A hydrogen energy ship power system adaptability evaluation method for different domains
By scoring six evaluation indicators of hydrogen-powered ship propulsion systems and screening for safety and balance, and by objectively assigning weights using CRITIC and TOPSIS methods, a scenario-based indicator score matrix is generated. This solves the problems of missing evaluation standards and subjective weighting bias in existing technologies, thereby improving the safety and adaptability of hydrogen-powered ship propulsion systems and significantly enhancing evaluation efficiency and the credibility of results.
Patent Information
- Authority / Receiving Office
- CN · China
- Patent Type
- Applications(China)
- Current Assignee / Owner
- DALIAN MARITIME UNIVERSITY
- Filing Date
- 2026-03-13
- Publication Date
- 2026-07-03
AI Technical Summary
Existing technologies lack a unified standard for evaluating the compatibility of hydrogen power systems with ships, fail to connect with the actual navigation needs of ships, resulting in a lack of quantitative judgment criteria for equipment selection, neglect of differences in navigation areas and ship types, evaluation results that are detached from actual scenarios, lack of scientific screening logic in configuration scheme generation, low evaluation efficiency, evaluation methods that rely heavily on subjective weighting, low reliability of results, and failure to consider key needs throughout the entire life cycle.
Six evaluation indicators are used to score candidate equipment, and safety and balance constraints are established. Equipment is screened by equal weighted coefficient of variation method, and objective weighting is performed by combining CRITIC and TOPSIS methods to generate a scenario-based indicator score matrix, calculate the comprehensive evaluation index, and output the optimal configuration.
It has improved the safety and adaptability of hydrogen-powered ship propulsion system configurations, significantly improved evaluation efficiency, provided reliable equipment selection basis, ensured safety and adaptability, reduced redundant schemes, and improved the stability and repeatability of evaluation results.
Smart Images
Figure CN122333719A_ABST
Abstract
Description
Technical Field
[0001] This invention relates to the field of hydrogen-powered ship design, and specifically to a method for evaluating the adaptability of hydrogen-powered ship propulsion systems for different navigation areas. Background Technology
[0002] The global shipping industry is accelerating its green and low-carbon transformation, with hydrogen energy becoming a key direction for replacing traditional energy sources in ship propulsion systems due to its zero-carbon properties. The International Maritime Organization has proposed a net-zero greenhouse gas emission target for 2050, and my country's "Outline for the Development of Inland Waterway Shipping" also clearly states that the standardization rate of inland waterway vessels should exceed 85% by 2035. Driven by both policy and market forces, the compatibility technology of hydrogen-powered ship propulsion systems has become a research hotspot.
[0003] In existing technologies, key equipment such as hydrogen storage systems, fuel cells, and energy storage devices have developed multiple technological pathways. High-pressure hydrogen storage and cryogenic liquid hydrogen storage have been commercialized, while metal hydrogen storage and organic hydrogen storage are in the technology verification stage. High-temperature proton exchange membrane fuel cells and low-temperature proton exchange membrane fuel cells have been applied in demonstration projects, while solid oxide fuel cells are in the transition stage from laboratory to pilot production. Lithium-ion batteries have become the mainstream energy storage choice, and solid-state batteries, liquid vanadium batteries, and supercapacitors are being tested in specific scenarios. Multi-attribute decision-making methods such as the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and the superior-inferior solution distance method have been initially applied to the performance evaluation of ship propulsion systems.
[0004] However, existing technologies have the following shortcomings: First, there is a lack of unified evaluation standards for the compatibility of hydrogen power systems with ships, focusing only on the performance parameters of individual equipment without considering the actual navigation needs of ships, resulting in a lack of quantitative judgment basis for equipment selection; second, the differentiated needs of navigation areas and ship types are not considered, and the differences between inland waterway and coastal environments, as well as the functional differences between passenger ships and bulk carriers, are ignored, leading to evaluation results that are detached from actual scenarios; third, the generation of configuration schemes lacks scientific screening logic, directly combining all equipment, resulting in redundant schemes and low evaluation efficiency; fourth, the evaluation methods rely heavily on subjective weighting, failing to consider the objective fluctuations and conflicts of indicator data, resulting in low reliability of the results; fifth, the evaluation dimensions are one-sided, focusing more on technical performance and ignoring key life-cycle requirements such as economy, reliability, and space occupation, which restricts the large-scale implementation of hydrogen-powered ship technology.
