CN113327051B - Fault arc fire hazard evaluation method - Google Patents
Fault arc fire hazard evaluation method Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- CN113327051B CN113327051B CN202110680639.9A CN202110680639A CN113327051B CN 113327051 B CN113327051 B CN 113327051B CN 202110680639 A CN202110680639 A CN 202110680639A CN 113327051 B CN113327051 B CN 113327051B
- Authority
- CN
- China
- Prior art keywords
- fault arc
- fault
- index
- arc
- fire hazard
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Active
Links
- 238000011156 evaluation Methods 0.000 title claims abstract description 57
- 238000000034 method Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 47
- 230000008569 process Effects 0.000 claims abstract description 20
- 206010000369 Accident Diseases 0.000 claims abstract description 8
- 239000011159 matrix material Substances 0.000 claims description 37
- 238000012360 testing method Methods 0.000 claims description 11
- 238000004364 calculation method Methods 0.000 claims description 9
- 238000004458 analytical method Methods 0.000 claims description 8
- 238000012937 correction Methods 0.000 claims description 7
- 238000010606 normalization Methods 0.000 claims description 7
- 230000004907 flux Effects 0.000 claims description 5
- 238000012545 processing Methods 0.000 claims description 4
- 230000001939 inductive effect Effects 0.000 claims description 3
- 238000004088 simulation Methods 0.000 claims description 3
- 230000008685 targeting Effects 0.000 claims description 2
- 238000012512 characterization method Methods 0.000 claims 1
- 238000012502 risk assessment Methods 0.000 claims 1
- 238000011158 quantitative evaluation Methods 0.000 abstract 1
- 238000011161 development Methods 0.000 description 3
- 238000010891 electric arc Methods 0.000 description 3
- QVGXLLKOCUKJST-UHFFFAOYSA-N atomic oxygen Chemical compound [O] QVGXLLKOCUKJST-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 2
- 238000003763 carbonization Methods 0.000 description 2
- 238000002485 combustion reaction Methods 0.000 description 2
- 238000013461 design Methods 0.000 description 2
- 230000007613 environmental effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 229910052760 oxygen Inorganic materials 0.000 description 2
- 239000001301 oxygen Substances 0.000 description 2
- 238000000197 pyrolysis Methods 0.000 description 2
- 238000011160 research Methods 0.000 description 2
- 230000009286 beneficial effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000009413 insulation Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000012423 maintenance Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000000463 material Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000012986 modification Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000004048 modification Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000002265 prevention Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000003449 preventive effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000011002 quantification Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000013077 scoring method Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000009897 systematic effect Effects 0.000 description 1
Images
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
- G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
- G06Q10/063—Operations research, analysis or management
- G06Q10/0635—Risk analysis of enterprise or organisation activities
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
- G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
- G06Q10/063—Operations research, analysis or management
- G06Q10/0639—Performance analysis of employees; Performance analysis of enterprise or organisation operations
- G06Q10/06393—Score-carding, benchmarking or key performance indicator [KPI] analysis
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q50/00—Information and communication technology [ICT] specially adapted for implementation of business processes of specific business sectors, e.g. utilities or tourism
- G06Q50/06—Energy or water supply
-
- Y—GENERAL TAGGING OF NEW TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS; GENERAL TAGGING OF CROSS-SECTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES SPANNING OVER SEVERAL SECTIONS OF THE IPC; TECHNICAL SUBJECTS COVERED BY FORMER USPC CROSS-REFERENCE ART COLLECTIONS [XRACs] AND DIGESTS
- Y04—INFORMATION OR COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES HAVING AN IMPACT ON OTHER TECHNOLOGY AREAS
- Y04S—SYSTEMS INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGIES RELATED TO POWER NETWORK OPERATION, COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR IMPROVING THE ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATION, TRANSMISSION, DISTRIBUTION, MANAGEMENT OR USAGE, i.e. SMART GRIDS
- Y04S10/00—Systems supporting electrical power generation, transmission or distribution
- Y04S10/50—Systems or methods supporting the power network operation or management, involving a certain degree of interaction with the load-side end user applications
Landscapes
- Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
