A ship state category evaluation method based on device configuration and logical relationship

Abstract

The application discloses a ship state category evaluation method based on equipment configuration and logical relationship, and is characterized in that the method comprises the following steps: S1. performing systematic division on ships according to levels, and determining single-mounted equipment under each system; S2. determining the logical relationship and weight value between the single-mounted equipment step by step downwards; S3. quantitatively calculating the technical state score of each single-mounted equipment; S4. calculating the technical state score of each system of the ship step by step upwards based on the technical state score of each single-mounted equipment according to the logical relationship and weight value between the single-mounted equipment; S5. establishing a ship technical state evaluation index system, determining the index weight of each system of the ship, and obtaining the whole-ship technical state score according to the technical state score of each system; and S6. establishing a task-based technical state standard of each system of the ship, and discriminating the state level of the ship in performing a task according to the technical state score of each system and each single-mounted equipment of the ship.

Description

TECHNICAL FIELD

[0001] The present application relates to the technical field of ship system and equipment management, use and maintenance support, and more particularly to a ship state category evaluation method based on equipment configuration and logical relationship. BACKGROUND

[0002] The technical state of ship system and equipment is the basis and premise of advanced large equipment use management and maintenance support theories and practices and applications such as "state-based use and maintenance", "fault prediction and health management", "refined management", and "accurate support". At present, by compiling technical state inspection regulations, the technical state inspection items, contents, methods and technical requirements are clarified, and the ship system and equipment technical state inspection work is carried out, which provides a certain basis for the ship system and equipment to perform tasks and maintenance support. However, these works are only based on the technical status and management system of the ship system and equipment, and rely on expert experience to make intuitive judgments or directly score and evaluate the equipment, and the evaluation results are seriously dependent on the level of experts, and there is a large subjective and arbitrary nature.

[0003] With the development of information technology, the construction and management of ship system and equipment must adopt a more accurate, real-time and efficient mode, and the technical state evaluation also needs to move towards the stage of data-based and model-based, that is, using various sensors to collect online and offline data, and fusing historical working condition information, operation information, monitoring information, fault information, maintenance information, test information and other multi-source information, and quantitatively evaluating the current and future technical state of the equipment by means of various computer algorithms.

[0004] In addition, since the background technology of a single main single equipment is reliability, maintainability, supportability and testability, and the reliability analysis model of each equipment is relatively complex, in recent years, various digital simulation models have emerged with the rapid development of computer simulation technology.

[0005] Therefore, how to provide a ship state category evaluation method based on equipment configuration and logical relationship is a problem that those skilled in the art need to solve. SUMMARY

[0006] Therefore, the present application provides a ship state category evaluation method based on equipment configuration and logical relationship, which effectively overcomes the short board of ship system and equipment technical state evaluation relying on expert experience, and realizes state evaluation at different levels from single equipment to system to ship.

[0007] In order to achieve the above purpose, the present application adopts the following technical scheme:

[0008] A ship state category evaluation method based on equipment configuration and logical relationship comprises the following steps:

[0009] S1. The ship is systematically divided into primary systems, secondary systems, and so on down to individual equipment within each system;

[0010] S2. Determine the logical relationships and weight values ​​between individual devices in each primary system at each level;

[0011] S3. Quantitatively calculate the technical status score of each individual unit;

[0012] S4. Based on the logical relationships and weight values ​​between individual equipment, and based on the technical status scores of each individual equipment, calculate the technical status scores of each primary system of the ship level by level upwards.

[0013] S5. Establish a ship technical condition assessment index system, determine the index weights of each ship system, and obtain the overall ship technical condition score based on the technical condition scores of each primary system.

[0014] S6. Establish mission-based technical status standards for each ship system, and determine the mission status level of the ship based on the technical status scores of each level of ship system and each individual piece of equipment.

[0015] Preferably, the logical relationships in S2 include series systems, parallel systems, voting systems, and mixed systems.

[0016] Preferably, the method for scoring the technical status of individual equipment in S3 is as follows: taking the initial technical status of each individual equipment as a benchmark, calculating the deviation of the currently measured performance status parameters of each equipment from the benchmark value, and comprehensively evaluating the degree of degradation of the equipment's technical status based on the technical indicator requirements of each individual equipment.

