A ship condition evaluation system and method combining qualitative and quantitative analysis

Abstract

The present invention discloses a ship status evaluation system and method combining qualitative and quantitative evaluation, comprising: an equipment inspection module, an equipment technical status scoring module, a ship equipment catalog and equipment weight scheme library, a subsystem technical status scoring module, a system technical status scoring module, a system technical status grading module and a ship navigation category determination module; S1. Obtaining the results of static inspection, functional inspection and monitoring diagnosis inspection of each ship equipment, retrieving various inspection scoring standards, and outputting various inspection scores of each ship equipment; S2. Obtaining the weight distribution of corresponding inspections and outputting the technical status score of each ship equipment; S3. Obtaining the logical relationship between equipment and the equipment weight, and outputting the technical status score of each subsystem; S4. Obtaining the logical relationship between subsystems and the subsystem weight, and outputting the technical status score of each ship system; S5. Retrieving the preset system level scoring threshold to obtain the technical status level of each ship system; S6. Outputting the ship navigation category according to the navigation category standard.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the technical field of ship use and maintenance support, and more particularly to a ship status evaluation system and method combining qualitative and quantitative evaluation. Background Art

[0002] The technical status of ship systems and equipment is the basis and prerequisite for the practice and application of advanced large-scale equipment use management and maintenance guarantee theories such as "condition-based use and maintenance", "fault prediction and health management", "fine management" and "precision guarantee".

[0003] At present, through the compilation of technical status inspection procedures, the technical status inspection items, contents, methods and technical requirements have been clarified, and technical status inspections of ship systems and equipment have been carried out, providing a certain basis for the execution of tasks and maintenance guarantees for ship systems and equipment.

[0004] However, these works are only based on the technical status and management system of ship systems and equipment, relying on expert experience to make intuitive judgments on data or directly score and evaluate equipment. The evaluation results are heavily dependent on the level of experts and are highly subjective and arbitrary.

[0005] With the development of information technology, the construction and management of ship systems and equipment must adopt a more accurate, real-time and efficient model. Technical status assessment also needs to move towards a data-based and model-based stage, that is, using various sensors' online and offline data, and integrating historical operating information, operation information, monitoring information, fault information, maintenance information, test information and other multi-source information, with the help of various computer means and algorithms to quantitatively evaluate the current and future technical status of the equipment.

[0006] Therefore, how to provide a ship condition evaluation system and method that combines qualitative and quantitative methods is an urgent problem that needs to be solved by those skilled in the art. Summary of the Invention

[0007] In view of this, the present invention provides a ship condition evaluation system and method that combines qualitative and quantitative methods, which effectively overcomes the shortcomings of ship system and equipment technical condition evaluation relying on expert experience, and ultimately lays the foundation for theoretical methods, technologies and practical tools for the engineering application and computer software development of ship system and equipment technical condition evaluation.

[0008] In order to achieve the above object, the present invention adopts the following technical solutions:

[0009] A ship condition evaluation system combining qualitative and quantitative analysis includes: an equipment inspection module, an equipment technical condition scoring module, a ship equipment catalog and equipment weighting scheme library, a subsystem technical condition scoring module, a system technical condition scoring module, a system technical condition grading module, and a ship underway category determination module;

[0010] The equipment inspection module obtains the results of static inspection, functional inspection and monitoring and diagnostic inspection of each ship's equipment, retrieves the scoring standards for various types of inspections, and outputs the various inspection scores for each ship's equipment;

[0011] The equipment technical status scoring module obtains the various inspection scores of each ship's equipment and the corresponding inspection weight distribution, and outputs the technical status score of each ship's equipment;

[0012] The ship equipment catalog and equipment weight scheme library includes the equipment catalog, the logical relationship and equipment weight between the equipment belonging to each subsystem of the ship, and the logical relationship and subsystem weight between the subsystems belonging to each system of the ship;

[0013] The subsystem technical status scoring module obtains the technical status scores of each ship's equipment and the logical relationships and equipment weights between the equipment belonging to each subsystem, and outputs the technical status scores of each ship's subsystem;

[0014] The system technical status scoring module obtains the technical status scores of each subsystem of the ship and the logical relationships and subsystem weights between the subsystems to which each system belongs, and outputs the technical status scores of each system of the ship;

[0015] The system technical status grading module retrieves the preset system level scoring threshold according to the technical status score of each ship system and obtains the technical status level of each ship system;

[0016] The ship's navigation category determination module outputs the ship's navigation category based on the technical status level of each system of the ship and the navigation category standards.

