate terminal configuration, the available measurements that can be provided to the distribution automation master station are determined. Then, these measurements are processed together with the available measurements provided by the existing terminal configuration in the manner described in step S21 to obtain a set. Actual effective measurement data after terminal configuration at each node And determine the observability index of the terminal configuration corresponding to the node according to equation (20). .

[0126] In this process, the number of actual effective measurements is only increased when the newly added measurements in the candidate terminal configuration can form new independent state constraints. For measurements that form repeated or linearly related state constraints with existing measurements or other measurements in the candidate terminal configuration, the number of actual effective measurements is not increased repeatedly, so that the observability evaluation of the candidate terminal configuration still adopts the same effective measurement judgment criteria as steps S111 and S112.

[0127] Regarding the remote control coverage status of associated controllable devices, and the installation location of candidate terminals... and terminal type According to terminal type The remote control function, the control connection relationship between the candidate terminal installation location and the corresponding controllable equipment, and the communication reachability of the candidate terminal installation location are used to determine the location of the candidate terminal installation. Configure terminal type Then, controllable devices capable of issuing remote control commands and receiving execution feedback are assembled into a set. .

[0128] If the installation location of a candidate terminal does not currently have the communication reachability required to complete the corresponding remote control, the corresponding controllable device will not be included in the set, even if the selected terminal type itself has remote control functionality. .thus, This refers to the controllable devices that can actually form remote control coverage when the terminal location, terminal type, control connection relationship, and current communication conditions are all met, rather than all controllable devices that the terminal type theoretically supports.

[0129] Since the candidate terminal configuration in this embodiment is a supplementary terminal configuration formed based on the existing terminal configuration, controllable devices that already have remote control capabilities under the existing terminal configuration are retained. The set of remotely controllable devices under the existing terminal configuration determined in step S113 is used. The candidate terminal configuration is obtained by merging the newly added remotely controllable devices with the candidate terminal configuration. After the corresponding terminal is configured, it can remotely control a set of devices: (26) In the formula, Indicates candidate terminal configuration Once the corresponding terminal is configured, it can remotely control a collection of devices.

[0130] Equation (26) establishes a correspondence between the terminal type selection result in step S31 and the remote control coverage status in step S22. For any candidate terminal configuration... It can be based on its corresponding Determine the set of associated controllable devices corresponding to the control blind spot. Whether effective remote control coverage has been achieved.

[0131] Furthermore, the configuration costs corresponding to different terminal types at each candidate terminal installation location are obtained. Indicates the installation location of the candidate terminal. Configure terminal type The corresponding configuration cost. This configuration cost serves as the planning input data for terminal configuration, representing the additional configuration cost generated by the combination of corresponding candidate locations and terminal types.

[0132] Candidate terminal configuration The corresponding configuration cost is expressed as follows: (27) In the formula, Indicates candidate terminal configuration Configuration costs.

[0133] Since the existing terminal configuration remains unchanged among different candidate terminal configurations, its existing configuration cost is a fixed part that is common to all candidate terminal configurations and does not affect the cost comparison between different candidate terminal configurations. Therefore, Equation (27) only calculates the additional configuration cost generated by the candidate terminal configuration.

[0134] Configuration of each candidate terminal Each node observability is determined according to step S21, the remote control coverage status of the associated controllable device is determined according to equation (26), and the configuration cost is determined according to equation (27).

[0135] The candidate terminal configuration needs to meet the observability constraints determined in step S2, namely: (28) In the formula, Indicates candidate terminal configuration corresponding nodes The observability indicators after terminal configuration.

[0136] The candidate terminal configuration also needs to meet the remote control coverage constraints determined in step S22, namely: (29) Equations (28) and (29) are respectively the configurations of equations (21) and (23) in step S2 for specific candidate terminals. The evaluation format remains unchanged, with its constraints and judgment criteria remaining the same.

[0137] Among the candidate terminal configurations that satisfy equations (24), (25), (28), and (29), the target terminal configuration is determined with the lowest configuration cost as the objective: (30) In the formula, This represents the target terminal configuration. Each terminal type selection variable in the target terminal configuration satisfies the terminal type selection conditions described in equations (24) and (25), and simultaneously satisfies the observability constraint described in equation (28) and the remote control coverage constraint described in equation (29).

[0138] Therefore, Equation (30) does not search for the configuration with the lowest configuration cost among all possible terminal configurations, but rather compares costs within the range of candidate terminal configurations that have already met the observability and remote control coverage constraints, thereby avoiding simply reducing configuration costs while retaining nodes with insufficient observability or blind spots in regulation.