[0017] Preferably, the scoring method for individual technical indicators of each unit is as follows:

[0018] When a technical indicator requires a specific value, the technical indicator score is:

[0019]

[0020] Where, d L The technical indicators are scored, where x1 is the required value of the technical indicator, and x... f The actual value measured;

[0021] When the technical indicator requirement is a lower limit, the technical indicator score is:

[0022]

[0023] Where, d LThe technical specifications are scored, where x1 is the required value of the technical specification, and x0 is the initial value of the technical specification, i.e., the value measured during the initial sea trials. f The actual value measured;

[0024] When the technical indicator requirement is set at an upper limit, the technical indicator score is:

[0025]

[0026] Where, d L The technical indicator is scored, where x1 is the required value of the technical indicator, x0 is the initial value of the technical indicator, and x... f The actual value measured;

[0027] When the technical indicator requirement is within a range, the technical indicator score is:

[0028]

[0029] Where, d L For scoring technical indicators, x1 is the lower limit of the technical indicator requirement, x2 is the upper limit of the technical indicator requirement, and x0 is the initial value of the technical indicator. f This is the actual value measured.

[0030] The preferred method for scoring the technical condition of each piece of equipment is as follows:

[0031] When a device has one or more technical parameters, measure and record each technical parameter of the device, and then calculate the weighted average of the technical scores of each parameter according to their importance to assess the technical status of each device.

[0032] When the technical parameters of equipment are difficult to measure, but the equipment has a service life requirement, the equipment technical condition rating is:

[0033]

[0034] Where, d L The equipment is rated for its technical condition, where T1 represents the equipment's service life, and T... f The cumulative working time of the equipment;

[0035] When equipment cannot be condition-checked and there are no explicit service life requirements, the equipment technical condition score is estimated by inspectors based on the technical condition inspection procedures.

[0036]

[0037] In the formula: d i Let N be the score given by the i-th inspector. For faulty equipment, the score is 0. For normal equipment, the score is determined based on its technical condition. N is the number of inspectors.

[0038] Preferably, the ship technical condition assessment index system includes system technical condition, system synergy, and compatibility.

[0039] Preferably, the weights of the indicators for each system of the ship include the weights of the system's technical status, the weights of the system's synergy, and the weights of the system's compatibility.

[0040] Preferably, the method for determining the weights of the technical status of each system of the ship is as follows:

[0041] For a series system, the weight of the i-th device is calculated as follows:

[0042]

[0043] Where ai is the weight, xi is the technical score of the i-th device, and xj is the score of the device with the worst technical condition;

[0044] For parallel systems, weights are assigned according to the importance of the equipment.

[0045] For the voting system, all devices selected from the optimal equipment list are assigned the same weight;

[0046] For a hybrid system, the weights of each hybrid system are determined separately.

[0047] Preferably, the weights of system synergy and complementarity are determined by a comprehensive discussion method. Experts compare the same level indicators pairwise to form a weight judgment matrix and perform consistency checks. The weights of system synergy and complementarity are calculated by using the matrix eigenvectors and normalization.

[0048] Preferably, the primary system includes the power system, electrical system, ship support system, life support system, integrated navigation system, and communication system.

[0049] As can be seen from the above technical solution, compared with the prior art, the present invention discloses a ship condition classification assessment method based on equipment configuration and logical relationship, realizing condition assessment at different levels from single equipment to system to ship. The technical condition assessment of equipment focuses on obtaining the change law of performance parameters, the technical condition assessment of system focuses on the analysis of logical relationship between equipment and the assessment of collaborative capability, and the technical condition assessment of ship focuses on the analysis of collaborative capability between systems and the ability to meet tasks. This forms a comprehensive assessment system for ship equipment technical condition based on tasks, effectively overcoming the shortcomings of ship system and equipment technical condition assessment relying on expert experience, and realizing condition assessment at different levels from single equipment to system to ship. Attached Figure Description

[0050] 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 only embodiments of the present invention. For those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained based on the provided drawings without creative effort.

[0051] Figure 1 The attached figure is a schematic diagram of the system technical status evaluation index system provided by the present invention;

[0052] Figure 2 The attached figure is a schematic diagram of the series system model provided by the present invention;

[0053] Figure 3 The attached figure is a schematic diagram of the parallel system model provided by the present invention;

[0054] Figure 4 The attached figure is a schematic diagram of the voting system provided by the present invention;

[0055] Figure 5 The attached figure is a schematic diagram of the technical status standards of various systems of a ship performing a certain task, provided by the present invention.