[0017] A ship status evaluation system combining qualitative and quantitative methods also includes a ship information database, which includes static inspection scoring standards, functional inspection scoring standards, monitoring and diagnosis scoring standards, system level scoring thresholds and underway category standards.

[0018] Preferably, the specific content of the static inspection scoring criteria is:

[0019] Excellent (3 points): The appearance is very good, the equipment and accessories are complete, the machine body or cabinet interior is in good condition, and there are no hidden dangers of failure;

[0020] Good (2 points): Good appearance, complete equipment and accessories, slight damage or deformation on the outside, or uncleanliness inside, but not affecting the operation of the equipment;

[0021] 1 point: Appearance is acceptable, no obvious hidden dangers, equipment and accessories are complete or can be supplemented or repaired, and there are damages or other hidden dangers on the exterior or interior of the machine that can be repaired;

[0022] Poor is 0 points: There are obvious defects on the exterior that are difficult to repair, and there are obvious faults inside that are difficult to repair.

[0023] Preferably, the specific content of the functional inspection scoring criteria is:

[0024] Excellent (3 points): Stable operation, complete functions, good technical performance, good working condition or working mode conversion, and the power equipment operates well under a load exceeding 95% of the rated power;

[0025] Good (2 points): The operating status is stable, the technical performance is slightly degraded, which does not affect combat use, the operating conditions or working modes are converted normally, and the power equipment operates well within the load range of 80%-95% of the rated power;

[0026] 1 point: The operating status is stable, but the technical performance has significantly declined. Some operating conditions or working modes have potential faults that can be repaired and can meet general usage needs. The power equipment operates well within the load range of 75%-80% of the rated power.

[0027] Poor score is 0 points: unstable operation or inability to operate, obvious decline in technical performance, potential failures in some working conditions or modes, difficult or impossible to repair, and cannot meet usage requirements.

[0028] Preferably, the specific contents of the monitoring and diagnostic scoring criteria are:

[0029] Excellent (3 points): The monitoring and diagnostic report shows that the device is in good condition and can continue to be used;

[0030] Good (2 points): The monitoring and diagnostic report shows that the current status is good, and recent historical data has failed to meet the standards, which has now been corrected;

[0031] Medium score: 1 point: The monitoring and diagnostic report shows that the status is qualified and can continue to be used, but further attention is required;

[0032] The difference is 0 points: The monitoring and diagnostic report shows that the status is unqualified and cannot be used further.

[0033] Preferably, the logical relationship includes series connection, parallel connection, voting and mixed connection;

[0034] When the logical relationship is a series relationship, the equipment with the lowest technical status score has a weight of 1, and the remaining equipment has a weight of 0;

[0035] When the logical relationship is a parallel relationship, weights are assigned according to the importance of the equipment, specifically:

[0036] e. Determined by the rated performance parameters of each parallel device:

[0037]

[0038] f. Determined by the working time of each parallel device when the system is working:

[0039]

[0040] g. Determined by the average repair time of each parallel device:

[0041]

[0042] h. Use the order relationship analysis method or the hierarchical analysis method to determine the weight of each device in the parallel relationship system;

[0043] When the logical relationship is a voting relationship, if at least k devices among n devices are working properly, the system can work normally. Then the first k devices with the best technical status scores are selected and assigned the same weight. The weight of other devices is 0.

[0044] When the logical relationship is a hybrid relationship, the device weights are obtained according to the three combinations of series relationship, parallel relationship and voting relationship.