- Human Resources & Organizations (AREA)
- Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Economics (AREA)
- Strategic Management (AREA)
- Entrepreneurship & Innovation (AREA)
- General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- General Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
- Educational Administration (AREA)
- Marketing (AREA)
- Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
- Development Economics (AREA)
- Tourism & Hospitality (AREA)
- Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- Quality & Reliability (AREA)
- Game Theory and Decision Science (AREA)
- Operations Research (AREA)
- Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
- Public Health (AREA)
- Water Supply & Treatment (AREA)
- General Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
- Primary Health Care (AREA)
- Testing Relating To Insulation (AREA)
Abstract
The invention relates to a fault arc fire hazard evaluation method, which is based on the reasons and the results of fault arc induced fire accidents and characteristic parameters of the fault arc to be evaluated, and a fault arc fire hazard evaluation index system is generalized and established. And calculating the index weights of all levels by adopting an analytic hierarchy process, and correcting the index evaluation values of all levels by adopting an information entropy method so as to enhance the objectivity of the fault arc fire hazard evaluation result. And then, introducing a quality solution to quantitatively compare the contribution degree of the index to the evaluated fault arc fire hazard. The invention can realize quantitative evaluation of the risk of the fault arc fire, and provides reference for the control decision of the fault arc fire so as to reduce the loss of life and property caused by the arc fire.
Description
Technical Field
The invention relates to the field of electrical fire safety, in particular to a fault arc fire hazard risk evaluation method.
Background
The power system and the power equipment support the sustainable development of various fields of various industries, but have self faults and external interference conditions in the links of design, operation, maintenance and the like, and occur when electric fire takes electric energy as a fire source. Among them, the electric circuit fire is relatively high in electric fire accident, and the fault arc is one of the important sources for causing electric circuit fire. The arc discharge process generates extremely high temperature and releases a large amount of heat, and can directly or indirectly ignite cable insulation or nearby inflammables, and the fault arc-induced fire process can be completed in a short time. Therefore, the electric arc is used as a fire hazard factor to conduct fire hazard research, and is necessary for preventing and controlling electric fires and ensuring cable safety.
The probability of occurrence and the severity of the consequences of the fire need to be comprehensively considered in the evaluation of the fire hazard, but most of fault arc fire hazard researches are currently carried out from a certain angle in the occurrence stage of the fault arc or the development stage of the electric fire, and a systematic and targeted evaluation system and method for the fault arc fire hazard are lacked. Meanwhile, as the fault arc is an ignition source with strong randomness and self-electrification, the existing fire hazard evaluation method cannot quantitatively evaluate the fire hazard of the fault arc.
Disclosure of Invention
The invention aims to solve the technical problem of providing a fault arc fire hazard evaluation method, which can realize quantification and evaluation of the fault arc fire hazard and contribution degree of influencing factors thereof so as to reduce life and property loss caused by arc fire.
The invention provides a fault arc fire hazard evaluation method, which comprises the following steps:
step 1, analyzing the reasons and the consequences of the fire accident induced by the fault arc based on statistical data;
step 2, obtaining characteristic parameters of the fault arc to be evaluated, wherein the characteristic parameters comprise one or more of fault arc ignition time, fault arc duration time, arc ignition probability, fault arc power, fault arc length and fault arc radiant heat flux;
step 3, inducing fault arc fire hazard influencing factors and constructing a fault arc fire hazard evaluation index system;
step 4, calculating index weights of all levels by adopting an analytic hierarchy process, and constructing an analytic hierarchy process weight matrix w;
step 5, establishing a scoring standard of each level of evaluation indexes;
step 6, constructing a preliminary fault arc fire hazard evaluation value matrix P, calculating a correction matrix r for correction by adopting an information entropy method, and constructing a final fault arc fire hazard evaluation value matrix Z;
and 7, quantitatively analyzing the contribution degree of the index to the evaluation of the target arc fire hazard risk, and comparing the contribution degree with the contribution degree in a grading way.