[0005] Therefore, there is an urgent need for a method to assess the compatibility of hydrogen-powered ship propulsion systems for different navigation domains, so as to provide a reliable basis for the scientific selection and large-scale application of hydrogen-powered ship propulsion systems. Summary of the Invention
[0006] To address the problems of missing evaluation criteria, poor scenario adaptability, redundant configurations, subjective weighting bias, and one-sided dimensions in existing assessment methods, this invention provides a method for assessing the adaptability of hydrogen-powered ship propulsion systems for different navigation domains, specifically including the following steps:
[0007] S1. Obtain a set of candidate equipment for key equipment, score each candidate equipment based on six evaluation indicators, and construct an equipment scoring table.
[0008] Furthermore, the key equipment includes a hydrogen storage device, a fuel cell, an energy storage device, a propulsion motor, and a drive system.
[0009] Furthermore, the six evaluation indicators include safety, economy, power, technological maturity, reliability, and space occupation.
[0010] S2. Establish security constraints, perform security screening on candidate devices, and eliminate candidate devices that do not meet the security constraints.
[0011] Furthermore, the security level score of the candidate device must not be lower than a preset security threshold; if the security level score of the candidate device is lower than the security threshold, the candidate device is determined not to meet the security constraints and is eliminated.
[0012] S3. Establish balance constraints, use the equal-weighted coefficient of variation method to determine the balance of candidate devices that have passed the security screening, remove candidate devices that do not meet the balance constraints, and obtain a set of qualified candidate devices.
[0013] S31. Extract the grade scores of candidate equipment under five indicators: economy, power, technology maturity, reliability and space occupation, and form a sample set.
[0014] S32. Calculate the mean and standard deviation of the sample set.
[0015] S33. Determine whether the mean reaches the mean threshold: If the mean is less than the mean threshold, the candidate device is directly determined not to meet the balance constraint and is removed; if the mean is greater than or equal to the mean threshold, the coefficient of variation is calculated based on the mean and standard deviation of the sample set.
[0016] S34. Determine whether the coefficient of variation reaches the coefficient of variation threshold: If the coefficient of variation is less than or equal to the coefficient of variation threshold, the candidate device is determined to be balanced and retained; if the coefficient of variation is greater than the coefficient of variation threshold, the candidate device is determined to be unbalanced and an imbalance type analysis is performed.
[0017] S35. The steps for performing imbalance type analysis on candidate devices identified as imbalanced include: S351. Calculate the difference between the rating of each indicator in the sample set and the mean of the sample set, and take the indicator with the largest absolute value of the difference as the key deviation indicator.
[0018] S352. If the difference between the rating of the key deviation indicator and the mean of the sample set is positive, it is determined to be a positive imbalance; if the difference between the rating of the key deviation indicator and the mean of the sample set is negative, it is determined to be a negative imbalance.
[0019] S353. Candidate devices that are determined to be positively unbalanced meet the balance constraints and are retained; candidate devices that are determined to be negatively unbalanced do not meet the balance constraints and are eliminated.
[0020] S4. Combine the candidate devices in the qualified candidate device set to establish a candidate power system configuration set, and determine the configuration score of each candidate configuration under the six evaluation indicators according to the device scoring table.
[0021] S5. Based on the target navigation area and target ship type, the configuration scores of each candidate configuration are weighted and adjusted to generate a scenario-based index score matrix.
[0022] S51. Obtain the navigation area demand vector for the target navigation area and the ship type demand vector for the target ship type.
[0023] S52. After multiplying and fusing the navigation area demand vector and the ship type demand vector, normalize them to obtain the weight correction factors for the six evaluation indicators.
[0024] S53. The configuration scores of each candidate configuration are corrected using the weight correction factor to generate a scenario-based index score matrix.
[0025] S6. The CRITIC method is used to objectively weight the scenario-based indicator score matrix, calculate the variability and conflict of the six evaluation indicators, and determine the combined weight of the six evaluation indicators.
[0026] S61. Standardize the scenario-based index score matrix.
[0027] S62. Calculate the standard deviation of the six evaluation indicators to characterize their variability, and calculate the correlation coefficient among the six evaluation indicators to characterize their conflict.
[0028] S63 determines the combined weights of the six evaluation indicators based on their variability and conflict.
[0029] S7. The TOPSIS method is used in conjunction with the combined weights to comprehensively evaluate the candidate dynamic system configurations. The closeness of each candidate configuration to the ideal solution is calculated as the comprehensive evaluation index. The candidate configurations are then ranked according to the magnitude of the comprehensive evaluation index, and the preferred configuration is output.