[0139] The aforementioned terminal configuration problem can be solved using search algorithms such as genetic algorithms and particle swarm optimization. When using a search algorithm, each generated candidate terminal configuration undergoes node observability and remote control coverage status verification according to the method described in step S2. Only candidate terminal configurations that simultaneously satisfy both observability and remote control coverage constraints are retained, and the configuration costs are compared among these candidate terminal configurations. In embodiments where the above configuration relationship can be represented as integer linear constraints, a mixed integer programming algorithm can also be used to solve the problem.

[0140] Obtain target terminal configuration Then, read the data that satisfies:

[0141] Candidate terminal installation locations and corresponding terminal types The candidate terminal installation location is determined as the terminal installation location corresponding to the target terminal configuration, and the corresponding terminal type is determined as the terminal type corresponding to the target terminal configuration.

[0142] Simultaneously, the configuration cost corresponding to the target terminal configuration, the observability index after the terminal configuration of each observability-deficient node, and the remote control coverage status of the associated controllable devices corresponding to each control blind spot can be output to verify whether the obtained target terminal configuration meets the two types of constraints determined in step S2.

[0143] In step S3, the vulnerability and control blind spot identification results obtained in step S1, transformed into observability constraints and remote control coverage constraints in step S2, are further applied to the selection of candidate terminal installation locations and terminal types. Under the premise of satisfying both types of constraints, the configuration costs of each candidate terminal configuration are compared, ultimately obtaining the target terminal configuration with the lowest configuration cost, along with the corresponding terminal installation location and terminal type. This completes the entire technical processing chain from vulnerability and control blind spot identification results to terminal configuration results.

[0144] The above description is merely a specific embodiment of the present invention, but the scope of protection of the present invention is not limited thereto. Any variations or substitutions that can be easily conceived by those skilled in the art within the technical scope disclosed in the present invention should be included within the scope of protection of the present invention. Therefore, the scope of protection of the present invention should be determined by the scope of the claims.

Claims

1. A method for configuring terminals in a county-level power distribution network based on the identification of weak points and blind spots, characterized in that, include: Based on the observability and controllability of each node in the county power distribution network, the overall weakness of each node is determined, weak points are identified based on the overall weakness, and control blind spots are determined from the weak points. Based on the aforementioned weaknesses and control blind spots, the observability constraints and remote control coverage constraints corresponding to the terminal configuration are determined. From the terminal configurations that simultaneously satisfy the observability constraint and the remote control coverage constraint, the target terminal configuration with the lowest configuration cost is determined, and the terminal installation location and terminal type are obtained.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The determination of the overall weakness includes: The observability and controllability of each node are quantified into observability and controllability indicators with the same upper limit and consistent direction of value. The overall weakness of a node is determined by the degree of deviation of the lower of the observability and controllability indicators of the same node from the upper limit of the same value.

3. The method according to claim 2, characterized in that, The determination of the observability index includes: The actual number of valid measurements is determined based on the valid measurements of the node under the existing terminal configuration. The baseline number of valid measurements required for a node to reach a fully observable state is determined based on the preset observability determination rules, and the observability index is determined in combination with the actual number of valid measurements.

4. The method according to claim 3, characterized in that, The preset observability determination rule is: when the node state variables can be uniquely determined based on the distribution network topology and available measurements, the node is determined to have reached a fully observable state.

5. The method according to claim 2, characterized in that, The identification of the weak points and regulatory blind spots includes: Based on the absence of observability and controllability indicators, and combined with the comparison results of the comprehensive weakness degree and the preset weakness threshold, the weakness point is determined. The nodes in the aforementioned weak points where the controllability indicators are missing are identified as the control blind spots.

6. The method according to claim 5, characterized in that, Based on the comprehensive weakness ranking of the weak points, and combined with the load level corresponding to each weak point, key nodes are identified from the weak points.

7. The method according to claim 6, characterized in that, The determination of the observability constraint and the remote control coverage constraint includes: For nodes with insufficient observability among the key nodes, their observability constraints after terminal configuration are determined based on observability thresholds. For the control blind spots in the key nodes, the remote control coverage constraints after terminal configuration are determined according to the remote control coverage requirements of the corresponding associated controllable devices.

8. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The determination of the target terminal configuration includes: Select at most one terminal type from the available terminal types corresponding to each candidate terminal installation location to form a candidate terminal configuration; Based on the node observability of each candidate terminal configuration, the remote control coverage status of associated controllable devices, and the configuration cost, the target terminal configuration with the lowest configuration cost is determined from the candidate terminal configurations that satisfy the observability constraint and the remote control coverage constraint.

9. The method according to claim 8, characterized in that, The selectable terminal type is determined based on the communication reachability of the installation location of each candidate terminal.

10. The method according to claim 9, characterized in that, When the candidate terminal is installed in a communication dead zone, the terminal type with local storage and communication recovery retransmission capability will be determined as the corresponding optional terminal type.

Images