Preferably, in step 1, based on the statistical data, the cause and the result of the fire accident induced by the fault arc are analyzed by adopting an accident analysis method.
Preferably, in the step 1, based on the statistical data, the accident analysis method is adopted to identify the cause of the fault arc, the ignition object, the environmental condition and other fire hazard influencing factors.
Preferably, in step 1, based on the statistical data, the cause and the result of the fire accident induced by the fault arc are analyzed by adopting an accident analysis method, for example, based on a bowknot model, the arc fault event is taken as a central event, and the arc fault cause, the pre-preventive measure, the arc fault result and the post-preventive measure are identified.
Preferably, in the step 1, the accident analysis method adopts a bowknot model method, an arc fault event is taken as a central event, the left side of the central event is an arc fault cause and a priori precaution, and the right side of the central event is an arc fault result and a post priori precaution.
Preferably, in step 2, the characteristic parameters of the fault arc include one or more of fault arc ignition time, fault arc duration, arc ignition probability, fault arc power, fault arc length, fault arc radiant heat flux. To characterize a highly random, self-powered source of arc ignition from a fault.
Further, in step 3, the fault arc fire hazard risk evaluation index system includes a fault arc ignition source characteristic and an influence factor thereof.
In the step 3, the fault arc fire hazard evaluation index system is divided into a target layer A, a criterion layer B and an index layer C. The evaluation index of the index layer C in the fault arc fire hazard evaluation index system is obtained on the basis of the steps 1 and 2 and is classified into a qualitative index or a quantitative index.
In the step 4, the analytic hierarchy process weight matrix w is composed of weights of the indexes (index layers C) targeting the risk of the arc fault fire (target layer a).
Further, in step 5, the indexes are classified into qualitative or quantitative indexes, and the normalization of the quantitative indexes belonging to the fault arc characteristic parameters is calculated according to the following formula:
wherein Cn represents the nth index of the index layer and belongs to the fault arc characteristic parameter; x is x n, to be measured A test value representing a fault arc characteristic parameter to be evaluated; x is x n, min, reference Representing the minimum value of the reference fault arc characteristic parameter; x is x n, max, reference Representing the maximum value of the reference fault arc characteristic parameter. The rest quantitative indexes are normalized, the qualitative indexes are subjected to expert scoring to establish scoring standards, and the scoring ranges of all indexes are 0,1]。
Preferably, in the step 5, all quantitative indexes are normalized, and the value range is [0,1]. Wherein the quantitative index normalization of the fault arc characteristic parameter related to step 2 is calculated by the following formula:
wherein Cn represents the nth index of the index layer and belongs to the fault arc characteristic parameter; x is x n, to be measured A test value representing a fault arc characteristic parameter to be evaluated; x is x n, min, reference Representing the minimum value of the reference fault arc characteristic parameter; x is x n, max, reference Representing the maximum value of the reference fault arc characteristic parameter.
Preferably, in the step 5, the fault arc characteristic parameter data to be evaluated and referred to are obtained from fault arc simulation test or accident data.
Preferably, in the step 5, an expert scoring method is adopted to quantify the qualitative index, and a scoring standard is determined.
Preferably, in step 6, on the basis of performing the first weight calculation by using an analytic hierarchy process before scoring, performing the second evaluation value correction by using an information entropy process after scoring.
Preferably, the method comprises the steps of,in the step 6, the specific step of calculating the fault arc fire hazard risk evaluation value matrix comprises the following steps: constructing a preliminary fault arc fire hazard risk evaluation value matrix P; the element normalization processing of the matrix P is carried out, and an information entropy method is introduced to calculate the entropy weight q of each index information of the index layer n The method comprises the steps of carrying out a first treatment on the surface of the With q n And correcting P, and constructing a final fault arc fire hazard risk evaluation value matrix Z.
Preferably, in step 7, the contribution degree alpha of the quality solution distance quantitative comparison index to the evaluated fault arc fire hazard is introduced n ，α n The larger the value is, the higher the contribution degree of the index to evaluating the hazard of the fault arc fire is, and the thought can be provided for the decision of the control and emergency measures of the fault arc fire.