[0045] Preferably, the system technical status grading module calls a preset system score threshold and compares it with the input technical status score of each ship system, and divides the technical status level of each ship system into four levels, namely excellent, good, medium and poor. Specifically:

[0046] 2.5≤A≤3, the system technical status level is excellent, indicating that the system is in very good technical condition, has no defects that affect safe operation and performance, does not require repair, and has complete data and maintenance records;

[0047] 2≤A<2.5, the system technical status level is good, indicating that the system is in good technical condition, with slight deterioration that does not affect safe operation and performance, and no items that require immediate repair; the data and maintenance records are complete;

[0048] 1≤A<2, the system technical status level is medium, indicating that the system technical status is acceptable, there is one fault that affects the system functional performance and safe operation, which can be repaired through grassroots level maintenance, and the data and maintenance records are complete;

[0049] 0≤A<1, the system technical status level is poor, indicating that the system technical status is defective, with more than two faults affecting the system's functional performance and safe operation, and requiring base-level maintenance and repair;

[0050] A is the technical status score of each system of the ship.

[0051] Preferably, the in-flight category standards specifically include Category I, Category II and Category III:

[0052] The technical status of all systems is excellent, oil and water loading meets the prescribed requirements, and the navigation category is Class I;

[0053] The technical condition of the hull and ship equipment, navigation, observation and communication, power plant, electrical, damage control and life-saving systems are good or excellent. Among other shipborne systems, no more than two systems are in fair or poor condition, and the navigation category is Category II;

[0054] The technical status levels of the hull and ship equipment, navigation, observation and communication, power plant, electrical, damage control, and disaster prevention and lifesaving systems are medium, good, or excellent. More than three other systems are medium or poor, and the navigation category is Class III.

[0055] A ship condition evaluation method combining qualitative and quantitative analysis includes the following steps:

[0056] S1. Obtain the results of static inspection, functional inspection and monitoring diagnostic inspection of each equipment on board, retrieve the scoring standards for each type of inspection, and output the inspection scores of each type of equipment on board;

[0057] S2. Obtain the various inspection scores and corresponding inspection weights for each ship's equipment, and output the technical status scores for each ship's equipment;

[0058] S3. Obtain the technical status score of each ship's equipment and the logical relationship and equipment weight between the equipment belonging to each subsystem, and output the technical status score of each ship's subsystem;

[0059] S4. Obtain the technical status score of each subsystem of the ship and the logical relationship and subsystem weight between each system, and output the technical status score of each system of the ship;

[0060] S5. Based on the technical status scores of each system of the ship, the preset system level score threshold is retrieved to obtain the technical status level of each system of the ship;

[0061] S6. Output the ship’s navigation category based on the technical status level of each system of the ship and the navigation category standards.

[0062] A ship condition evaluation method that combines qualitative and quantitative methods also includes setting static inspection scoring standards, functional inspection scoring standards, monitoring and diagnosis scoring standards, system level scoring thresholds and underway category standards, building an equipment catalog, the logical relationship and equipment weights between the equipment belonging to each subsystem of the ship, and the logical relationship and subsystem weights between the subsystems belonging to each system of the ship.

[0063] It can be seen from the above technical solution that, compared with the existing technology, the present invention discloses a ship status evaluation system and method that combines qualitative and quantitative methods. From the perspective of system engineering, a comprehensive integrated method combining qualitative and quantitative methods is adopted to accurately analyze, evaluate and predict the technical status of equipment, providing a basis for scientific decision-making in the management, use and maintenance of ship systems and equipment. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0064] In order to more clearly illustrate the embodiments of the present invention or the technical solutions in the prior art, the following briefly introduces the drawings required for use in the embodiments or the description of the prior art. Obviously, the drawings described below are merely embodiments of the present invention. For ordinary technicians in this field, other drawings can be obtained based on the provided drawings without paying any creative work.