[0056] Figure 6 The attached figure is a logical relationship diagram of the main equipment of the front engine compartment and right shaft system provided in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0057] Figure 7 The attached figure is a schematic diagram illustrating the technical requirements of each system for both ocean-going and non-ocean-going applications according to an embodiment of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0058] The technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. 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 are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0059] This invention discloses a method for assessing ship condition categories based on equipment configuration and logical relationships, comprising the following steps:

[0060] S1. The ship is systematically divided into primary systems, secondary systems, and so on down to individual equipment within each system;

[0061] S2. Determine the logical relationships and weight values ​​between individual devices in each primary system at each level;

[0062] S3. Quantitatively calculate the technical status score of each individual unit;

[0063] S4. Based on the logical relationships and weight values ​​between individual equipment, and based on the technical status scores of each individual equipment, calculate the technical status scores of each level of the ship's systems level by level upwards.

[0064] S5. Establish a ship technical condition assessment index system, determine the index weights of each ship system, and obtain the overall ship technical condition score based on the technical condition scores of each system.

[0065] S6. Establish mission-based technical status standards for each ship system, and determine the mission status level of the ship based on the technical status scores of each level of ship system and each individual piece of equipment.

[0066] To further implement the above technical solutions, the logical relationships in S2 include serial systems, parallel systems, voting systems, and hybrid systems.

[0067] To further implement the above technical solution, the method for scoring the technical status of individual equipment in S3 is as follows: taking the initial technical status of each individual equipment as the benchmark, calculating the deviation of the current measured performance status parameters of each equipment from the benchmark value, and comprehensively evaluating the degree of degradation of the equipment's technical status based on the technical indicator requirements of each individual equipment.

[0068] To further implement the above technical solutions, the scoring method for individual technical indicators of each unit is as follows:

[0069] When a technical indicator requires a specific value, the technical indicator score is:

[0070]

[0071] Where, d L The technical indicators are scored, where x1 is the required value of the technical indicator, and x... f The actual value measured;

[0072] When the technical indicator requirement is a lower limit, the technical indicator score is:

[0073]

[0074] Where, d L The technical specifications are scored, where x1 is the required value of the technical specification, and x0 is the initial value of the technical specification, i.e., the value measured during the initial sea trials. f The actual value measured;

[0075] When the technical indicator requirement is set at an upper limit, the technical indicator score is:

[0076]

[0077] Where, dL The technical indicator is scored, where x1 is the required value of the technical indicator, x0 is the initial value of the technical indicator, and x... f The actual value measured;

[0078] When the technical indicator requirement is within a range, the technical indicator score is:

[0079]

[0080] Where, d L For scoring technical indicators, x1 is the lower limit of the technical indicator requirement, x2 is the upper limit of the technical indicator requirement, and x0 is the initial value of the technical indicator. f This is the actual value measured.

[0081] To further implement the above technical solutions, the technical status scoring method for each piece of equipment is as follows:

[0082] When a device has one or more measurable technical parameters, measure and record each technical parameter of the device, and then calculate the weighted average of the technical index scores of each parameter according to their importance to assess the technical status of each device.

[0083] When the technical parameters of equipment are difficult to measure, but the equipment has a service life requirement, the equipment technical condition rating is:

[0084]

[0085] Where, d L The equipment is rated for its technical condition, where T1 represents the equipment's service life, and T... f The cumulative working time of the equipment;

[0086] When equipment cannot be condition-checked and there are no explicit service life requirements, the equipment technical condition score is estimated by inspectors based on the technical condition inspection procedures.

[0087]

[0088] In the formula: d i Let N be the score given by the i-th inspector. For faulty equipment, the score is 0. For normal equipment, the score is 60-100 based on its technical condition. N is the number of inspectors.

[0089] To further implement the above technical solutions, the ship technical condition assessment index system includes system technical condition, system synergy, and compatibility.

[0090] To further implement the above technical solutions, the weights of the indicators for each ship system include the weights of the system's technical status, the weights of the system's synergy, and the weights of the system's compatibility.

[0091] To further implement the above technical solutions, the method for determining the weights of the technical states of each ship system is as follows:

[0092] For a series system, the weight of the i-th device is calculated as follows:

[0093]

[0094] Where ai is the weight, xi is the technical score of the i-th device, and xj is the score of the device with the worst technical condition;

[0095] For parallel systems, weights are assigned according to the importance of the equipment.

[0096] For the voting system, all devices selected from the optimal equipment list are assigned the same weight;

[0097] For a hybrid system, the weights of each hybrid system are determined separately.