Preferably, in the step 7, the specific step of quantitatively analyzing the contribution degree of the index to the evaluation of the target arc fire hazard risk includes: dividing the indexes in the step 3 into positive correlation indexes and negative correlation indexes by taking the fault arc fire hazard as a target to form a positive correlation set and a negative correlation set; based on the matrix Z in the step 6, carrying out longitudinal comparison by taking the index as a unit, and constructing a high-risk set J by the maximum value of the positive correlation index and the minimum value of the negative correlation 1 Conversely, the maximum value of the negative correlation index and the minimum value of the positive correlation index are constructed as a low-risk set 2 The method comprises the steps of carrying out a first treatment on the surface of the Calculating evaluation values of various indexes and J 1 、J 2 The distance between them is respectively recorded as
Based on the good-bad solution distance method, calculating the contribution degree alpha of each index n to the fault arc fire hazard n The calculation formula is as follows:
preferably, in the step 7, according to α n Comparing and evaluating the index n to the fault arcThe extent of contribution of fire hazards.
The invention has the beneficial effects and advantages that:
1. according to the invention, on the basis of considering the whole process from occurrence of the fault arc to development of the electric fire, the fire hazard evaluation index system is established by combining the characteristics of the fault arc, so that the fire hazard of the fault arc can be evaluated systematically.
2. According to the invention, on the basis of carrying out first weight calculation by adopting an analytic hierarchy process before scoring, the evaluation value is corrected by adopting an information entropy process after scoring, so that the subjective influence of fault arc fire hazard evaluation is reduced to a certain extent, and a more objective evaluation value can be obtained.
3. The invention introduces a good-bad solution distance method, quantifies and compares the contribution degree of each index to the risk of the fault arc fire of the evaluated object, and can provide thought for the decision of the fault arc fire prevention and emergency measures.
Drawings
FIG. 1 is a schematic flow chart of a fault arc fire hazard assessment method;
FIG. 2 is a schematic flow chart of a fault arc fire hazard assessment method.
Detailed Description
The following describes in detail the examples of the present invention, which are implemented on the premise of the technical solution of the present invention, and detailed embodiments and specific operation procedures are given, but the scope of protection of the present invention is not limited to the following examples.
The following describes a fault arc fire hazard risk evaluation method according to an embodiment of the present invention. See fig. 1-2.
Step 1: based on the statistical data, the reasons and the consequences of the fault arc induced fire accident are analyzed.
Illustratively, an analysis is made of an accident that induces a fire with a fault arc, the accident being caused by the electrical line fault arc igniting the surrounding combustible decorative material.
According to the related data, the bowknot model can be adopted for accident analysis: the arc fault event is taken as a central event, the left side of the central event is the arc fault cause and the precaution measures in advance, and the right side of the central event is the arc fault result and the precaution measures in advance. Simplified analysis results, and obtaining factors that directly or indirectly affect the risk of arc-fault fires involves: fault line factors, fault arc factors, combustible factors, and environmental impact factors.
Step 2: the characteristic parameters of the fault arc to be evaluated are obtained, wherein the characteristic parameters comprise one or more of fault arc ignition time, fault arc duration, arc ignition probability, fault arc power, fault arc length and fault arc radiant heat flux.
By way of example, the fault arc to be evaluated is subjected to experimental simulation, and the embodiment can refer to the UL1699 experimental standard to obtain the fault arc ignition time, the fault arc duration, the fault ignition probability and the fault arc power to be evaluated. The fault arc ignition time refers to the time from the initial time of fault arc discharge to the ignition time of the test fire indicator; the fault arc duration refers to the time that the fault arc is continuously discharged; the fault ignition probability refers to the statistical probability of the fire of the test fire indicator; fault arc power refers to the product of the arc voltage drop and the arc current.
Step 3: and (5) inducing fault arc fire hazard influencing factors and constructing a fault arc fire hazard evaluation index system.