[0065] Figure 1 The accompanying drawing is a schematic diagram of a ship status evaluation system provided by the present invention;

[0066] Figure 2 The accompanying drawing is a schematic diagram of the series logic relationship provided by the present invention;

[0067] Figure 3 The accompanying drawing is a schematic diagram of the parallel logic relationship provided by the present invention;

[0068] Figure 4 The accompanying drawing is a schematic diagram of the voting relationship logic provided by the present invention;

[0069] Figure 5 The accompanying drawing is a schematic diagram of the hybrid logic relationship provided by the present invention;

[0070] Figure 6 The accompanying drawing is a flow chart of the ship status evaluation provided by the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0071] The following will clearly and completely describe the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention in conjunction with the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only part of the embodiments of the present invention, not all of the embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by ordinary technicians in this field without making creative efforts are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0072] The embodiment of the present invention discloses a ship status evaluation system combining qualitative and quantitative methods, such as Figure 1 , including: equipment inspection module, equipment technical status scoring module, ship equipment catalog and equipment weight scheme library, subsystem technical status scoring module, system technical status scoring module, system technical status grading module and ship underway category determination module;

[0073] The equipment inspection module obtains the results of static inspection, functional inspection and monitoring and diagnostic inspection of each ship's equipment, retrieves the scoring standards for various types of inspections, and outputs the various inspection scores for each ship's equipment;

[0074] The equipment technical status scoring module obtains the various inspection scores of each ship's equipment and the corresponding inspection weight distribution, and outputs the technical status score of each ship's equipment;

[0075] The ship equipment catalog and equipment weight scheme library includes the equipment catalog, the logical relationship and equipment weight between the equipment belonging to each subsystem of the ship, and the logical relationship and subsystem weight between the subsystems belonging to each system of the ship;

[0076] The subsystem technical status scoring module obtains the technical status scores of each ship's equipment and the logical relationships and equipment weights between the equipment belonging to each subsystem, and outputs the technical status scores of each ship's subsystem;

[0077] The system technical status scoring module obtains the technical status scores of each subsystem of the ship and the logical relationships and subsystem weights between the subsystems to which each system belongs, and outputs the technical status scores of each system of the ship;

[0078] The system technical status grading module retrieves the preset system level scoring threshold according to the technical status score of each ship system and obtains the technical status level of each ship system;

[0079] The ship's navigation category determination module outputs the ship's navigation category based on the technical status level of each system of the ship and the navigation category standards.

[0080] In order to further implement the above technical solution, a ship status evaluation system that combines qualitative and quantitative methods also includes a ship information database, which includes static inspection scoring standards, functional inspection scoring standards, monitoring and diagnosis scoring standards, system level scoring thresholds and in-service category standards.

[0081] In actual applications, static inspection is to check and score the appearance of the equipment body for fixation, neatness, sealing, damage, as well as the quantity and integrity of the equipment and accessories, and the cleanliness and aging degree of the body or cabinet based on the equipment use and maintenance rules; functional inspection is to check the equipment startup, operation of each working condition or working mode and shutdown, check the equipment operating parameters, and verify the technical performance indicators of the equipment based on the equipment use and maintenance rules and technical documents; monitoring and diagnosis is to conduct oil analysis, vibration monitoring, noise monitoring, infrared monitoring, thermal parameter monitoring and non-destructive testing on the equipment according to relevant regulations on ship monitoring and diagnosis, and issue a monitoring and diagnosis report. The monitoring and diagnosis score is based on the most recent monitoring and diagnosis report issued by monitoring and diagnosis agencies at all levels, and there has been no obvious fault or repair, disassembly, large-scale overhaul, etc. since then.

[0082] In order to further implement the above technical solutions, the specific contents of the static inspection scoring criteria are as follows:

[0083] Excellent (3 points): The appearance is very good, the equipment and accessories are complete, the machine body or cabinet interior is in good condition, and there are no hidden dangers of failure;

[0084] Good (2 points): Good appearance, complete equipment and accessories, slight damage or deformation on the outside, or uncleanliness inside, but not affecting the operation of the equipment;

[0085] 1 point: Appearance is acceptable, no obvious hidden dangers, equipment and accessories are complete or can be supplemented or repaired, and there are damages or other hidden dangers on the exterior or interior of the machine that can be repaired;

[0086] Poor is 0 points: There are obvious defects on the exterior that are difficult to repair, and there are obvious faults inside that are difficult to repair.