[0030] S71. Based on the combined weights, the scenario-based indicator score matrix is weighted to construct a weighted decision matrix.
[0031] S72. Calculate the positive ideal solution and the negative ideal solution of the weighted decision matrix.
[0032] S73. Calculate the Euclidean distance from each candidate configuration to the positive ideal solution and the negative ideal solution.
[0033] S74. Calculate the relative similarity of each candidate configuration as a comprehensive evaluation index.
[0034] Compared with existing technologies, this invention achieves a comprehensive improvement in the safety, adaptability, and evaluation efficiency of hydrogen-powered ship propulsion system configurations, providing a reliable basis for engineering selection. Specific beneficial effects are as follows: (1) This invention takes safety as a hard constraint condition, and eliminates equipment that does not meet safety standards in the early stage of scheme generation, thereby eliminating the risk of hydrogen leakage and explosion from the source and ensuring the safety of ship operation.
[0035] (2) This invention effectively eliminates reverse imbalanced equipment with single performance shortcomings by using the mean threshold and the coefficient of variation threshold for dual screening, thus significantly improving the evaluation efficiency.
[0036] (3) This invention normalizes the fusion of navigation zone requirements and ship type requirements through multiplication, so that the index weights of the same configuration in different scenarios can be differentiated, which significantly improves the accuracy of multi-scenario adaptation.
[0037] (4) The present invention adopts the CRITIC-TOPSIS objective evaluation method, which determines the combined weights based on the variability and conflict of the index data, avoids subjective weighting bias, and the evaluation results have good stability and repeatability. Attached Figure Description
[0038] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention or the prior art, the drawings used in the description of the embodiments or the prior art will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings described below are some embodiments of the present invention. For those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without creative effort.
[0039] Figure 1 This is a flowchart of a method for assessing the adaptability of hydrogen-powered ship propulsion systems for different navigation domains, according to the present invention. Detailed Implementation
[0040] To enable those skilled in the art to better understand the present invention, the technical solutions of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings of the embodiments of the present invention. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of the present invention, and not all embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative effort should fall within the scope of protection of the present invention.
[0041] It should be noted that the terms "first," "second," etc., in the specification, claims, and accompanying drawings of this invention are used to distinguish similar objects and are not necessarily used to describe a specific order or sequence. It should be understood that such data can be interchanged where appropriate so that the embodiments of the invention described herein can be implemented in orders other than those illustrated or described herein. Furthermore, the terms "comprising" and "having," and any variations thereof, are intended to cover a non-exclusive inclusion; for example, a process, method, system, product, or apparatus that comprises a series of steps or units is not necessarily limited to those steps or units explicitly listed, but may include other steps or units not explicitly listed or inherent to such processes, methods, products, or apparatus.
[0042] like Figure 1 As shown, this invention discloses a method for assessing the adaptability of hydrogen-powered ship propulsion systems for different navigation areas, mainly including the following steps: Obtain a set of candidate equipment for key equipment, score each candidate equipment based on six evaluation indicators, and construct an equipment scoring table; Establish security constraints, perform security screening on candidate devices, and eliminate candidate devices that do not meet the security constraints; Establish balance constraints, use the equal weighted coefficient of variation method to determine the balance of candidate devices that have passed the security screening, remove candidate devices that do not meet the balance constraints, and obtain a set of qualified candidate devices. The candidate devices in the qualified candidate device set are combined to establish a candidate power system configuration set, and the configuration score of each candidate configuration under the six evaluation indicators is determined according to the device scoring table. The configuration scores of each candidate configuration are weighted and adjusted based on the target navigation area and target ship type to generate a scenario-based index score matrix. The CRITIC method is used to objectively weight the scenario-based indicator score matrix, calculate the variability and conflict of the six evaluation indicators, and determine the combined weight of the six evaluation indicators. The TOPSIS method is used in conjunction with the combined weights to comprehensively evaluate the candidate dynamic system configurations. The closeness of each candidate configuration to the ideal solution is calculated as the comprehensive evaluation index. The candidate configurations are then ranked according to the magnitude of the comprehensive evaluation index, and the preferred configuration is output.
[0043] The technical solution of the present invention will be described in detail below with reference to specific embodiments. This embodiment applies the method of the present invention to the preferred power system scheme of an inland river passenger ship, a typical scenario.