Illustratively, taking cable fire disaster induced by fault arc as an example, a fault arc fire disaster risk evaluation index system is as follows:
TABLE 1 evaluation index System for Risk of arc faults and fires
Step 4: and calculating index weights of all levels by adopting an analytic hierarchy process, and constructing an analytic hierarchy process weight matrix w.
Exemplary, a judgment matrix corresponding to the next layer and the index of the target layer A, each criterion layer B1, B2, B3 and B4 is respectively constructed and is sequentially marked as W A 、W B1 、W B2 、W B3 、W B4 。
Calculating the maximum eigenvalue lambda of the judgment matrix max A consistency index CI is calculated and obtained,
wherein n represents the order of the matrix; calculating a judgment matrix consistency ratio CR, < >>
Wherein RI is the corresponding average random consistency index, and the values are as follows:
table 2RI value table
| n | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| RI | 0 | 0 | 0.58 | 0.90 | 1.12 | 1.24 | 1.32 | 1.41 | 1.45 |
CR is less than 0.1, representing that the judgment matrix passes the consistency test; and CR is not less than 0.1, reconstructing the judgment matrix by the expert until the judgment matrix passes the consistency test.
According to the judgment matrix passing the consistency test, calculating the relative weight between indexes: the element W of the matrix is to be judged ij Normalization processing is performed in units of rows and is recorded as
Where ij represents the ith row and the jth column in the judgment matrix W; each column is provided with
Rows add in units of rows, denoted +.>
Planning by using a row unit to obtain analytic hierarchy process weight, and marking the analytic hierarchy process weight as W i The method comprises the steps of carrying out a first treatment on the surface of the The corresponding layers are multiplied to obtain the index Cn weight w of the relative target layer A n 。
Step 5: and establishing a scoring standard of each level of evaluation index.
Exemplary qualitative indications include: cable breakage degree C2, cable carbonization degree C4, combustible quantity degree C9, safety distance degree C12, relative ambient temperature C13, relative oxygen concentration C14; the quantitative index comprises: cable operating years C1, cable overload degree C3, arc ignition time C5, fault arc duration C6, fault ignition probability C7, fault arc power C8, combustible pyrolysis performance C10, combustible combustion performance C11.
Illustratively, a qualitative indication cable breakage degree C2 score criterion is given:
TABLE 3 Cable breakage degree C2 score criterion
Exemplary, a scoring calculation method for giving quantitative indexes of fault arc characteristic parameters is as follows:
wherein Cn represents the nth index of the index layer and belongs to the fault arc characteristic parameter; x is x n, to be measured A test value representing a fault arc characteristic parameter to be evaluated; x is x n, min, reference Representing the minimum value of the reference fault arc characteristic parameter; x is x n, max, reference Representing the maximum value of the reference fault arc characteristic parameter.
Illustratively, a scoring calculation method for the remaining quantitative index cable working years C1 is given:
step 6: a preliminary fault arc fire hazard evaluation value matrix P is constructed, a correction matrix r is calculated and corrected by adopting an information entropy method, and a final fault arc fire hazard evaluation value matrix Z is constructed.
Illustratively, Y experts are provided for scoring according to a fault arc fire hazard evaluation index system, X yn The evaluation value of the nth index by the nth expert is multiplied by the weight wn of the corresponding index Cn to construct a preliminary fault arc fire hazard risk evaluation value matrix P:
wherein p is yn ＝w n ·X yn 。
By using
Evaluation value p of index yn And (5) carrying out normalization processing.
By using
Multiplying the entropy weight q of the corresponding index Cn information n Constructing a final fault arc fire hazard risk evaluation value matrix Z:
wherein Z is yn ＝q n ·w n ·X vn 。
Step 7: and quantitatively comparing the contribution degree of the index to the arc fire risk of the current evaluation system.
Illustratively, the positive correlation index includes: cable operating years C1, cable breakage degree C2, cable overload degree C3, cable carbonization degree C4, fault arc duration time C6, fault ignition probability C7, fault arc power C8, combustible quantity degree C9, combustible pyrolysis performance C10, combustible combustion performance C11, relative ambient temperature C13, relative oxygen concentration C14; the negative correlation index includes: arc ignition time C5, safety distance level C12.