[0087] In order to further implement the above technical solutions, the specific content of the functional inspection scoring criteria is as follows:

[0088] Excellent (3 points): Stable operation, complete functions, good technical performance, good working condition or working mode conversion, and the power equipment operates well under a load exceeding 95% of the rated power;

[0089] Good (2 points): The operating status is stable, the technical performance is slightly degraded, which does not affect combat use, the operating conditions or working modes are converted normally, and the power equipment operates well within the load range of 80%-95% of the rated power;

[0090] 1 point: The operating status is stable, but the technical performance has significantly declined. Some operating conditions or working modes have potential faults that can be repaired and can meet general usage needs. The power equipment operates well within the load range of 75%-80% of the rated power.

[0091] Poor score is 0 points: unstable operation or inability to operate, obvious decline in technical performance, potential failures in some working conditions or modes, difficult or impossible to repair, and cannot meet usage requirements.

[0092] In order to further implement the above technical solutions, the specific contents of the monitoring and diagnostic scoring standards are as follows:

[0093] Excellent (3 points): The monitoring and diagnostic report shows that the device is in good condition and can continue to be used;

[0094] Good (2 points): The monitoring and diagnostic report shows that the current status is good, and recent historical data has failed to meet the standards, which has now been corrected;

[0095] Medium score: 1 point: The monitoring and diagnostic report shows that the status is qualified and can continue to be used, but further attention is required;

[0096] The difference is 0 points: The monitoring and diagnostic report shows that the status is unqualified and cannot be used further.

[0097] In this embodiment, static inspection and functional inspection are required for all devices, and monitoring and diagnosis are performed on some devices. In the two cases of including or excluding monitoring and diagnosis, the weight distribution of each type of inspection is as follows:

[0098]

[0099] In order to further implement the above technical solutions, the logical relationships include series connection, parallel connection, voting and mixed connection;

[0100] When the logical relationship is a series relationship, such as Figure 2 If one device fails, the entire system will fail. In other words, the system can only work properly when all devices are working properly. The device with the worst technical status in the series system has the greatest impact on the overall technical status of the system. Therefore, the technical status score of the series system directly takes the lowest technical status score among the devices in the series. The device with the lowest technical status score has a weight of 1, and the weights of the remaining devices are 0.

[0101] When the logical relationship is a parallel relationship, such as Figure 3 As long as there is one device that has not failed, the system will not fail; in other words, the system will fail only when all devices fail. The weights are assigned according to the importance of the devices, specifically:

[0102] a. Determined by the rated performance parameters of each parallel device:

[0103]

[0104] b. Determined by the working time of each parallel device when the system is working:

[0105]

[0106] c. Determined by the average repair time of each parallel device:

[0107]

[0108] d. Use the order relationship analysis method or the hierarchical analysis method to determine the weight of each device in the parallel relationship system;

[0109] When the logical relationship is a voting relationship, such as Figure 4 , the system consists of n devices. If at least k devices among the n devices are working properly, then the system can work normally. Then the first k devices with the best technical status scores are selected and assigned the same weight. The weight of other devices is 0;

[0110] When the logical relationship is a mixed relationship, such as Figure 5 ,The equipment weights are obtained according to the three combinations of series relationship, parallel relationship and voting relationship.