[0044] S1. Obtain key equipment for hydrogen-powered ship propulsion systems, including hydrogen storage devices, fuel cells, energy storage devices, propulsion motors, and drive systems. For each type of equipment, collect multiple existing technological pathways as candidate devices, specifically: hydrogen storage devices (high-pressure hydrogen storage, liquid hydrogen storage, metal hydrogen storage, organic hydrogen storage), fuel cells (high-temperature proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFC), low-temperature PEMFC, solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC), energy storage devices (lithium-ion batteries, solid-state batteries, liquid vanadium batteries, supercapacitors), propulsion motors (DC motors, AC motors, permanent magnet motors), and drive systems (shaft-mounted propulsion, azimuth thrusters, podded propulsion).
[0045] Based on the widely recognized IRL 1-9 qualitative evaluation system, each candidate device is rated according to six evaluation indicators: safety, economy, power, technology maturity, reliability, and space occupation, thus constructing an equipment rating table. Table 1 below shows the rating table for key equipment in a hydrogen power system.
[0046] Table 1. Scoring Table for Key Equipment in Hydrogen Power Systems
[0047] S2. Establish safety constraints, using safety level IRL 5 as a hard threshold. Screen all candidate devices, eliminating those with safety scores below level 5. Table 1 shows that the safety scores of liquid hydrogen storage (4.72), organic hydrogen storage (4.90), SOFC (4.52), solid-state battery (4.81), liquid vanadium battery (4.99), and azimuth thruster (4.94) are all below level 5 and are therefore eliminated. Table 2 below shows the scoring table for key devices that meet the safety constraints.
[0048] Table 2. Evaluation Table for Key Equipment Meeting Safety Constraints
[0049] S3. Establish balance constraints, use the equal-weighted coefficient of variation method to determine the balance of candidate devices that have passed the security screening, remove candidate devices that do not meet the balance constraints, and obtain a set of qualified candidate devices.
[0050] S31. Extract the grade scores of candidate equipment under five indicators: economy, power, technology maturity, reliability and space occupation, and form a sample set.
[0051] S32. Calculate the mean and standard deviation of the sample set.
[0052] S33. Determine whether the mean value reaches the mean threshold: If the mean value is less than the mean threshold, the candidate device is directly determined not to meet the balance constraint and is eliminated; if the mean value is greater than or equal to the mean threshold, the coefficient of variation is calculated based on the mean and standard deviation of the sample set. In this embodiment, the mean threshold is 4.
[0053] S34. Determine whether the coefficient of variation reaches the coefficient of variation threshold: If the coefficient of variation is less than or equal to the coefficient of variation threshold, the candidate device is determined to be balanced and retained; if the coefficient of variation is greater than the coefficient of variation threshold, the candidate device is determined to be unbalanced and an imbalance type analysis is performed. In this embodiment, the coefficient of variation threshold is 0.2.
[0054] S35. The steps for performing imbalance type analysis on candidate devices identified as imbalanced include: S351. Calculate the difference between the rating of each indicator in the sample set and the mean of the sample set, and take the indicator with the largest absolute value of the difference as the key deviation indicator.
[0055] S352. If the difference between the rating of the key deviation indicator and the mean of the sample set is positive, it is determined to be a positive imbalance; if the difference between the rating of the key deviation indicator and the mean of the sample set is negative, it is determined to be a negative imbalance.
[0056] S353. Candidate equipment deemed to be positively unbalanced meets the balance constraint conditions and is retained; candidate equipment deemed to be negatively unbalanced does not meet the balance constraint conditions and is eliminated. Table 3 below shows the balance determination results of key equipment in the hydrogen power system.
[0057] Table 3. Results of Balance Assessment for Key Equipment in Hydrogen Power Systems
[0058] S4. Combine the candidate devices in the qualified candidate device set to establish a candidate power system configuration set, and determine the configuration score of each candidate configuration under the six evaluation indicators according to the device scoring table. Table 4 below shows the hydrogen power system configuration combination schemes.
[0059] Table 4. Configuration Combination Schemes for Hydrogen Power Systems
[0060] S5. Based on the target navigation area and target ship type, weight adjustments are made to generate a scenario-based indicator score matrix. For the specific scenario of inland passenger ships, the demand vector is obtained. Table 5 below shows the demand evaluation results for the inland passenger ship power system.