Based on the matrix Z in the step 6, constructing a high-risk set J from the maximum value of the positive correlation index and the minimum value of the negative correlation 1 Conversely, the maximum value of the negative correlation index and the minimum value of the positive correlation are constructed as a low-risk set J 2 。
Calculating evaluation values of various indexes and J 1 、J 2 The distance between them is respectively recorded as
The calculation method comprises the following steps:
based on a good-bad solution distance method, a calculation formula of the relative contribution degree of the index n to the evaluated fault arc fire risk is as follows:
exemplary, can be based on alpha n The relative contribution of index n to the evaluated risk of arc-fault fire is compared and ranked with reference to table 4.
Table 4 relative contribution rating of arc-fault fire risk
| α n Interval of | [0，0.2) | [0.2，0.4) | [0.4，0.6) | [0.6，0.8) | [0.8，1] |
| Contribution degree level | Low and low | Lower level | In general | Higher height | High height |
α n The larger the value is, the higher the contribution degree of the index to evaluating the hazard of the fault arc fire is, and the thought can be provided for the decision of the control and emergency measures of the fault arc fire.
The present invention is not described in detail in part as being well known to those skilled in the art. The above examples are merely illustrative of preferred embodiments of the invention, which are not exhaustive of all details, nor are they intended to limit the invention to the particular embodiments disclosed. Various modifications and improvements of the technical scheme of the present invention will fall within the protection scope of the present invention as defined in the claims without departing from the design spirit of the present invention.
Claims (6)
1. A fault arc fire hazard risk assessment method, characterized by comprising the steps of:
step 1, analyzing the reasons and the consequences of the fire accident induced by the fault arc based on statistical data;
step 2, obtaining characteristic parameters of the fault arc to be evaluated, wherein the characteristic parameters comprise one or more of fault arc ignition time, fault arc duration time, arc ignition probability, fault arc power, fault arc length and fault arc radiant heat flux;
step 3, inducing fault arc fire hazard influencing factors and constructing a fault arc fire hazard evaluation index system;
step 4, calculating index weights of all levels by adopting an analytic hierarchy process, and constructing an analytic hierarchy process weight matrix w;
step 5, establishing a scoring standard of each level of evaluation indexes;
step 6, constructing a preliminary fault arc fire hazard evaluation value matrix P, calculating a correction matrix r for correction by adopting an information entropy method, and constructing a final fault arc fire hazard evaluation value matrix Z;
step 7, quantitatively analyzing the contribution degree of the index to the evaluation of the target arc fire hazard risk and comparing the contribution degree in a grading manner;
in step 4, the analytic hierarchy process weight matrix w is composed of index weights targeting the risk of fault arc fire;
in the step 7, the contribution degree alpha of the quality solution distance quantitative comparison index to the evaluated fault arc fire hazard can be introduced n ，α n The larger the value is, the higher the contribution degree of the index to evaluating the hazard of the fault arc fire is, so that a thought can be provided for the decision of the control and emergency measures of the fault arc fire;
in the step 6, the specific step of calculating the fault arc fire hazard risk evaluation value matrix comprises the following steps: constructing a preliminary fault arc fire hazard risk evaluation value matrix P; the element normalization processing of the matrix P is carried out, and an information entropy method is introduced to calculate the entropy weight q of each index information of the index layer n The method comprises the steps of carrying out a first treatment on the surface of the With q n Correcting P, and constructing a final fault arc fire hazard risk evaluation value matrix Z;
in step 7, the specific step of quantitatively analyzing the contribution degree of the index to the evaluation of the target arc fire hazard risk comprises the following steps: dividing the indexes in the step 3 into positive correlation indexes and negative correlation indexes by taking the fault arc fire hazard as a target to form a positive correlation set and a negative correlation set; based on the matrix Z in the step 6, carrying out longitudinal comparison by taking the index as a unit, and constructing a high-risk set J by the maximum value of the positive correlation index and the minimum value of the negative correlation 1 Conversely, the maximum value of the negative correlation index and the minimum value of the positive correlation are constructed as a low-risk set J 2 The method comprises the steps of carrying out a first treatment on the surface of the Calculating evaluation values of various indexes and J 1 、J 2 The distance between them is respectively recorded as
Based on the good-bad solution distance method, calculating the contribution degree alpha of each index n to the fault arc fire hazard n The calculation formula is as follows:
according to alpha n And comparing and evaluating the contribution degree of the index n to the fault arc fire hazard.