[0111] In order to further implement the above technical solution, the system technical status grading module calls the preset system score threshold and compares it with the input technical status score of each ship system, and divides the technical status level of each ship system into four levels: excellent, good, medium and poor. Specifically:

[0112] 2.5≤A≤3, the system technical status level is excellent, indicating that the system is in very good technical condition, has no defects that affect safe operation and performance, does not require repair, and has complete data and maintenance records;

[0113] 2≤A<2.5, the system technical status level is good, indicating that the system is in good technical condition, with slight deterioration that does not affect safe operation and performance, and no items that require immediate repair; the data and maintenance records are complete;

[0114] 1≤A<2, the system technical status level is medium, indicating that the system technical status is acceptable, there is one fault that affects the system functional performance and safe operation, which can be repaired through grassroots level maintenance, and the data and maintenance records are complete;

[0115] 0≤A<1, the system technical status level is poor, indicating that the system technical status is defective, with more than two faults affecting the system's functional performance and safe operation, and requiring base-level maintenance and repair;

[0116] A is the technical status score of each system of the ship.

[0117] In order to further implement the above technical solutions, the aviation category standards specifically include Class I, Class II and Class III:

[0118] The technical status of all systems is excellent, oil and water loading meets the prescribed requirements, and the navigation category is Class I;

[0119] The technical condition of the hull and ship equipment, navigation, observation and communication, power plant, electrical, damage control and life-saving systems are good or excellent. Among other shipborne systems, no more than two systems are in fair or poor condition, and the navigation category is Category II;

[0120] The technical status levels of the hull and ship equipment, navigation, observation and communication, power plant, electrical, damage control, and disaster prevention and lifesaving systems are medium, good, or excellent. More than three other systems are medium or poor, and the navigation category is Class III.

[0121] A ship condition assessment method that combines qualitative and quantitative methods, such as Figure 6 , including the following steps:

[0122] S1. Obtain the results of static inspection, functional inspection and monitoring diagnostic inspection of each equipment on board, retrieve the scoring standards for each type of inspection, and output the inspection scores of each type of equipment on board;

[0123] S2. Obtain the various inspection scores and corresponding inspection weights for each ship's equipment, and output the technical status scores for each ship's equipment;

[0124] S3. Obtain the technical status score of each ship's equipment and the logical relationship and equipment weight between the equipment belonging to each subsystem, and output the technical status score of each ship's subsystem;

[0125] S4. Obtain the technical status score of each subsystem of the ship and the logical relationship and subsystem weight between each system, and output the technical status score of each system of the ship;

[0126] S5. Based on the technical status scores of each system of the ship, the preset system level score threshold is retrieved to obtain the technical status level of each system of the ship;

[0127] S6. Output the ship’s navigation category based on the technical status level of each system of the ship and the navigation category standards.

[0128] In order to further implement the above technical solution, a ship status evaluation method that combines qualitative and quantitative methods is proposed, which also includes setting static inspection scoring standards, functional inspection scoring standards, monitoring and diagnosis scoring standards, system level scoring thresholds and on-board category standards, constructing an equipment catalog, the logical relationship and equipment weights between the equipment belonging to each subsystem of the ship, and the logical relationship and subsystem weights between the subsystems belonging to each system of the ship.

[0129] In actual application, after determining the ship's navigation category, the ship's navigation information for the day is collected and organized, and the ship's navigation status, equipment technical status, equipment failure and repair status are reported to the management department as required, and a monthly report on the ship's technical status is generated on a monthly basis.

[0130] The various embodiments in this specification are described in a progressive manner, with each embodiment focusing on the differences from other embodiments. Reference can be made to the common and similar parts between the various embodiments. For the devices disclosed in the embodiments, since they correspond to the methods disclosed in the embodiments, the description is relatively simple, and the relevant parts can be referred to the method description.

[0131] The above description of the disclosed embodiments is intended to enable one skilled in the art to implement or use the present invention. Various modifications to these embodiments will be readily apparent to one 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 present invention. Therefore, the present invention is not limited to the embodiments shown herein but is intended to conform to the widest scope consistent with the principles and novel features disclosed herein.