[0061] Table 5 Demand Assessment Results for Inland Passenger Ship Power Systems
[0062] The demand vectors for inland waterway vessels and passenger ships are multiplied and fused to obtain the fusion scores for each indicator: safety score is 8.6 × 8.8 = 75.68; economic efficiency score is 7.8 × 6.3 = 49.14; reliability score is 7.85 × 8.75 = 68.69; power performance score is 6.9 × 6.45 = 44.51; technology maturity score is 7.7 × 7.8 = 60.06; and space occupancy score is 8.15 × 7.3 = 59.50. The total fusion score is 75.68 + 49.14 + 68.69 + 44.51 + 60.06 + 59.50 = 357.58. Dividing the fusion scores of each indicator by the total fusion score and normalizing them yields the weight correction factor, as shown in Table 6 below, which represents the weight correction factor for inland waterway passenger ships.
[0063] Table 6 Weighting Adjustment Factors for Inland Passenger Ships
[0064] Using the aforementioned weight correction factors, the initial scores of each candidate configuration in Table 4 are corrected, that is, the initial score of each indicator is multiplied by the corresponding weight correction factor to generate a scenario-based indicator score matrix for inland waterway passenger ship scenarios.
[0065] S6. The CRITIC method is used to objectively weight the scenario-based indicator score matrix, calculate the variability and conflict of the six evaluation indicators, and determine the combined weight of the six evaluation indicators.
[0066] S61. Standardize the scenario-based index score matrix.
[0067] S62. Calculate the standard deviation of the six evaluation indicators to characterize their variability, and calculate the correlation coefficient among the six evaluation indicators to characterize their conflict.
[0068] Based on the variability and conflict of the six evaluation indicators, S63 determines the combined weights of the six evaluation indicators. Table 7 below shows the combined weights of the six evaluation indicators for hydrogen power systems.
[0069] Table 7. Combined Weights of Six Evaluation Indicators for Hydrogen Power Systems
[0070] S7. Based on the combined weights obtained by the CRITIC method, the scenario-based indicator score matrix is weighted to construct a weighted decision matrix. The TOPSIS method is used to calculate the comprehensive evaluation index (i.e., the relative closeness to the ideal solution) of each candidate configuration, and the configurations are sorted according to the index size. The ranking of the top 12 candidate configurations in terms of comprehensive evaluation index for the inland waterway passenger ship scenario is shown in Table 8 below.
[0071] Table 8. Ranking of the top 12 hydrogen power system schemes for inland passenger ships
[0072] Using the evaluation method of this invention, the most suitable hydrogen power system configuration was successfully selected for the typical scenario of inland river passenger ships. The top-ranked configuration, Scheme 6, which combines high-pressure hydrogen storage, cryogenic PEMFC, lithium-ion batteries, a permanent magnet motor, and a podded propulsion system, achieved a comprehensive evaluation index of 0.9425, significantly outperforming other configurations. This combination of Scheme 6 leverages the efficient energy supply of high-pressure hydrogen storage, the stable output of cryogenic PEMFC, the reliable energy storage of lithium-ion batteries, and the excellent power performance of the permanent magnet motor to create synergistic advantages, thus meeting the navigation needs of both types of passenger ships.
[0073] This invention eliminates hydrogen leakage risk devices through hard safety constraints, reduces the number of configurations by 94.4% through balanced screening, and adjusts the weights to meet the high safety and reliability requirements of passenger ships. The final optimized scheme 6 has a comprehensive evaluation index of 0.9425, which significantly improves the accuracy of the compatibility between the power system and the inland river passenger ship and the evaluation efficiency.
[0074] Finally, it should be noted that the above embodiments are only used to illustrate the technical solutions of the present invention, and not to limit them; although the present invention has been described in detail with reference to the foregoing embodiments, those skilled in the art should understand that modifications can still be made to the technical solutions described in the foregoing embodiments, or equivalent substitutions can be made to some or all of the technical features; and these modifications or substitutions do not cause the essence of the corresponding technical solutions to deviate from the scope of the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention.