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein in step 1, based on statistical data, the cause and the result of the fault arc-induced fire accident are analyzed by using an accident analysis method, such as based on a bowtie model, and the arc fault event is taken as a central event, and the arc fault cause, the pre-event precaution, the arc fault result, and the post-event precaution are identified.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein in step 2, the characteristic parameters of the fault arc include one or more of fault arc ignition time, fault arc duration, arc ignition probability, fault arc power, fault arc length, fault arc radiant heat flux to characterize an inherently charged fault arc ignition source.
4. The method according to claim 1, wherein in step 3, the arc fault fire hazard assessment index system includes arc fault ignition source characteristics and influencing factors thereof.
5. The method according to claim 1, wherein in step 5, the index is classified into a qualitative index or a quantitative index, and the normalization of the quantitative index belonging to the characteristic parameters of the arc is calculated according to the following formula:
wherein Cn represents the nth index of the index layer and belongs to the fault arc characteristicsA characterization parameter; x is x n, to be measured A test value representing a fault arc characteristic parameter to be evaluated; x is x n, min, reference Representing the minimum value of the reference fault arc characteristic parameter; x is x n, max, reference Representing the maximum value of the characteristic parameters of the reference fault arc; the fault arc characteristic parameter data to be evaluated and referenced are obtained by the fault arc simulation test or accident data;
the rest quantitative indexes are normalized, the qualitative indexes are provided with scoring standards by expert scoring, and the scoring ranges of all indexes are 0, 1.
6. The method according to claim 1, wherein in step 6, the first weight calculation is performed by an analytic hierarchy process before scoring, and the second evaluation value correction is performed by an information entropy process after scoring.
Priority Applications (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN202110680639.9A CN113327051B (en) | 2021-06-18 | 2021-06-18 | Fault arc fire hazard evaluation method |
Applications Claiming Priority (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN202110680639.9A CN113327051B (en) | 2021-06-18 | 2021-06-18 | Fault arc fire hazard evaluation method |
Publications (2)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| CN113327051A CN113327051A (en) | 2021-08-31 |
| CN113327051B true CN113327051B (en) | 2023-07-14 |
Family
ID=77423823
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN202110680639.9A Active CN113327051B (en) | 2021-06-18 | 2021-06-18 | Fault arc fire hazard evaluation method |
Country Status (1)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| CN (1) | CN113327051B (en) |
Families Citing this family (1)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN113780757B (en) * | 2021-08-21 | 2024-01-26 | 国网湖北省电力有限公司电力科学研究院 | Determination method of electrical fire risk assessment weight index coefficient |
Citations (4)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JP2005275732A (en) * | 2004-03-24 | 2005-10-06 | Taisei Corp | Fire risk evaluation method |
| CN101982830A (en) * | 2010-11-12 | 2011-03-02 | 上海海事大学 | Comprehensive evaluation index system of ship routing scheme and combined evaluation method thereof |
| CN111582718A (en) * | 2020-05-08 | 2020-08-25 | 国网安徽省电力有限公司电力科学研究院 | Cable channel fire risk assessment method and device based on network analytic hierarchy process |
| CN112836890A (en) * | 2021-02-20 | 2021-05-25 | 中国城市规划设计研究院 | Method, device, equipment and storage medium for predicting fire risk |
Family Cites Families (1)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US7245315B2 (en) * | 2002-05-20 | 2007-07-17 | Simmonds Precision Products, Inc. | Distinguishing between fire and non-fire conditions using cameras |