[0098] To further implement the above technical solution, the weights of system synergy and complementarity are determined by a comprehensive discussion method. Experts compare the same level indicators pairwise to form a weight judgment matrix and conduct consistency checks. The weights of system synergy and complementarity are calculated by using the matrix eigenvectors and normalization.

[0099] To further implement the above technical solutions, the primary system includes the power system, electrical system, ship support system, life support system, integrated navigation system, and communication system.

[0100] In practical applications, ship equipment is divided into three levels: intact, basically intact, and not intact, namely:

[0101] (1) In good condition: It should be able to perform any task at any time;

[0102] (2) Basically intact: It should be able to perform low-intensity or general duties, or after a certain specified short period of repair, it should be able to perform high-intensity work;

[0103] (3) Incomplete equipment: It is not capable of performing work and needs to be sent to the factory for repair. In order to further implement the above technical solutions, the weight of qualitative indicators is determined by using a judgment matrix.

[0104] Taking the main propulsion system as an example, the logical relationship diagram of the main equipment in the forward engine room and right shaft system is as follows: Figure 6 As shown in the table, the main equipment ratings for the forward engine room and right shaft system are as follows:

[0105]

[0106]

[0107] likeFigure 6 The two steam turbine feedwater units shown in A11 are a parallel system, and the two devices are of equal importance. Therefore, the average of their technical condition scores is taken as the score of the parallel system, which is 99.2.

[0108] The turbine lubricating oil pump and the electric lubricating oil pump shown in A3 and A4 are a parallel system. Since the turbine lubricating oil pump plays the main role and the electric lubricating oil pump plays a reinforcing role, the weight of the turbine lubricating oil pump is 0.67 and the weight of the electric lubricating oil pump is 0.33. The score of the parallel system is obtained by weighting the technical condition scores of the two pumps, which is 94.8.

[0109] The hybrid systems shown in A16 and A1 are turbocharger units and main boilers connected in series and then in parallel. The weights of each are calculated and then summed to obtain the score of the series system of turbocharger units and main boilers. Then, the scores of the hybrid systems A16 and A1 are obtained according to the parallel systems with the same importance, which is 96.4.

[0110] The above three parallel or mixed systems, together with other equipment, constitute a series system. The weights of each piece of equipment in the front engine room and right shaft system are calculated as follows:

[0111]

[0112]

[0113] The A8 steam seal ejector has the lowest score but the highest weight, which shows that a single device in a series system has a significant impact on the overall technical status of the system. According to the scores and weights of the devices in the front engine compartment and right shaft system shown in the table above, the overall technical status score of the front engine compartment and right shaft system is 95.1.

[0114] Similarly, the overall technical condition score of the rear engine compartment and the left shaft system is also 94.9. Therefore, the technical condition score of the main equipment of the main power system is 95.

[0115] Qualitative indicator system synergy and compatibility score:

[0116] In this embodiment, since the system synergy and compatibility of the main propulsion system could not be assessed in this evaluation, and considering the ship's many years of good use and support capabilities, the system synergy score was determined to be 90 and the compatibility score to be 95 based on experience.

[0117] Overall system technical status score:

[0118] Based on the technical status scores of the main equipment, system synergy scores, and matching scores of the main power system, as well as the weight settings, the technical status score of the main power system is 94.7.

[0119] The methods and procedures for scoring the technical condition of other systems are the same as those for the main propulsion system. The technical condition scores for each system of a certain ship are as follows:

[0120]

[0121] Ship technical condition classification:

[0122] According to the ship technical condition assessment method, it is necessary to establish the technical condition requirements of each system under both ocean-going and non-ocean-going conditions, and classify ships accordingly.

[0123] For long-range missions, the technical status score of each system must exceed 90, ensuring the ship's readiness to perform missions at any time. Figure 7 As shown by the dotted line. For other missions, higher requirements are placed on the power system, electrical system, overall ship support system, navigation system, and communication system, from... Figure 7 It is clear that the ship evaluated this time is basically in good condition.

[0124] The various embodiments in this specification are described in a progressive manner, with each embodiment focusing on its differences from other embodiments. Similar or identical parts between embodiments can be referred to interchangeably. For the apparatus disclosed in the embodiments, since they correspond to the methods disclosed in the embodiments, the description is relatively simple; relevant parts can be referred to the method section.

[0125] The above description of the disclosed embodiments enables those skilled in the art to make or use the invention. Various modifications to these embodiments will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art, and the general principles defined herein may be implemented in other embodiments without departing from the spirit or scope of the invention. Therefore, the invention is not to be limited to the embodiments shown herein, but is to be accorded the widest scope consistent with the principles and novel features disclosed herein.