Claims
1. A method for different domain-oriented hydrogen energy ship power system adaptability evaluation, characterized in that, Includes the following steps: Obtain a set of candidate equipment for key equipment, score each candidate equipment based on six evaluation indicators, and construct an equipment scoring table; Establish security constraints, perform security screening on candidate devices, and eliminate candidate devices that do not meet the security constraints; Establish balance constraints, use the equal weighted coefficient of variation method to determine the balance of candidate devices that have passed the security screening, remove candidate devices that do not meet the balance constraints, and obtain a set of qualified candidate devices. The candidate devices in the qualified candidate device set are combined to establish a candidate power system configuration set, and the configuration score of each candidate configuration under the six evaluation indicators is determined according to the device scoring table. The configuration scores of each candidate configuration are weighted and adjusted based on the target navigation area and target ship type to generate a scenario-based index score matrix. The CRITIC method is used to objectively weight the scenario-based indicator score matrix, calculate the variability and conflict of the six evaluation indicators, and determine the combined weight of the six evaluation indicators. The TOPSIS method is used in conjunction with the combined weights to comprehensively evaluate the candidate dynamic system configurations. The closeness of each candidate configuration to the ideal solution is calculated as the comprehensive evaluation index. The candidate configurations are then ranked according to the magnitude of the comprehensive evaluation index, and the preferred configuration is output.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein, The key equipment includes hydrogen storage devices, fuel cells, energy storage devices, propulsion motors, and drive systems.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein, The six evaluation indicators include safety, economy, power, technology maturity, reliability, and space occupation.
4. The method for assessing the adaptability of hydrogen-powered ship propulsion systems for different navigation areas according to claim 3, characterized in that, The security constraint is as follows: the security level score of the candidate device must not be lower than the preset security threshold; if the security level score of the candidate device is lower than the security threshold, the candidate device is determined not to meet the security constraint and is eliminated.
5. The method for assessing the adaptability of hydrogen-powered ship propulsion systems for different navigation areas according to claim 3, characterized in that, The steps for determining the balance of candidate devices that have passed the security screening using the equal-weighted coefficient of variation method include: The candidate equipment was evaluated based on five criteria: economy, power, technological maturity, reliability, and space occupation, and a sample set was constructed. Calculate the mean and standard deviation of the sample set; Determine whether the mean reaches the mean threshold: if the mean is less than the mean threshold, the candidate device is directly determined not to meet the balance constraint and is removed; if the mean is greater than or equal to the mean threshold, the coefficient of variation is calculated based on the mean and standard deviation of the sample set. Determine whether the coefficient of variation reaches the coefficient of variation threshold: if the coefficient of variation is less than or equal to the coefficient of variation threshold, the candidate device is determined to be balanced and retained; if the coefficient of variation is greater than the coefficient of variation threshold, the candidate device is determined to be unbalanced and an imbalance type analysis is performed.
6. The method for assessing the adaptability of hydrogen-powered ship propulsion systems for different navigation areas according to claim 5, characterized in that, The steps for performing imbalance type analysis on candidate devices identified as imbalanced include: Calculate the difference between the rating of each indicator in the sample set and the mean of the sample set, and take the indicator with the largest absolute value of the difference as the key deviation indicator. If the difference between the rating of the key deviation indicator and the mean of the sample set is positive, it is determined to be positive imbalance; if the difference between the rating of the key deviation indicator and the mean of the sample set is negative, it is determined to be negative imbalance. Candidate devices that are determined to be positively unbalanced meet the balance constraints and are retained; candidate devices that are determined to be negatively unbalanced do not meet the balance constraints and are eliminated.
7. The method for assessing the adaptability of hydrogen-powered ship propulsion systems for different navigation areas according to claim 1, characterized in that, The steps to generate a scenario-based metric score matrix include: Obtain the navigation area demand vector for the target navigation area and the ship type demand vector for the target ship type; After multiplying and fusing the navigation area demand vector and the ship type demand vector, normalize them to obtain the weight correction factors for the six evaluation indicators. The configuration scores of each candidate configuration are corrected using the weight correction factor to generate a scenario-based index score matrix.
8. The method for assessing the adaptability of hydrogen-powered ship propulsion systems for different navigation areas according to claim 1, characterized in that, The steps to determine the combined weights of the six evaluation indicators include: The scenario-based indicator score matrix is standardized. The standard deviations of the six evaluation indicators were calculated to characterize their variability, and the correlation coefficients among the six evaluation indicators were calculated to characterize their conflict. Based on the variability and conflict of the six evaluation indicators, the combined weights of the six evaluation indicators are determined.
9. The method for assessing the adaptability of hydrogen-powered ship propulsion systems for different navigation areas according to claim 1, characterized in that, The steps for calculating the comprehensive evaluation index include: The scenario-based indicator score matrix is weighted based on the combined weights to construct a weighted decision matrix; Calculate the positive and negative ideal solutions of the weighted decision matrix; Calculate the Euclidean distance from each candidate configuration to the positive and negative ideal solutions; The relative similarity of each candidate configuration is calculated as a comprehensive evaluation index.