Claims

1. A ship status evaluation system combining qualitative and quantitative methods, characterized in that: include: Equipment inspection module, equipment technical status scoring module, ship equipment catalog and equipment weighting scheme library, subsystem technical status scoring module, system technical status scoring module, system technical status grading module and ship underway category determination module; The equipment inspection module obtains the results of static inspection, functional inspection and monitoring and diagnostic inspection of each ship's equipment, retrieves the scoring standards for various types of inspections, and outputs the various inspection scores for each ship's equipment; The equipment technical status scoring module obtains the various inspection scores of each ship's equipment and the corresponding inspection weight distribution, and outputs the technical status score of each ship's equipment; The ship equipment catalog and equipment weight scheme library includes the equipment catalog, the logical relationship and equipment weight between the equipment belonging to each subsystem of the ship, and the logical relationship and subsystem weight between the subsystems belonging to each system of the ship; The subsystem technical status scoring module obtains the technical status scores of each ship's equipment and the logical relationships and equipment weights between the equipment belonging to each subsystem, and outputs the technical status scores of each ship's subsystem; The system technical status scoring module obtains the technical status scores of each subsystem of the ship and the logical relationships and subsystem weights between the subsystems to which each system belongs, and outputs the technical status scores of each system of the ship; The system technical status grading module retrieves the preset system level scoring threshold according to the technical status score of each ship system and obtains the technical status level of each ship system; The ship's navigation category determination module outputs the ship's navigation category based on the technical status level of each ship's systems and the navigation category standards; Logical relationships include series connection, parallel connection, voting and mixed connection; When the logical relationship is a series relationship, the equipment with the lowest technical status score has a weight of 1, and the weights of the remaining equipment are 0; When the logical relationship is a parallel relationship, weights are assigned according to the importance of the equipment, specifically: a. Determined by the rated performance parameters of each parallel device: ； b. Determined by the working time of each parallel device when the system is working: ； c. Determined by the average repair time of each parallel device: ； d. Use the order relationship analysis method or the hierarchical analysis method to determine the weight of each device in the parallel relationship system; When the logical relationship is a voting relationship, if at least k devices among n devices are working properly, the system can work normally. Then the first k devices with the best technical status scores are selected and assigned the same weight. The weight of other devices is 0. When the logical relationship is a hybrid relationship, the device weights are obtained according to the three combinations of series relationship, parallel relationship and voting relationship.

2. A ship status evaluation system combining qualitative and quantitative methods according to claim 1, characterized in that: It also includes a ship information database, which includes static inspection scoring standards, functional inspection scoring standards, monitoring and diagnosis scoring standards, system level scoring thresholds and underway category standards.

3. The ship status evaluation system combining qualitative and quantitative analysis according to claim 1, characterized in that: The specific contents of the static inspection scoring criteria are as follows: Excellent (3 points): The appearance is very good, the equipment and accessories are complete, the machine body or cabinet interior is in good condition, and there are no hidden dangers of failure; Good (2 points): Good appearance, complete equipment and accessories, slight damage or deformation on the outside, or uncleanliness inside, but not affecting the operation of the equipment; 1 point: Appearance is acceptable, no obvious hidden dangers, equipment and accessories are complete or can be supplemented or repaired, and there are damages or other hidden dangers on the exterior or interior of the machine that can be repaired; Poor is 0 points: There are obvious defects on the exterior that are difficult to repair, and there are obvious faults inside that are difficult to repair.

4. A ship status evaluation system combining qualitative and quantitative methods according to claim 1, characterized in that: The specific contents of the functional inspection scoring criteria are as follows: Excellent (3 points): Stable operation, complete functions, good technical performance, good working condition or working mode conversion, and the power equipment operates well under a load exceeding 95% of the rated power; Good (2 points): The operating status is stable, the technical performance is slightly degraded, which does not affect combat use, the operating conditions or working modes are converted normally, and the power equipment operates well within the load range of 80%-95% of the rated power; 1 point: The operating status is stable, but the technical performance has significantly declined. Some operating conditions or working modes have potential faults that can be repaired and can meet general usage needs. The power equipment operates well within the load range of 75%-80% of the rated power. Poor score is 0 points: unstable operation or inability to operate, obvious decline in technical performance, potential failures in some working conditions or modes, difficult or impossible to repair, and cannot meet usage requirements.