Claims

1. A method for assessing ship condition categories based on equipment configuration and logical relationships, characterized in that, Includes the following steps: S1. The ship is systematically divided into primary systems, secondary systems, and so on down to individual equipment within each system; S2. Determine the logical relationships and weight values ​​between individual devices in each primary system at each level; S3. Quantitatively calculate the technical status score of each individual unit; S4. Based on the logical relationships and weight values ​​between individual equipment, and based on the technical status scores of each individual equipment, calculate the technical status scores of each primary system of the ship level by level upwards. S5. Establish a ship technical condition assessment index system, determine the index weights of each ship system, and obtain the overall ship technical condition score based on the technical condition scores of each primary system. S6. Establish mission-based technical status standards for each ship system, and determine the mission status level of the ship based on the technical status scores of each level of ship system and each individual piece of equipment. The logical relationships in S2 include series systems, parallel systems, voting systems, and mixed systems; The ship technical condition assessment index system includes system technical condition, system synergy, and compatibility; The weights of indicators for each ship system include the weights of system technical status, system synergy, and compatibility. The method for determining the weights of the technical status of each ship system is as follows: For a series system, the weight of the i-th device is calculated as follows: Where ai is the weight, xi is the technical score of the i-th device, and xj is the score of the device with the worst technical condition; For parallel systems, weights are assigned according to the importance of the equipment. For the voting system, all devices selected from the optimal equipment list are assigned the same weight; For a hybrid system, the weights of each hybrid system are determined separately.

2. The method for ship condition classification based on equipment configuration and logical relationships according to claim 1, characterized in that, The method for scoring the technical status of individual equipment in S3 is as follows: taking the initial technical status of each individual equipment as the benchmark, calculating the deviation of the current measured performance status parameters of each equipment from the benchmark value, and comprehensively evaluating the degree of degradation of the equipment's technical status based on the technical indicator requirements of each individual equipment.

3. The method for ship condition classification based on equipment configuration and logical relationships according to claim 2, characterized in that, The scoring method for individual technical indicators of each piece of equipment is as follows: When a technical indicator requires a specific value, the technical indicator score is: Where, d L The technical indicators are scored, where x1 is the required value of the technical indicator, and x... f The actual value measured; When the technical indicator requirement is a lower limit, the technical indicator score is: Where, d L The technical specifications are scored, where x1 is the required value of the technical specification, and x0 is the initial value of the technical specification, i.e., the value measured during the initial sea trials. f The actual value measured; When the technical indicator requirement is set at an upper limit, the technical indicator score is: Where, d L The technical indicator is scored, where x1 is the required value of the technical indicator, x0 is the initial value of the technical indicator, and x... f The actual value measured; When the technical indicator requirement is within a range, the technical indicator score is: Where, d L For scoring technical indicators, x1 is the lower limit of the technical indicator requirement, x2 is the upper limit of the technical indicator requirement, and x0 is the initial value of the technical indicator. f This is the actual value measured.

4. The method for ship condition classification based on equipment configuration and logical relationships according to claim 2, characterized in that, The scoring method for the technical condition of each piece of equipment is as follows: When a device has one or more technical parameters, measure and record each technical parameter of the device, and then calculate the weighted average of the technical scores of each parameter according to their importance to assess the technical status of each device. When the technical parameters of equipment are difficult to measure, but the equipment has a service life requirement, the equipment technical condition rating is: Where, d L The equipment is rated for its technical condition, where T1 represents the equipment's service life, and T... f The cumulative working time of the equipment; When equipment cannot be condition-checked and there are no explicit service life requirements, the equipment technical condition score is estimated by inspectors based on the technical condition inspection procedures. In the formula: d i Let N be the score given by the i-th inspector. For faulty equipment, the score is 0. For normal equipment, the score is determined based on its technical condition. N is the number of inspectors.

5. The method for ship condition classification based on equipment configuration and logical relationships according to claim 1, characterized in that, The weights for system synergy and complementarity are determined using a comprehensive discussion method. Experts compare each indicator at the same level in pairs to form a weight judgment matrix, and then conduct a consistency check. The weights for system synergy and complementarity are calculated using the matrix eigenvectors and normalization.

6. The method for ship condition classification based on equipment configuration and logical relationships according to claim 1, characterized in that, The primary system includes the power system, electrical system, ship support system, life support system, integrated navigation system, and communication system.

Images