-
2021
- 2021-06-18 CN CN202110680639.9A patent/CN113327051B/en active Active
Patent Citations (4)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JP2005275732A (en) * | 2004-03-24 | 2005-10-06 | Taisei Corp | Fire risk evaluation method |
| CN101982830A (en) * | 2010-11-12 | 2011-03-02 | 上海海事大学 | Comprehensive evaluation index system of ship routing scheme and combined evaluation method thereof |
| CN111582718A (en) * | 2020-05-08 | 2020-08-25 | 国网安徽省电力有限公司电力科学研究院 | Cable channel fire risk assessment method and device based on network analytic hierarchy process |
| CN112836890A (en) * | 2021-02-20 | 2021-05-25 | 中国城市规划设计研究院 | Method, device, equipment and storage medium for predicting fire risk |
Non-Patent Citations (3)
| Title |
|---|
| 基于BP神经网络的城市区域火灾风险评估模型研究;史一通;中国优秀硕士学位论文全文数据库(9);全文 * |
| 层次分析法在商场火灾风险评价中的应用研究;田玉敏;蔡晶菁;;灾害学(02);全文 * |
| 高层建筑物火灾危险性分析方法的选择与应用;张军;陈利平;饶国宁;刘冰心;王一丁;;安全与环境工程(03);全文 * |
Also Published As
| Publication number | Publication date |
|---|---|
| CN113327051A (en) | 2021-08-31 |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| CN110163500B (en) | Fuzzy fault tree-based oil storage tank area fire explosion risk assessment method | |
| CN106908674B (en) | Transformer state evaluation method based on multi-state quantity prediction | |
| CN105353255B (en) | A kind of Diagnosis Method of Transformer Faults based on neural network | |
| CN111582718B (en) | Cable channel fire risk assessment method and device based on network analytic hierarchy process | |
| CN113327051B (en) | Fault arc fire hazard evaluation method | |
| CN113780757B (en) | Determination method of electrical fire risk assessment weight index coefficient | |
| CN105912857B (en) | Matching method of power distribution equipment state monitoring sensors | |
| CN114372682A (en) | Fire-entry suit environment adaptability assessment method and system based on AHP-fuzzy comprehensive evaluation | |
| CN110009241B (en) | Method and device for evaluating fire safety level of in-service power cable channel | |
| CN110503305B (en) | Transformer performance evaluation method | |
| KR101025058B1 (en) | A method for tracking signal detection of low voltage lines using fuzzy RBF neural network algorithm | |
| CN114418329A (en) | Comprehensive evaluation method for health state of transformer based on subjective and objective combination | |
| CN113850693A (en) | Distribution network power failure risk comprehensive assessment and early warning method based on multi-source information fusion | |
| CN117113166A (en) | Industrial boiler fault detection method based on improved integrated learning | |
| CN114021915A (en) | Electrical fire risk assessment method based on improved balance weight and variable fuzzy set | |
| CN115471097A (en) | Data-driven underground local area safety state evaluation method | |
| CN113723817A (en) | Enterprise dust explosion risk assessment method, device and equipment | |
| CN113030633B (en) | GA-BP neural network-based power distribution network fault big data analysis method and system | |
| CN105741184B (en) | Transformer state evaluation method and device | |
| CN111525554A (en) | High loss reason identification method and system based on contribution degree | |
| CN115936423A (en) | Initiative safety level evaluation algorithm for energy storage power station with integration of subjectivity and objectivity | |
| CN114860808B (en) | Power distribution network equipment abnormal event correlation analysis method based on big data | |
| CN115470846A (en) | Transformer fault online diagnosis method based on graph neural network | |
| Zhang et al. | A probabilistic estimation method of multiple site damage occurrence for aircraft structures | |
| CN116305725A (en) | Method and device for determining power frequency withstand voltage test period of insulating tool |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| PB01 | Publication | ||
| PB01 | Publication | ||
| SE01 | Entry into force of request for substantive examination | ||
| SE01 | Entry into force of request for substantive examination | ||
| GR01 | Patent grant | ||
| GR01 | Patent grant |