5. The ship status evaluation system combining qualitative and quantitative analysis according to claim 1, characterized in that: The specific contents of the monitoring and diagnostic scoring criteria are as follows: Excellent (3 points): The monitoring and diagnostic report shows that the device is in good condition and can continue to be used; Good (2 points): The monitoring and diagnostic report shows that the current status is good, and recent historical data has failed to meet the standards, which has now been corrected; Medium score: 1 point: The monitoring and diagnostic report shows that the status is qualified and can continue to be used, but further attention is required; The difference is 0 points: The monitoring and diagnostic report shows that the status is unqualified and cannot be used further.

6. The ship status evaluation system combining qualitative and quantitative analysis according to claim 1, characterized in that: The system technical status grading module calls the preset system score threshold and compares it with the input technical status score of each ship system, and divides the technical status level of each ship system into four levels: excellent, good, medium and poor. Specifically: 2.5≤A≤3, the system technical status level is excellent, indicating that the system is in very good technical condition, has no defects that affect safe operation and performance, does not require repair, and has complete data and maintenance records; 2≤A<2.5, the system technical status level is good, indicating that the system is in good technical condition, with slight deterioration that does not affect safe operation and performance, and no items that require immediate repair; the data and maintenance records are complete; 1≤A<2, the system technical status level is medium, indicating that the system technical status is acceptable, there is one fault that affects the system functional performance and safe operation, which can be repaired through grassroots level maintenance, and the data and maintenance records are complete; 0≤A<1, the system technical status level is poor, indicating that the system technical status is defective, with more than two faults affecting the system's functional performance and safe operation, and requiring base-level maintenance and repair; A is the technical status score of each system of the ship.

7. A ship status evaluation system combining qualitative and quantitative methods according to claim 6, characterized in that: The in-flight category standards specifically include Category I, Category II and Category III: The technical status of all systems is excellent, oil and water loading meets the prescribed requirements, and the navigation category is Class I; The technical condition of the hull and ship equipment, navigation, observation and communication, power plant, electrical, damage control and life-saving systems are good or excellent. Among other shipborne systems, no more than two systems are in fair or poor condition, and the navigation category is Category II; The technical status levels of the hull and ship equipment, navigation, observation and communication, power plant, electrical, damage control, and disaster prevention and lifesaving systems are medium, good, or excellent. More than three other systems are medium or poor, and the navigation category is Class III.

8. A ship condition evaluation method combining qualitative and quantitative methods, based on a ship condition evaluation system combining qualitative and quantitative methods according to any one of claims 1 to 7, characterized in that: The following steps are involved: S1. Obtain the results of static inspection, functional inspection and monitoring diagnostic inspection of each equipment on board, retrieve the scoring standards for each type of inspection, and output the inspection scores of each type of equipment on board; S2. Obtain the various inspection scores and corresponding inspection weights for each ship's equipment, and output the technical status scores for each ship's equipment; S3. Obtain the technical status score of each ship's equipment and the logical relationship and equipment weight between the equipment belonging to each subsystem, and output the technical status score of each ship's subsystem; S4. Obtain the technical status score of each subsystem of the ship and the logical relationship and subsystem weight between each system, and output the technical status score of each system of the ship; S5. Based on the technical status scores of each system of the ship, the preset system level score threshold is retrieved to obtain the technical status level of each system of the ship; S6. Output the ship’s navigation category based on the technical status level of each system of the ship and the navigation category standards.

9. A ship condition evaluation method combining qualitative and quantitative methods according to claim 8, characterized in that: It also includes setting static inspection scoring standards, functional inspection scoring standards, monitoring and diagnosis scoring standards, system-level scoring thresholds and on-board category standards, building an equipment catalog, the logical relationship and equipment weights between the equipment belonging to each subsystem of the ship, and the logical relationship and subsystem weights between the subsystems belonging to each system of the ship.

Images